It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UK bans teaching of creationism in any school that receives public funding

page: 13
42
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 06:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

The issue is not that evolution must be taught, it is that Creationism cannot be taught under penalty of withholding ALL funding. It is bullying of the teachers and institutions so that they must reduce the number of topics covered in their curriculum.

Please explain how enforcing a REMOVAL of alternate views (to the 'scientific' one) is not "violating the requirement on every academy and free school to provide a broad and balanced curriculum”?

It is nothing more than an abnegation of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 18, 19 and especially, Article 26 - Paragraph 2.

Only the chronically 'hard of thinking' would applaud such legislation.

Once again we see those who pride themselves on their 'intellectual superiority' and 'rationality' are again revealed to be fairly stupid.




posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 06:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

This is good news considering the topic belongs in a religious study's class with the rest of our religious belief systems.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 06:31 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

No one is removing it...
It is just being taught in RE classes not science ones.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 06:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein
a reply to: Sremmos80

Why can't the theory of evolution be added to give kids multiple ideas to learn from and make up their own mind? You can't remove creationism and add the theory of evolution because it is more "scientific"...

evolution needs a start, if you don't have creationism you can't have evolution...But I know I am wrong in all of your eyes because I believe in God....So I will just stop because I will repeat myself another 30 times before doing the same thing later....


I think that creationism should not be taught in schools because there is absolutley no evidence whatsoever to support it.


Except perhaps everything is evidence that it must have started somewhere, somehow.

But, discounting the existence of everything, there is no evidence.




posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 06:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

Have to say having gone through both the primary and secondary educational system in the 80s and early 90s i dont ever remember creationism being taught anywhere other than the religious education class in secondary school. Or when the Minister garbled on or touched on the subject at Easter/Christmas assembly at primary school.

Truth be told if a student had attempted to broach the subject of creationism in one of our secondary science class, be it Physics, Biology or Chemistry good old Mr O'brien(Head of Science) would have kicked you out the class, made you stand outside. Then gave you a good talking to after class with regards to there being no place for mumbo jumbo in his class.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 06:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Prezbo369

Please explain how enforcing a REMOVAL of alternate views (to the 'scientific' one) is not "violating the requirement on every academy and free school to provide a broad and balanced curriculum”?


Simple. Academic standards. Creationism is a religious ideology that has no scientific basis, thus it has no place in the science class. There is absolutely no reason it should be taught as anything other than a culturally contextual myth, in which case do so in RE class.
edit on 26-6-2015 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 06:59 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Would you care to post any of this evidence for creationism that is apparently "everywhere"?



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 07:00 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

My primary school was a CoE one and thats all we got taught that God created the heaven and earth in 7 days etc.
When I went to high school that changed and we were taught actual science.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 07:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: chr0naut

No one is removing it...
It is just being taught in RE classes not science ones.


So, if a public school does not have RE classes at all (most don't), then Creationism is effectively being removed from the the curriculum of most schools.

Think of it this way, Newtonian physics is unscientific. Relativity and Quantum theories have entirely supplanted it. It should by the same logic, therefore, be removed from the science curriculum of all schools, should it not?

And what about the history of science? Should that not be taught too? Remember that Creationism was a belief that was historically held by biologists in the past. But it is plainly unscientific so the history of science also must be dispensed with.

And home economics too, as well as biology, I bet they still teach us to avoid fatty foods because they will make us fat. But that too is wrong. Our digestion disassembles fats into very basic components and the fats we have internal to our bodies is synthesized by our internal organs. It does not come directly from eating fatty foods. So out go the healthy eating pyramids, they are unscientific!

I could give you some more examples of things taught in schools that are plainly unscientific but I'm sure you get the drift.

This piece of legislation is the work of one group of people enforcing their opinion upon others.

Science is fashion. Today's truths are tomorrows delusions. To enforce what people are allowed to know is oppression.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 07:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein
a reply to: rossacus

Wow...again with the attacks...

My parents aren't religious at all....Never spoke about it nor told me anything....I found God on my own, contrary to what you believe or how stupid you see my views, I have researched evolution and honestly it explains nothing on how things came to be....The reasoning behind all of evolution begins with creationism and most people see this, other than people who don't believe in creation. I am not saying evolution is wrong, but you clearly don't understand what I am trying to say so I will stop...


The reason it doesn't explain that is because that Abiogenesis. Which I beleive is just a hypothesis at the minute. They are seperate things all together.
edit on 26-6-2015 by Megatronus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 07:06 AM
link   
It's not banned from schools, just banned from the science classroom as it's completely unscientific, doesn't follow the scientific method do teaching kids it's in some way science is abuse and intellectual dishonesty that contradicts everthing science classes are meant to teach.

Pupils will still be able to find out all about it and all other main religions view in RE so they can make up their own mind - it's just banned from being taught it as if it's a fact.

I went to a religious school in the UK and creationism was never even mentioned as no one believes in that kind of rubbish over here - so it'd only affect the handful of super strict schools that only indoctrinate kids into their own faith instead of giving them an education.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

I wish you would research a bit before posting.

RE is part of the national curriculum so your post is mute.

www.gov.uk...



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 07:08 AM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

My primary school, far as im aware, was just a Protestant/mixed race primary school. I remember colouring in pictures of Iona and some other stuff regrading St Andrew. Said the lords prayer in the morning but that was pretty much the extent of the religious dogma we received.

