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

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: chr0naut

But it sounds like those funding issues have zero to do with this law or creationism being pulled from the science curriculum.

1. The legislation controls funding (it is part of the DfE Funding Agreement).

The legislation controls all school funding? No it doesn't. It only pulls funding for schools that break the law.

The legislation does not teach validated science, or enforce the teaching of validated science subjects.

Yes, obviously a law cannot teach anything, it is a law, not a person. The law regulates what can legally be taught as science.

The legislation prosecutes the expression of an opinion (even in a Religious Education class where one may reasonably expect that opinion to be discussed).

No it doesn't. It prosecutes people who teach religion as an alternative to science. It has nothing to do with expressing opinions. It has to do with them being taught as fact.

The legislation does not apply specifically to a Science class but to all classes in all subjects.

Yes and it specifically says that you can't teach religion as an alternative to science.. IN ANY CLASS, because it's not an alternative to science. It's a worldview.

The legislation closes schools.

That break the law.

(the Big Bang theory being supportive of the concept of a beginning to the universe and Holographic virtual universe models, with the error correction that has been observed, suggest an intelligent God simulating it). The oft repeated opinion that there is no scientific support is simply untrue and ignorant.

BB theory is not supportive of the concept of a beginning as the energy was already there prior. Please post the scientific supported evidence you are referring to. You can't "suggest" an intelligent god simulating anything without evidence of that god existing. What error correction are you talking about, DNA?

The law applies to all publicly funded schools in the UK. The prosecution of that law only applies to lawbreakers. The law does not mandate the teaching of science (a positive action), it makes illegal the teaching of a very specific belief (a negative action).

I was not referring to DNA transcription protective mechanisms, I was referring to EC binary codes emergent from superstring math. Paper - Relating Doubly-Even Error-Correcting Codes, Graphs, and Irreducible Representations of N-Extended Supersymmetry

The EC codes are also mentioned in this science debate (long, but worth a watch anyway): if you want to 'skip to the chase', the specific section starts about 1 hour in to the video.

A more popularly understandable description of James Gates' discovery is to be found in this article: Physics World - Symbols of Power (Adinkras and the nature of reality).

a reply to: chr0naut

The law applies to all publicly funded schools in the UK. The prosecution of that law only applies to lawbreakers. The law does not mandate the teaching of science (a positive action), it makes illegal the teaching of a very specific belief (a negative action).

It makes the teaching of a fantasy based belief as science illegal........please allow this very basic concept to sink in......

originally posted by: Prezbo369
a reply to: chr0naut

The law applies to all publicly funded schools in the UK. The prosecution of that law only applies to lawbreakers. The law does not mandate the teaching of science (a positive action), it makes illegal the teaching of a very specific belief (a negative action).

It makes the teaching of a fantasy based belief as science illegal........please allow this very basic concept to sink in......

Scientific theories and hypotheses cannot ALL be right. Some of them contradict others. So rationally, some of them must be fantasies. Yes, both scientific and fantasies. You see being 'scientific' does not preclude some conclusions we may draw, from being fantasy.

Neither can you establish unequivocally that Creation (the production of the universe by God) is a fantasy, so your repeated statement that it is, is obviously not reasonable and is obviously just an opinion.

I feel it is fair for me to ask you to produce one shred of scientific evidence that disproves that the universe was created by a divine being, and I will give your opinion some credence.

originally posted by: chr0naut


The law applies to all publicly funded schools in the UK. The prosecution of that law only applies to lawbreakers. The law does not mandate the teaching of science (a positive action), it makes illegal the teaching of a very specific belief (a negative action).

The only negative action is the connotation which you have chosen to impart here. in fact, the law does mandate science be taught. It specifically mandates that ONLY science be taught...where? You guessed it, in a SCIENCE class room. Philosophical/Theological world views aren't science therefore should not be taught as a factual alternative to science. no matter how hard you try to make this into something it's not, you can't.

It's a very simple and basic concept, in the science class you teach science. If someone wants to create a class that discusses the wide variety of creation myths from across the globe and place that program within the appropriate classroom, nobody has an issue with that. As long as it's not taught as a viable, fact based alternative to science, in a science class.

