UK government bans teaching creationism in schools

[HoreTore]

Linky

Cameron may be a stinking conservative, but this is definitely a cause for celebration. No longer will private schools offer a safe haven for blissful ignorance in the UK.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Creationism should be taught in theology or comparative religion courses. It has no place in a science classroom. I went to Catholic school for some 12 years not once did I hear a peep about creationism while discussing the scientific method. It wasn't even a controversy.

Personally, I believe that nothing on the planet earth or in the Universe makes real or longterm sense. This is why I have so much appreciation for the scientific method - it provides an evidence based glimpse at logical consistency.

However, because of the fact that all of existence is patently absurd (human beings come out of other human beings, people wear Decorational clothing, we have big wet noisy smelly holes in our faces with odd bones protruding out of them on our faces, etc.) I am a religious person. For some reason that is unexplainable I believe that I will be judged for wrongdoings in this life. Additionally, I believe that God has a plan for me and everyone else and cares about us. These things are all absurd, but at the end of my life when I enter the abyss of darkness for the rest of eternity - the least plausible thing is that there will be some pearly gates where Richard Dawkins will judge me about how logical and scientific I was in life. I just don't think any of that needs to be taught during science class.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Aye, its sad the direction this country is going in. More Christians may look to home-schooling as a result of this, we're effectively being pushed out of society.

[ICantSpellDawg]

It doesn't say that creationism can't be taught in schools, it just says that it can't be taught in science class. Allahu Akbar!

[Rhyfelwyr]

So are we supposed to teach kids one things in the Religious Education class and then tell them that its false when they go to Biology?

[Pannonian]

So are we supposed to teach kids one things in the Religious Education class and then tell them that its false when they go to Biology?

English lit classes make no pretence at scientific truth when they teach about metaphors, allegories and stuff. Why should Biblical lit encroach on science? It's not as though bible-centric science would be useful later in life, as it necessitates disregarding the scientific method.

[Ja'chyra]

So are we supposed to teach kids one things in the Religious Education class and then tell them that its false when they go to Biology?

No, you tell them it's the same as the rest of the fairy tales you read in books.

[Rhyfelwyr]

No, you tell them it's the same as the rest of the fairy tales you read in books.

Well, I believe it.

I think if I want to send my kids to a faith school they should be free to teach what they believe. I find Darwinism and the consequences of such thought to be repugnant.

[lars573]

No, you tell them it's the same as the rest of the fairy tales you read in books.

I had a Geology teacher basically tell us that. However he framed it as ancient people who wrote those stories didn't have as, or the (take your pick), advanced understanding of the world and it's workings that we do. And created fairy stories to fill that void. He also went on that science is only about process's and how things happen. The existential why's are questions best left to philosophers, priests, and prophets.

[Greyblades]

Well, I believe it.

I think if I want to send my kids to a faith school they should be free to teach what they believe. I find Darwinism and the consequences of such thought to be repugnant.

Really?...*sigh* Honestly dude I expected better of you.

[ICantSpellDawg]

They are free to teach what they believe, but the scientific method is the scientific method. If something doesn't follow that, it shouldn't be in a science class

[Pannonian]

They are free to teach what they believe, but the scientific method is the scientific method. If something doesn't follow that, it shouldn't be in a science class

And Rhyf is free to send his children to a non-government-funded school, who will be free to teach whatever they like. If you take taxpayers' money, you have to follow government guidelines.

[Pannonian]

Its a false division, IMO. The only reason religious types have a problem with evolution is because it contradicts some of the man-made dogma they've been taught. Evolution, as described by the scientific method, merely gives insight into what God is up to. Its a far more objective measure than some raving pastor in a church going off about his specific interpretation of biblical metaphors and parables. God gave us brains so we could use them, IMO.

I wonder if these faith schools encourage their students to stick private investigators on their future spouses as the bible talks about "knowing one's wife".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, I believe it.

I think if I want to send my kids to a faith school they should be free to teach what they believe. I find Darwinism and the consequences of such thought to be repugnant.

