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

a reply to: chr0naut

Then let the Hindu, Muslim, Egyptian, Chinese, Celtic and norse accounts of creation all be given their own classes. They are all as likely and as arguably scientific as any Judaic account. They all deserve their day in the sun, don't you think?

originally posted by: stumason
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....

Oh I see bird started to grow little buds that got bigger of millions of years until birdy just took off one day. That if absolute hilarity. Grown men setting around dreaming this junk science up and then looking for the missing link to prove it all.

a reply to: Logarock

No more hilarious than begging a sky wizard to send rain for your crops.

originally posted by: Logarock
Oh I see bird started to grow little buds that got bigger of millions of years until birdy just took off one day. That if absolute hilarity. Grown men setting around dreaming this junk science up and then looking for the missing link to prove it all.

Nope, still wrong, so very very wrong... How can you possibly argue against evolution when you have such a piss poor understanding of it?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

Then let the Hindu, Muslim, Egyptian, Chinese, Celtic and norse accounts of creation all be given their own classes. They are all as likely and as arguably scientific as any Judaic account. They all deserve their day in the sun, don't you think?

Yes.

originally posted by: Peter vlar

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.

Unless, of course, they are a science teacher.

a reply to: chr0naut

Er, no. They're still entitled to their view, but they've entered into a contract to teach the Curriculum

a reply to: Prezbo369

Yet evolution requires more faith than creation. The Brits are nuts. Now, on the Big Bang...and keep in mind that we humans can only ever understand and learn about the physical.
This is how science says the universe was begun. Quantum fluctuation is something from nothing. This can only be done if you have quantum physics and the laws of relativity. None can argue against that. That means you can create something from nothing if you have the laws or forces of nature in existence which aren't physical but act on the physical.
So these 'forces'...
1. Are not physical, yet...
2. Act on the physical
3. Can make something from nothing
4. Predate the Universe (not bound by time)

The atheist would have to explain how forces of nature can create something without those forces of nature in existence.

If they believe that they have far more faith than any believer in God has.

originally posted by: SanitySearcher
a reply to: Prezbo369

Yet evolution requires more faith than creation. The Brits are nuts. Now, on the Big Bang...and keep in mind that we humans can only ever understand and learn about the physical.
This is how science says the universe was begun. Quantum fluctuation is something from nothing. This can only be done if you have quantum physics and the laws of relativity. None can argue against that. That means you can create something from nothing if you have the laws or forces of nature in existence which aren't physical but act on the physical.
So these 'forces'...
1. Are not physical, yet...
2. Act on the physical
3. Can make something from nothing
4. Predate the Universe (not bound by time)

The atheist would have to explain how forces of nature can create something without those forces of nature in existence.

If they believe that they have far more faith than any believer in God has.

This thread is about state funding for shools and teaching creationism as fact.

It is not about your personal opinions as to the mental health of an entire nation or your opinion on how the universe was created.

Here are 2 pages from the BBc's companion guide to gcse examinations in the UK, it gives an explanation of how children are tought about the different theories.

Evolution

Biblical view

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ISawItFirst

No scientific theory is 100% proven. Even gravity. Why aren't you demanding unreasonable tests for things like Cell Theory or the Theory of Gravity? After all, they are all "just theories" too.

Ya because those theories are so similar in scope.

They are EXACTLY similar in scope. They go through literally the same testing process as the Theory of Evolution. Heck there may even be LESS evidence for those theories I just named (along with others).

The fact is, the areas proper research could go into, in this field if left to ACTUALLY unfettered be looked for, renders everything people knew about useless within short periods of time.

This means, that the entire process of searching for how things came to be , is FLAWED.

Every process is flawed buddy. You are describing nothing new here. Religion is certainly a flawed way of searching for how things came to be as well. It's just more flawed. The point is to work with the process that is the least flawed, which is the scientific method.

The scientific books are rewritten even faster than the Bible and everyone chimes in that it is just normal and understandable progression.

That's the POINT. As our information becomes more complete, we update it. We admit that we weren't exactly right at first and update our thinking with new knowledge. As opposed to religion which just says it is right, all contrary evidence be damned.

However, this does not change the fact, that without doubt, a 100 years from now, or far less, things will be presented that will make what you guys believe to be fact NOW, and "ON THE RIGHT TRACK" seem more ridiculous than every fairy tale and myth presented so far, COMBINED.

