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

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: chr0naut

Why don't you start your own thread championing creationist myths?
Lots to choose from, Greek, Norse, Cherokee, Sumerian, Ancient Egyptian, even Maori.

The UK government has decided that any school receiving taxpayers money can not teach any spiritual/religious myths as fact in science lessons. There are no laws against privately funded schools teaching whatever fairy tales they wish to their students, just not on the taxpayers coin.

Now you can claim your particular myth is fact or whatever you like, but this thread is about discussing the legislation created last year in the UK, not a debate about your favourite brand of myth. I see your posts as derailing and irrelevant, so again, if you wanna argue that YOUR myth is true I say start your own thread and I can ignore your solely faith based ramblings.

Are scientific theories of the beginning of the universe any less mythical than Creation theories?

My initial argument was that putting financial penalties on the teaching of any particular paradigm is a violation of human rights.

Like Newtonian physics is used to ease students towards the understanding of more scientifically rigorous theories, the teaching of Creationist views are stepping stone paradigms from which we can ascend to more convoluted ones and, as I pointed out in a previous post, creationist and religious theories are historically part of what we now call science.

Once, we thought that the Earth was the center of the universe and this was upheld by religious people. Copernicus and Galileo challenged those views but how would we explain the the achievements of those early astronomers if we took out all reference to the opposition that they faced?

I'm fine with teaching the HISTORY of Creationism and Religions in general. Where I take issue is when Religious tenets are taught as scientific fact.

I take issue with any theory taught as scientific fact. The bar on 'what is fact' that science uses is particularly high.

Too bad it isn't reflected in education and legislation.

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: NavyDoc
The emphasis seems to be entirely on getting something they don't like out without much thought of getting something better in--an "anti" mindset rather than a "pro" mindset as it were.

No, you are wrong again.
The emphasis was solely to stop the few religious schools who were teaching creationism as fact in some places.
Parents who were not religious complained, and when the government realised there was a very real problem they introduced legislation to stop such brainwashing by removing funding if schools were caught doing it.

Exactly my point. Nowhere in the explanation you provided above did you mention anything about children in those schools suffering in math or science and nowhere do you mention any facts about them getting less of a STEM based education. A few religious schools where the parents were perfectly happy were forced to face funding cuts unless a few anti-religious people were appeased.

As I said. This was a minority of schools that catered to a minority of people and the impetus came from personal dislike rather than an real intent for increased academic achievement.

In the US, private parochial school students outperform public school students by quite a margin. Not DUE to religion, obviously--they tend to have parents and teachers that are more engaged, they (contrary to popular opinion) do not drop math to teach Jeebus, they have more accountability and more discipline. The religious bent of the school does not harm the students in math and science. I wonder how the average parochial school in the UK measures up to the average public schools.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: chr0naut

Why don't you start your own thread championing creationist myths?
Lots to choose from, Greek, Norse, Cherokee, Sumerian, Ancient Egyptian, even Maori.

The UK government has decided that any school receiving taxpayers money can not teach any spiritual/religious myths as fact in science lessons. There are no laws against privately funded schools teaching whatever fairy tales they wish to their students, just not on the taxpayers coin.

Now you can claim your particular myth is fact or whatever you like, but this thread is about discussing the legislation created last year in the UK, not a debate about your favourite brand of myth. I see your posts as derailing and irrelevant, so again, if you wanna argue that YOUR myth is true I say start your own thread and I can ignore your solely faith based ramblings.

Are scientific theories of the beginning of the universe any less mythical than Creation theories?

My initial argument was that putting financial penalties on the teaching of any particular paradigm is a violation of human rights.

Like Newtonian physics is used to ease students towards the understanding of more scientifically rigorous theories, the teaching of Creationist views are stepping stone paradigms from which we can ascend to more convoluted ones and, as I pointed out in a previous post, creationist and religious theories are historically part of what we now call science.

Once, we thought that the Earth was the center of the universe and this was upheld by religious people. Copernicus and Galileo challenged those views but how would we explain the the achievements of those early astronomers if we took out all reference to the opposition that they faced?

I'm fine with teaching the HISTORY of Creationism and Religions in general. Where I take issue is when Religious tenets are taught as scientific fact.

I take issue with any theory taught as scientific fact. The bar on 'what is fact' that science uses is particularly high.

Too bad it isn't reflected in education and legislation.

