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: 30
42
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.



"Most theistic descriptions are very brief"

Erm yeah - there's a reason for that - they were made up centuries ago by people that didn't have a clue!

You seem to be parodying Monte Python's parody of religion!



Goodness help us all!




posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

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 under the terms of this law 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 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 broader than the infraction.

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?



No this is not correct, This is not how it works at all.

A schools budget would not be cut because of a teachers approach that would be foolish. The teacher may be advised as to how to continue and if they chose to ignore this possibly fired.

This is about the school having a curriculum that teaches creationist views as fact as opposed to religious belief.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: chr0naut

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 under the terms of this law 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 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 broader than the infraction.

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?



No this is not correct, This is not how it works at all.

A schools budget would not be cut because of a teachers approach that would be foolish. The teacher may be advised as to how to continue and if they chose to ignore this possibly fired.

This is about the school having a curriculum that teaches creationist views as fact as opposed to religious belief.


From original post:

"The decision effectively means that no school in the United Kingdom can teach creationism or any other “anti-scientific” dogma without losing the entirety of its funding, as they would be violating “the requirement on every academy and free school to provide a broad and balanced curriculum”.


edit on 29/6/2015 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: chr0naut

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 under the terms of this law 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 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 broader than the infraction.

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?



No this is not correct, This is not how it works at all.

A schools budget would not be cut because of a teachers approach that would be foolish. The teacher may be advised as to how to continue and if they chose to ignore this possibly fired.

This is about the school having a curriculum that teaches creationist views as fact as opposed to religious belief.


From original post:

"The decision effectively means that no school in the United Kingdom can teach creationism or any other “anti-scientific” dogma without losing the entirety of its funding, as they would be violating “the requirement on every academy and free school to provide a broad and balanced curriculum”.



And as such no school that recieves public funding would offer a curriculum that endorsed it.

Without public funding there would be no school unless it had independant funding.

With independant funding it would not need the state funding, the school would continue and you would have the choice to send your child to that school if you so wished.

It really is that simple here.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: MarsIsRed

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.



"Most theistic descriptions are very brief"

Erm yeah - there's a reason for that - they were made up centuries ago by people that didn't have a clue!

You seem to be parodying Monte Python's parody of religion!



Goodness help us all!


What I am trying to get across has nothing to do with religious indoctrination.

There is a whole world out there outside your dot of consciousness.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

The point of schooling is to teach facts. The three R's - reading, riting and rithmetic rely on facts, not on some particular group's idea of facts. Science is the same - observations are observations, opinions are two a penny.




edit on 29-6-2015 by MarsIsRed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: chr0naut

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 under the terms of this law 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 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 broader than the infraction.

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?



No this is not correct, This is not how it works at all.

A schools budget would not be cut because of a teachers approach that would be foolish. The teacher may be advised as to how to continue and if they chose to ignore this possibly fired.

This is about the school having a curriculum that teaches creationist views as fact as opposed to religious belief.


From original post:

"The decision effectively means that no school in the United Kingdom can teach creationism or any other “anti-scientific” dogma without losing the entirety of its funding, as they would be violating “the requirement on every academy and free school to provide a broad and balanced curriculum”.



And as such no school that recieves public funding would offer a curriculum that endorsed it.

Without public funding there would be no school unless it had independant funding.

With independant funding it would not need the state funding, the school would continue and you would have the choice to send your child to that school if you so wished.

It really is that simple here.


Here is an excerpt from the legislation itself, which applies to all subjects except RE (not just science classes). It does not mention curriculum once but speaks of "teaching". It affects entire schools, not individuals:



23E) The parties acknowledge that clauses 2.43 and 2.44 of the Funding Agreement [which preclude the teaching of pseudoscience and require the teaching of evolution] apply to all academies. They explicitly require that pupils are taught about the theory of evolution, and prevent academy trusts from teaching ‘creationism’ as scientific fact.

23F) ‘Creationism’, for the purposes of clauses 2.43 and 2.44 of the Funding Agreement and clause 23E above, is any doctrine or theory which holds that natural biological processes cannot account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth and therefore rejects the scientific theory of evolution. The parties acknowledge that Creationism, in this sense, is rejected by most mainstream Churches and religious traditions, including the major providers of state funded schools such as the [Anglican] [Catholic] Churches, as well as the scientific community. It does not accord with the scientific consensus or the very large body of established scientific evidence; nor does it accurately and consistently employ the scientific method, and as such it should not be presented to pupils at the Academy as a scientific theory.

23G) The parties recognise that the teaching of creationism is not part of prevailing practice in the English education system, but acknowledge that it is however important that all schools are clear about what is expected in terms of the curriculum which they need to provide. The parties further recognise that the requirement on every academy and free school to provide a broad and balanced curriculum, in any case prevents the teaching of creationism as evidence based theory in any academy or free school.

23H) The Secretary of State acknowledges that clauses 2.43 and 2.44 of the Funding Agreement, and clauses 23E and 23G above do not prevent discussion of beliefs about the origins of the Earth and living things, such as creationism, in Religious Education, as long as it is not presented as a valid alternative to established scientific theory.



No amount of denial will change the implications of this legislation.


edit on 29/6/2015 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 03:44 PM
link   
"There is a whole world out there outside your dot of consciousness"

So I should allow my child to indoctrinated by your personal world views? If not I'm being unfair? Is that it? How about I teach your children that people the believe in the gods (mummy and daddy) shouldn't be trusted? Would that make it fairer to you? The rancid self importance is strong in you! For goodness sake think man, before you post!