That's because you've been radicalised and no longer apply the principles of rational theology.

For instance - if Evolution is a lie then God constructed the world to confuse and deceive man, and therefore God is dishonest. If God is dishonest God is not Good.

As Creationism leads inexorably to a dishonest God it should be repugnant to all religions who believe in a Good (ergo honest) God.

This bit is interesting:

"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,"

You could reasonably argue, from the wording, that a Christian school can happily teach that evolution is the process by which God created life and that, due to his infinite wisdom, he was able to predict the outcomes of evolution. Following on from that, one does not have to believe that man is an "accident" in order to believe in evolution.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Don't believe the lie that you have to be an irrational absurdist in order to be a religious person. I feel like that is what extreme religious concepts have fallen into believing "reason is against God, therefore I am against reason". It is the first part that is false, don't believe it.

[Kadagar_AV]

That some people think god created the universe and all should be taught when you teach about religion...

The scientific method and its progress to current date should be taught in science class...


I don't see the problem.

Do even YOU, Rhyf, think it's proper to allow children to learn something based on "this book says so". You probably don't feel that way against, say, belief in the norse gods... Right?

Wouldn't you frown if I in science class wanted to teach children, say, this:

One day Odin, Vili and Ve walked on the beach. There they found two logs; one appeared to be from the Ash tree and the other appeared to come from an Elm tree.

Odin gave the logs spirit and life, Ve gave them movement, mind and intelligence and Vili gave them shape, speech, feelings and the five senses. The first two humans had been created.

The man was given the name Ask, and the woman was given the name Embla. The Aesir decided the humans should live in the place named Midgard.

You probably think it would have a negative impact on the childrens life, had they been taught that as "science", no?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Meh. Consider it good practice in reconciling different diametrically opposed points of view in a safe and respectful environment. Bible-class says X, science-class says Y, for homework do some critical thinking of your own. Yes, this will be on the test called 'life'.

If at the age of ~15 kids still can't cope with receiving fundamentally different theories/points-of-view/opinions and thus need to be protected from ever having to do any critical thinking then whatever education they received has failed them completely anyway.

[Kadagar_AV]

Meh. Consider it good practice in reconciling different diametrically opposed points of view in a safe and respectful environment. Bible-class says X, science-class says Y, for homework do some critical thinking of your own. Yes, this will be on the test called 'life'.

If at the age of ~15 kids still can't cope with receiving fundamentally different theories/points-of-view/opinions and thus need to be protected from ever having to do any critical thinking then whatever education they received has failed them completely anyway.

Dude, it's about people with authority not presenting the two different standpoints as equal.

YES at 15 you should be able to do critical thinking. That's why it's so important to teach kids critical thinking instead of adherence to ancient sand people dogma.

[HopAlongBunny]

Good to hear.
Yes, science and religion are both belief systems. Religion is based on faith: I believe... Science is based on observation and facts. They are in no way equivalent viewpoints and should not be presented as such.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So are we supposed to teach kids one things in the Religious Education class and then tell them that its false when they go to Biology?

Ultimately, I suppose, the answer is "yes."

Resolving such disputes is one of the ways we learn. Thesis versus antithesis yielding synthesis is not exactly a new model for learning.

[Ronin]

Well, I believe it.

I think if I want to send my kids to a faith school they should be free to teach what they believe. I find Darwinism and the consequences of such thought to be repugnant.

I know what you mean....reality has a well known liberal bias...you shouldn´t stand for it

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ultimately, I suppose, the answer is "yes."

Resolving such disputes is one of the ways we learn. Thesis versus antithesis yielding synthesis is not exactly a new model for learning.

The answer is "No", we should not teach contradictory things in schools, and we don't have to because theology can reconcile the differences.

You teach what the Bible says and then you explain​ the different ways that can be interpreted.

[Kadagar_AV]

The answer is "No", we should not teach contradictory things in schools, and we don't have to because theology can reconcile the differences.

You teach what the Bible says and then you explain​ the different ways that can be interpreted.

