Creationism to be taught in UK Science class?

news.uk.msn.com...

Why is the Abrahamic creation myth trying to insinuate itself into UK SCIENCE classrooms when there is no evidence for it?
What is wrong with a separate class entitled
´Non scientific origin concepts´ where students can learn all about various different creation myths from all over the world including religions such as:
Korean,Eskimo,Viking,Polynesian,Abrahamic,Roman,Greek,Rastafarian etc..
Because of a complete lack of evidence of any kind,surely one creation myth is just as feasible and plausible as another.
Cheers Karl

The problem faced by everyone is that there are holes in every theory, IMHO, just the thought of creationism, makes me wonder about the open mindedness of some of these people, I'm not going to create a case for anyone to have a go at me.

You have to be honest some of the theories surrounding this particular subject, are really wide open to criticism, and now with new archaeological discoveries being made, that are brushing back not just the boundaries to this whole subject, and pointing to Humans being a lot older than reported, its becoming like a last grasp attempt to hide some truths, they seem to turn away from evidence with their fingers in their ears, humming or La La-ing to themselves to drown out some facts.

I will say i doubt very much this will be accepted in classrooms, its not so easy to hide facts here in the UK. smaller communities= more direct discussion=they said what?

At the same time as making clear creationism is not accepted by the scientific community,

so in science it should be taught but it should also be taught that it isnt science so doesnt belong in a science class ..........

in religeous studies we should make them start teaching Darwinism and also teach it isnt religeon so doesnt belong in R.E.

see how much they enjoy that

So then by this logic we need churches to also start preaching evolution. You know, so they can have both sides of the "argument" and decide for themselves!

This doesn't even make sense. You know what, I would actually be fine with an elective theology class. Talk about creationism there. But creationism has absolutely no, zero, zip, scientific merit and cannot be taught as such. Ridiculous.

Originally posted by ANoNyMiKE
So then by this logic we need churches to also start preaching evolution. You know, so they can have both sides of the "argument" and decide for themselves!

This doesn't even make sense. You know what, I would actually be fine with an elective theology class. Talk about creationism there. But creationism has absolutely no, zero, zip, scientific merit and cannot be taught as such. Ridiculous.

in the UK we have religeous education its part of the standard syllabus

and in this class everyone is taught about the larger religeons

judaism islam christianity buddhism and hinduism was what was taught when i was st school not sure now what religeons are taught but its still a healthy mix im sure


teach the controversey!!! darwinism in church!!

[edit on 12/9/08 by noobfun]

The posts title hit me hard, having enjoyed an English education for most of my childhood life.

I was relieved to read that ALL creation myths will be taught and not just the evangelical christian view.

However, I believe that this class should NEVER be dubbed "science" as it is nothing more than unsubstantiated myth. The classes should fall under:

Religious Education (RE)
Humanities
or
Mythology

It will be a beautiful day when nonbelievers finally stop giving into this "respect" rubbish. Despite what the majority tell you, all beliefs are NOT equally deserving of respect and reverence any more than they are equally plausible. So we should not "see creationism as a 'misconception' but as a 'world view'" and "convey a message of respect that does not 'denigrate or ridicule' the children's beliefs," eh? So, in essence, we are to tell children that their creation story is a perfectly reasonable explanation for the origins of our universe--a "world view," as Mr. Reiss would have it. There is a very neat, simple answer to this: we ought to maintain scientific curriculum according to scientific standards. Is that such a crazy idea? That science class should teach ideas accepted by the scientific community rather than any particular religion's creation story? If you want children instructed on creation myths, do so within a humanities class.

I am reminded of a quote by Geoff Mather: "To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask." We as a global populace ought to be questioning these creation stories rather than impotently bowing before the all-mighty Church, though I will grant you that a child's classroom is not the place to do it. Hopefully the discussion within the adult sphere will result in our abolishing the idea of incorporating these stories into our children's science classes.

