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

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Barcs

So what is your opinion not on the teaching of this subject but the fact that a year ago schools in the UK stopped public funding for those schools that chose to do so?

I believe they were in the right to pull funding. If the schools do not listen to the laws in regards to religious education and science, then it is their own fault they lost the funding. This is why we have private schools. So that folks who like their religion being taught can send their children there. If a school is teaching religious theory as truth, then by definition it is not a public school and should not be publicly funded. I don't want my tax dollars going toward another person's religious education, I'm sorry. Science is important to society today, and to diminish it by suggesting religious guesswork is equally valid, is pathetically sad.

originally posted by: nonspecific

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.

Ah, so you don't bother to gather all of the information and then you make a judgment on it. And you deride others for not using information?

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: nonspecific

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.

Ah, so you don't bother to gather all of the information and then you make a judgment on it. And you deride others for not using information?

Do I really have answer this?

I accept you humour as as it is taken.

This is a joke right?(humour injected here)

originally posted by: grainofsand

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 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.

Yeah, that is what you said and you said it just now:

I said the state funded faith schools in my area had better results than the state funded non faith schools

Now, as an atheist, I don't believe that it is because the mention "Jeebus." I think that obviously it is because of a variety of other things such as discipline, more involved parents and teachers, less bureaucracy, etc.

And congratulations on your son's achievements. It is an indication not only on the intelligence and self discipline in your son but also on you for your support and interest in his education. Well done! If we only had more parents like you, education would be in a better place.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
If we only had more parents like you, education would be in a better place.

Regarding tax payer funded Grammar school, there are not enough places so I personally have issues with it even though my son benefited from an amazing secondary/high school education.
I am proof that it has # all to do with elitism gaining a place in such a school though.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Prezbo369

Darn....are you in for a surprise!

Like what? Rightous Anerica gonna bomb us?

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: nonspecific

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.

Ah, so you don't bother to gather all of the information and then you make a judgment on it. And you deride others for not using information?

My comment may have been a little bellitling May I rephrase it somewhat if I may?

originally posted by: NavyDoc
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.

You just directly contradicted yourself. Truthfullness is teaching science in science class instead of unsubstantiated guesses. More truth = more knowledge = more education = more intelligent children. If you are too lazy as a parent to teach your children about your faith, then send em to private school. More science being taught is a good thing, especially considering the technological society we live in.

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.

This statement actually proves that you are religious, despite denying it. LMAO at calling everyone else in the thread dishonest and the only honest person is the guy that claims private schools outperform public schools. You obviously are not an atheist. Only a religious person would not agree that more time in science class dedicated to real science is a good thing.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: NavyDoc
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.

not an atheist. Only a religious person would not agree that more time in science class dedicate to real science is not a good thing.

So much lack of logic so little time.

You just directly contradicted yourself. Truthfullness is teaching science in science class instead of unsubstantiated guesses. More truth = more knowledge = more education = more intelligent children. If you are too lazy as a parent to teach your children about your faith, then send em to private school. More science being taught is a good thing.
This statement actually proves that you are religious, despite denying it. LMAO at calling everyone else in the thread dishonest and the only honest person is the guy that claims private schools outperform public schools. You obviously are You just directly contradicted yourself. Truthfullness is teaching science in science class instead of unsubstantiated guesses. More truth = more knowledge = more education = more intelligent children. If you are too lazy as a parent to teach your children about your faith, then send em to private school. More science being taught is a good thing.

I didn't contradict myself at all. What I have said, repeatedly, was that there was no evidence that THIS LAW would improve academic standings. Had you read the entire thread, I opined that if it was mandated that this would replace creationism with something specific, say calculus, it would be an improvement. However, nobody has been able to point to evidence of a direct trade form this to any sort of STEM classes. Nobody has actually demonstrated how this would directly lead to more science being taught.