Ah, so we shouldn't be teaching Gravity in schools, then. Makes perfect sense.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Yes, I agree. I certainly DO think that STEM is critical to young minds as well. Those topics are the BASICS to critical thinking. Plus, giving a person the tools to work with but not the instructions or materials is going to leave them lost. Teaching critical history instead of just a bunch of dates and events would help as well.

a reply to: chr0naut

I guess that means teaching them about Newton is out too. Or Einstein. Or atomic science. Or quantum mechanics.

Yep, No theories at all! Only 100% verified fact. But wait, according to renowned philosophers, there is absolutely no way to actually KNOW something is 100% true.

So let's just do away with school all together. Silly institution anyway.

a reply to: NavyDoc

If a school wants funding from the taxpayer then they have to conform with the rules of the government.
They are free to do whatever they like if they do not want taxpayer funds.
This legislation was passed to stop religious nuts teaching creationism as part of science lessons. I support it.

And it had nothing to do with anti-religion, just anti creation myths.
Would you support the Greek/Norse/Sumerian/ancient Egyptian/Cherokee/Hindu or Hopi myths to be taught in science?

WTF do you care anyway, nobody in the UK is bleating about it aside from the odd rabid Christians and Muslims, and they are in the vast minority. That pleases me when it comes to how my taxes are spent.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: chr0naut

Yeah, let's just stick to the science. Please provide the scientific evidence for creationism, not your stoner philosophy.

I'm over 50 and did a degree in Astrophysics years ago and I still maintain an interest.

I don't like Marijuana, as I found it highly irritant and it made me feel nauseous and disoriented rather than high.

I don't think that qualifies anything I said as "stoner philosophy".

Please provide scientific evidence for abiogenesis, or for how supersymmetry was broken, for how singularities do not have a firewall at the schwarzschild radius or for a mechanism that explains inflation ... and not just another theory or concept, I want real measurable scientific evidence.

Just provide some scientific evidence.

If you have a degree in Astrophysics you have probably heard of the "God of the Gaps".

Any valley or void in our understanding of the universe is almost always explained away by the religious as God. What you're arguing is that because we don't have answers for these questions, it must be evidence of a creator. Why is that? Why does it have to be evidence of a creator? Look back several hundred, or thousand years. What we didn't know then was astonishing. Why do the planets move, while stars remain fairly static, moving much more slowly? Why that's God, they said. Well now we understand the motion of stars and planets, even galaxies. (For the most part, at least) and nobody with even a grade school education claims the planets' motion is Gods work.

You're falling into the same line of thinking as our ancestors. We don't understand yet why these things are so. What broke supersymmetry, Black holes in GENERAL and not just the Schwarzchild radius. You see gaps in our knowledge and exclaim "There, that is where God lies." And when those gaps are filled, the religious go scampering to find more gaps to place their deities.

Please be intellectually honest enough to come up with the hard evidence of the theories science has put forward to explain the beginning of existence. If you cannot do that,then you have to admit that those theories are just as 'mythic' as Creationism.

BTW, you don't have matter until supersymmetry is broken, so you cannot invoke black holes as an explanation.

It's all gaps and wild theories.

Again with this Fallacy?

You demand that I, with my admittedly limited understanding of Physics, turn scientific theories into scientific proofs, something that has stumped ACTUAL scientists for dozens, if not hundreds of years. And you want me to do this within the time-frame of a few minutes, or hours if you're patient and explain it to you in laymen's terms in a concise post on a conspiracy forum.

Then when, predictably, I cannot do this herculean task, you get to puff out your chest and declare victory.

Sorry, I won't play your transparent game.

Are there gaps in our understanding? You bet! Are they God? It's unlikely, considering that as time has marched onward, and of the numerous, uncountable gaps that have been previously filled, we have yet to find God in any of them... Well, statistically, I'd say no.

Providing scientific evidence for Creationism is a task that is beyond me, just like the task of proving the contrary is for you.

The situation is that we have two unprovable alternates.

To me, that gives them equal weight.

Calling "fallacy" because something doesn't suit your opinion is not particularly open minded.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Honestly, you are that much in denial?

Er.. he might just as well say that about you, of course.

We know that 'things' exist (matter, energy, space-time, fast-food premises, fashion accessories or whatever).

