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: 26
42
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 06:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock
All this amounts to is an official government position bought and sold. Hope america doesn't follow suit.


So your claim is that scientific reality is a government conspiracy?
I would love to know why you think it's in the interests of our Conservative government to "brainwash" kids into understanding the current scientific reality of the history of the Human race and the Earth as we know it.




posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 06:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Verum1quaere

Great but off topic due to this thread being about the uk.
Oh and morality does not come from religion.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Agreed and in school kids are taught that there are still gaps to fill and encouraged to persue the subject in college and university to help tackle the problems.

Finally dug out the book, it's within 'The Primordial Density Perturbation Cosmology, Inflation and the Origin of Structure by David H. Lyth and Andrew R. Liddle' which is apparently available via downloadable pdf here: www.scarsbooks.org...

However given the book cost me £70ish I'd be wary of that website as it seems like copyright infringement in my opinion as there's an identical site here: file182.payerbooks.org...

Could be a phishing scam, I don't know I'm just guessing, but thought best to warn you before entering details into the 'download file' box.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
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.


I know this is your argument, I just don't agree with it, nor do I see the logic involved. I don't need to prove that they will teach science in science class now that creationism is not allowed. That's a given. That's like saying that I can't prove the sun will rise tomorrow. Perhaps I can't, but the chance of it not happening is so infinitesimal that it isn't worth mentioning. You don't need empirical proof to suggest something so obvious and I'm still wondering WHY you are even arguing against it or trying to diminish the effects of the law. If you agree that more science is good and that religion is not science and has no place in a science class, then it doesn't make sense to argue against the law or to claim that it won't do anything at all. Maybe YOU should be the one providing proof that anything other than science will be taught in science class in the place of creationism. Do you have any examples of this happening since the law was passed, or are you just assuming it because nobody in the thread has proven the converse?


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.


On average private school students generally do better on standardized tests and that's pretty much it. But like I said, it isn't always the case and looking at it through one overarching umbrella is a bit simplistic. There are many factors involved, as you said. There are several different kinds of private schools as well, they aren't all religious. Generally, students do better because they are schools for the rich essentially. The have higher paid, and hence better quality teachers because they have the money to do this. If a good teacher has a choice between a lower salary working in a poor inner city school or a higher salary in a private school , which one do you think they will choose?



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.


I was looking to gauge your reaction when I wrote that. Your response here says all I need to know. Yes, I've totally posted dogma and want folks to follow it blindly.

Is it illogical to think that a law against burglary will deter burglars? Or do you believe that will have no affect on anything as well, since burglars are in the minority? You need to realize that minority means nothing, it's an appeal to popularity to claim a law will have no affect simply because there aren't a large amount of people that do it. Even if just ONE person is deterred, then the law has a positive effect. Laws like this are made because the actions are detrimental. It doesn't matter if hardly anybody does it. It's still wrong, so the law still has a benefit.


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.


Ok, so this thread is about a law about science in education, not science in education. Gotcha.



Come on man, that's like saying that you can't mention burglary in a thread about a law against burglary. Don't be silly.

edit on 27-6-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
There is much evidence for Creation. Everything we know of physics indicates that the progression of physical forces always seeks the lowest energy state (Entropy). Yet the whole universe speaks of variety, not collapse into a single state of existence (the lowest energy state) as physics would direct. The origin of the universe runs diametrically contrary to physics at its core.


Entropy applies to the universe as a whole. It doesn't apply to every system equally at the same time, especially the many systems that repeatedly receive energy from stars. While those individual systems are actively gaining energy, one would expect them to have much more variety. But you have to realize, the stars run out of fuel. Entropy still applies in the longterm.

Your understanding of entropy and thermodynamics is wrong, but even if what you said was accurate, it isn't evidence for creation. You insert god into that gap.
edit on 27-6-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
There is much evidence for Creation. Everything we know of physics indicates that the progression of physical forces always seeks the lowest energy state (Entropy). Yet the whole universe speaks of variety, not collapse into a single state of existence (the lowest energy state) as physics would direct. The origin of the universe runs diametrically contrary to physics at its core.


Entropy applies to the universe as a whole. It doesn't apply to every system equally at the same time, especially the many systems that repeatedly receive energy from stars. While those individual systems are actively gaining energy, one would expect them to have much more variety. But you have to realize, the stars run out of fuel. Entropy still applies in the longterm.

