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

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: NavyDoc

I wasn't gonna say it, but yeah. If you're going to argue for education, at least make sure you don't confuse your words. Not to say I agree with your other point, I think religion has no place in public schools beyond history courses. However, you make a keen observation here.

ETA: Ah, Dyslexia could go to explain that, but that's more misplacing letters within a word, not confusing one word for another. I think it was more a harmless typo.

I haven't argued for keeping the course--in fact I've argued the opposite. What I have done was opine that this law really will not make any difference other than make some people feel good.

I have to disagree there. Creationism when taught as valid science is indoctrination that the staunchest of conspiracy theorists should be fighting against. I see people talking all the time about how public schools are just places to indoctrinate children with ideas the government wants to promote, then turn around and demand Creationism be taught. The hypocrisy is astounding. I'm not accusing you of being one of those people, of course. But I do think banning Creationism in public schools is a positive step forward. Private schools? They can teach we were created by a hippie in a cosmic microwave for all I care.

I came a little late to this thread but as far as I can see there does not seem to be a great deal of support for the teaching of creationism coming from UK members.

I am not aware of everyones location so are there any UK members who are against this law?

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

You see the "God of the Gaps" argument is one of the only domains that science affords the religious in order for them to continue to believe in their religion and say that science is true as well. There is always the argument that god is working THROUGH scientific processes to develop the universe, but as someone who went to college for computer science, I find it unlikely that a being would develop a recursive process that can work independently then micromanage it.

The only "gap" I think god can lie is as the jump starter of the Big Bang, but even Big Bang theoretical work is starting to show that may even not be the case.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: NavyDoc

I wasn't gonna say it, but yeah. If you're going to argue for education, at least make sure you don't confuse your words. Not to say I agree with your other point, I think religion has no place in public schools beyond history courses. However, you make a keen observation here.

ETA: Ah, Dyslexia could go to explain that, but that's more misplacing letters within a word, not confusing one word for another. I think it was more a harmless typo.

I haven't argued for keeping the course--in fact I've argued the opposite. What I have done was opine that this law really will not make any difference other than make some people feel good.

I have to disagree there. Creationism when taught as valid science is indoctrination that the staunchest of conspiracy theorists should be fighting against. I see people talking all the time about how public schools are just places to indoctrinate children with ideas the government wants to promote, then turn around and demand Creationism be taught. The hypocrisy is astounding. I'm not accusing you of being one of those people, of course. But I do think banning Creationism in public schools is a positive step forward. Private schools? They can teach we were created by a hippie in a cosmic microwave for all I care.

With all of the problems in the UK public school system, from truancy, to crime, to drug use, to teachers and parents who don't care, you honestly think that a law banning something that caters to a minority by a minority of schools will make a whole lot of difference? Perhaps all of this energy to stamp out religiosity might better be served elsewhere .

a reply to: Krazysh0t

We're in a difficult time in our history regarding Science. We have brilliant mathematicians who can predict down to the planck times what happened in the immediate aftermath of the Big Bang. They give us theoretical models involving multiple dimensions which seem to preserve Einstein's classical model and the universal speed limit. They can tell us how quarks, muons, and other quanta behave. Yet, we do not yet have the technology to test these theories.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: chr0naut

Why don't you start your own thread championing creationist myths?
Lots to choose from, Greek, Norse, Cherokee, Sumerian, Ancient Egyptian, even Maori.

The UK government has decided that any school receiving taxpayers money can not teach any spiritual/religious myths as fact in science lessons. There are no laws against privately funded schools teaching whatever fairy tales they wish to their students, just not on the taxpayers coin.

Now you can claim your particular myth is fact or whatever you like, but this thread is about discussing the legislation created last year in the UK, not a debate about your favourite brand of myth. I see your posts as derailing and irrelevant, so again, if you wanna argue that YOUR myth is true I say start your own thread and I can ignore your solely faith based ramblings.

Are scientific theories of the beginning of the universe any less mythical than Creation theories?

My initial argument was that putting financial penalties on the teaching of any particular paradigm is a violation of human rights.

Like Newtonian physics is used to ease students towards the understanding of more scientifically rigorous theories, the teaching of Creationist views are stepping stone paradigms from which we can ascend to more convoluted ones and, as I pointed out in a previous post, creationist and religious theories are historically part of what we now call science.

Once, we thought that the Earth was the center of the universe and this was upheld by religious people. Copernicus and Galileo challenged those views but how would we explain the the achievements of those early astronomers if we took out all reference to the opposition that they faced?

