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

originally posted by: chr0nautthis has been suggested as the point of creation

By creationists.

See the egregious lapse in logic here?

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: chr0nautthis has been suggested as the point of creation

By creationists.

See the egregious lapse in logic here?

Yes and others too. Astrophysicist George Smoot and Astronomer Geoffery Burbridge both made comments that show they understood the religious implications of the Big Bang, despite the fact that they were not Christians.

a reply to: chr0naut

It really comes down to this essentially, imo. Why should we assume a guided creation from a deity (and I stress, a deity. Any deity, not just a Christian one) had anything to do with existence? There needs to be some reason to add a divine creator into the equation. However, there is no reason make assumptions of that caliber. There is more evidence against any specific creator God and creation mythologies.

I agree with you that the Bible is not a scientific text. I also know that not everybody is a Bible literalist. But many are. I don't know if the numbers are growing or shrinking in regards to those that accept your standard young earth creationists rhetoric. Either way, in a way, in my opinion it comes down to, what evidence is there for *insert any god here* ever existing in the first place.

It doesn't matter if this or that portion of their texts are meant to be literal, or allegorical, whatever. I already know Genesis can't be taken as literal. So I step back and look at the larger picture. There is no need to fill in the gaps of scientific understanding with god, is the bottom line.

Faith, is what brings various gods into the equation of various people. Faith that their beliefs reflect a true and accurate understanding of the world. This diehard faith is why they want crap taught in schools as fact, or as an equal to established scientific theories and facts (the fact that those scientific understandings may be wrong is irrelevant because science will research and update accordingly) is what people are fighting against.

Nobody is saying religion can't be taught in school. There is no ban on comparative religious courses etc. But it's studied as religion, and myth, for a reason. It's because that's exactly what it is. Christianity has as much evidence behind it to support it as the truth, as *insert a religion here*.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: chr0naut

It really comes down to this essentially, imo. Why should we assume a guided creation from a deity (and I stress, a deity. Any deity, not just a Christian one) had anything to do with existence? There needs to be some reason to add a divine creator into the equation. However, there is no reason make assumptions of that caliber. There is more evidence against any specific creator God and creation mythologies.

I agree with you that the Bible is not a scientific text. I also know that not everybody is a Bible literalist. But many are. I don't know if the numbers are growing or shrinking in regards to those that accept your standard young earth creationists rhetoric. Either way, in a way, in my opinion it comes down to, what evidence is there for *insert any god here* ever existing in the first place.

It doesn't matter if this or that portion of their texts are meant to be literal, or allegorical, whatever. I already know Genesis can't be taken as literal. So I step back and look at the larger picture. There is no need to fill in the gaps of scientific understanding with god, is the bottom line.

Faith, is what brings various gods into the equation of various people. Faith that their beliefs reflect a true and accurate understanding of the world. This diehard faith is why they want crap taught in schools as fact, or as an equal to established scientific theories and facts (the fact that those scientific understandings may be wrong is irrelevant because science will research and update accordingly) is what people are fighting against.

Nobody is saying religion can't be taught in school. There is no ban on comparative religious courses etc. But it's studied as religion, and myth, for a reason. It's because that's exactly what it is. Christianity has as much evidence behind it to support it as the truth, as *insert a religion here*.

I would actually agree with everything you say here except that would qualify you as a Creationist in some people's eyes.

And then we'd have to admit you to the Creationist Club; but we are out of the complementary Papal miters and someone has misplaced the brain bucket (to check your brain in at the door) so perhaps it is for the best.

:

originally posted by: blackrabbit1
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?

Concocted around 500 AD?

The Dead Sea scrolls have been dated between 250 BC and 70 AD.

Astronomer Barry Setterfield has commented on an excerpt from the book of Job (arguably the oldest book in the Bible) in regard to a passage (Job 38:31) where God is pointing out to Job the limitations of human knowledge:

The Pleiades and Orion are still with us and are often visible on a clear night and the modern observation of these through astronomy has given us a fascinating insight into this passage. It is in fact a double-barreled question dealing with two contrasting astronomical phenomena. Let us look briefly at the two objects in question - the cluster of Pleiades commonly called the Seven Sisters, and the stellar grouping called Orion, also known as the Saucepan.

"Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades or loose the cords of Orion?"

To the naked eye the Pleiades seems to be composed of six or seven bluish stars shyly scintillating in the constellation of Taurus. The telescope, however, reveals that the whole cluster is made up of about 500 stars in a spherical group about 50 light years across and nearly 410 light years away. Photographs reveal some of the component stars veiled in a faint diaphanous blue haze of gas and dust, which beautifully reflects the glory of the stars enrobed in it with their various colors.

The Creator’s description of it is extremely apt - it is indeed a ‘sweet cluster’ of stars; a delight to behold. Even to the naked eye there is a winsome attractiveness about the group. However, God's statement to Job also includes an astronomical truth of which Job was probably unaware. The cluster of the Pleiades is an odd one out as far as star clusters go. Because of the small amounts of dust and gas between the stars in the cluster, it is called a galactic or open cluster, but unlike many such open clusters, it is not breaking up. It is the classic example of a ‘bound’ cluster (1). The energies of motion of the individual stars cannot ever overcome the ‘chains’ of gravity and allow them to move away from the cluster. Nor, indeed, is the cluster expanding, as it has been calculated that it would take 1,000 million years to significantly change the diameter of the cluster. This situation is very uncommon as the reverse is usually true of all open or galactic clusters.

As we consider the observable truth of God’s statement, we can move on from Job’s bewilderment to a new appreciation of our Creator’s infinite wisdom. However, we share with Job in a deeper way the feeling of being humbled by a question about something which is impossible for us to achieve, and yet which the Almighty performed with such ease. ‘Can YOU bind the sweet cluster of Pleiades [as I have done]? God would ask us.’

The constellation of Orion is one of the most outstanding star groupings in the heavens. Photographs of this brilliant association with its giant stars reveal an immense halo of gas and dust in which practically all its stars are immersed. [Part of this nebulosity is visible to the naked eye as the central ‘star’ in the handle of the ‘saucepan’.] The fact that virtually the whole constellation is made up of one massive cluster of stars is in itself unusual. Most constellations are made up of stars merely in line of sight and separated by vast distances.

The Orion grouping all lie about 1600 light years away. Despite its size of about 350 light years diameter and despite the vast quantities of gas and dust it contains, the whole system is gravitationally unstable and is steadily expanding outwards (3). The gravitational "bands" holding the constellation together have indeed been loosed, just as God said to Job. Not only that, but even the smaller clusters of stars within the association are fragmenting. On the basis of the stars’ individual motions in one cluster within the Orion Nebula, Dr. Peter Van de Voort has shown that the age of the cluster must be less than 10,000 years (4). This also implies that the whole association must be less than 10,000 years old as both Hoyle (5) and Gamow state that new stars cannot form from clouds of gas and dust unless cloud temperatures are below 5° Absolutes (6). The observed average temperatures range from 100° Absolute and above, and any collapse of the clouds will only increase the temperature which in turn re-expands the cloud. Thus if new stars Astronomical Insights cannot form from clouds of gas and dust and the star clusters that have formed are less than 10,000 years old, it strongly indicates that the whole constellation of Orion is less than 10,000 years old. Therefore, there is far more behind God’s comment to Job that the constellation of Orion is a massive disrupting star cluster than might immediately appear, as it also provides proof for a recent Creation.

"Can you bind the sweet cluster of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?" Our answer, of course, is the same that Job had to give in all humility - ‘No Lord, such things are beyond men’. But the same humbling question is also a wonderful display of the inspired accuracy of the Word of God. All the more so when we realize that it was given thousands of years before the law of gravity was discovered or the telescope invented.

It would seem that God's knowledge, at least, was fairly advanced for the time of writing.

a reply to: chr0naut

Ah, the ol' "appeal to authority" fallacy. Haven't seen that one in a while!

So we should interject someone's personal faith into the curriculum, even though there's not a single shred of evidence, because they happen to share the same religious faith as you.

Nah.

Dude, this is getting beyond sill now.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: chr0naut

Ah, the ol' "appeal to authority" fallacy. Haven't seen that one in a while!

So we should interject someone's personal faith into the curriculum, even though there's not a single shred of evidence, because they happen to share the same religious faith as you.

Nah.

Dude, this is getting beyond sill now.

