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

a reply to: Barcs

I think he just wanted to argue for the sake of it.
Because yes it is simple and logical.

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: raxusillian
a reply to: nonspecific

Please tell me you can say yes to at least 2 of the above issues.

This I think is one of humanities greatest issues. If I don't let it affect me because I don't live there, another wedge. We all should be far more connected than we are. To say that since it doesn't affect me I shouldn't get to have any opinion that sir is very sad.

So given the context of the conversation you chose to get involved in can we assume that your answer to all of my questions is no.

Did you say anything that contributed to to the issue n question?

How did the things you wrote help?

Or are you just writing things about stuff you do not understand?

Please help me understand what you are trying to say here.

I would like to think that the things I have to say have value to some yes.

Possibly give someone a different perspective.

What is there to not be understood from the title of the thread?

originally posted by: raxusillian

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: raxusillian
a reply to: nonspecific

Please tell me you can say yes to at least 2 of the above issues.

This I think is one of humanities greatest issues. If I don't let it affect me because I don't live there, another wedge. We all should be far more connected than we are. To say that since it doesn't affect me I shouldn't get to have any opinion that sir is very sad.

So given the context of the conversation you chose to get involved in can we assume that your answer to all of my questions is no.

Did you say anything that contributed to to the issue n question?

How did the things you wrote help?

Or are you just writing things about stuff you do not understand?

Please help me understand what you are trying to say here.

I would like to think that the things I have to say have value to some yes.

Possibly give someone a different perspective.

What is there to not be understood from the title of the thread?

My appolgies I came late to the game.

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

Would it be too much to ask for you to give a brief overview of the subject and your thoughts please?

a reply to: nonspecific

I already did.


Getting off the merry go round now, thank you.

originally posted by: raxusillian
a reply to: nonspecific

I already did.


Getting off the merry go round now, thank you.

sorry I must have missed it.
Many thanks and well done for all the links.

a reply to: nonspecific

Not banned just moved to the mandatory RE lessons.

originally posted by: raxusillian
a reply to: nonspecific

I already did.


Getting off the merry go round now, thank you.

I just popped back in the thread and would really appriciate any links to your valued contributions.

"Getting off the merry go round now" can be translated as "I'll stop making unsubstantiated assertions now".

a reply to: grainofsand

He already left. No need to rub yourself into the wound.

a reply to: chr0naut

Creationism is not education, it's indoctrination. It is not science, there is no objective evidence for it, so it SHOULD NOT be taught in any educational capacity. It should only be "taught" in religious theory classes or philosophy. That is where it belongs. Religion is supposed to be a personal thing. Let the parents teach their kids their belief system. It's not the school's job to teach a hypothetical guess (or series of guesses) in a classroom.

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

The existence of everything is evidence for... wait for it.... everything exists! It doesn't prove anything else. Stop trying to suggest that creationism is backed by "everything in existence" while evolution or abiogenesis is just made up on the spot. Sorry man, that isn't how it works. Evolution has TONS of evidence. Abiogenesis has SOME evidence, but isn't proven yet. Creationism has NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, and this will not change just because you think god exists and believe that everything was created.

originally posted by: raxusillian
a reply to: bastion

No it is not what organised religion says.

It is what the loudmouth fools that have been given a platform for their nonsense say. Do you honestly think that most Christians believe the world is 5,000 years old? Most of the ones I know do not and I know quite a few of them.

This site is devolving to people like those that have shown their ass in this thread. This place used to be full of critical thinking and openness. Now it is a place for dicks to come and bash those they perceive as weak and stupid.

No, I had said a couple of posts before I don't think anyone in the UK believes that. I was raised catholic, now agnostic and no one ever taught me or any of my friends that in school.

However if the young earth 'theory' was taught as science in a classroom then it dramatically increases the chances of that happening.

Sorry I wasn't meaning to bash, but to help. I chose the wrong words and should have said book of genesis. What I was trying to demonstrate is that science can only add more beauty and wonder to the world. The more we discover, the more we find out how little we know and science can only add to the wonder, not take it away.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Who says he/she left?
You?
Do you know they won't engage with me again?

