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

I am trying to discuss the teaching of creationism in UK public funded schools and the fact that I and others have an issue with this.

I am trying to talk about the fact that this has been resolved and is now longer an issue.

I am trying to discuss this.

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: chr0naut

If we do not know how life began then would the sensible option not be to tell children that we do not know yet as opposed to arguing about which unproven theory we should be teaching them.

If I do not know the answer to somthing I ask, if no one can give me an answer then I leave it at that?

That would leave the children ignorant.

Perhaps we could say "we don't know exactly but here are some ideas that people have had"...

You simply refuse to let this lie do you?

Say what you mean here, it could not affect anyones opinion of you.

Either say what you really mean or say nothing more it's not that hard.

I have said what I mean.

The restriction of what can be taught and when is not a good thing. Better legislation would have mandated that the scientific view MUST be taught for there to be a "broad and balanced curriculum".

The legislation is contrary to the stated goal of a "broad and balanced curriculum" it also is contrary to the right of freedom of expression (freedom of speech).

The fact that those who believe this legislative control over the right of free expression is something to applaud shows that they have not considered the implications, like what other things it may be expanded to include.

Have you committed thoughtcrime?

This should teach religion in school, in the same category as Zeus, Odin and Gilgamesh... why? you call them mythology? isnt that a bit unfair.

They were once a religion too.

Alexis de Tocqueville, (1805-1859) the French social philosopher visited America to discover the reasons for our incredible success. "Democracy in America" (1838)

"Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things.

In France, I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country.

Religion in America...must be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it. Indeed, it is in this same point of view that the inhabitants of the United States themselves look upon religious belief.

I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion -- for who can search the human heart? But I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society.

In the United States, the sovereign authority is religious...there is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility and of its conformity to human nature than that its influence is powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth.

In the United States, the influence of religion is not confined to the manners, but it extends to the intelligence of the people...

Christianity, therefore, reigns without obstacle, by universal consent...

I sought for the key to the greatness and genius of America in her harbors...; in her fertile fields and boundless forests; in her rich mines and vast world commerce; in her public school system and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and in her matchless Constitution.

Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power.

America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.

The safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of law as well as the surest pledge of freedom.

The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other

Christianity is the companion of liberty in all its conflicts -- the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its claims."

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: chr0naut

If we do not know how life began then would the sensible option not be to tell children that we do not know yet as opposed to arguing about which unproven theory we should be teaching them.

If I do not know the answer to somthing I ask, if no one can give me an answer then I leave it at that?

That would leave the children ignorant.

Perhaps we could say "we don't know exactly but here are some ideas that people have had"...

I will finally bite here as that seems to be the way of things and after trying to accomadate you and your opinions I no longer care so well done there.

I as a member of the UK And a parent do not wish for my child to be taught creationism as anything other than a story.

The vast majority of members of the UK agree on this and as such it is no longer an issue here, Goverment funding will no longer support this.

It is quite simply this simple, there is nothing more to argue and this is the way of things.

That is all, the end.

Really thats it.

This is a 'conspiracy' site. It would be unreasonable for you to expect responses that did not consider the political control implications behind posts.

Your government watches you and your family incessantly. The UK population is the most 'monitored' in the world.

It also has many unreasonable and unjust laws which have been used to inflict harm on dissenters (Did you know people have been imprisoned and fined for non-payment of their TV license?, a tax that exists nowhere else in the world).

Despite this, you are happy to give up yet another right.

There's no hope for you, you've drunk the cool-aid.

a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

So your religious and normal response from anyone religious.

I feel sad for any child that as to listen to something that is based off nothing. no evidence. It is clear science does not have all the answers but its understanding of the world is real as it has evidence. Evidence in its findings, evidence in what it has created thus far. The computer your using, the internet you leave your comments with. Religion has given the world nothing but false promises. If it was down to religion we would all be sat in a ditch with nothing more then a book to hold as we reach our death bed, that is not living.

This is good to see that the UK has done this, it stops religious babble and stops extremist schools popping up more and more.

Banning all discussion of creationism is just as stupid as only teaching creationism.

To only teach evolution, and deny discussion about any other viewpoint is ludicrous.

Kids are in school to LEARN. The best way for kids to LEARN is to present all the options and let them decide. Presenting opposing viewpoints encourages discussion and investigation.

Only presenting one viewpoint encourages brainwashing and closed mindedness.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: chr0naut

If we do not know how life began then would the sensible option not be to tell children that we do not know yet as opposed to arguing about which unproven theory we should be teaching them.

If I do not know the answer to somthing I ask, if no one can give me an answer then I leave it at that?

That would leave the children ignorant.

Perhaps we could say "we don't know exactly but here are some ideas that people have had"...

I will finally bite here as that seems to be the way of things and after trying to accomadate you and your opinions I no longer care so well done there.

I as a member of the UK And a parent do not wish for my child to be taught creationism as anything other than a story.

