Teaching Creationism As Science Now Banned In All UK Public Schools

originally posted by: Iseestars
I think options instead of restrictions on teachings is the best.
Give the kids an option to chose.

Sure...let kids set the curriculum. What could go wrong?

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

so you can teach your creationism - but you are not allowed to lie about it being science!

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

It's easily done with bacteria - place one generation in a petri dish with their favorite nutrients. A new generation forms every 20 minutes. Gradually or suddenly change the nutrients to something they can't really digest, then proceed to take samples every generation. For a while, the bacteria will just get along slowly, but suddenly there will be a population explosion as soon as one individual figures out how to digest the new food source. Looking at the past generations, you will see that there are slow mutations and that these continue until one individual gets
lucky.

With larger creatures, our DNA actually has mutation prevention systems in place when living conditions are favorable. As soon as living conditions are harsh, these mutation prevention systems are switched off. Then all sorts of things can happen; larger bones, smaller bones, larger brains, smaller brains, larger eyes, smaller eyes. Nature tries everything and anything to adapt to the living conditions. That's why we find all these little humans in isolated
islands, nature adapted by reducing food consumption.

DNA and genetic interactions are so complex now, that it takes multiple mutations to adapt to any problem.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Oh…the tyranny of science moves forward.
As if evolution is conclusive and “scientific”

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Good, can we start now in America to get that garbage out of our schools?

a reply to: Willtell

"The tyranny of science?"... lol

That's the equivalent of the "tyranny of facts!"... how dare facts be factual... how dare science use those facts to invent things, and show natural processes... grrr... why can't we just go back to a pure belief system that doesn't require proof and facts? Right?

Evolution is scientific, and ever more related theories are being shown to be conclusive... there is no viable alternative to evolution. It is the only scientific theory that as a framework explains all the facts.

You are showing your ignorance and lack of education in the area with such a short post. Amazing really… to be able to convey such ignorance in only a few words.

Congratulations!

a reply to: stormcell

It's easily done with bacteria

I get you loud and clear. If I were to contest what you have to say, it wouldn't be worth the time to type out. Your bacteria is _still_ bacteria at the end of the day. And no one _ever_ has conducted a scientific experiment (much less repeated it) where a change of species is evident (e.g. breeding two dogs and coming up with a cat).

This is my point: The same problem I have with 'teaching creationism' is the same problem I have with 'teaching evolution' as definitive science.

When someone looks a scientist in the eye and says, "Prove it." ... a scientist does so. If they try to 'argue' their point, they are a charlatan (or a philosopher).

a reply to: Snarl
that's because "proof" is usually not actually understood by the people who demand it - along with 9 other scientific concepts in this list!!

When a scientist uses "proof" they are not meaning the same thing as various ignorant nay-sayers demanding "proof" - the scientist is talking about strong evidence that logically supports a conclusion:

Physicist Sean Carroll says:


I would say that "proof" is the most widely misunderstood concept in all of science. It has a technical definition (a logical demonstration that certain conclusions follow from certain assumptions) that is strongly at odds with how it is used in casual conversation, which is closer to simply "strong evidence for something." There is a mismatch between how scientists talk and what people hear because scientists tend to have the stronger definition in mind. And by that definition, science never proves anything! So when we are asked "What is your proof that we evolved from other species?" or "Can you really prove that climate change is caused by human activity?" we tend to hem and haw rather than simply saying "Of course we can." The fact that science never really proves anything, but simply creates more and more reliable and comprehensive theories of the world that nevertheless are always subject to update and improvement, is one of the key aspects of why science is so successful.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

That's a really good link. Thanks for taking the time to reply.

FWIW, I didn't set the standards. I'm just the guy who argues when I see somebody trying to move the goal posts.

originally posted by: Snarl
I get you loud and clear. If I were to contest what you have to say, it wouldn't be worth the time to type out. Your bacteria is _still_ bacteria at the end of the day. And no one _ever_ has conducted a scientific experiment (much less repeated it) where a change of species is evident (e.g. breeding two dogs and coming up with a cat).

And therein lies the problem trying to get "creationists" to understand evolution...

It doesn't mean "two dogs coming up with a cat". I tried to make it simple for you in my post on page 1, yet either you ignored it, or simply couldn't refute any of it so glossed it over.

The change is gradual but over hundreds, if not thousands, of generations organisms can and do evolve and, eventually, into something entirely different from their ancestors..

a reply to: Snarl

A classic case of the religious moving the goal posts.