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Well, keep in mind that MANY of the popular and common theories of old were also assumptions for a long time. Evolution being one of them. Darwin didn't first come up with the idea, he just found the definitive proof.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: NavyDoc

I wasn't gonna say it, but yeah. If you're going to argue for education, at least make sure you don't confuse your words. Not to say I agree with your other point, I think religion has no place in public schools beyond history courses. However, you make a keen observation here.

ETA: Ah, Dyslexia could go to explain that, but that's more misplacing letters within a word, not confusing one word for another. I think it was more a harmless typo.

I haven't argued for keeping the course--in fact I've argued the opposite. What I have done was opine that this law really will not make any difference other than make some people feel good.

I have to disagree there. Creationism when taught as valid science is indoctrination that the staunchest of conspiracy theorists should be fighting against. I see people talking all the time about how public schools are just places to indoctrinate children with ideas the government wants to promote, then turn around and demand Creationism be taught. The hypocrisy is astounding. I'm not accusing you of being one of those people, of course. But I do think banning Creationism in public schools is a positive step forward. Private schools? They can teach we were created by a hippie in a cosmic microwave for all I care.

With all of the problems in the UK public school system, from truancy, to crime, to drug use, to teachers and parents who don't care, you honestly think that a law banning something that caters to a minority by a minority of schools will make a whole lot of difference? Perhaps all of this energy to stamp out religiosity might better be served elsewhere .

Perhaps children would be more willing to learn if they weren't spoonfed religious theory rather than actual science. I did poorly in school at New Mexico because everything was religious there. They unashamedly taught creationism at my little school. They prayed before class began in the morning. And it left me bored and disinterested. It felt like a sermon every day with sprinklings of math or english. Fix the schools, and you might take a step toward making learning rewarding for kids, and not just a daily chore they slog through to get to the afternoon.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: chr0naut

Please provide scientific evidence for abiogenesis

You claim to be trained in science yet you utterly fail at thinking logically (see: affirming a disjunct or denying a conjunct ) and with intellectual honesty. Abiogenesis being wrong wouldn't make creationism right. As a scientist, you should know this. So far, you have not been behaving in the manner befitting a scientist but here's your chance to prove me wrong: show us the scientific evidence for creationism. Not inference, not inuendo, but actual explicit evidence.

I did not say that abiogenesis was wrong. I asked for scientific evidence for it.

I also said there was no evidence for Creationism, except for the existence of everything.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: chr0naut

Why don't you start your own thread championing creationist myths?
Lots to choose from, Greek, Norse, Cherokee, Sumerian, Ancient Egyptian, even Maori.

The UK government has decided that any school receiving taxpayers money can not teach any spiritual/religious myths as fact in science lessons. There are no laws against privately funded schools teaching whatever fairy tales they wish to their students, just not on the taxpayers coin.

Now you can claim your particular myth is fact or whatever you like, but this thread is about discussing the legislation created last year in the UK, not a debate about your favourite brand of myth. I see your posts as derailing and irrelevant, so again, if you wanna argue that YOUR myth is true I say start your own thread and I can ignore your solely faith based ramblings.

Are scientific theories of the beginning of the universe any less mythical than Creation theories?

My initial argument was that putting financial penalties on the teaching of any particular paradigm is a violation of human rights.

Like Newtonian physics is used to ease students towards the understanding of more scientifically rigorous theories, the teaching of Creationist views are stepping stone paradigms from which we can ascend to more convoluted ones and, as I pointed out in a previous post, creationist and religious theories are historically part of what we now call science.

Once, we thought that the Earth was the center of the universe and this was upheld by religious people. Copernicus and Galileo challenged those views but how would we explain the the achievements of those early astronomers if we took out all reference to the opposition that they faced?

I'm fine with teaching the HISTORY of Creationism and Religions in general. Where I take issue is when Religious tenets are taught as scientific fact.

originally posted by: chr0naut
My initial argument was that putting financial penalties on the teaching of any particular paradigm is a violation of human rights.

And that argument is equally ridiculous.
Schools funded by the UK taxpayer have to follow certain conditions to receive their funding.
Schools funded privately are free to teach whatever creation myth they wish, Greek, Sumerian, ancient Egyptian, Norse...you get my drift.
Parents in the UK are free to remove their children from any educational establishment and home-school.

