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

originally posted by: aorAki
a reply to: chr0naut


The old 'might is right' argument (weight of numbers) does not mean it is correct.

Teaching comparative religion outside of the science curriculum would be appropriate. teaching religion inside the science curriculum is not appropriate.

I agree on that (It was Prof. Morris that used it's inverse as his argument).

I also agree that comparative religion should not be taught in a science class (nor should English syntax be taught, but sometimes stuff happens and a good teacher embraces education outside their subject area all the time).

Great news!

BRAVO UK.

originally posted by: chr0naut


But they aren't new species, just a subset of the same species with different (and preexisting) traits.

You are confusing Mendellian genetics and population statistics with evolution.

Here's a direct definition from Wiki:

"Evolution is change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations."

Mendel's work doesn't contradict Evolution. It actually supports Evolution.

originally posted by: chr0naut
I also agree that comparative religion should not be taught in a science class.

Then what have you been arguing about in this thread then?!
All that happened last year is that teaching of creation/religious beliefs was banned in state funded science classes.
...exactly as you said, comparative religious beliefs banned from science lessons, sheesh, troll much?

a reply to: grainofsand

I love your avatar.
Did you take the image? If so, what did you use?
What is the scale of the main particle?

originally posted by: chr0naut


I also agree that comparative religion should not be taught in a science class (nor should English syntax be taught, but sometimes stuff happens and a good teacher embraces education outside their subject area all the time).

Yes, this should be a laudable trait amongst teachers. Irregardless, a 'good teacher' should also be able to recognise that religion is not science.

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.

Agreed. All that can still happen, and any decent teacher would mention a brief outline of the subjects - how else can children develop critical thnking skills?

What's banned is state funding for actively promoting them as equally valid as it isn't a balanced education. It's indoctrination.

For exaple:
'Amazingly, 12% of these undergrads were Young Earth Creationists. But the real stand-out statistic for me was that 19% of students said that they had been taught Young Earth Creationism "as fact" in school.

If 1 in 5 British students are taught in school that it's a fact that the entire universe is less than ten thousand years old and that God made all species as literally described in Genesis, that's a national educational disgrace.

19%! One in five students. We are not talking mostly Muslim schools either. The figure for those who were of other non-Christian religion was actually much lower.

As comparatively few schools (esp. non-Muslim schools) publicly admit to teaching children Young Earth Creationism "as fact", it would appear that much of this teaching is going on under the public radar.

Shouldn't checking up on this - and doing something about it - now be a priority for the Government and for OFSTED? For as I said elsewhere, teaching children that Young Earth Creationism is supported by the available empirical evidence involves teaching them to think in way that are, quite literally, close to lunacy.'
www.theguardian.com...

This law is more aimed at Steiner-Schools who give children gardem gnomes and tell them the gnomes speak will speak to them, give them all the answers and teach disabilities are punishment from a previous life and racist attacks and bullying are good for the childrens karma, rather than banning any mention of competing views/interpretations of data.

originally posted by: combinatorics

originally posted by: chr0naut


But they aren't new species, just a subset of the same species with different (and preexisting) traits.

You are confusing Mendellian genetics and population statistics with evolution.

Here's a direct definition from Wiki:

"Evolution is change in heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations."

Mendel's work doesn't contradict Evolution. It actually supports Evolution.

See that word "change", the trait of resistance already existed. It didn't change.

It was inherited in exactly the normal manner with which it would have been inherited if there had been no selection pressure.

You need to do a bit of population math, the population growth rates were the same - they bred at the same rate that they normally would have. Think about it, If there were no selection pressure, the percentage of those with resistance genes would have remained the same with respect to the whole population size.

There were no more of those with resistance genes that there would have been without the toxins, there were less of those who didn't have them, over time.

If you want to define evolution as anything you want it to be, then go ahead. It doesn't make your interpretation correct.