This statement actually proves that you are religious, despite denying it. LMAO at calling everyone else in the thread dishonest and the only honest person is the guy that claims private schools outperform public schools. You obviously are You just directly contradicted yourself. Truthfullness is teaching science in science class instead of unsubstantiated guesses. More truth = more knowledge = more education = more intelligent children. If you are too lazy as a parent to teach your children about your faith, then send em to private school. More science being taught is a good thing.

No it does not. It is simply a factual observation--that parochial schools perform better. I have been very careful to explain why this may be and have never attributed it to religion. You make the failed leap in "logic" that you accuse the creationists of.

In both the UK and the US, parochial schools outperform the public schools. This is a fact. The reasons for this are multifactorial--discipline, more parental engagement, etc.

originally posted by: Barcs
the guy that claims private schools outperform public schools.

No I didn't say that, my son's school was 'free' funded by the state like all other state schools, just had to pass an exam aged 11 to get in. Better results at my sons free taxpayer funded grammar school than most private schools.
I was probably the poorest father there at events, bankers were common as parents, saving a fortune on private school fees while their child gets better results in the state funded system.
The free UK education system is amazingly brilliant to access if one is a parent passionate about the job.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Hi there you seemed to have missed me in your replies?

Many thanks.

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: Barcs
the guy that claims private schools outperform public schools.

No I didn't say that, my son's school was 'free' funded by the state like all other state schools, just had to pass an exam aged 11 to get in. Better results at my sons free taxpayer funded grammar school than most private schools.
I was probably the poorest father there at events, bankers were common as parents, saving a fortune on private school fees while their child gets better results in the state funded system.
The free UK education system is amazingly brilliant to access if one is a parent passionate about the job

I had to highlight the last bit because you are 100% correct. You have said and have been an example of what is the most important thing in education. Thank you and well done.

edit on 26-6-2015 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: NavyDoc

Hi there you seemed to have missed me in your replies?

Many thanks.

I'm sorry, I've been piled on. Please direct me to the specific thing you want to address.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: nonspecific

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.

Ah, so you don't bother to gather all of the information and then you make a judgment on it. And you deride others for not using information?

Your quote sir.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
I didn't contradict myself at all. What I have said, repeatedly, was that there was no evidence that THIS LAW would improve academic standings. Had you read the entire thread, I opined that if it was mandated that this would replace creationism with something specific, say calculus, it would be an improvement. However, nobody has been able to point to evidence of a direct trade form this to any sort of STEM classes. Nobody has actually demonstrated how this would directly lead to more science being taught.

Oh stop already with the tireless "you didn't read the thread" nonsense. I did read the thread, you just don't make any logical sense. I responded to you previously and my response was completely ignored. So much for me not reading the thread. Try taking your own advice.

Look, it doesn't matter what exactly replaces creationism, as long as it is science. More science is better than less science. Less fairytales being taught in science, means more REAL science is being taught. Basic logic 101. Do you honestly believe that they are going to take creationism out and just have 30 minutes of game time or sit around doing nothing? I already outlined this for you in the post you conveniently did not read. Your argument makes no sense and it doesn't really even have a point. It seems to me that you are arguing just for argument's sake.

No it does not. It is simply a factual observation--that parochial schools perform better.

Sometimes they do. It's not always the case, however.

But then again, when you teach less science, I would imagine it would be much easier to study for the tests and get good grades, than in real schools where science isn't treated like a joke.

I have been very careful to explain why this may be and have never attributed it to religion. You make the failed leap in "logic" that you accuse the creationists of.

I never said you did attribute it to religion. I can read between the lines. It's obvious you are either arguing just to argue or you are a creationist disguised as an atheist to try to give your opinion more credibility. I'm not sure which one it is.

In both the UK and the US, parochial schools outperform the public schools. This is a fact. The reasons for this are multifactorial--discipline, more parental engagement, etc.

Nobody cares. The topic is about science and what is considered science in education. Creationism is not, therefor teaching it in science class is simply wrong. Sorry this affects you negatively, but it's a simple fact.

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: Barcs
the guy that claims private schools outperform public schools.