If UK citizens are unhappy with this law they are also free to protest and lobby their Member of Parliament to get this changed, but really outside of ATS and those rabidly religious types in real life, nobody gives a toss that creationism can no longer be taught in science classes.

Violation of human rights?! FFS, absolutely ridiculous.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: NavyDoc

I wasn't gonna say it, but yeah. If you're going to argue for education, at least make sure you don't confuse your words. Not to say I agree with your other point, I think religion has no place in public schools beyond history courses. However, you make a keen observation here.

ETA: Ah, Dyslexia could go to explain that, but that's more misplacing letters within a word, not confusing one word for another. I think it was more a harmless typo.

I haven't argued for keeping the course--in fact I've argued the opposite. What I have done was opine that this law really will not make any difference other than make some people feel good.

I have to disagree there. Creationism when taught as valid science is indoctrination that the staunchest of conspiracy theorists should be fighting against. I see people talking all the time about how public schools are just places to indoctrinate children with ideas the government wants to promote, then turn around and demand Creationism be taught. The hypocrisy is astounding. I'm not accusing you of being one of those people, of course. But I do think banning Creationism in public schools is a positive step forward. Private schools? They can teach we were created by a hippie in a cosmic microwave for all I care.

With all of the problems in the UK public school system, from truancy, to crime, to drug use, to teachers and parents who don't care, you honestly think that a law banning something that caters to a minority by a minority of schools will make a whole lot of difference? Perhaps all of this energy to stamp out religiosity might better be served elsewhere .

Perhaps children would be more willing to learn if they weren't spoonfed religious theory rather than actual science. I did poorly in school at New Mexico because everything was religious there. They unashamedly taught creationism at my little school. They prayed before class began in the morning. And it left me bored and disinterested. It felt like a sermon every day with sprinklings of math or english. Fix the schools, and you might take a step toward making learning rewarding for kids, and not just a daily chore they slog through to get to the afternoon.

Certainly. Got to keep things interesting.

OTOH, I've got my doubts that much will be added to the curricula in the STEM arena. The emphasis seems to be entirely on getting something they don't like out without much thought of getting something better in--an "anti" mindset rather than a "pro" mindset as it were.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: NavyDoc

I wasn't gonna say it, but yeah. If you're going to argue for education, at least make sure you don't confuse your words. Not to say I agree with your other point, I think religion has no place in public schools beyond history courses. However, you make a keen observation here.

ETA: Ah, Dyslexia could go to explain that, but that's more misplacing letters within a word, not confusing one word for another. I think it was more a harmless typo.

I haven't argued for keeping the course--in fact I've argued the opposite. What I have done was opine that this law really will not make any difference other than make some people feel good.

I have to disagree there. Creationism when taught as valid science is indoctrination that the staunchest of conspiracy theorists should be fighting against. I see people talking all the time about how public schools are just places to indoctrinate children with ideas the government wants to promote, then turn around and demand Creationism be taught. The hypocrisy is astounding. I'm not accusing you of being one of those people, of course. But I do think banning Creationism in public schools is a positive step forward. Private schools? They can teach we were created by a hippie in a cosmic microwave for all I care.

With all of the problems in the UK public school system, from truancy, to crime, to drug use, to teachers and parents who don't care, you honestly think that a law banning something that caters to a minority by a minority of schools will make a whole lot of difference? Perhaps all of this energy to stamp out religiosity might better be served elsewhere .

Perhaps children would be more willing to learn if they weren't spoonfed religious theory rather than actual science. I did poorly in school at New Mexico because everything was religious there. They unashamedly taught creationism at my little school. They prayed before class began in the morning. And it left me bored and disinterested. It felt like a sermon every day with sprinklings of math or english. Fix the schools, and you might take a step toward making learning rewarding for kids, and not just a daily chore they slog through to get to the afternoon.

Certainly. Got to keep things interesting.

OTOH, I've got my doubts that much will be added to the curricula in the STEM arena. The emphasis seems to be entirely on getting something they don't like out without much thought of getting something better in--an "anti" mindset rather than a "pro" mindset as it were.

That's something I completely agree with. To often schools cut things from their curriculum for a multitude of reasons, be it that it could offend someone, or what have you. I'm a big proponent of STEM education, especially when it comes to Primary and Secondary schooling. Post-Secondary you can major in underwater basket weaving for all I care. You're an adult by then.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: chr0naut

Yeah, let's just stick to the science. Please provide the scientific evidence for creationism, not your stoner philosophy.

