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

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: chr0naut
Please, if you are a UK resident,who has browsed this thread but have not participated yet and can see why I may be concerned, quote this post using the link above.

Thank you.

Ooh I'm interested to see the UK replies, be funny as if the majority agree with the member from New Zealand, lol.

I wasn't looking for a majority.

Can I take it that your response means that you see my point (even if you don't agree with it)?

No, I regret to inform you that I think pretty much most of your posts are ridiculous and amusing.

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: chr0naut
Please, if you are a UK resident,who has browsed this thread but have not participated yet and can see why I may be concerned, quote this post using the link above.

Thank you.

Ooh I'm interested to see the UK replies, be funny as if the majority agree with the member from New Zealand, lol.

I wasn't looking for a majority.

Can I take it that your response means that you see my point (even if you don't agree with it)?

No, I regret to inform you that I think pretty much most of your posts are ridiculous and amusing.

How is he fairing in the other thread you invided him to participate in?

a reply to: nonspecific

Ah, good good, he/she has the last word at the moment.
I'm happy to leave it as that for a while, let other people see the debate, then I'll contribute again on-topic and we can exchange views.
ATS is good for that, the 'opponent' is free to raise stuff in the meantime...any attempt to not look like a dick is understandable.

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein
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!

It;s incredible that after so many discussions you still have no idea what THEORY in science means.

In the case you do know, then your post is nothing but simple troll.

a reply to: SuperFrog

It's like he reboots or something between threads.

a reply to: SuperFrog

Could be worse, it could be borntowatch. He's one of the few Creationists I've gotten to the point that it just isn't worth talking to anymore. I have more success talking to a wall than him.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

If I believed in God Is give that comment an 'Amen'

originally posted by: chr0naut
What sort of evidentiary requirement is placed upon enactment of this legislation?

Can it be enacted based purely upon an accusation?

No, it'll follow the same process of referral, investigation and inspection before any action is taken - same as other regulations.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Since Religious Education is a mandatory subject in the UK, how does this affect the level of indoctrination of a student in any way?

RE is about teaching the various religions in the world so the child can function in normal life and hopefully not turn into a Dawkins. At no point are children told the religion has any validity, they're fee to make up their own minds (for example several children a friend teaches have converted to Buddhism despite attending a strict catholic school and the teacher being atheist - as they found it the one that appealed to them - by age 12 few children from religious schools actually believe in the schools religion or attend the place of worship.

Evangelicalism snd unltra-conservative religious views are very rare in the UK apart from a few nutters, same as you get in any group on any idea.

a reply to: bastion

Would I be right in assuming that the body/bodies that refer, investigate and inspect are the same ones prosecuting (i.e. staff of the Department for Education)?

Granted, the RE curricula appear fair and broadly based, but so are the existing science ones.

As you have noted, extremist views are rare in the UK and members of the government are never corrupt or self-seeking.

a reply to: chr0naut

Oh ffs give it a rest with your lame creationist trolling.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: chr0naut

Oh ffs give it a rest with your lame creationist trolling.

The post made no mention of anything Creationist, was in answer to someone else's post on the topic of legislative oversight, on a public access board that specializes in conspiracy topics.

I also hold to the opinion that evolution is a viable descriptor of how we get biodiversity.

So, perhaps I am an Evolutiono-Creationist.

You could add that I may well be Nazi-Communist & Anarcho-Legalist too.

Silly name calling.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: chr0naut

Oh ffs give it a rest with your lame creationist trolling.

The post made no mention of anything Creationist, was in answer to someone else's post on the topic of legislative oversight, on a public access board that specializes in conspiracy topics.

I also hold to the opinion that evolution is a viable descriptor of how we get biodiversity.

So, perhaps I am an Evolutiono-Creationist.

You could add that I may well be Nazi-Communist & Anarcho-Legalist too.

Silly name calling.

Yoking up creationism with evolution just makes it more painfully obvious how different they are. Like an electric car with a diesel engine.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: chr0naut

Oh ffs give it a rest with your lame creationist trolling.