Originally posted by paperplanes
It will be a beautiful day when nonbelievers finally stop giving into this "respect" rubbish. Despite what the majority tell you, all beliefs are NOT equally deserving of respect and reverence any more than they are equally plausible. So we should not "see creationism as a 'misconception' but as a 'world view'" and "convey a message of respect that does not 'denigrate or ridicule' the children's beliefs," eh? So, in essence, we are to tell children that their creation story is a perfectly reasonable explanation for the origins of our universe--a "world view," as Mr. Reiss would have it. There is a very neat, simple answer to this: we ought to maintain scientific curriculum according to scientific standards. Is that such a crazy idea? That science class should teach ideas accepted by the scientific community rather than any particular religion's creation story? If you want children instructed on creation myths, do so within a humanities class.

I am reminded of a quote by Geoff Mather: "To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask." We as a global populace ought to be questioning these creation stories rather than impotently bowing before the all-mighty Church, though I will grant you that a child's classroom is not the place to do it. Hopefully the discussion within the adult sphere will result in our abolishing the idea of incorporating these stories into our children's science classes.

Here here

Originally posted by ANoNyMiKE
You know what, I would actually be fine with an elective theology class. Talk about creationism there. But creationism has absolutely no, zero, zip, scientific merit and cannot be taught as such. Ridiculous.

Thanks for the replies,I realy couldn´t agree more.
Teaching Abrahamic creation myths in science class is not only ridiculous;it is unequivocably wrong and makes a mockery of the objective,dispassionate,analytical approach that is the scientific method.
If you want to throw observational evidence (and use of rationale/reason out the window),why not start teaching science students that the earth could be a huge flat disc balancing precariously on the back of a giant turtle?
I think its more to do with overtly relgious folks attempting to promote their selfish,opinionated,non provable agendas rather than any impartial regard for truth.
Cheers Karl

[edit on 01/12/01 by karl 12]

reply to post by karl 12


Actually, I think they should be discussed in science classes. It won't take long, as these myths are nothing but hypotheses. It won't take more than 30 seconds to point that out in a science lesson, and the kids will be better off for it - a great lesson on what constitutes a scientific theory, and how creationism is nothing of the kind.

Originally posted by noobfun

Originally posted by ANoNyMiKE

in the UK we have religeous education its part of the standard syllabus

and in this class everyone is taught about the larger religeons

judaism islam christianity buddhism and hinduism was what was taught when i was st school not sure now what religeons are taught but its still a healthy mix im sure
[edit on 12/9/08 by noobfun]

Noobfun Thanks for the reply,I´ve always wondered about teaching children specific organised religions in schools,I too was educated in England and it seemed to me that,at the time,they were presenting this theological speculation and conjecture as ´fact´.
This to me seems a bit irresponsible and could be seen as a violation of student /teacher principles.
I mean ...how can you mark an exam on god when nobody knows any of the answers?
As for UK education teaching a wide range of worldwide organised religious beleifs (from a veritable pantheon of different gods and godesses worshipped down the years) I´d have to disagree;if anything they seem to push the ´abrahamic opinion´onto young people the most (what is it a popularity contest?)
Cheers Karl


[edit on 01/12/01 by karl 12]

I...think...I'm...going...to...hemorrage.

I proudly enjoyed a full UK education, right up to university level. It was secular, scientific and very, very enlightening. I'd hate for children these days to be deprived of such a wonder.

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin
I...think...I'm...going...to...hemorrage.

I proudly enjoyed a full UK education, right up to university level. It was secular, scientific and very, very enlightening. I'd hate for children these days to be deprived of such a wonder.

Here here,very well said.

reply to post by karl 12


The religious education I received in the UK simply spoke of the most popular religions in the world. The course was designed to educate the students about what other people think. It never presented anything religious as fact, only that certain people believe certain things, which is indeed a fact. There were no exams about anything other than facts - the tenets of each religion, etc., which can indeed be learned without becoming a believer. I'm a staunch atheist and I loved the course. I'd say it strengthened by atheism, but atheism can't be strengthened, by its very definition.