Your argument (appeal to authority) works both ways.

I also listed some "shreds of evidence" back a few posts.

Yup, truly Monty Python slapstick silly.

a reply to: chr0naut

An appeal to authority when the authority has no pertinent credentials is a fallacy. An astronomer is no more informed than a layman when it comes to religious belief.

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

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: chr0naut

An appeal to authority when the authority has no pertinent credentials is a fallacy. An astronomer is no more informed than a layman when it comes to religious belief.

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

There is nothing that disqualifies an astronomer from having a knowledge of religion. Most of those involved in the physical sciences are very aware of the big picture questions and consider them in greater depth than the average layman, who find no difficulty in grasping religious concepts.

Regarding geography teachers teaching children that the earth is flat; I would not bother legislating against it. I don't think it happens and the students have the ability to make up their own minds, so it isn't a big deal.

originally posted by: chr0naut

There is nothing that disqualifies an astronomer from having a knowledge of religion.

Quoting an astronomer to support a religious belief is the very definition of an appeal to authority fallacy.

Most of those involved in the physical sciences are very aware of the big picture questions and consider them in greater depth than the average layman, who find no difficulty in grasping religious concepts.

Most of those involved in elite sciences are atheists, so...

Regarding geography teachers teaching children that the earth is flat; I would not bother legislating against it. I don't think it happens and the students have the ability to make up their own minds, so it isn't a big deal.

You've already made it absolutely clear you have no understanding of the UK's educational system . "Let them decide" is the hallmark of intellectually dishonest creationist, trying in vain to sneak their silly beliefs in through the back door through the false claim of "balance". No one's falling for it, thank goodness.

originally posted by: chr0naut
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.

It's not the opinion that's illegal! It's the teaching it as part of the curriculum that is. It is religion. You can teach it in a RE class, you just can't present it as an alternative to science, BECAUSE IT IS NOT AN ALTERNATIVE TO SCIENCE.

You are diving into the legal technicalities and using semantics to reinforce your points. Read the law again. You can teach it in religious education, but you have to present it as a faith based belief system, not an alternative to science. It's really simple and I'm shocked that some people are so outraged by this, yet not one of them actually lives in the UK where the law would affect them.

Humans rights include not being force fed somebody else's religion as fact. I can't bottom line it any simpler than that. You can't teach religion as an alternative to science in any class, and rightfully so. You can teach it as faith because that's what it is. I don't see what is so difficult to understand about this.

Would you not object if a school taught Islam in a science class as fact or alternative to science? You'd be the first one protesting, even though you advocate that exact thing for your personal worldview instead.

originally posted by: Barcs
It's really simple and I'm shocked that some people are so outraged by this, yet not one of them actually lives in the UK where the law would affect them.

In my opinion, reason behind this outrage is feeling that this is coming their way, that what is happening in UK is just start and rightfully, it might turn into avalanche.

You stated simple obvious reason - creationism is not an alternative to science, it is not science and can't even be compared. Based on books that are NO different to any mythology books, and in some aspects include plagiarized material from some of them.

It might take bit longer here in USA, but they know what's coming and that they are on loosing side...

originally posted by: Blazemore2000
a reply to: Prezbo369

I wish the U.S. would follow suit. Unfortunately, there are too many religious fanatics in politics for it to have much of a chance.

Some christians will go along with changing church policies in accepting topics
such as evolution and gay marriage as being acceptable.They are more interested
in keeping their tax exemption status than promoting God's word.
Other christians will never accept these issues as being normal and will gladly lose
their tax exemption.This type of christian will be forced into going underground
to practice their religious beliefs.
Religious fanatics in politics? I think that there are very few of them in D.C. You will
eventually get what you wish for.

originally posted by: mamabeth
Some christians will go along with changing church policies in accepting topics
such as evolution and gay marriage as being acceptable.They are more interested
in keeping their tax exemption status than promoting God's word.
Other christians will never accept these issues as being normal and will gladly lose
their tax exemption.This type of christian will be forced into going underground
to practice their religious beliefs.

Bigots and the ignorant choosing to be bigoted and ignorant underground?