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: MarsIsRed
"There is a whole world out there outside your dot of consciousness"

So I should allow my child to indoctrinated by your personal world views? If not I'm being unfair? Is that it? How about I teach your children that people the believe in the gods (mummy and daddy) shouldn't be trusted? Would that make it fairer to you? The rancid self importance is strong in you! For goodness sake think man, before you post!


Nope.

Your anti-religious stance has blinded you to the nature of the legislation.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
No amount of denial will change the implications of this legislation.



And what would those implications be? That we don't have a generation of kids who genuinely think some Sky Fairy magically brought the world into being 6,000 years ago?

I can live with that...

It might come as a shock, but the UK is not overly religious and this kind of legislation is widely welcomed, even by the Church of England. My daughter and son both go to a C of E Primary School and they have no issue teaching evolution or other scientific concepts.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: chr0naut

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 under the terms of this law 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 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 broader than the infraction.

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?



No this is not correct, This is not how it works at all.

A schools budget would not be cut because of a teachers approach that would be foolish. The teacher may be advised as to how to continue and if they chose to ignore this possibly fired.

This is about the school having a curriculum that teaches creationist views as fact as opposed to religious belief.


From original post:

"The decision effectively means that no school in the United Kingdom can teach creationism or any other “anti-scientific” dogma without losing the entirety of its funding, as they would be violating “the requirement on every academy and free school to provide a broad and balanced curriculum”.



And as such no school that recieves public funding would offer a curriculum that endorsed it.

Without public funding there would be no school unless it had independant funding.

With independant funding it would not need the state funding, the school would continue and you would have the choice to send your child to that school if you so wished.

It really is that simple here.


Here is an excerpt from the legislation itself, which applies to all subjects except RE (not just science classes). It does not mention curriculum once but speaks of "teaching". It affects entire schools, not individuals:



23E) The parties acknowledge that clauses 2.43 and 2.44 of the Funding Agreement [which preclude the teaching of pseudoscience and require the teaching of evolution] apply to all academies. They explicitly require that pupils are taught about the theory of evolution, and prevent academy trusts from teaching ‘creationism’ as scientific fact.

23F) ‘Creationism’, for the purposes of clauses 2.43 and 2.44 of the Funding Agreement and clause 23E above, is any doctrine or theory which holds that natural biological processes cannot account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth and therefore rejects the scientific theory of evolution. The parties acknowledge that Creationism, in this sense, is rejected by most mainstream Churches and religious traditions, including the major providers of state funded schools such as the [Anglican] [Catholic] Churches, as well as the scientific community. It does not accord with the scientific consensus or the very large body of established scientific evidence; nor does it accurately and consistently employ the scientific method, and as such it should not be presented to pupils at the Academy as a scientific theory.

23G) The parties recognise that the teaching of creationism is not part of prevailing practice in the English education system, but acknowledge that it is however important that all schools are clear about what is expected in terms of the curriculum which they need to provide. The parties further recognise that the requirement on every academy and free school to provide a broad and balanced curriculum, in any case prevents the teaching of creationism as evidence based theory in any academy or free school.

23H) The Secretary of State acknowledges that clauses 2.43 and 2.44 of the Funding Agreement, and clauses 23E and 23G above do not prevent discussion of beliefs about the origins of the Earth and living things, such as creationism, in Religious Education, as long as it is not presented as a valid alternative to established scientific theory.



No amount of denial will change the implications of this legislation.



I really cannot be bothered with this.

As a UK citizen who has a child in the schooling sysysem I am glad of this. I do not know a single parent in the UK including Christian ones that have an issue with this.

I only know about this because of this thread, the UK is not up in arms and that is the way that it is.

I am sorry if the decisions made by an entire nation and it's agreememnet with it goes against your personal view on life but see no need to continue what is a fruitless argument for all parties concerned.

I wish you well.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 03:57 PM
link   
In what way? I'm totally in favour of balance, except when it's blatantly pro god school. The Bush/Blair (henceforth known as Blushism) way to teach divine insight into their 'policies'.

The legislation Is clear - "don't teach creationism" - It not founded in fact. Forget about personal opinion - it's irrelevant.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: stumason

Human rights are precious.

We have honed them over such a long time.

Shame to throw them away.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: stumason

Human rights are precious.

We have honed them over such a long time.

Shame to throw them away.



Are you saying lying to children is a fundamental human right? Wacky!!!!



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

you want this so badly to be a grave injustice, but the fact is, the people of the UK CHOSE this. good luck swinging their vote, im sure they have already had plenty of time to consider. then again, maybe all they did was turn on CNN.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:10 PM
link   
he's gone to take a cold bath, methinks!



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

The "option" to teach a lie is *not* a human right. It's a travesty. Like telling millions of people in Africa that condoms and birth control are sinful.

No, the modern day poisons, like religion, should be slowly faded out.

And to Stumason's point, in the UK, the religious are the minority these days and ever dwindling in favour of logic and common sense. So thankfully our kids will grow up with logic and rational thought, not ignorance, fear and segregation.

Well, at least when it comes to science that is...
edit on 29-6-2015 by noonebutme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: stumason

Human rights are precious.

We have honed them over such a long time.

Shame to throw them away.



What has this got to do with Human rights and how are we throwing them away?



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: stumason

Human rights are precious.

We have honed them over such a long time.

Shame to throw them away.



As what will hopefully be my last post in this thread I may remind you of the ATS "star" system.

This is an indicator of other members thoughts on how they feel on your post.

It is by no means the be all and end all but the lack of stars you have gained in this thread and the amount given to those that object to your opinions should be considered.

The combination of this and the overall number of those choosing to disagree with you may me something to consider on this particular subject.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 05:03 PM
link   
What sort of evidentiary requirement is placed upon enactment of this legislation?

Can it be enacted based purely upon an accusation?



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join