I suppose it varies regarding location in the UK.
edit on 26-6-2015 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 07:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: chr0naut

I wish you would research a bit before posting.

RE is part of the national curriculum so your post is mute.

www.gov.uk...


His post can't talk? Oh, you mean "moot."


Ironic, considering the topic of discussion--the failings of the UK education system.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 07:12 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Yeah sorry dude I have dyslexia...plagued me forever it has.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 07:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

So, if a public school does not have RE classes at all (most don't), then Creationism is effectively being removed from the the curriculum of most schools.


RE is a compulsory subject.


Think of it this way, Newtonian physics is unscientific.


No it's not.


Relativity and Quantum theories have entirely supplanted it.


Newtonian physics is incomplete. We still use it to land robots and people on other planets and comets.

Creationism has no evidence or explanatory power whatsoever.

♫ One of these things is not like the other...


It should by the same logic, therefore, be removed from the science curriculum of all schools, should it not?


Not in the slightest.


And what about the history of science? Should that not be taught too?


What does this have to do with creationism? Creationism was never scientific in the first place and has no place in the history of science.


Remember that Creationism was a belief that was historically held by biologists in the past.


A religious belief. Thus, teach it in the RE class.


But it is plainly unscientific so the history of science also must be dispensed with.


It's like you're not even trying to form logically sound arguments...


And home economics too, as well as biology, I bet they still teach us to avoid fatty foods because they will make us fat. But that too is wrong. Our digestion disassembles fats into very basic components and the fats we have internal to our bodies is synthesized by our internal organs. It does not come directly from eating fatty foods. So out go the healthy eating pyramids, they are unscientific!


And now we're wandered into cockerdoodle land.


I could give you some more examples of things taught in schools that are plainly unscientific but I'm sure you get the drift.


Ok, let's assume for a second that you're 100% right that unscientific ideas are taught. That would mean that those separate issues would need to be addressed, not simply throw academic standards out the window and say "well that's unscientific so f*ck it, let's allow this unscientific religious belief to be taught as well".


This piece of legislation is the work of one group of people enforcing their opinion upon others.


Nope, it's about academic standards. Creationists are getting butthurt because they're can't have their fairy tales taught in a science class. Boo hoo.


Science is fashion.


No, chinos are a fashion. But again, let's assume you're correct here for the sake of argument. Creationism STILL shouldn't be taught because it's demonstrably wrong.


Today's truths are tomorrows delusions.

As we've seen with creationism.


To enforce what people are allowed to know is oppression.


"They won't let me force my religious beliefs on children in the science class! I'm being opressed!"



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 07:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
considering the topic of discussion--the failings of the UK education system.

No, the topic is about the UK preventing publicly funded schools from teaching creationism as a scientific theory, not 'the failings of the UK education system'.
I think you may be confused?



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 07:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped

RE is a compulsory subject.



Is it? I'm not saying you're wrong just when I was a kid my Mum taught at a non religious primary school (30 years ago) and it wasn't compulsary then - but an hour of 'worship' per week was.

But even if the school didn't have RE, it would be taught in General Education classes instead as it's comulsory for kids to be taught about all religions and to respect the views of others.

--

As for Newton Physics, yes it was updated and improved on a little bit when the wobble of mercury's orbit was discovered but expecting children to be taught the updates is completely unfeasable as I have a degree in applied maths and only understood the insanely complex mathematics behind it after graduating.

Newtonian Physics works fine for any real world application, no one understands quantum mechanics, so teaching kids QT at a young age would be detrimental to their education, it's far better to teach them the process of philosophy of science so they can make an informed decision on whether to pursue it further, instead of expecting them to understad several thousand pages of equations on the subject.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 07:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
Once again we see those who pride themselves on their 'intellectual superiority' and 'rationality' are again revealed to be fairly stupid.


You might just as well have written "Once again we see those who pride themselves on their 'moral superiority' and 'Gods word' are again revealed to be fairly stupid."

Given our short lifespans, our limited brain capacities and our need to feel secure and important we need some story that sounds legit and makes us important and unique. It may be the story how some divine entity created us (and we're then supposedly the crown on his creation), or the story that we became what we are by evolution (and you are the result of millions and millions years of natural selection, quite unique too). In both cases we think ourselves powerful and important. We are not, but hey, as long as we keep telling it to each other, using laws and rules and regulations to force the "proper" story to be told, we can at least keep the illusion.

Carry on and keep calm.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 07:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: chr0naut

Would you care to post any of this evidence for creationism that is apparently "everywhere"?


Honestly, you are that much in denial?

Let me try and simplify it then.

We know that 'things' exist (matter, energy, space-time, fast-food premises, fashion accessories or whatever).

Because we know that the existence of things is finite, they could not have just existed infinitely in the past.

This means that there is a good probability that they started to exist at some time in the past.

So, how did we get from before anything existed, to where everything that exists, exists?

There are a couple of theories:

Something that is not finite in time, or is outside of time entirely, and had the capability and motivation to make stuff, did so.

or...

Some sort of fluctuation in the nothing caused the creation of a pair virtual particles with opposite polarity to each other and something prevented the opposites from annihilating back to nothing, leaving stuff behind,and this happened a lot.

Neither theory has any particular evidence (except for the existence of everything).

There are other theories that everything is an illusion, which surprisingly does have some circumstantial evidence (but I'd just ignore it because the evidence is, of course, illusory).



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join