Your understanding of entropy and thermodynamics is wrong, but even if what you said was accurate, it isn't evidence for creation. You insert god into that gap.


Prior to inflation, the universe was a singularity. How could there be "parts" of it to act differently?

What was the entropy like during inflation and prior? We went from high energy and highly localized to a lower energy and vastly diffused.

My point was that physics cannot be invoked to describe the beginning of the universe. Several things run contrary to what we know of physics, even way after the Planck time. Perhaps there were a different set of physical laws during the Big Bang and inflation? Who knows?


edit on 27/6/2015 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Creationism is spawned from religious text. Evolution and the Theory of Evolution is spawned from the scientific method. End of Story. How is there a debate about this?.... Law SHOULD prevent religion from interfering in public education.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: blueman12
Creationism is spawned from religious text. Evolution and the Theory of Evolution is spawned from the scientific method. End of Story. How is there a debate about this?.... Law SHOULD prevent religion from interfering in public education.


Creationism and evolution are not opposite and competing theories.

They are both describing totally different things.

Creationism and evolution could both be true, or false.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Continued from my response to Barcs...

And, how does a singularity inflate? Do we have any examples of singularities that defy their own gravitational attraction and begin spewing contents into space? Is there something in the maths that can describe it?

Simply put, the Big Bang origin of the universe is just as 'mythical' as any other theory. The fact that they use all those 'sciency' words is like the fake marketing crap on beauty product packaging... and so many people have bought it.

So in the UK they are banning the teaching of what they claim is a myth, while promoting what is obviously another myth.


edit on 27/6/2015 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut


Creationism and evolution are not opposite and competing theories.


No thy aren't. Of the two, only evolution actually meets the criteria for a theory. Creationism has as much supporting data as Thor's hammer Mjolner.


They are both describing totally different things.


That all depends on who you're asking. Anyone who has studied the science would or should agree with that sentiment. The more evangelical the bent of a proponent of Creationism, the more likely you are to find that they believe creationism accounts for a whole host of scientific theories and disciplines


Creationism and evolution could both be true, or false.



Not likely. There is plenty of evidence in favor of ecution. Enough so that
You will be hard pressed to find anyone working in the biological or earth sciences that doesn't think it is an undeniable fact supported by evidence. Creation... Not any actual evidence beyond
Competing theological texts of many varying faiths.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein
a reply to: Prezbo369

Yeah follow suit....

High quality? haha....Yeah high quality teaching kids the THEORY of evolution is more "scientific" than creationism....If you are basing it on "science", then don't teach anything about any form of how we all came to be, because there is none!

Science holds no weight to where or how we came to be.....I feel bad for the kids that really want the truth and are now going to be forced into hearing a "theory" that isn't real.....God is real, but if the school system doesn't want kids to learn about God, then they should abandon it all and let them form their own opinion on how we came to be instead of being force-fed a joke theory that is wrong...

Blast away! I believe in God....


Math, for example, is full of, umm, these theories. Ever heard of Number Theory? One of the most fundamental things in NT is that the set of integers is closed under addition. Among other things, it means that 2 + 2 = 4 and not 5. Do you agree with that? After all, it's "just a theory".



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 09:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Peter vlar

originally posted by: chr0naut


Creationism and evolution are not opposite and competing theories.


No thy aren't. Of the two, only evolution actually meets the criteria for a theory. Creationism has as much supporting data as Thor's hammer Mjolner.


They are both describing totally different things.


That all depends on who you're asking. Anyone who has studied the science would or should agree with that sentiment. The more evangelical the bent of a proponent of Creationism, the more likely you are to find that they believe creationism accounts for a whole host of scientific theories and disciplines


Creationism and evolution could both be true, or false.



Not likely. There is plenty of evidence in favor of evoution. Enough so that
You will be hard pressed to find anyone working in the biological or earth sciences that doesn't think it is an undeniable fact supported by evidence. Creation... Not any actual evidence beyond
Competing theological texts of many varying faiths.


Here is the dictionary definition of a theory:

"a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained".

Creationism is a theory, just not a scientific one.

Let me be a bit more specific about Creationism and Evolution not being opposites:

Evolution explains biodiversity. The origin of species, not the origin of life itself.