Well, to be honest, all I know for sure is that I exist. The rest might just as well be invented by 'me', whatever 'me' is. I seem to be "living" and "in a body" (or I am my body, whatever) and I have "fingers" which I use to type this message in - but again, all that might be a figment of my imagination. But I am, that's for sure.

Because we know that the existence of things is finite, they could not have just existed infinitely in the past.

We don't know if the existence of things is finite. Maybe some things - like God, energy, matter, or the universe for example - ARE infinite. But all I really know is that I myself exist. The rest - is doubtable.

This means that there is a good probability that they started to exist at some time in the past.
So, how did we get from before anything existed, to where everything that exists, exists?

Your initial assumption might be wrong. Maybe everything indeed exist forever - constantly changing eternally.

There are a couple of theories:

Something that is not finite in time, or is outside of time entirely, and had the capability and motivation to make stuff, did so.

And where did that magical entity come from, where did it originate? If it is 'eternal' - well, then our universe might also just as well be eternal itself and there is no need for a creationist deity..

or...

Some sort of fluctuation in the nothing caused the creation of a pair virtual particles with opposite polarity to each other and something prevented the opposites from annihilating back to nothing, leaving stuff behind,and this happened a lot.

Weird theory indeed. About as weird as eternal God the Creator, I'd say.

Neither theory has any particular evidence (except for the existence of everything).

I think you're right, but with the sidenote that 'existence of everything' is not proven. I am, that's the only certainty.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: NavyDoc

If a school wants funding from the taxpayer then they have to conform with the rules of the government.
They are free to do whatever they like if they do not want taxpayer funds.
.

True. However, as you said, the impetus was not academic problems or lack of achievement or lack of progress to university--it was simply a dislike for the course.

I don't care. Someone posted this thread for the purposes of discussion and debate. That is what we are doing. I'm an atheist, so obviously I don't support religion being taught as science, however, I'm not an anti-theist so I don't get worried about religiosity unless one can demonstrate actual harm.

Don't want your tax dollars wasted on extraneous crap? You sound like a conservative in the US! Well done!

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: chr0naut

Yeah, let's just stick to the science. Please provide the scientific evidence for creationism, not your stoner philosophy.

I'm over 50 and did a degree in Astrophysics years ago and I still maintain an interest.

I don't like Marijuana, as I found it highly irritant and it made me feel nauseous and disoriented rather than high.

I don't think that qualifies anything I said as "stoner philosophy".

Please provide scientific evidence for abiogenesis, or for how supersymmetry was broken, for how singularities do not have a firewall at the schwarzschild radius or for a mechanism that explains inflation ... and not just another theory or concept, I want real measurable scientific evidence.

Just provide some scientific evidence.

If you have a degree in Astrophysics you have probably heard of the "God of the Gaps".

Any valley or void in our understanding of the universe is almost always explained away by the religious as God. What you're arguing is that because we don't have answers for these questions, it must be evidence of a creator. Why is that? Why does it have to be evidence of a creator? Look back several hundred, or thousand years. What we didn't know then was astonishing. Why do the planets move, while stars remain fairly static, moving much more slowly? Why that's God, they said. Well now we understand the motion of stars and planets, even galaxies. (For the most part, at least) and nobody with even a grade school education claims the planets' motion is Gods work.

You're falling into the same line of thinking as our ancestors. We don't understand yet why these things are so. What broke supersymmetry, Black holes in GENERAL and not just the Schwarzchild radius. You see gaps in our knowledge and exclaim "There, that is where God lies." And when those gaps are filled, the religious go scampering to find more gaps to place their deities.

Please be intellectually honest enough to come up with the hard evidence of the theories science has put forward to explain the beginning of existence. If you cannot do that,then you have to admit that those theories are just as 'mythic' as Creationism.

BTW, you don't have matter until supersymmetry is broken, so you cannot invoke black holes as an explanation.

It's all gaps and wild theories.

Again with this Fallacy?

You demand that I, with my admittedly limited understanding of Physics, turn scientific theories into scientific proofs, something that has stumped ACTUAL scientists for dozens, if not hundreds of years. And you want me to do this within the time-frame of a few minutes, or hours if you're patient and explain it to you in laymen's terms in a concise post on a conspiracy forum.

Then when, predictably, I cannot do this herculean task, you get to puff out your chest and declare victory.

Sorry, I won't play your transparent game.