Evolution requires genetic change (like from mutation), natural selection and heritability. You cannot ignore one of these and still claim it is evolution. Like fire requires heat, oxygen and fuel, you can't take one away and still have fire.

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: chr0naut
I also agree that comparative religion should not be taught in a science class.

Then what have you been arguing about in this thread then?!
All that happened last year is that teaching of creation/religious beliefs was banned in state funded science classes.
...exactly as you said, comparative religious beliefs banned from science lessons, sheesh, troll much?

No, I was trying to argue about the rights implications of a law but the topic has been hijacked by those who cannot bear or conceive that there are any alternates to their belief.

The legislation prosecutes schools and teachers for mentioning Creationism as part of the science curriculum at all. It does not differentiate sufficiently to say that there should be more of 'scientific' subjects, it squashes ALL mention of the worldview and is contrary to free speech. It does not redress an imbalance, it creates and enforces one.

originally posted by: chr0naut


See that word "change", the trait of resistance already existed. It didn't change.

It was inherited in exactly the normal manner with which it would have been inherited if there had been no selection pressure.

You need to do a bit of population math, the population growth rates were the same - they bred at the same rate that they normally would have. Think about it, If there were no selection pressure, the percentage of those with resistance genes would have remained the same with respect to the whole population size.

There were no more of those with resistance genes that there would have been without the toxins, there were less of those who didn't have them, over time.

If you want to define evolution as anything you want it to be, then go ahead. It doesn't make your interpretation correct.

Evolution requires genetic change (like from mutation), natural selection and heritability. You cannot ignore one of these and still claim it is evolution. Like fire requires heat, oxygen and fuel, you can't take one away and still have fire.

I gave you the formal definition of Evolution that you ignore. That's fine. You're arguing that mutation is absolutely necessary to Evolution. For example, somatic mutation is not carried by successive generation and therefore useless to Evolution.

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.

Agreed. All that can still happen, and any decent teacher would mention a brief outline of the subjects - how else can children develop critical thnking skills?

What's banned is state funding for actively promoting them as equally valid as it isn't a balanced education. It's indoctrination.

For exaple:
'Amazingly, 12% of these undergrads were Young Earth Creationists. But the real stand-out statistic for me was that 19% of students said that they had been taught Young Earth Creationism "as fact" in school.

If 1 in 5 British students are taught in school that it's a fact that the entire universe is less than ten thousand years old and that God made all species as literally described in Genesis, that's a national educational disgrace.

19%! One in five students. We are not talking mostly Muslim schools either. The figure for those who were of other non-Christian religion was actually much lower.

As comparatively few schools (esp. non-Muslim schools) publicly admit to teaching children Young Earth Creationism "as fact", it would appear that much of this teaching is going on under the public radar.

Shouldn't checking up on this - and doing something about it - now be a priority for the Government and for OFSTED? For as I said elsewhere, teaching children that Young Earth Creationism is supported by the available empirical evidence involves teaching them to think in way that are, quite literally, close to lunacy.'
www.theguardian.com...

This law is more aimed at Steiner-Schools who give children gardem gnomes and tell them the gnomes speak will speak to them, give them all the answers and teach disabilities are punishment from a previous life and racist attacks and bullying are good for the childrens karma, rather than banning any mention of competing views/interpretations of data.

As I understand it, Steiner schools are humanist based and, while they may teach about religions, do not indoctrinate in any one.

The legislation may have been a knee-jerk reaction to some extreme minority schools but its rights implications are grave.

originally posted by: combinatorics

originally posted by: chr0naut


See that word "change", the trait of resistance already existed. It didn't change.

It was inherited in exactly the normal manner with which it would have been inherited if there had been no selection pressure.

You need to do a bit of population math, the population growth rates were the same - they bred at the same rate that they normally would have. Think about it, If there were no selection pressure, the percentage of those with resistance genes would have remained the same with respect to the whole population size.

There were no more of those with resistance genes that there would have been without the toxins, there were less of those who didn't have them, over time.