Let's be perfectly honest though, everyone that got their panties twisted over this is upset because a Christian version of creation will not be taught and the Christian persecution complex quickly reared its head. I honestly don't think it would have been a very different reaction from many, if, as I suggest above, a new course was created in the appropriate classroom wherein Genesis was taught but Sumerian/Babylonian, Native American, Norse, Greek, Hindi etc... creation stories were taught as legitimate alternatives to it. The vitriol would be quite similar I imagine because at the end of the day, the arguments against this legislation in the UK are rather Christian-centric. Well, except for you of course... You've shifted goal posts so frequently in this thread nobody can find you at this point because you're on a totally different playing field now.

originally posted by: chr0naut
The law applies to all publicly funded schools in the UK. The prosecution of that law only applies to lawbreakers. The law does not mandate the teaching of science (a positive action), it makes illegal the teaching of a very specific belief (a negative action).

That doesn't make the law responsible for the school budget problem as you suggested earlier. And yes, the law makes it illegal to teach NON SCIENCE in a science class, which pretty much means they are focusing on teaching real science. If flat earth theory was taught in science class as fact or alternative to heliocentrism, then I'd expect a law made about that as well. You don't teach non science in science class OR as an alternative to science. You keep ignoring this very basic point that pretty much over rides your entire argument.

I was not referring to DNA transcription protective mechanisms, I was referring to EC binary codes emergent from superstring math. Paper - Relating Doubly-Even Error-Correcting Codes, Graphs, and Irreducible Representations of N-Extended Supersymmetry

The EC codes are also mentioned in this science debate (long, but worth a watch anyway):

if you want to 'skip to the chase', the specific section starts about 1 hour in to the video.

Can these EC codes be physically verified or is it just theoretical physics based on mathematical theory? It seems folks always love to give hypothetical things more credence than verified scientific data, but I've never studied these EC codes. Where can they be found and measured?

originally posted by: chr0naut
Neither can you establish unequivocally that Creation (the production of the universe by God) is a fantasy, so your repeated statement that it is, is obviously not reasonable and is obviously just an opinion.

I feel it is fair for me to ask you to produce one shred of scientific evidence that disproves that the universe was created by a divine being, and I will give your opinion some credence.

It is a claim that the universe was 'created' by some form of space ghost, a claim that has not got even close to meeting its burden of proof.

Its up to creationists and their supporters to provide a shred of evidence for this space ghost creature, its not up to anyone else to attempt to disprove that claim.

And seeing as the only source there is for such a creature is a 2000 year old book of stories about stories that also contains talking animals and unicorns, the term 'fantasy' is correct in a child's bedtime book type context.

It's the teaching of said tales as science that is illegal, as it would be for any other type of nonsensical gibberish.

a reply to: Barcs
a reply to: peter vlar

The legislation makes no mention of being only applicable in a science class, so lets not keep bringing it up as an argument.

Barcs, as I understand it, the EC codes seem to arise from string theory math in several models. Science and mathematics can verify that they are there but beyond that, no-one is exactly sure what they portend.

The biggest questions that they raise is what purpose they may fill but I doubt science will penetrate that conundrum.

The best idea at present, is that what we call reality may be a simulation, like from the Matrix movies (Dr Gates own words).

The actual math is pretty heavy and I must confess I don't understand that much of it (string theory isn't really my field). The little I do understand seems to support Dr Gates conclusions.

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: chr0naut
Neither can you establish unequivocally that Creation (the production of the universe by God) is a fantasy, so your repeated statement that it is, is obviously not reasonable and is obviously just an opinion.

I feel it is fair for me to ask you to produce one shred of scientific evidence that disproves that the universe was created by a divine being, and I will give your opinion some credence.

It is a claim that the universe was 'created' by some form of space ghost, a claim that has not got even close to meeting its burden of proof.

Its up to creationists and their supporters to provide a shred of evidence for this space ghost creature, its not up to anyone else to attempt to disprove that claim.

And seeing as the only source there is for such a creature is a 2000 year old book of stories about stories that also contains talking animals and unicorns, the term 'fantasy' is correct in a child's bedtime book type context.

It's the teaching of said tales as science that is illegal, as it would be for any other type of nonsensical gibberish.