Are there gaps in our understanding? You bet! Are they God? It's unlikely, considering that as time has marched onward, and of the numerous, uncountable gaps that have been previously filled, we have yet to find God in any of them... Well, statistically, I'd say no.

Providing scientific evidence for Creationism is a task that is beyond me, just like the task of proving the contrary is for you.

The situation is that we have two unprovable alternates.

To me, that gives them equal weight.

Calling "fallacy" because something doesn't suit your opinion is not particularly open minded.

What's more believable:

1) That a natural process that we don't yet understand kickstarted out universe.
2) That an infinite, eternal, intelligent being got bored (despite it being perfect and incapable of boredom) and decided "Hey, I'll make a universe! That ought to entertain me for a few quadrillion years."

We really do need our own UK forum, where we can have civilised debates about UK issues without upsetting the religiously inclined.

a reply to: chr0naut

Accept that you are ignoring a KEY difference between Creationism and Evolution, the amount of evidence for each idea. The evidence for evolution FAR outweighs the evidence for Creationism.

See, as a scientist, you should know that it isn't about proving something beyond all doubt. That is currently impossible. It is about establishing the idea with the most evidence supporting it.

It comes across to me as intellectually dishonest that you would ignore this difference between the two ideas.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: chr0naut

I guess that means teaching them about Newton is out too. Or Einstein. Or atomic science. Or quantum mechanics.

Yep, No theories at all! Only 100% verified fact. But wait, according to renowned philosophers, there is absolutely no way to actually KNOW something is 100% true.

So let's just do away with school all together. Silly institution anyway.

No, teach them everything.

Teach them not to trust 'authoritative sources' but give them the tools to investigate and prise out their truth for themselves.

Actually provide a broad and balanced curriculum. Don't limit it to an opinion.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: chr0naut

Why don't you start your own thread championing creationist myths?
Lots to choose from, Greek, Norse, Cherokee, Sumerian, Ancient Egyptian, even Maori.

The UK government has decided that any school receiving taxpayers money can not teach any spiritual/religious myths as fact in science lessons. There are no laws against privately funded schools teaching whatever fairy tales they wish to their students, just not on the taxpayers coin.

Now you can claim your particular myth is fact or whatever you like, but this thread is about discussing the legislation created last year in the UK, not a debate about your favourite brand of myth. I see your posts as derailing and irrelevant, so again, if you wanna argue that YOUR myth is true I say start your own thread and I can ignore your solely faith based ramblings.

Are scientific theories of the beginning of the universe any less mythical than Creation theories?

My initial argument was that putting financial penalties on the teaching of any particular paradigm is a violation of human rights.

Like Newtonian physics is used to ease students towards the understanding of more scientifically rigorous theories, the teaching of Creationist views are stepping stone paradigms from which we can ascend to more convoluted ones and, as I pointed out in a previous post, creationist and religious theories are historically part of what we now call science.

Once, we thought that the Earth was the center of the universe and this was upheld by religious people. Copernicus and Galileo challenged those views but how would we explain the the achievements of those early astronomers if we took out all reference to the opposition that they faced?

I'm fine with teaching the HISTORY of Creationism and Religions in general. Where I take issue is when Religious tenets are taught as scientific fact.

I take issue with any theory taught as scientific fact. The bar on 'what is fact' that science uses is particularly high.

Too bad it isn't reflected in education and legislation.

Ah, so we shouldn't be teaching Gravity in schools, then. Makes perfect sense.

No, teach them theories as theories.

It is the anti-Creationists who are limiting what should be taught, not me.

a reply to: NavyDoc our conservative Party has won the last 2 general elections, it's just British conservatives would be considered liberals in your nations warped political beliefs. It was a conservative government that legalised gay marriage here. Far more progressive than what you guys call conservative

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: chr0naut

Yeah, let's just stick to the science. Please provide the scientific evidence for creationism, not your stoner philosophy.

I'm over 50 and did a degree in Astrophysics years ago and I still maintain an interest.

I don't like Marijuana, as I found it highly irritant and it made me feel nauseous and disoriented rather than high.

I don't think that qualifies anything I said as "stoner philosophy".

Please provide scientific evidence for abiogenesis, or for how supersymmetry was broken, for how singularities do not have a firewall at the schwarzschild radius or for a mechanism that explains inflation ... and not just another theory or concept, I want real measurable scientific evidence.