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Barcs

I think he just wanted to argue for the sake of it.
Because yes it is simple and logical.

But that was never my point and to frame it in that context is rather disingenuous.

My point is that it won't make any difference and that there are much greater problems to address and, as previously stated by another UK poster, faith based schools already outperform public schools in the UK where math and science are concerned so there really was never a concern of low performance to begin with.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Barcs

I think he just wanted to argue for the sake of it.
Because yes it is simple and logical.

But that was never my point and to frame it in that context is rather disingenuous.

My point is that it won't make any difference and that there are much greater problems to address and, as previously stated by another UK poster, faith based schools already outperform public schools in the UK where math and science are concerned so there really was never a concern of low performance to begin with.

Was the pont not though about the teaching of creationsim?

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Who says he/she left?
You?
Do you know they won't engage with me again?

You said it yourself--faith based schools outperform public schools in the UK, just as they do in the US.


Now, I disagree that it is because of religion in the school, but there are various other reasons why they do from more parental involvement to more discipline in the school.

Regardless, as you yourself has pointed out, the problem was not about poor academic performance, but not wanting your tax dollars to go to religious schools.

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Barcs

I think he just wanted to argue for the sake of it.
Because yes it is simple and logical.

But that was never my point and to frame it in that context is rather disingenuous.

My point is that it won't make any difference and that there are much greater problems to address and, as previously stated by another UK poster, faith based schools already outperform public schools in the UK where math and science are concerned so there really was never a concern of low performance to begin with.

Was the pont not though about the teaching of creationsim?

I take it you didn't read the thread. My point was that it really wouldn't make a difference from an academic standpoint as parochial schools were already outperforming public schools.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Who says he/she left?
You?
Do you know they won't engage with me again?

You said it yourself--faith based schools outperform public schools in the UK, just as they do in the US.


Now, I disagree that it is because of religion in the school, but there are various other reasons why they do from more parental involvement to more discipline in the school.

Regardless, as you yourself has pointed out, the problem was not about poor academic performance, but not wanting your tax dollars to go to religious schools.

So your point is what?

We have no tax dollars here and care little for religious education.

I think that has been shown by a show of hands here.

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Who says he/she left?
You?
Do you know they won't engage with me again?

You said it yourself--faith based schools outperform public schools in the UK, just as they do in the US.


Now, I disagree that it is because of religion in the school, but there are various other reasons why they do from more parental involvement to more discipline in the school.

Regardless, as you yourself has pointed out, the problem was not about poor academic performance, but not wanting your tax dollars to go to religious schools.

So your point is what?

We have no tax dollars here and care little for religious education.

I think that has been shown by a show of hands here.

The point is truthfulness.

People have been saying how this would improve education but there is no evidence (you know that thing that people deride religious people for not having any of?) for that.

The only honest person has been grainofsand who admitted that parochial schools do outperform public schools and he just doesn't like his taxpayer dollars (or pounds or euros) to go to it. That's cool and I can agree with it, but the rest of you have been a bit tad disingenuous about it.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: Barcs

I think he just wanted to argue for the sake of it.
Because yes it is simple and logical.

But that was never my point and to frame it in that context is rather disingenuous.

My point is that it won't make any difference and that there are much greater problems to address and, as previously stated by another UK poster, faith based schools already outperform public schools in the UK where math and science are concerned so there really was never a concern of low performance to begin with.

Was the pont not though about the teaching of creationsim?

I take it you didn't read the thread. My point was that it really wouldn't make a difference from an academic standpoint as parochial schools were already outperforming public schools.

Me i did not bother to read the thread, why would I?

I just read the thread maybe missed a couple of posts here and there, was born and raised in the UK, saw three stepkids go to school here and then my own, watched how it it went about and then made a decision on how I thought I felt about the situation regarding the topic in question and then I guess...

I think I just made stuff up to have an opinion on a conspiracy site.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
You said it yourself--faith based schools outperform public schools in the UK, just as they do in the US.

No I didn't, I said the state funded faith schools in my area had better results than the state funded non faith schools.
I also stated my son went to neither, instead state funded grammar school, with better exam results than all of them.

...yeah, I don't want the tax I pay to the government every year funding fairy tales in science lessons.