Still using absurdities as a basis of argument.

I can neither prove or disprove the existence of God. Neither can you. To argue as absolutely as you do, with the assumption that you are right and that dissenting ideas are nonsense, takes a special kind of ignorance.

Once again you make absurd remarks and comparisons and try and build your argument upon them, for example, Christians and Jews do not believe in a "space ghost" and references to talking animals and unicorns are only in medieval mistranslations of the original texts.

For a start, if you wish to viably participate in discussion of religious issues, you need to get a better translation of the Bible and then do a bit more work on understanding what is actually said and who it was addressed to.

The Bible is also not a science textbook. It makes no attempt to describe scientific subjects. It does, however, attempt to come to terms with some big issues. Some of which science also attempts to describe (but from a different viewpoint and methodology).

There is science supportive of Creation. Denial of the fact convinces no-one who has the ability to think rationally on the subject (I have listed a number of scientific ideas supportive of Creation in earlier posts in this thread).

originally posted by: chr0naut
The legislation makes no mention of being only applicable in a science class, so lets not keep bringing it up as an argument.

I already addressed this point several times. The law says that you can't teach religion as an alternative to science in any class. This means in religion class you can't teach it as an alternative to science. You can still teach about it and explain the history of Christianity, it just has to be taught as a religious belief / worldview and not fact/science. That is what the law says. It DOESN'T say you can't teach about it at all. There is a difference.

Barcs, as I understand it, the EC codes seem to arise from string theory math in several models. Science and mathematics can verify that they are there but beyond that, no-one is exactly sure what they portend.

Exactly as I suspected. So you do give more credence to hypothetical things than to verified scientific things like evolution and BB theory. I'm not saying it's wrong, it's just not verified scientifically.

There is science supportive of Creation. Denial of the fact convinces no-one who has the ability to think rationally on the subject (I have listed a number of scientific ideas supportive of Creation in earlier posts in this thread).

Like what? String theory is a mathematical theory, it's not verified by science. Do you have anything that actually IS verified by science that supports creation and doesn't involved assumptions? I hear this claim quite a bit here, and never once has actual science in favor of a creator or creation process been demonstrated. You don't believe evolution, which is 1000 times more grounded in science than string theory, so I'm wondering what your angle is here. Why are religious views and hypotheses always considered more logical to you than actual science?

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
The legislation makes no mention of being only applicable in a science class, so lets not keep bringing it up as an argument.

I already addressed this point several times. The law says that you can't teach religion as an alternative to science in any class. This means in religion class you can't teach it as an alternative to science. You can still teach about it and explain the history of Christianity, it just has to be taught as a religious belief / worldview and not fact/science. That is what the law says. It DOESN'T say you can't teach about it at all. There is a difference.

Barcs, as I understand it, the EC codes seem to arise from string theory math in several models. Science and mathematics can verify that they are there but beyond that, no-one is exactly sure what they portend.

Exactly as I suspected. So you do give more credence to hypothetical things than to verified scientific things like evolution and BB theory. I'm not saying it's wrong, it's just not verified scientifically.

There is science supportive of Creation. Denial of the fact convinces no-one who has the ability to think rationally on the subject (I have listed a number of scientific ideas supportive of Creation in earlier posts in this thread).

Like what? String theory is a mathematical theory, it's not verified by science. Do you have anything that actually IS verified by science that supports creation and doesn't involved assumptions? I hear this claim quite a bit here, and never once has actual science in favor of a creator or creation process been demonstrated. You don't believe evolution, which is 1000 times more grounded in science than string theory, so I'm wondering what your angle is here. Why are religious views and hypotheses always considered more logical to you than actual science?

Your assumption that I don't believe in evolution is incorrect.

While agreeing with the actuality of evolutionary mechanisms, I believe evolutionary processes alone are inadequate to fully explain all facets of current biodiversity. I believe there are other mechanisms contributory to current biodiversity.

I believe that evolution is only a small part of a larger puzzle of how life has become so diverse.

For those who would continually redefine the meaning of "evolution", I believe that the current list of mechanisms of evolution is incomplete.

That is what I believe.