Just provide some scientific evidence.

If you have a degree in Astrophysics you have probably heard of the "God of the Gaps".

Any valley or void in our understanding of the universe is almost always explained away by the religious as God. What you're arguing is that because we don't have answers for these questions, it must be evidence of a creator. Why is that? Why does it have to be evidence of a creator? Look back several hundred, or thousand years. What we didn't know then was astonishing. Why do the planets move, while stars remain fairly static, moving much more slowly? Why that's God, they said. Well now we understand the motion of stars and planets, even galaxies. (For the most part, at least) and nobody with even a grade school education claims the planets' motion is Gods work.

You're falling into the same line of thinking as our ancestors. We don't understand yet why these things are so. What broke supersymmetry, Black holes in GENERAL and not just the Schwarzchild radius. You see gaps in our knowledge and exclaim "There, that is where God lies." And when those gaps are filled, the religious go scampering to find more gaps to place their deities.

Please be intellectually honest enough to come up with the hard evidence of the theories science has put forward to explain the beginning of existence. If you cannot do that,then you have to admit that those theories are just as 'mythic' as Creationism.

BTW, you don't have matter until supersymmetry is broken, so you cannot invoke black holes as an explanation.

It's all gaps and wild theories.

Again with this Fallacy?

You demand that I, with my admittedly limited understanding of Physics, turn scientific theories into scientific proofs, something that has stumped ACTUAL scientists for dozens, if not hundreds of years. And you want me to do this within the time-frame of a few minutes, or hours if you're patient and explain it to you in laymen's terms in a concise post on a conspiracy forum.

Then when, predictably, I cannot do this herculean task, you get to puff out your chest and declare victory.

Sorry, I won't play your transparent game.

Are there gaps in our understanding? You bet! Are they God? It's unlikely, considering that as time has marched onward, and of the numerous, uncountable gaps that have been previously filled, we have yet to find God in any of them... Well, statistically, I'd say no.

Providing scientific evidence for Creationism is a task that is beyond me, just like the task of proving the contrary is for you.

The situation is that we have two unprovable alternates.

To me, that gives them equal weight.

Calling "fallacy" because something doesn't suit your opinion is not particularly open minded.

What's more believable:

1) That a natural process that we don't yet understand kickstarted out universe.
2) That an infinite, eternal, intelligent being got bored (despite it being perfect and incapable of boredom) and decided "Hey, I'll make a universe! That ought to entertain me for a few quadrillion years."

Both are believable, people believe them.

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
a reply to: NavyDoc our conservative Party has won the last 2 general elections, it's just British conservatives would be considered liberals in your nations warped political beliefs. It was a conservative government that legalised gay marriage here. Far more progressive than what you guys call conservative

Which is why I said "in the US." Political labels and terms do not translate well from one nation to another.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Haha, no I'm a liberal conservative socialist depending on the issue at hand
...but when it comes to my taxes being spent on supporting creation myths of whatever flavour in a state funded science class, then I want my elected representatives to put a stop to it.

Oh, and regarding your comment earlier wondering how the average state funded faith schools compare to average non-faith schools, in my area the faith schools have better results.
We also have 'selective' state funded grammar schools though, my own son passed the exam at age 11 to get into one of the top 20 (by results) schools in England, and left with excellent grades.
People call them elitist here but my lad was one of the poorest in his year, the rest were children of doctors, architects, airline pilots and such like.
There is excellent free education in the UK, although the cost of school trips, uniform, etc, did stop me clubbing as often as I used to.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: chr0naut

Accept that you are ignoring a KEY difference between Creationism and Evolution, the amount of evidence for each idea. The evidence for evolution FAR outweighs the evidence for Creationism.

See, as a scientist, you should know that it isn't about proving something beyond all doubt. That is currently impossible. It is about establishing the idea with the most evidence supporting it.

It comes across to me as intellectually dishonest that you would ignore this difference between the two ideas.

I was not referring to Evolution but was referring to the beginning of the universe.

Evolution is unrelated to Creation or the origin of the universe.

Evolution is a set of theories to explain biodiversity. It doesn't provide any explanation for how life started.

Darwinian Evolution is, like Newtonian Physics, a bit of an anachronism but apparently they are allowed to teach it in schools.

a reply to: chr0naut

Fair enough. I misread, still substitute Big Bang for Evolution. Same Argument.