The vast majority of members of the UK agree on this and as such it is no longer an issue here, Goverment funding will no longer support this.

It is quite simply this simple, there is nothing more to argue and this is the way of things.

That is all, the end.

Really thats it.

This is a 'conspiracy' site. It would be unreasonable for you to expect responses that did not consider the political control implications behind posts.

Your government watches you and your family incessantly. The UK population is the most 'monitored' in the world.

It also has many unreasonable and unjust laws which have been used to inflict harm on dissenters (Did you know people have been imprisoned and fined for non-payment of their TV license?, a tax that exists nowhere else in the world).

Despite this, you are happy to give up yet another right.

There's no hope for you, you've drunk the cool-aid.

Well done with all those cool links there.

I am happy you figured it all out there.

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: chr0naut
Big Bang theory has a lot. There's a decent overview here demonstrating the various sources of evidence for it and the tests it has passed here: www.universetoday.com...

A prof at Lancaster uni created a mini universe in the super cooled lab but I'm struggling to find the paper or any news on it but will continue to search as I'm heading there next month.

I personally favour the static state model, though obviously it's not concrete - there's just a lot of evidence for it - arxiv.org...
www.sciencedirect.com...

M theory is obviously a heated debate but simulations have supprted it but I;d need to brush up on Hermintian to have an opinion on those
arxiv.org...
arxiv.org...

In regard to the Univese Today article:

1. Redshift may not be an indicator of relative velocity as explained in a previous post.

2. Big Bang Nucleosynthesis would have had to happen after inflation. There was no intense pressure as all matter was, by that stage, distributed across the universe. So, the conditions were not right for nucleosynthesis. In that light, to say that nuclear abundances support Big Bang Nucleosynthesis is nonsense.

3. The Microwave Cosmic Background Radiation could have another source other than the Big Bang.

4. The inference that the large scale structure of the universe arose from the Big Bang is purely theoretical. We have no way to verify that.

I don't think it is valid to uphold other theories, themselves in doubt, as 'evidence'.

I'm interested in the Lancaster Uni paper, please see if you can reference it.

The nature of the articles you linked to are highly theoretical, but interesting.

Thanks.

a reply to: crazyewok

What are you talking about???

That's a disgusting comment on your part...your get a time out, sonny....

originally posted by: babybunnies
Banning all discussion of creationism is just as stupid as only teaching creationism.

To only teach evolution, and deny discussion about any other viewpoint is ludicrous.

Kids are in school to LEARN. The best way for kids to LEARN is to present all the options and let them decide. Presenting opposing viewpoints encourages discussion and investigation.

Only presenting one viewpoint encourages brainwashing and closed mindedness.

Except that isn't actually what is happening. Creationism will not be taught as part of any science curriculum. It can still be discussed in religious classes. Comparing the teaching of fact based science with theogical philosophies with no basis supported by any testable or repeatable fact based system is a giant straw man argument and nothing more.

There is a time and place for everything. Religion is a personal matter best left tI ones family and church for discussion and education. Not a public school where you have people of many varying faiths.

Everyone's all for teaching biblical creation until they find out that it's not biblical creationism. What happens when a classroom full of students is being taught the validity of Hindu or Shinto creation mythos in place of the Abrahamic version? Is that going to be an acceptable learning experience or will those parents suddenly be up in arms? What if a Jewish teacher decides to tell the class that they shouldn't celebrate Christmas because the Messiah has yet to appear? Would that be acceptable to everyone when their personal theology is minimized in such a fashion or will they instead feel it is derogatory towards their beliefs?

This is why, as a deeply personal thing, religion should be the province of ones family and church, taught and discussed by those who share your personal set of beliefs. Not a generic school teacher(in a public institution at least. If you send your kids to parochial school then you should be well aware of what they will be taught). Your child shoddy be receiving lessons on religion by a science teacher anymore than your child should be receiving biased science teaching from a theologian. Neither Make much sense do They?

Likewise, science should be taught by those who are trained and educated in science. You want someone with a graduate degree in science educating your children on the various disciplines just Like You want someone who has studied their whole Life and perhaps even went to seminary to be in charge of your child's religious fundamentals don't you?

You're not doing children a disservice by teaching them about evolution but not religious creationism. You're doing yourself a disservice by Thinking The two concepts go hand in hand. Evolution is about the changes in allele frequency over time and how biological aspects of morphology and phenotype can change. It has nothing to do with the origins of life. Evolution is a theory. This means it's based on facts that can be observed, tested and independently reproduced. The scientific equivalent of creation would be abiogenesis and panspermia. Both are Hypothesis. There is enough evidence to show that either process are Viable enough to have worked to begin the Process that created Cellular life on earth but no proof that They actually have occurred. There is copious evidence that evolution does occur, has occurred and is still occurring and therefore is a fact that is observable, testable and repeatable. Very different than a Hypothesis and taught as very different as well.

a reply to: chr0naut

Just to point out most cctvs are privately owned.
Our government doesn't have that many.
I have one to catch the buggers who steal my garden gnomes.

a reply to: boymonkey74

Not to mention that the report much of this "UK most monitored in the world" is based on was discredited by it's own authors when they acknowledged their methodology was flawed.