I think we can live with that....

a reply to: mamabeth

Underground? You speak as if not teaching Christianity in science class is the equivalent of the holocaust and that Christianity will be banned. The country is founded on freedom of religion, so that should never happen. You just can't force your worldview as fact on others. It's not like they are taking anything away from you. You can still preach on the corner or do whatever you'd like that doesn't infringe on the rights of others.

originally posted by: chr0naut
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.

No OFSTED inspect, the education secretary Michael Gove makes the decision to cut funding it if it's failed. I'm not even going to bother with your blatant trolling attempt - here's some actual facts instead.

---------
The Ofsted report, carried out in November, rated the school as inadequate in all four categories: leadership and management, behaviour and safety of pupils, quality of teaching and achievement of pupils. It was put in 'special measures', with inspectors saying that the standard of students' work was low and progress was inadequate, that leaders did not have high enough expectations and that students' "low aspirations" were not challenged.

Inspectors also said that governors placed "too much emphasis on religious credentials when they are recruiting key staff and not enough on seeking candidates with excellent leadership and teaching skills".

The report criticised standards of teaching and also noted that "Some students hold discriminatory views of other people who have different faiths, values or beliefs from themselves."

"What Ofsted found is enough to shock any parent, including me. Its report, published on Monday, paints a picture of a school in disarray. Bad behaviour, including cases of bullying, appears to be rampant. Standards are low, while progress is inadequate. And school leaders are failing to prepare pupils for life in modern Britain."
------------

www.christiantoday.com...

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: chr0naut
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.

No OFSTED inspect, the education secretary Michael Gove makes the decision to cut funding it if it's failed. I'm not even going to bother with your blatant trolling attempt - here's some actual facts instead.

---------
The Ofsted report, carried out in November, rated the school as inadequate in all four categories: leadership and management, behaviour and safety of pupils, quality of teaching and achievement of pupils. It was put in 'special measures', with inspectors saying that the standard of students' work was low and progress was inadequate, that leaders did not have high enough expectations and that students' "low aspirations" were not challenged.

Inspectors also said that governors placed "too much emphasis on religious credentials when they are recruiting key staff and not enough on seeking candidates with excellent leadership and teaching skills".

The report criticised standards of teaching and also noted that "Some students hold discriminatory views of other people who have different faiths, values or beliefs from themselves."

"What Ofsted found is enough to shock any parent, including me. Its report, published on Monday, paints a picture of a school in disarray. Bad behaviour, including cases of bullying, appears to be rampant. Standards are low, while progress is inadequate. And school leaders are failing to prepare pupils for life in modern Britain."
------------

www.christiantoday.com...

Oh, so this law has been enacted and now 90+ kids have lost their school until they can be relocated and teachers unrelated to the problem have lost their jobs.

Its seems that others agree that something is up in regard to the application of this law, and the actions of OFSTED.

The Guardian - Ministers accused of playing politics over Durham free school’s closure.

Th e Telegraph - OFSTED accused of whitewashing inquiry into Christian schools' ‘British values’ complaints.

Schools Week - Confidence in Ofsted ‘undermined’ by Trojan Horse investigations

So far they have closed four schools and other schools are in in the firing line. As I suggested previously, this law is a lever with which the Department for Education may control their decreasing financial resources.

Another school that OFSTED said was 'inadequate' yet actually has very good GCSE results is Grindon Hall Christian School. It is plain that an agenda other than educational quality is driving OFSTED.

originally posted by: chr0naut
It is plain that an agenda other than educational quality is driving OFSTED.

Hopefully it is an agenda against fairy tales.


...I'm happy for my taxes to fund that, fairy tales are the domain of parents reading to their children at bed time, not schools.

a reply to: chr0naut

Please stop pretending you know anything about the uk school system outside of your frantic googling to try and fit reality to your ridiculous viewpoint.

a reply to: chr0naut

The school employees broke the law, you can't blame anybody but them for the funding getting pulled. Now they face the consequences. What you are doing is like saying that a law against stealing is responsible for those who break it. Oh man, that anti thievery law totally has an agenda against thieves! Well, of course it does, because stealing is detrimental to society. In the same light teaching a world view as an alternative to science is counter intuitive and goes against what science actually is. There should be a stronger agenda against this type of behavior, if you ask me. Do you think the human rights of thieves are being violated because there are laws against stealing?