Well if that is the case, then so be it. I guarantee though that many of the concepts that we study today won't be completely forgotten or overwritten though. We still use Newton's laws of motion and he wrote them 300 or so years ago.

Face it, Face the facts, that you actually have ZERO evidence for how things came to be, and face that the reason WHY, is because it is NOT being LOOKED FOR, and PURPOSEFULLY SO, STEERED AWAY.

That's not a fact. It's just a dumb and unsupported assertion. We have evidence. It isn't 0%. It isn't a LOT of evidence either. There is still MUCH evidence about the universe to uncover, but just because the percentage of evidence that we can uncover is abysmally small doesn't mean we have "ZERO evidence". That just shows that you don't know what you are talking about.

And tell us again , how it doesn't matter that blanks are left in the theories, ya, lets just leave the computer code to figure it all out for itself, we will be fine with everlasting STUPIDITY.

Because we can't get the whole picture with the tools and knowledge we currently have. The POINT is to define the overarching ideas then refine them with new information and evidence. The mere fact that you categorize this as a process flaw just shows how naive you are.

BOLLOCKS on your SCIENCE, it has less energy than a grain of sand hidden under the ocean.

*eye roll* Well I guess you should stop using that computer, or your television, or your phone, or going to the doctor, or doing literally ANYTHING in the modern world. It was ALL developed and created using science. I mean, with the statement you just made, you must believe all that is done with magic or something.

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: stumason
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....

Oh I see bird started to grow little buds that got bigger of millions of years until birdy just took off one day. That if absolute hilarity. Grown men setting around dreaming this junk science up and then looking for the missing link to prove it all.

Please at least look at the subject before making stuff up, it saves other people time and yourself embarrassment.

The fossil record shows loads of flying dinosaurs and dinosaurs with feathers, the arm bones and skin show a gradual growing and because this gave a natural advantage of being able to flee from predators or catch prey, it became more and more refined until we have the birds of today. Protein sequencing has shown that chickens are the closest living record to t rex.

Your interpretation of evolutionary science has absolutely no basis in reality.

a reply to: chr0naut

How could kids learn science if science lessons were dedicated to teaching about every single religion in recorded history instead of science? That stuff is taught in RE and History, there's no need to waste valuable time in science class scrutinising each and every one in precise detail.

RE, GSE and History class are for teaching that
Science class is for teaching Physics, Chemistry and Biology

originally posted by: chr0naut
Prior to inflation, the universe was a singularity. How could there be "parts" of it to act differently?

The universe is no longer a singularity so your point is moot.

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?

Yep, we don't know. That doesn't mean god did it or creationism is right or that it applies to science. It doesn't because it's based on assumption.

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?

We don't know exactly. Is it really hard to grasp the fact that science not knowing everything is not evidence for creation.

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.

Stop it. You have bought into creation and you have the nerve to criticize folks for agreeing with tested science. Maybe you have never heard of red shift or background radiation that we can measure.

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

Science can be tested. The radiation left over from the big bang can be MEASURED. Reshift and the movement of the stars and galaxies can be calculated and measured. Creation can not be measured. God can not be measured. Stop thinking that big bang theory is automatically against god. It's not, it's just the only thing we really have evidence for at the moment. God could have caused the big bang, we don't know. Stop fighting science. Religion doesn't belong in science class. Science like BB theory DOES.

originally posted by: Logarock
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.

The comical part is that what you are saying has absolutely nothing to do with how evolution works. Maybe one day somebody will actually research evolution before attacking it, but I'm not getting my hopes up at this point.

Oh I see bird started to grow little buds that got bigger of millions of years until birdy just took off one day. That if absolute hilarity. Grown men setting around dreaming this junk science up and then looking for the missing link to prove it all.

This is a typical statement from somebody who can't be arsed to even read the basics about the scientific theory they are blindly attacking.

originally posted by: SanitySearcher

The atheist would have to explain how forces of nature can create something without those forces of nature in existence.

Why would the milkman have to explain how forces of nature can create something without those forces of nature in existence? Or the dentist?. Or maybe a dinner lady? A policeman?

Why wouldn't you want to ask a cosmologist?

originally posted by: MarsIsRed

originally posted by: SanitySearcher

The atheist would have to explain how forces of nature can create something without those forces of nature in existence.