No I didn't say that, my son's school was 'free' funded by the state like all other state schools, just had to pass an exam aged 11 to get in. Better results at my sons free taxpayer funded grammar school than most private schools.
I was probably the poorest father there at events, bankers were common as parents, saving a fortune on private school fees while their child gets better results in the state funded system.
The free UK education system is amazingly brilliant to access if one is a parent passionate about the job.

Yeah sorry, I meant to mention that he took it out of context as well.

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: chr0naut

If we do not know how life began then would the sensible option not be to tell children that we do not know yet as opposed to arguing about which unproven theory we should be teaching them.

If I do not know the answer to somthing I ask, if no one can give me an answer then I leave it at that?

That would leave the children ignorant.

Perhaps we could say "we don't know exactly but here are some ideas that people have had"...

a reply to: NavyDoc

Fair one.
Different folk and all that.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: chr0naut

If we do not know how life began then would the sensible option not be to tell children that we do not know yet as opposed to arguing about which unproven theory we should be teaching them.

If I do not know the answer to somthing I ask, if no one can give me an answer then I leave it at that?

That would leave the children ignorant.

Perhaps we could say "we don't know exactly but here are some ideas that people have had"...

You simply refuse to let this lie do you?

Say what you mean here, it could not affect anyones opinion of you.

Either say what you really mean or say nothing more it's not that hard.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: NavyDoc
I didn't contradict myself at all. What I have said, repeatedly, was that there was no evidence that THIS LAW would improve academic standings. Had you read the entire thread, I opined that if it was mandated that this would replace creationism with something specific, say calculus, it would be an improvement. However, nobody has been able to point to evidence of a direct trade form this to any sort of STEM classes. Nobody has actually demonstrated how this would directly lead to more science being taught.

Oh stop already with the tireless "you didn't read the thread" nonsense. I did read the thread, you just don't make any logical sense. I responded to you previously and my response was completely ignored. So much for me not reading the thread. Try taking your own advice.

Look, it doesn't matter what exactly replaces creationism, as long as it is science. More science is better than less science. Less fairytales being taught in science, means more REAL science is being taught. Basic logic 101. Do you honestly believe that they are going to take creationism out and just have 30 minutes of game time or sit around doing nothing? I already outlined this for you in the post you conveniently did not read. Your argument makes no sense and it doesn't really even have a point. It seems to me that you are arguing just for argument's sake.

No it does not. It is simply a factual observation--that parochial schools perform better.

Sometimes they do. It's not always the case, however.

I have been very careful to explain why this may be and have never attributed it to religion. You make the failed leap in "logic" that you accuse the creationists of.

I never said you did attribute it to religion. I can read between the lines. It's obvious you are either arguing just to argue or you are a creationist disguised as an atheist to try to give your opinion more credibility. I'm not sure which one it is.

In both the UK and the US, parochial schools outperform the public schools. This is a fact. The reasons for this are multifactorial--discipline, more parental engagement, etc.

Nobody cares. The topic is about science and what is considered science in education. Creationism is not, therefor teaching it in science class is simply wrong. Sorry this affects you negatively, but it's a simple fact.

Your argument makes no sense in that you have given ZERO proof that the classes will be replaced with science. You are talking generalities (more science and math and chemistry is a good thing), which I agree with, but I'm talking about the effect of this specific law. There is nothing in this law that indicates that the classes will be replaced with anything better--all the law does is ban something it does not prescribe a certain replacement--it could be sitting quietly in study hall for all you know.

It's not "sometimes they do," the fact is that consistently they do. Not for religion, but for a myriad of other reasons I've outlined repeatedly.

I can read between the lines. It's obvious you are either arguing just to argue or you are a creationist disguised as an atheist to try to give your opinion more credibility. I'm not sure which one it is.

Oh for F#@k$ sake--you sound just like the Bible thumpers around here. "Accept my blind dogma 100% or be condemned a heretic". All I've done is point out that it is illogical to claim the law will do all you ay it will.

The topic in this thread is NOT about science in education--the topic of this thread is THIS SPECIFIC LAW that I have been solely addressing.