Teaching Creationism As Science Now Banned In All UK Public Schools

a reply to: SuperFrog

No, they are not mutually exclusive. If we can revive and altered the DNA of certain organisms already, then how can you prove that we weren't revived or our DNA has not been altered(which would mean that we are created) by certain alien species?

If you wonder who created the aliens, well, if you believe in Simulation Theory, then it's the High-Level Simulators.

a reply to: Snarl

I've looked ... and for the life of me, I've never been able to see definitive evolutionary change "from one species to another."

And I've never been able to build a rocket ship that could get me all the way to the moon

That's mostly because I don't know how

Sometimes it's OK to admit that some people know stuff we don't - that's what school is for

I think

:-)

a reply to: xDeadcowx

Science has also brought forth the atomic bombs, a constant fight for resources, global warming, and IMO, the world would have ended up a dystopia like the novel 1984 by George Orwell(I recommend reading this novel, it's eerie how accurate the details are, remember what I said about the world could end up being just 3 countries, and that's U.S, China and Russia?) Misuse and blind belief in science such as evolution can lead to concepts like racial supremacy which can lead to our end much quicker. Also, evolution has not really done anything positive(well, actually, it has done something, though at this point, I'm not sure if it works the way it does.)

Now the problem with religion is that we never really had a concrete proof of God(which I have to wonder what people think would qualify. I mean, suppose someone could shoot electricity from his arms, and we can explain it, then I guess it's not God). Even if we could prove that the universe is a simulation, people probably won't stop killing each other, because then they realize that it's just a game, so in reality, only God himself appearing and giving a threat of eternal Hellfire could probably prevent them.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

I really don't understand this argument.

Science is based on scientific study where as creationism is based on faith / religion.

Teaching creationism to me would be more appropriate in a religious study's course and not in a science course.

originally posted by: np6888
Now the problem with religion is that we never really had a concrete proof of God

There is absolutely no verifiable evidence to support claims of any gods from the wildly conflicting and different world faiths.
That is why there should be no mention of gods in physics, chemistry and biology classes at state funded schools.
I support religious education classes for an awareness of different faith from Abrahamic to Zoroastrianism and everything in between, of course, it promotes tolerance and understanding.

It is important to learn about all the world faiths to see how they cannot all be true.
Hindus believe Brahmā to be their creator god, and a golden egg expanded into the universe.
Islam teaches "It is He who has created you out of clay" (Surah 6:2)
Christians believe in the Genesis tale
Shinto's have their own curious tale of a spear being dipped into the ocean and an island (Japan) was created in the great nothingness.

I could go on but you get the point. Which unverifiable religious faith do you wanna pick?
Keep the mythology in specific religious awareness classes and out of evidence based disciplines.
Good move by the UK government, and if anyone is crying their hearts out for the tyranny of the state, it is always an option for parents to home school in the UK and indoctrinate their kids into any wild beliefs...I just don't want my taxes funding it.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

I really don't understand this argument.

Science is based on scientific study where as creationism is based on faith / religion.

Teaching creationism to me would be more appropriate in a religious study's course and not in a science course.

Yup and that's exactly how its worked here in most schools for years.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

In UK, aren't "Public" Schools the "Private" schools? So this would apply only to the Church of England run Schools? Or does it apply to the State run schools? And if so, I have to wonder how the Muslims are going to react to that.

a reply to: crazyewok
I agree wholeheartedly.
Religious Education classes are for teaching all the various creation myths in world faiths, there are actually many different ones, and I think it is important for children to have an awareness in their education to be able to choose or reject whichever position. Think of a brainwashed kid in a religious family who may have been empowered to question things after learning in a UK state funded school that other humans believe in different unverifiable stories, or even do not belive in any.

There is no place for any of the different creation myths in a science lesson...unless of course some actual evidence was to show up sometime, science is of course open to adapting where evidence requires a correction.
Religious faith however, does not.

a reply to: grainofsand

Hinduism's Creation Story actually resembles the Big Bang and Big Crunch(though their timeline is much longer, which can be explained if the universe is a looped simulation). If the egg is the analogy for the atom, then it's not outrageous.

Genesis a a tale? How so? If you read it carefully, you'll see that it makes no mention on when God created the Earth. The Earth being 6000-years old was started by an archbishop, who traced "the origin of mankind" back to the creation of Adam, and then the science community took that as being the age of the Earth, when in fact, there is a gap between Genesis 1 and 2 that does not say when God created Adam, or the Earth. One thing to keep in mind about the Bible is that it doesn't describe everything, for example, they mentioned that Noah had three sons, but no mention of daughters, but clearly, he must have had daughters also, otherwise, they wouldn't have been able to repopulate. In addition, the age of Noah's ancestors all seem to end at the flood, now if they had calculated it and made that up, then you have to wonder why they left all the other details out, or say all of these bad things that God did. The only conclusion about the Bible is that we simply don't know enough to say whether all parts are true or false. Heck, how do we know what exactly happened just 2000 years ago? How do we know that Jesus didn't exist, performed miracles and left? How do we know UFOs didn't cause disappearance, abductions, helped buid pyramids, etc?

Islam seems like it's a made up religion, with the intent of setting civilization backwards, so I wouldn't take anything they say seriously.