I'm over 50 and did a degree in Astrophysics years ago and I still maintain an interest.

I don't like Marijuana, as I found it highly irritant and it made me feel nauseous and disoriented rather than high.

I don't think that qualifies anything I said as "stoner philosophy".

Please provide scientific evidence for abiogenesis, or for how supersymmetry was broken, for how singularities do not have a firewall at the schwarzschild radius or for a mechanism that explains inflation ... and not just another theory or concept, I want real measurable scientific evidence.

Just provide some scientific evidence.

If you have a degree in Astrophysics you have probably heard of the "God of the Gaps".

Any valley or void in our understanding of the universe is almost always explained away by the religious as God. What you're arguing is that because we don't have answers for these questions, it must be evidence of a creator. Why is that? Why does it have to be evidence of a creator? Look back several hundred, or thousand years. What we didn't know then was astonishing. Why do the planets move, while stars remain fairly static, moving much more slowly? Why that's God, they said. Well now we understand the motion of stars and planets, even galaxies. (For the most part, at least) and nobody with even a grade school education claims the planets' motion is Gods work.

You're falling into the same line of thinking as our ancestors. We don't understand yet why these things are so. What broke supersymmetry, Black holes in GENERAL and not just the Schwarzchild radius. You see gaps in our knowledge and exclaim "There, that is where God lies." And when those gaps are filled, the religious go scampering to find more gaps to place their deities.

Please be intellectually honest enough to come up with the hard evidence of the theories science has put forward to explain the beginning of existence. If you cannot do that,then you have to admit that those theories are just as 'mythic' as Creationism.

BTW, you don't have matter until supersymmetry is broken, so you cannot invoke black holes as an explanation.

It's all gaps and wild theories.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
The emphasis seems to be entirely on getting something they don't like out without much thought of getting something better in--an "anti" mindset rather than a "pro" mindset as it were.

No, you are wrong again.
The emphasis was solely to stop the few religious schools who were teaching creationism as fact in some places.
Parents who were not religious complained, and when the government realised there was a very real problem they introduced legislation to stop such brainwashing by removing funding if schools were caught doing it.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Actually, it matters little what curriculum is taught to the students. All that matters is that proper and honest critical thinking is taught and enforced. A school could technically teach Creationism all day every day, but if it was also teaching correct critical thinking skills in addition to that, the students would quickly question the Creationist account when the holes in it appear.

Though naturally, you DO want to teach correct things to the students. But with the proper tools, the truth doesn't have to be spoonfed to them.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: chr0naut

Yeah, let's just stick to the science. Please provide the scientific evidence for creationism, not your stoner philosophy.

I'm over 50 and did a degree in Astrophysics years ago and I still maintain an interest.

I don't like Marijuana, as I found it highly irritant and it made me feel nauseous and disoriented rather than high.

I don't think that qualifies anything I said as "stoner philosophy".

Please provide scientific evidence for abiogenesis, or for how supersymmetry was broken, for how singularities do not have a firewall at the schwarzschild radius or for a mechanism that explains inflation ... and not just another theory or concept, I want real measurable scientific evidence.

Just provide some scientific evidence.

If you have a degree in Astrophysics you have probably heard of the "God of the Gaps".

Any valley or void in our understanding of the universe is almost always explained away by the religious as God. What you're arguing is that because we don't have answers for these questions, it must be evidence of a creator. Why is that? Why does it have to be evidence of a creator? Look back several hundred, or thousand years. What we didn't know then was astonishing. Why do the planets move, while stars remain fairly static, moving much more slowly? Why that's God, they said. Well now we understand the motion of stars and planets, even galaxies. (For the most part, at least) and nobody with even a grade school education claims the planets' motion is Gods work.

You're falling into the same line of thinking as our ancestors. We don't understand yet why these things are so. What broke supersymmetry, Black holes in GENERAL and not just the Schwarzchild radius. You see gaps in our knowledge and exclaim "There, that is where God lies." And when those gaps are filled, the religious go scampering to find more gaps to place their deities.

Please be intellectually honest enough to come up with the hard evidence of the theories science has put forward to explain the beginning of existence. If you cannot do that,then you have to admit that those theories are just as 'mythic' as Creationism.

BTW, you don't have matter until supersymmetry is broken, so you cannot invoke black holes as an explanation.

It's all gaps and wild theories.

Again with this Fallacy?