The post made no mention of anything Creationist, was in answer to someone else's post on the topic of legislative oversight, on a public access board that specializes in conspiracy topics.

I also hold to the opinion that evolution is a viable descriptor of how we get biodiversity.

So, perhaps I am an Evolutiono-Creationist.

You could add that I may well be Nazi-Communist & Anarcho-Legalist too.

Silly name calling.

Yoking up creationism with evolution just makes it more painfully obvious how different they are. Like an electric car with a diesel engine.

I agree, but many see the two paradigms in opposition (certainly, the people from the British Humanist Society who composed the press release linked to in the OP were of the opinion that evolution and creationism were in direct opposition).

Creationism is a philosophical cosmology. Evolution a process giving rise to biological diversity or a descriptor of how forces can drive iterative development.

Personally, I believe any overlap is miniscule and mostly irrelevant.

Neither expose all that there is to know on their respective subjects (my opinion, so you may take it or leave it).

a reply to: chr0naut

opinions are not illegal. as long as they stay out of curriculum and legislation.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

opinions are not illegal. as long as they stay out of curriculum and legislation.

Yes, as I am not teaching anyone, I may 'wax lyrical' in my posts.

The fact that you had to put a caveat upon the situation (your final sentence) would mean that, in the UK, certain opinions are now illegal in certain situations.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

opinions are not illegal. as long as they stay out of curriculum and legislation.

Yes, as I am not teaching anyone, I may 'wax lyrical' in my posts.

The fact that you had to put a caveat upon the situation (your final sentence) would mean that, in the UK, certain opinions are now illegal in certain situations.

if you are determined to be dissatisfied, i cant change that. no one can but you. and i get the feeling you are the "drag your heels" kind of person; being dead weight is more satisfying than surrender.

deuces.

Is there a single piece of evidence that may support biblical creationism?

I think I have only ever seen creationism defended, by poorly attacking other well established scientific theories and methods of research.

If someone knows of any evidence to suggest creationism, please provide it.

Thank you in advance.

a reply to: chr0naut

Would you allow geography teachers to teach children that the Earth is flat?

Actually, given your arguments in this thread, you probably would.

Repeat after me, class: academic standards trump personal faith.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
Is there a single piece of evidence that may support biblical creationism?

I think I have only ever seen creationism defended, by poorly attacking other well established scientific theories and methods of research.

If someone knows of any evidence to suggest creationism, please provide it.

Thank you in advance.

The Big Bang and expanding universe (the Hubble constant indicative of optical Doppler shift) have been taken as evidences that the universe had a starting point and this has been suggested as the point of creation. Many opposing cosmologies (for instance the Steady State universe) have been successively (but not completely) discarded as the evidence for a beginning of the universe has increased. Many stages of Big Bang cosmology are still highly hypothetical as we have no way of fully describing or validating the processes (such as Inflation). We can see the result and we have hypothesized as to a mechanism, but no further.

Mathematical Emergence in spite of entropy in physical situations is an evidence for an organizing principle.

The Anthropic argument (that the universe seems to be made to allow for our existence).

The argument from Complexity (that the universe should seek towards a state of least energy, a single outcome, yet we see variety at every scale).

Rationally, if everything was created, how could contrary evidence exist?

They are just a few 'evidences' off the top of my head (and not particularly strong ones when taken individually) and I did not attack any other scientific theory in the process, no doubt there are many more. However, the Biblical Creation was a series of supernatural events. The Bible is not a science textbook. The teachings it has are important in ethics, philosophy and anthropology (which many would suggest is a science subject) as well as religion.

if the same logic that is applied to the bible (concocted around 500AD) thats 500 years after the alleged event are valid the same logic would say the harry potter stories are true. Its all story, no more and no less, just that some clever folk managed to indoctrinate millions to cement their views and enslave them. where does the bilble explain the galaxies, universe etc?