Spot on.

[HoreTore]

I went to Catholic school for some 12 years not once did I hear a peep about creationism while discussing the scientific method. It wasn't even a controversy.

No wonder, since the Catholic church fully accepts evolution. This is a protestant-only problem.

Well, I believe it.

I think if I want to send my kids to a faith school they should be free to teach what they believe. I find Darwinism and the consequences of such thought to be repugnant.

Wishful thinking, and little else.

Education should not be credited if they teach creationism. It's like a school teaching the answer to two and two is five; that's not even close to a proper school.

[HoreTore]

The answer is "No", we should not teach contradictory things in schools, and we don't have to because theology can reconcile the differences.

You teach what the Bible says and then you explain​ the different ways that can be interpreted.

What?

Basically all my classes is about a contradiction. The idea is to present two contradictory viewpoints/facts/whatever, and then let the students work on them. A fine method, if you ask me.

I'm not the one to explain, that's the students job.

But I do work in a private school, and the reason for that is the absence of religious classes.

[Tellos Athenaios]

The answer is "No", we should not teach contradictory things in schools, and we don't have to because theology can reconcile the differences.

You teach what the Bible says and then you explain​ the different ways that can be interpreted.

Assuming you have a single frame of a reference in which everything somehow will fit. This is doubtful. Assuming you can get around leaky abstractions. This is impossible. For example cellular level biology is routinely explained in terms of deterministic processes but then you get to the topic of mutation which suddenly implies that all your determinism is a lie. Which it is, incidentally, but at school you will hardly notice the difference and it rather simplifies the job of everyone from student to teacher to text book author to exam committees and accreditation folks.

[Kadagar_AV]

I believe what PVC is saying, is that modern religion can deal with actual truths...

You don't have to "choose" between science and religion. You explain science in science class, and then religion class keep up with how it still would be applicable to their point of view.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What?

Basically all my classes is about a contradiction. The idea is to present two contradictory viewpoints/facts/whatever, and then let the students work on them. A fine method, if you ask me.

I'm not the one to explain, that's the students job.

But I do work in a private school, and the reason for that is the absence of religious classes.

Two contradictory views is fine - contradictory facts are not.

Even so, you need to teach the students the required cultural tools - not only does it accelerate their learning it prevents them from reinventing the wheel or feeling like they've made a major contribution to scholarship by making a basic deduction.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Assuming you have a single frame of a reference in which everything somehow will fit. This is doubtful. Assuming you can get around leaky abstractions. This is impossible. For example cellular level biology is routinely explained in terms of deterministic processes but then you get to the topic of mutation which suddenly implies that all your determinism is a lie. Which it is, incidentally, but at school you will hardly notice the difference and it rather simplifies the job of everyone from student to teacher to text book author to exam committees and accreditation folks.

Actually, given a sufficient amount of time all probabilities will reach 1, so you will always get the required mutation eventually. Also, while mutation appears to be "random" we don't actually understand what "random" is, it's possible that what appears to be random is actually determined by an extremely complex mathematical formula, we can't tell because we struggle to measure the natural world accurately, which results in poor data sets, which may be what gives the impression of "randomness".

I believe what PVC is saying, is that modern religion can deal with actual truths...

You don't have to "choose" between science and religion. You explain science in science class, and then religion class keep up with how it still would be applicable to their point of view.

Pretty much - the Scientific Method is used to gather and interpret that information - the relevence of that information is determined by your metaphysical outlook.

[HoreTore]

Two contradictory views is fine - contradictory facts are not.

Even so, you need to teach the students the required cultural tools - not only does it accelerate their learning it prevents them from reinventing the wheel or feeling like they've made a major contribution to scholarship by making a basic deduction.

There are plenty of contradictory facts, they're always hilarious.

Anyway, I basically teach various forms of explanations, mechanisms and such, and then assess the students on their application of said tools. Reinventing the wheel - sure, the process required to invent a wheel is certainly something they should have.

Conceptual learning ftw. Facts are for weirdos.