For example, they took a 1 km stretch of road in one borough in south London, counted up all the CCTV (both private and publicly owned) and then extrapolated that out to the entire country, as if that street was the norm - it wasn't.

Further to your point, around 95% of all CCTV in the UK is privately owned - something else acknowledged in the report which started this whole nonsense off over 10 years ago.

As for the OP - Creationism is a religious idea (and a crap one at that). It's "teaching" belongs in RE, not science.

The fact they even teach RE in schools annoys me though - religion is a private matter and not something to be "taught".

a reply to: stumason

The fact they even teach RE in schools annoys me though - religion is a private matter and not something to be "taught".

To be fair, they aren't teaching faith, they're teaching about faiths and that's an important difference to point out. RE also covers such topics as death penalty, euthanasia and the care of the elderly in society. They'll pitch it in the light of mainstream faiths and offer alternative, secular views too. This actually stimulates young people to consider different cultures and different generations across a back-drop of cultural history and even philosophy.

If you think about it, moral reasoning is an important factor in society and individuals that doesn't really fit into core subjects like English, maths, science, ICT etc. RE can be the one subject where pupils are exposed to ideas like euthanasia.

Because this is ATS, let me add that I'm not religious and don't think faith should be promoted in schools.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Yeah, fair point and I stand corrected

I just hated the subject at school - it was a one hour slice of the week I would have much preferred to have been doing a Science or Maths lesson...

a reply to: stumason

Same here; hated it.

If I ever cross paths with the teacher, I owe her a big apology for being a disruptive tool in her lessons.

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: Kandinsky

Yeah, fair point and I stand corrected

I just hated the subject at school - it was a one hour slice of the week I would have much preferred to have been doing a Science or Maths lesson...

I think that's why I probably liked it.i hated science and maths although I had trouble with the euthanasia topic as I spent most of the time thinking we were meant to be talking about the youth in Asia.. I was totally lost.

originally posted by: Prezbo369

The decision effectively means that no school in the United Kingdom can teach creationism or any other “anti-scientific” dogma without losing the entirety of its funding, as they would be violating “the requirement on every academy and free school to provide a broad and balanced curriculum.”

According to a press release from the British Humanist Association (BHA), the new rules “explicitly require that pupils are taught about the theory of evolution, and prevent academy trusts from teaching ‘creationism’ as scientific fact.”

Not even Intelligent Design — the favored faux-scientific theory of American creationists who wish to import biblical beliefs into public school classrooms — can be taught, as “creationism” is defined by the new rule as “any doctrine or theory which holds that natural biological processes cannot account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth and therefore rejects the scientific theory of evolution.”

As BHA Faith Schools Campaigner Richy Thompson noted, the reason behind this change was that “every young person is entitled to a high quality, broad and balanced education. This includes in biology, where evolution is a central topic and is vital to understanding how human life came to be. On the other hand, ideas such as young earth creationism should not be taught as scientifically valid for the very simple reason that they are not.”

www.rawstory.com...

My faith (heh) in humanity was partially restored today after reading the above, reason and logic has overcome superstition and myth and we can now rest assured that our children won't be indoctrinated with such nonsense, even if it is only on this small rock.

Now it's up to the US to follow suit....

All this amounts to is an official government position bought and sold. Hope america doesn't follow suit.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: stumason

The fact they even teach RE in schools annoys me though - religion is a private matter and not something to be "taught".

Because this is ATS, let me add that I'm not religious and don't think faith should be promoted in schools.

Its not really about faith its about anything that interferes with the students mental processing of the official state position. About education as a whole at some places denied funding because of a conflict with the state institutional position. The state has an agenda.....this agenda is attached to the teaching about evolution which itself is irrelevant to people in their day to day life.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I don't believe in creationism as the Bible portrays, to me it seems like a magical fantasy, something to be taught at Hogwarts -- but I still think people should be aware of what others believe.

That's still covered under Religious Education in all schools.
This ruling means that no school can teach a falsehood as scientific fact, not that no school can ever discuss the beliefs of various faiths.

In the UK we have state school lessons on all religious beliefs objectively, without pushing an agenda. That's about understanding society and the beliefs other groups of people have rather than forcing a belief system on the students. This is how it should be.

Religion is (currently) still important to know about from a sociological perspective, and a historical one too, but it should only be raised in state funded schools as an unbiased subject to give a frame of reference, and cover every major religion equally.

This is great news, it's about time our kids were protected from this nonsensical brainwashing by religious nutters. And those here who think the Theory of Evolution is equally irrelevant as Creationism show exactly why we need to change our education system. If these people genuinely think that, and they are predominantly American, it shows the US is more backward in education than the UK - but we knew that already, right