Creationism describes the origin of life, but does not describe how it diversifies.


edit on 27/6/2015 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 10:09 PM
link   
But what does "creationism" actually describe? That "something" created us? By what means? What scientific significance can we gain from this? Should we teach evolution in science class, but then at the end say "or we were created by "something""? Should we teach one specific religious creation story? Should that said religious story taught in science class be based on an areas demographics? "Creationism" is so scientifically vague - *Most* creationist beliefs are based upon varying religious identification, while those who ascribe to evolution usually do so based upon data/evidence/etc.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 12:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Syyth007
But what does "creationism" actually describe? That "something" created us? By what means? What scientific significance can we gain from this? Should we teach evolution in science class, but then at the end say "or we were created by "something""? Should we teach one specific religious creation story? Should that said religious story taught in science class be based on an areas demographics? "Creationism" is so scientifically vague - *Most* creationist beliefs are based upon varying religious identification, while those who ascribe to evolution usually do so based upon data/evidence/etc.


What exactly could one teach about Creatiion?

The whole Bible account of Creation is only about 33 verses out of a total of 31,102 verses in the whole book. It is a trivial, peripheral topic and obviously meant as part of a moral tale rather than a step by step, technical account. Some people (on both sides of the argument) don't see it that way, I suspect, because they have not actually studied the Bible much.

About all that you could really say in a science class is that "Some people think that God created everything and many believe that this explains biodiversity rather than evolution". That's all. What else could you say about the topic? Any other stuff would not actually be Biblical.

That's what they have legislated against and will cut funding if a teacher mentions in a science class! Think about it.

It is bad legislation that can be invoked as a punishment and control mechanism over teaching staff. The legislation denies the right of free speech.

Functionally, it is a harsh penalty for something arbitrary.


edit on 28/6/2015 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 06:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: Logarock
All this amounts to is an official government position bought and sold. Hope america doesn't follow suit.


So your claim is that scientific reality is a government conspiracy?
I would love to know why you think it's in the interests of our Conservative government to "brainwash" kids into understanding the current scientific reality of the history of the Human race and the Earth as we know it.




Cutting of funding is a means of squelching. Amounts to an official position. That is in public institutions.

As to your last question they really don't present a true history of the human race and Earth as we know it.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 06:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Peter vlar




The big problem with evolution, adaptation and diversion is that the proponents of same believe that every single useful skill of physical attribute that allows a creature to survive in its element was the result of morph. That nothing was created to be what it is....a fish, a bird ect but became one by recognizing need say to sprout wings ect. Rather comical really.




edit on 28-6-2015 by Logarock because: n



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 07:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

No, what's comical is you think that's how it is supposed to work. "Sprout" wings?

Even my kids have a better handle on it than you and one is 5....



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut



About all that you could really say in a science class is that "Some people think that God created everything and many believe that this explains biodiversity rather than evolution". That's all. What else could you say about the topic? Any other stuff would not actually be Biblical. 


There's nothing scientific about that whatsoever, so why would you include that in a science class?

Would you also include every single idea or thought anyone has ever had that would explain the biodiversity of life?
edit on 28-6-2015 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

The only comical thing I'm seeing is that in this day and age, that there are people who truly believe that your above depiction is how evolution works. Seriously, have you ever read a science based book discussing evolution or do you get all your information online from Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron and Ken Ham? Because no scientific publication in the last 200 years has stated anything even remote similar to what you're spouting.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: chr0naut



About all that you could really say in a science class is that "Some people think that God created everything and many believe that this explains biodiversity rather than evolution". That's all. What else could you say about the topic? Any other stuff would not actually be Biblical. 


There's nothing scientific about that whatsoever, so why would you include that in a science class?

Would you also include every single idea or thought anyone has ever had that would explain the biodiversity of life?


I would include it in a science class because the statement is true and relates to a philosophical question raised by evolution, which would be reasonably be expected to be taught in detail.

The wording used was "a broad and balanced curriculum". Limiting the teaching to a single worldview is opposite to that.

If I was a teacher, I would feel it my duty to present every possible option in a broad and balanced manner. For example, I would teach theories such as Lamarckism, Saltationism, Panspermia, Morphic Resonance, Cosmic Ancestry, Punctuated Equilibrium, Transformationism, Orthogenesis, Ancient Astronauts, Creationism and Darwinian Evolution alongside Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. For many of these theories and hypotheses, I would only mention them in passing to ensure the class understood the concepts and if necessary to call into question their validity.

THAT is a broad and balanced curriculum.


edit on 28/6/2015 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join