You demand that I, with my admittedly limited understanding of Physics, turn scientific theories into scientific proofs, something that has stumped ACTUAL scientists for dozens, if not hundreds of years. And you want me to do this within the time-frame of a few minutes, or hours if you're patient and explain it to you in laymen's terms in a concise post on a conspiracy forum.

Then when, predictably, I cannot do this herculean task, you get to puff out your chest and declare victory.

Sorry, I won't play your transparent game.

Are there gaps in our understanding? You bet! Are they God? It's unlikely, considering that as time has marched onward, and of the numerous, uncountable gaps that have been previously filled, we have yet to find God in any of them... Well, statistically, I'd say no.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: NavyDoc

I wasn't gonna say it, but yeah. If you're going to argue for education, at least make sure you don't confuse your words. Not to say I agree with your other point, I think religion has no place in public schools beyond history courses. However, you make a keen observation here.

ETA: Ah, Dyslexia could go to explain that, but that's more misplacing letters within a word, not confusing one word for another. I think it was more a harmless typo.

I haven't argued for keeping the course--in fact I've argued the opposite. What I have done was opine that this law really will not make any difference other than make some people feel good.

I have to disagree there. Creationism when taught as valid science is indoctrination that the staunchest of conspiracy theorists should be fighting against. I see people talking all the time about how public schools are just places to indoctrinate children with ideas the government wants to promote, then turn around and demand Creationism be taught. The hypocrisy is astounding. I'm not accusing you of being one of those people, of course. But I do think banning Creationism in public schools is a positive step forward. Private schools? They can teach we were created by a hippie in a cosmic microwave for all I care.

With all of the problems in the UK public school system, from truancy, to crime, to drug use, to teachers and parents who don't care, you honestly think that a law banning something that caters to a minority by a minority of schools will make a whole lot of difference? Perhaps all of this energy to stamp out religiosity might better be served elsewhere .

Perhaps children would be more willing to learn if they weren't spoonfed religious theory rather than actual science. I did poorly in school at New Mexico because everything was religious there. They unashamedly taught creationism at my little school. They prayed before class began in the morning. And it left me bored and disinterested. It felt like a sermon every day with sprinklings of math or english. Fix the schools, and you might take a step toward making learning rewarding for kids, and not just a daily chore they slog through to get to the afternoon.

Certainly. Got to keep things interesting.

OTOH, I've got my doubts that much will be added to the curricula in the STEM arena. The emphasis seems to be entirely on getting something they don't like out without much thought of getting something better in--an "anti" mindset rather than a "pro" mindset as it were.

That's something I completely agree with. To often schools cut things from their curriculum for a multitude of reasons, be it that it could offend someone, or what have you. I'm a big proponent of STEM education, especially when it comes to Primary and Secondary schooling. Post-Secondary you can major in underwater basket weaving for all I care. You're an adult by then.

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: chr0naut

You may have missed it but I did reply to GetHyped that there was no particular evidence for either Creationism or the 'scientific' theories, apart from the existence of everything.

That's not evidence. It's not even an argument. It's just a statement of personal faith. You said the evidence was everywhere, yet apparently it's not? Righty ho.

He wrote my reply off, I believe, as "stoner philosophy".

I think I was too generous calling it stoner philosophy. It's not even that. You call yourself a scientist? For shame!

Since I have answered him, perhaps politeness would now dictate an answer, in turn, to my request.

Your question is logically invalid. For someone who proclaims to be trained in the scientific method, you should be thoroughly ashamed of the arguments you've put forth.

Sorry, not shamed.



There is no scientific evidence for Creationism as there is no scientific evidence for many theories of the origin of the universe.

So to hold one set of unvalidated theories as true and another set of unvalidated theories as false is an opinion or a religious belief.

I am not rejecting either because I don't have the evidence. I don't know. Neither do you.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Actually, it matters little what curriculum is taught to the students. All that matters is that proper and honest critical thinking is taught and enforced. A school could technically teach Creationism all day every day, but if it was also teaching correct critical thinking skills in addition to that, the students would quickly question the Creationist account when the holes in it appear.

Though naturally, you DO want to teach correct things to the students. But with the proper tools, the truth doesn't have to be spoonfed to them.

You do make a good point. The most important thing we can teach at schools is HOW to learn, how to think critically and logically. While I still contend that STEM is critical to young minds, if you can teach them how to think critically and logically, half of the battle is won. Of course, if you can instill a thirst for knowledge in them as well, all the better.