If you want to define evolution as anything you want it to be, then go ahead. It doesn't make your interpretation correct.

Evolution requires genetic change (like from mutation), natural selection and heritability. You cannot ignore one of these and still claim it is evolution. Like fire requires heat, oxygen and fuel, you can't take one away and still have fire.

I gave you the formal definition of Evolution that you ignore. That's fine. You're arguing that mutation is absolutely necessary to Evolution. For example, somatic mutation is not carried by successive generation and therefore useless to Evolution.

You need all the bits, otherwise the mechanism doesn't work.

I'd rather not continue this pointless circle-jerk of argument.

originally posted by: chr0naut


The legislation prosecutes schools and teachers for mentioning Creationism as part of the science curriculum at all.

Have you thought that that is because Creationism is not Science?

originally posted by: aorAki

originally posted by: chr0naut


The legislation prosecutes schools and teachers for mentioning Creationism as part of the science curriculum at all.

Have you thought that that is because Creationism is not Science?

Have they put any limitation upon the teaching of any other 'non-scientific' idea? Anything?

Bad legislation. Rights violation.

a reply to: chr0naut

I'm not sure, but surely it's a good start to remove unscientific principles from a science class?

originally posted by: aorAki
a reply to: chr0naut

I'm not sure, but surely it's a good start to remove unscientific principles from a science class?

The word "unscientific" is definitely unscientific (by definition). Should they prosecute for its use in a science class?

It is a law which prosecutes the mention of a concept. A rights issue.

Please read George Orwells' book "1984" to get your head around rights issues, freedom of expression and legislative control.

originally posted by: aorAki
a reply to: chr0naut

I'm not sure, but surely it's a good start to remove unscientific principles from a science class?

Absolutely. Nobody deserves to be taught delusional things as if they're a fact. If the majority in a given school wants to learn all about the talking snake, then there should be a separate course titled something to the effect of "Religions of the World".

originally posted by: combinatorics

originally posted by: aorAki
a reply to: chr0naut

I'm not sure, but surely it's a good start to remove unscientific principles from a science class?

Absolutely. Nobody deserves to be taught delusional things as if they're a fact. If the majority in a given school wants to learn all about the talking snake, then there should be a separate course titled something to the effect of "Religions of the World".

There are those who do argue that Creationism is science (the Creation Institute types), so your assumption is not universally accepted as truth.

Despite that, legislation has been put in place in the UK that prosecutes against freedom of speech.

Regardless of the content of that speech we have a right to freedom of expression under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The declaration does not classify the topics we can speak. To quote Article 19:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

How are all you just accepting this, rolling over and saying "stick it to me"?

a reply to: chr0naut

Not sure what relevance that has to what is taught in schools...

Of course, if you want to, you can believe in Sky Fairies who wave their wands and magically produce creatures from thin air.

But what is taught in State funded schools is up to the State. If you want to teach kids total rubbish and have them grow up stunted and poorly educated, you're quite welcome to start your own school, with your own money and do so.

originally posted by: chr0naut



There ontent of that speech we have a right to freedom of expression under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The declaration does not classify the topics we can speak. To quote Article 19:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

How are all you just accepting this, rolling over and saying "stick it to me"?

Did you actually read the portion of the UDHR that you posted above? Can you point to where it says anything about teaching opinions as facts in an educational setting funded by the public? No. It only says that people have the rights to hold whatever opinion and to express that opinion freely. It doesn't mean you get to force it upon students under the guise of fact in a primary school setting. You're making mountains out of mole hills by claiming this law is in violation of the UDHR.It quite simy is not. Religion has no place in a non parochial environment. It is and should remain a deeply personal matter to be shared with those in your family and other parishioners who share your specific faith. It should in no way be a part of an indoctrination system under the guise of a well rounded education. Nobody is losing the right to hold an opinion or to express their opinion. They sure as hell aren't losing the right to free speech. They're losing the right to indoctrinate the unwilling and naive.