You also stated that the Big Bang is better evidenced than string theory. This is not true. A primary component of BB theory is inflation, which is entirely unphysical. The end of inflation is also just as unphysical. How does something with the mass/energy of the universe move faster than the speed of light and then suddenly decelerate to near nothing? Let alone that, what could then make parts of the universe (like the Andromeda galaxy) be blue shifted (traveling back the other way) after inflation? Where did the energy to push stuff around, come from? Were did it go? It is obvious that someone proposed a ridiculous, unprovable, unfalsifiable, unsubstantiated hypothesis to try and fit very confusing data and no-one bats an eyelid because no-one has a better idea. We have never observed anything like inflation, we cannot experiment on it, we don't know of any mechanism that explains it, we can't even do any legitimate math on it because it is so preposterous. I could point out the problems with other parts of the BB hypothesis (like BB neucleosynthesis) as well but I'll leave it at the big one for now.

Also, string theory is entirely compliant with scientific method, even to the point of now identifying and providing experimental results (current work going on at the LHC is providing data explainable, and predicted by, string theory. Over time and with repeated experimentation, I am sure that six sigma confidence will be attained).

a reply to: chr0naut

What you "believe" has no relevance in the science class unless you can back it up with scientific evidence. Period.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: chr0naut

What you "believe" has no relevance in the science class unless you can back it up with scientific evidence. Period.

This isn't a science class and I can back up my beliefs with scientific evidence (because I do believe in the accepted mechanisms of evolution). I also hold other beliefs which I can support with scientific evidence (some of which I have provided in this thread).

You have not provided any even vaguely scientific evidence, at all, in any post in this thread.

I suspect that you have no qualification relevant to your opinions and therefore everything you have posted is an appeal to that absent authority, but I could be wrong. Go on and prove it by posting some relevant scientific evidence that suggests that the universe was not created.

Exclamation mark!

Can you teach history in science class ? i don't think so , so why anything else that isn't science ?

How about music is science class ? no.

Why don't creationists ask to teach creationism in music class or history class ? it wouldn't work either , as creationism isn't history or music as it is not science.

Says who ? says historians musicians and scientists.

a reply to: dude1

It would sound better in a music class though.

Seriously, are you all STILL throwing goats at this troll?

The law has been made, passed and implemented. This bloke doesn't even live in the country it refers to and is not impacted by it in any way.

originally posted by: 321Go
Seriously, are you all STILL throwing goats at this troll?

The law has been made, passed and implemented. This bloke doesn't even live in the country it refers to and is not impacted by it in any way.

You're missing the point that he (as well others) are scared about the same thing coming their way... and only reason this might be really implemented is because of idiots who are trying to place it in public schools text books as equal/alternative option to science. This might push even USA to adopt similar law.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: stumason
Is this argument still going on with the crazy, bible thumping Yank?

If you are referring to me, then I must inform you I am not now, nor never have been, an American.

New Zealand and Australia are sovereign, democratic nations under the British Empire (I am a citizen of one and a permanent resident of the other). They are island nations, with Westminster systems of government, just like yours.

Meh - you a colonial of one flavour or another

originally posted by: chr0naut
Your assumption that I don't believe in evolution is incorrect.

While agreeing with the actuality of evolutionary mechanisms, I believe evolutionary processes alone are inadequate to fully explain all facets of current biodiversity. I believe there are other mechanisms contributory to current biodiversity.

I believe that evolution is only a small part of a larger puzzle of how life has become so diverse.

So you are a micro but not macro evolution guy? Also, I wouldn't call it a small part of the puzzle. It's the only part that has evidence to back it. If new mechanisms are discovered they will be added to MES.

For those who would continually redefine the meaning of "evolution", I believe that the current list of mechanisms of evolution is incomplete.

Yes, MES is not complete. We know this, but it's getting more complete as more time goes by with research.

You also stated that the Big Bang is better evidenced than string theory. This is not true.

If not, then please provide the scientific evidence behind string theory (not just math). Thanks.

A primary component of BB theory is inflation, which is entirely unphysical. The end of inflation is also just as unphysical.

Unphysical? How so? How could you possibly know this?

How does something with the mass/energy of the universe move faster than the speed of light and then suddenly decelerate to near nothing?