If creationists want creationism taught in science class, I say go for it. It won't take the teacher more than 30 seconds to rip the hypothesis to shreds. The rest of the lesson can be spent on going over the process of evolution, with supporting evidence at each step. It will only serve to make creationism look as ridiculous as it should. Maybe that's the problem at the moment - most people who don't care one way or the other aren't exposed to the creationist nonsense in a scientific setting. If they were, perhaps they'd realise the joke a lot earlier.

We really should organise some kind of Evolutionists Bible thread, to keep a list of all the links we routinely use to show evidence of evolution, so we don't have to go on a silly hunt every time a Creationist flaps on about this or that.

It was clearly stated, by the gentleman who made this proposal, that he was suggesting creationism not be taught in science class, but in some other class, as a kind of alternate point of view.

Rather than dismissing creationism as a "misconception", he says it should be seen as a cultural "world view".

Teachers should take the time to explain why creationism had no scientific basis, Prof Reiss said.

He stressed that the topic should not be taught as science.

source

I attended religion class at school - we called it Divinity for some reason. The creation and flood tales in Genesis were the subject of a good deal of waffle by well-intentioned men, some of the cloth, who obviously didn't believe such nonsense and were embarrassed at having to teach it to schoolboys. Much reference was made to that good old Anglican hymn that goes

A thousand ages in Thy sight
Are but an evening gone

to explain how all we see could have come about in just six days. Indeed, refuge in metaphor was often sought. Our Divinity teachers did not so much explain the Bible to us as try to explain it away.

In science class, we learnt about evolution from men and women who believed in it, on the whole, but didn't understand it properly. Their presentation was full of the usual popular errors, such as we see put forward by creationists in this forum. Not one of them understood how natural selection worked.

I suppose we had the worst of both worlds, but at least it taught us to make up our minds for ourselves, and not to have too much faith in anything. Education teaches no more useful lessons than these.

Unless, of course, one is contemplating a career as a divine.

[edit on 13-9-2008 by Astyanax]

Originally posted by Astyanax
It was clearly stated, by the gentleman who made this proposal, that he was suggesting creationism not be taught in science class, but in some other class, as a kind of alternate point of view.

Rather than dismissing creationism as a "misconception", he says it should be seen as a cultural "world view".

Teachers should take the time to explain why creationism had no scientific basis, Prof Reiss said.

He stressed that the topic should not be taught as science.

source

Yo Astyanax,

You misread this.

He says it should be discussed in science class but not taught as a science.

"However, when young people ask questions about creationism in science classes, teachers need to be able to explain to them why evolution and the Big Bang are scientific theories but they should also take the time to explain how science works and why creationism has no scientific basis.

He is arguing that having healthy debate on the subject, within the science class room, and letting students making up their own mind.

This was countered by:

This was challenged by Simon Underdown, senior lecturer in the department of anthropology at Oxford Brookes University.

Creationism should be taught within the context of religion rather than science, said Dr Underdown.

"It is not something that fits within the mainstream of science."

With so much to be crammed into science lessons, it was not a worthwhile use of time to include lessons about creationism, he argued.

I, personally, believe that the argument of Creation V Evolution should be kept out of science classes and toaught for philosophy classes ... and that philosophy classes be made part of the compulsory curriculum.

good luck with teaching creationsim in school!!
im only 3 years out of school and where i come from... in the northwest of england, there wasnt a single person in my year who was religious and most people my age laugh at the idea of religion or god never mind creationism.

I don't really understand how you could implement creationism into a science class.
I mean the classes will be over fairly quickly when the teacher says "so god made everything and that's it".
Creationism completely does away with science.
Unless you believe from the start that the God particle is actually a particle, and not a white haired bearded guy who lives in the clouds, then what really is the point?