Why would the milkman have to explain how forces of nature can create something without those forces of nature in existence? Or the dentist?. Or maybe a dinner lady? A policeman?

Why wouldn't you want to ask a cosmologist?

Because the cosmologist would give answers they don't desire to hear.

Back on topic. I'm totally shocked that this wasn't done years ago. I genuinely thought that that nonsense had been eradicated back in the 80's or so. Personally, I've never heard of any school actually teaching creationism as a fact - only discussed in RE in a comparative way with other creation myths.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

Because the cosmologist would give answers they don't desire to hear.

That was sort of my point - when presented with facts, the best 'defence' is to attack based on someone not sharing your religious views. It's laughable, in a sad kinda way.

a reply to: chr0naut

come on... you're reaching here just a little don't you think? Why would a science teacher give a lecture on religious creationism when there isn't any science to support it? Even when I went to Catholic school, they knew enough to separate the two. Biological evolution was covered in science and creation stories were covered in our religion course. If you want your children to be taught about your religion by a stranger, that's your prerogative but there are parochial schools that cover that just fine for those folks that prefer that type of education. In a tax payer funded public school it just doesn't have a place. Science classes are based on facts, not opinions. Your previous rant just doesn't hold any water in my ever humble opinion. You can't rail against something and claim it denies people the right to their opinion when it simply isn't the case while advocating that opinions be shared in a science class. The differences between hypothesis and theories aren't bound by opinion. They are presented based on what facts support them. This is a far cry from adding religious existentialism into the mix.

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: stumason
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....

Oh I see bird started to grow little buds that got bigger of millions of years until birdy just took off one day. That if absolute hilarity. Grown men setting around dreaming this junk science up and then looking for the missing link to prove it all.

Please at least look at the subject before making stuff up, it saves other people time and yourself embarrassment.

The fossil record shows loads of flying dinosaurs and dinosaurs with feathers, the arm bones and skin show a gradual growing and because this gave a natural advantage of being able to flee from predators or catch prey, it became more and more refined until we have the birds of today. Protein sequencing has shown that chickens are the closest living record to t rex.

Your interpretation of evolutionary science has absolutely no basis in reality.

a reply to: chr0naut

How could kids learn science if science lessons were dedicated to teaching about every single religion in recorded history instead of science? That stuff is taught in RE and History, there's no need to waste valuable time in science class scrutinising each and every one in precise detail.

RE, GSE and History class are for teaching that
Science class is for teaching Physics, Chemistry and Biology

Not suggesting talking about religions. I am suggesting talking about ideas as to how the universe came about. Most theistic descriptions are very brief and you do not have to explain the religious 'fine detail', just the conceptual outline.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: chr0naut

come on... you're reaching here just a little don't you think? Why would a science teacher give a lecture on religious creationism when there isn't any science to support it? Even when I went to Catholic school, they knew enough to separate the two. Biological evolution was covered in science and creation stories were covered in our religion course. If you want your children to be taught about your religion by a stranger, that's your prerogative but there are parochial schools that cover that just fine for those folks that prefer that type of education. In a tax payer funded public school it just doesn't have a place. Science classes are based on facts, not opinions. Your previous rant just doesn't hold any water in my ever humble opinion. You can't rail against something and claim it denies people the right to their opinion when it simply isn't the case while advocating that opinions be shared in a science class. The differences between hypothesis and theories aren't bound by opinion. They are presented based on what facts support them. This is a far cry from adding religious existentialism into the mix.

Look, consider this scenario:

A secular teacher, mentions Creation in a science lesson (perhaps in response to a religious student's question) and this is reported to "higher-ups" (Department for Education staff).

The higher-ups choose to prosecute fully under the terms of this legislation and cut (not reduce) the science budget to this school.

The school has 18 teachers and 336 students (UK National averages from 2012 statistics), all are affected by the budget cut.

Educational standards in the school are reduced as teaching resources can no longer be afforded. The grading of the students is therefore negatively affected and the overall rating of the school is reduced in Department for Education listings.

The effect of this legislation is a mechanism for the Education Department to manipulate its statistics and funding of schools. It has nothing to do with religious indoctrination. If it did, the legislation would apply only to the person who infracted it. The 'punishment' is far broader than the 'crime'.

If you are a UK parent, with a child going to a public school, this legislation can negatively affect your child's education arbitrarily (your child need not be in any way associated with the teacher or the particular science class).

Do you get it?