Bacteria is a category with many classified species under its banner. Just as cats and dogs (and humans) are under the category of mammals. Is it correct to say, cats and dogs are still just mammals, so are the same species? No.

Evolution has been proven by showing one bacterial species change to a new categorisable species of bacteria through approximately 31,000 generations of ancestry.

The more complex an organism, the more generations of ancestry is required to see a species diverge. You don't get two dogs breed a cat... it just doesn't work that way... which is your major flaw in reasoning, and your lack of education around evolutionary process.

For instance, it has taken one experiment over 30 years to progress through just 1000 generations of fruit fly. While a new species hasn't arisen from that experiment yet, we can make an assumption that it will likely take over 1000 years of fruit fly generations to see a new species arise.

Just because you don't have the knowledge required to understand long span processes as a derivation of short scale observation, and haven't seen magic happen (like a cat turning into a dog), doesn't make evolution wrong.

You just choose not to educate yourself adequately.

a reply to: stumason

What you are attempting to define is a concept. One day 'science' may even do so. They haven't. Why is that so frikkin' hard to admit?

My apologies if I hurt your feelings by not making a direct reply to your post. I saw your post (and the other two) and just went with the last one in the thread. Though this is a great topic for debate, I doubt I'll make a point of contesting each individual post in the thread.

Mind you ... I'm not going to act butt-hurt over your labeling me a 'creationist' ... when 'doubting Thomas' would have been a more appropriate (though still inaccurate) moniker.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

You have been reading IFL haven't you? Haha good on you.

What I can say about the law is that hopefully those generations will grow up with a better understanding of meanings in scientific language than the current generations.

a reply to: puzzlesphere

And you show your ignorance AND TYRANY in a lot of words.

I would congratulate you as well but I don’t view ignorance and tyranny as anything worthy of congratulatory exclamations

Though I would recommend further study...

Good to hear. This makes tons of sense because science class is supposed to teach... you know, actual science, not some individual interpretation of a book written thousands of years ago.

Evolution has tons of evidence in support of it, creationism only has a book written by people with an agenda.

Good on the UK! One more step toward progress.

a reply to: Willtell

I was actually being facetious and maybe a bit rude... not tyrannical.

It was really just a response to the tone in your two grossly inaccurate sentences.

Oh…the tyranny of science moves forward.

Science, by definition can't be tyrannical. It is just a body of knowledge, and an organisation of facts.

So this was either flippant or ignorant. If it was just flippant, then why say it?

The obvious reason is because you don't "believe" in the science of evolution... as highlighted in your following sentence.

As if evolution is conclusive and “scientific”

Evolution is a scientific theory, so by definition it is "scientific", there are also many aspects to evolution that are conclusive, and are supported by the factual framework of science... which brings us back to your first sentence.

It is actually quite an elegant example of circular logic, especially in such a short post, hence my congratulations on your achievement.

If you choose to misinterpret the definitions of both science and evolution, then you are fundamentally displaying ignorance.

Beyond the fact that I enjoy to study, acquire new knowledge and constantly re-evaluate my world view... what exactly would you recommend I study further?

originally posted by: xDeadcowx

These logical conclusions have lead to the scientific and technologically advanced society we live in today and will continue to propel our civilization forward well in to the future.

Or destroy it perhaps.

originally posted by: Iseestars
I think options instead of restrictions on teachings is the best.
Give the kids an option to chose.

That concept is ludicrous on it's face. The facts are not to be left up to the kids to decide what is true and what isn't.

a reply to: stumason


Hats off to you dude, your cactus analogy is a winner, it would take a real stubborn evolution denier to not see the logic...

a reply to: djz3ro

Cheers, but I can't claim all the credit - I lifted it from my kids school books that I read a few years ago. A book designed to teach 8 year olds, I might add...... Say's it all really...

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

I'd like to make the point that Creationism hasn't been taught as a science in mainstream schools for decades - 1930s.

This new development has been a hasty response to a small minority of faith schools (Muslim, Evangelical etc) injecting their beliefs across the curriculum.

Although it needed to be banned in the interests of education, the wider, political issue was a fear that some might radicalise our youngsters.

RE continues to to be taught as a compulsory subject until age 14 and optional thereafter. It's a great subject that offers philosophical questions about life, rights and morality whilst teaching tolerance for all religions.