Finally, show me HOW exactly we evolved from an amoeba. Show me how we developed the ability to fly(something that we don't clearly understand even now), the organs(which are infinitely more complex than people make them out to be, basically, without an intelligence to guide them, it's not possible), etc. Like I said, there should be enough time for bacterias to evolve(and they can always make millions more colonies to increase the sample size and chances), show us something that could be considered a new species. And no, your organs growing bigger and smaller don't qualify, you see, your organs will vary according to your body size(the heart will grow according to the size of your fist, for example, the reason being that the bigger you are, the more blood you'll need to pump), this means that within any species, there will be different varieties in organ sizes, this means that if the environment is right, such as Darwin's finches, then the finches with big beaks will survive and repopulate, but that doesn't mean that a new species has occurred. It would be like saying that a disease had wiped out Blacks, and more Whites reproduced, and evolution has occurred. Finally, if we are all one big chain, then why do we lose the ability to mate with other species? Your ancestors have to be able to mate with each other to produce a new species, don't they?

The fact is, evolution is filled with leaps in logic that would also make it the equivalent of a tale. The fact that our DNA is 99% close to a chimp doesn't make us a chimp, or that we shared a common ancestor, because unless you can show how that 1% difference came about naturally, and how this one ancestor managed to propagate(remember that the mutations can't just happen, they have to happen to one individual of each species, and that person has to survive, if not, then all is lost, and the chances for that beneficial mutation occurring start all over), then you'd have to conclude that some outside forces, whether it's aliens or gods, caused them.

a reply to: toktaylor

You're assuming that everything in the higher dimensions works the same way it does now.

a reply to: TonyS
Most faith schools (including all Church of England schools) depend on funding from central government to survive. This classes them as 'state' schools required to follow 'state' rules to continue getting the funding.
Private (fee charging) schools can mostly (ish) do whatever they like, but with fee's out of reach of 95% plus of the population, the state has little regard to legislating them.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Can they at least still teach that the theory of evolution isn't yet fact, or are they going to silence all dissent against it?

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul
In UK, aren't "Public" Schools the "Private" schools?

something like that

but I think in this case it is public funded schools that it applies to - anyone who takes govt money.

So this would apply only to the Church of England run Schools? Or does it apply to the State run schools? And if so, I have to wonder how the Muslims are going to react to that.

There are specific documents for Catholic and CoE schools, but as I understand it the general guidance applies to all schools taking public money - regardless of the faith involved.

originally posted by: JohnFisher
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul
Can they at least still teach that the theory of evolution isn't yet fact, or are they going to silence all dissent against it?

They can teach that Evolution is a scientific theory- which is "all" it has ever been.

Of course the defintion of a scientific theory usually just confuses creationists

a reply to: grainofsand

One could easily argue that you're brainwashed yourself.

Propaganda is a mofo.

originally posted by: np6888
Islam seems like it's a made up religion, with the intent of setting civilization backwards, so I wouldn't take anything they say seriously.

Ah, I see now, "my solely faith based creation story is better than yours", that always makes me chuckle.

you'd have to conclude that some outside forces, whether it's aliens or gods, caused them.

I'd have to conclude that would I?
...at least the theory of evolution remains more honestly as a theory, and not the absolute conclusion that you appear to espouse.

Yes, again, I'm glad that religious faith is kept in the religious education classes and away from the evidence based disciplines of science. If you want religious creation myths taught in UK science classes that's up to you, but I don't want my taxes paying for it.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

I am 64, was never taught creationism in school, my two cents.

a reply to: Stormdancer777
I'm 55, went to Catholic schools for my entire schooling, and similarly was never taught creationism.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Don't patronizing me my friend. I caught the passive agressiveness. I'm well aware what a scientific theory is, but the theory of evolution is all too often portrayed as fact especially in media. In academia there is zero tolerance for anything that contradicts it. That's treating it like fact.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

in case you missed the class, there is nothing in science that is philosophically proven as absolutely true. science consists of theories. thats it.

some theories have large amounts of evidence. some theories withstand rigorous experimental testing. and some have great longevity. but at the end of the day, all you can say is what is accepted as true. there is a huge leap between accepted, and actual. even newtons grand monument that has lasted for centuries breaks down under certain conditions. should creationism be claimed as true? no. but evolution can not claim any absolute or privileged position. not even relativity or plane trigonometry claim such arrogance.

you just don't get it. once the "State" starts dictating official doctrine, it is truly a sign post on the road to tyranny.
in past history, ether was all the rage. phrenology could justify racism. crystal spheres worked well for some time too. eventually the radical ideas of genetics, celestial mechanics, atomic theory, and quanta broke through the settled establishment accepted dogma. it is incredibly arrogant for people to start claiming the mantle of absolute truth. it becomes downright dangerous when they empower bureaucrats and security forces to carry out their ideas, and to silence debate.
atheists who think shutting down opposing views means they are winning are in for a rude awakening at some point. but usually only after large numbers of people are harassed, persecuted, imprisoned, or even killed. If your ideas and theories are sound, then they don't need you to protect them, or quash the opposition. They should be able to stand on their own. if you need laws made to prop them up, then maybe they're not as settled as you are claiming.

Using the State to silence the opposition is a loss to science and freedom, only tyranny wins.