The universe is not moving faster than the speed of light and it never has. That is actually one of the common confusing things about inflation and the big bang. I only appears to move faster than the speed of light if you compare galaxies that are far apart and are accelerating away from each other. Not all galaxies do this, but there are several that do. Now, neither galaxy is moving faster than the speed of light. It's only the difference in speed from one end to the other. It's like if 2 cars are driving 40 MPH away from each other, the net difference in speed is 80 MPH, but neither car is moving that fast. Hope that makes sense.

Let alone that, what could then make parts of the universe (like the Andromeda galaxy) be blue shifted (traveling back the other way) after inflation?

Gravity for one. The Milky Way, Andromeda and a few others are linked gravitationally. It is a cluster of galaxies that will eventually become one that happened to revolve around one another (well a basic central area, not really around each other). This is separate, however, from inflation as all the galaxies in this cluster are still accelerating away from all other galaxies in the universe. These ones are just connected via gravity. Inflation didn't actually slow down and the galaxies didn't turn around and move the opposite direction.

Where did the energy to push stuff around, come from? Were did it go? It is obvious that someone proposed a ridiculous, unprovable, unfalsifiable, unsubstantiated hypothesis to try and fit very confusing data and no-one bats an eyelid because no-one has a better idea.

It's the only idea that has evidence behind it. Again, they don't know everything about everything and it is impossible to study anything prior to the big bang at this point. Just because they don't know every answer to every possible question, doesn't make it wrong, or make creation right.

We have never observed anything like inflation, we cannot experiment on it, we don't know of any mechanism that explains it, we can't even do any legitimate math on it because it is so preposterous. I could point out the problems with other parts of the BB hypothesis (like BB neucleosynthesis) as well but I'll leave it at the big one for now.

We observe inflation constantly. We can see all of the galaxies accelerating away from each other and we can follow them backwards to see they all originated in the same area. Don't forget that a mini big bang was created in a lab already and that we can measure the background radiation left over from the big bang. We don't know the mechanism behind dark energy, or what caused the big bang, but everything else is pretty solid. How would you propose experimenting with inflation aside from measuring the speeds of galaxies moving and observing the trajectory? It's beyond our capabilities right now and scientists admit this. They do have a CRAPLOAD of data on it so far, however.

Also, string theory is entirely compliant with scientific method, even to the point of now identifying and providing experimental results (current work going on at the LHC is providing data explainable, and predicted by, string theory. Over time and with repeated experimentation, I am sure that six sigma confidence will be attained).

Please list some examples with sources that show the physical evidence. Just remember, scientific evidence isn't strictly about predictions, it's about falsifiability, repeatability and actual results that show the phenomena in question (strings) exist.

Also it would be nice if you listed that "scientific evidence" in favor of creation. You said you had it, but didn't post anything related to it. You only nitpicked existing theories.

originally posted by: chr0naut
I suspect that you have no qualification relevant to your opinions and therefore everything you have posted is an appeal to that absent authority, but I could be wrong. Go on and prove it by posting some relevant scientific evidence that suggests that the universe was not created.

Um, you can't prove a negative, come on man, basic burden of proof. It's on YOU to prove or show evidence that it WAS created. As of now, this evidence does not exist. God is placed in the gaps of scientific knowledge, and that's pretty much it. There is no scientific evidence of creation and everything we have studied in the universe is able to function on its own without outside interference.

a reply to: Barcs

If new mechanisms are discovered they will be added to MES.

New mechanisms have been discovered and have long been substantiated. So why haven't they been added?

Yes, MES is not complete. We know this, but it's getting more complete as more time goes by with research.

It's getting more complete? When was the last time it was updated?

Stephen Gould had this to say about it in the journal Paleobiology (1980)

The modern synthesis, as an exclusive proposition, has broken down on both of its fundamental claims: extrapolationism (gradual allelic substitution as a model for all evolutionary change) and nearly exclusive reliance on selection leading to adaptation.

Here is another piece he wrote about the short comings of the MES. You should read it, it has much to say about his take on the role of natural selection.

We observe inflation constantly.

Uh, no we don't. What they observed was space dust, not inflation.
Evidence for Cosmic Inflation Theory Bites the (Space) Dust