UK government bans teaching creationism in schools

[HoreTore]

nwm.

[Tellos Athenaios]

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.

Again, that might work if you only have a single religious dogma to consider and if you choose to gloss over the multiple incompatible theories/points-of-view that science and Math come up with.

However, leaky abstractions are a fact of life when trying to teach the basics in science. So at one point or another your meticulous reconciliation efforts simply will come up short trying to reconciling the two.

I think it's much more straightforward and ultimately more rewarding to acknowledge that (study of) religion simply operates in on a completely different paradigm from science and that you should evaluate both in their own context, instead of trying to shoehorn science within some religiously inspired narrative.

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".

The sum of all probabilities is always 1, if that is what you mean. However, that does not imply that a specific cell A will, with absolute certainty feature a specific mutation X. It might well die before that point, indeed it is vastly more likely to die than to mutate in that way... Anyway the point was that biochemical processes like the creation of enzymes are taught as a deterministic sequence of steps and reactions when, in fact, those are all stochastic processes. Feedback is also not deterministic, but again, stochastic. However, ignoring the stochastic nature of the processes simplifies everything considerably, allows students to develop a systemic understanding first and overall it fits most school curricula much better.

[Rhyfelwyr]

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

Disappointing, frustrating and bemusing the world is what I do best.

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.

Taxpayers money


Taxpayers money



Taxpayers money




Taxpayers money





Taxpayers money






Taxpayers money






TAXPAYERS MONEY







!!!TAXPAYERS MONEY!!!


It always comes down to this modern mammon, doesn't it? "Taxpayers money", the calling card for trampling all over the worst off in society, the rallying shout for the moral outrage of the financially stable and socially privileged. It seems to be banded about endlessly these days, its like the ultimate cheap point-scoring trick for politicians.

My tax contributions may be low and sporadic, but as far as I am concerned, truth is not subject to taxpayers money. And for what it's worth, I don't see why my taxes should educate your children, but yours not educate mine.

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.

What man would you say invented the dogma of creationism?

God gave us brains so we could use them, IMO.

He gave us the scriptures as well for the same purpose:

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

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.

In saying all this you are presuming that the evidence points to evolution. I disagree with that presumption. Pretty much all the evidence we have shows that mankinds footprint on earth began within a young earth timeframe. The only exceptions to this are a handful of fossils tested with questionable dating methods, from which questionable conclusions were drawn.

A case in point - I was linked to this article a while back: Skull of Homo erectus throws story of human evolution into disarray

A few months ago, the entire scientific establishment would have berated me for questioning the existence of many types of proto-human species. And yet it takes just ONE isolated discovery to prove their theory wrong. Turns out that what they attributed to evolution is in fact explained by standard genetic variation.

Young earth creationists have always said there were higher levels of genetic variability in earlier humans - looks like they were right.

I realise that this alone does not disprove evolution, but I find it remarkable how easily one of its core tenants was blown out of the water.

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.

Been there, done that. I know some Christians who are quite active in the intelligent design movement and would be quite happy to agree with you there. But I just don't think that evolution is compatible with the scripture, or indeed the God I worship. You've got to admit, it would be a pretty round-about way of doing things, wouldn't it?

Indeed, I could flip that charge you levelled against me on its head and level it against yourself - if evolution is true, then God is dishonest. Why bring about a supernatural creation by means that can be explained entirely by natural phenomena? Why make us in such a way that it would appear he did not?

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?

I don't see why it matters when common sense ensures that such scenarios remain hypothetical. The silliness of the Norse religion and its obvious inadequacy in meeting the spiritual and philosophical needs of its followers is precisely why it was supplanted by Christianity, and indeed why paganism has been replaced by monotheism across near enough the whole world.

Christianity is much more intellectually robust and generally fulfilling and that is why it remains core to the lives of many people today.

If there are isolated pockets of the world where people still follow primitive religions, then in those cases I have no problem with the children being educated in a way that is compatible with their parents' faith. I cannot envisage a situation where this could not be part of a balanced education.

It is up to parents and not the government to decide what beliefs their children will be raised with, so long as those beliefs do not call for violence or other illegal activity. If we are all going to pool in for a public education system, then everybody should benefit from it and not just those who hold to the 'establishment' beliefs.

[Pannonian]

It always comes down to this modern mammon, doesn't it? "Taxpayers money", the calling card for trampling all over the worst off in society, the rallying shout for the moral outrage of the financially stable and socially privileged. It seems to be banded about endlessly these days, its like the ultimate cheap point-scoring trick for politicians.

My tax contributions may be low and sporadic, but as far as I am concerned, truth is not subject to taxpayers money. And for what it's worth, I don't see why my taxes should educate your children, but yours not educate mine.

Universal education in the UK has historically been to educate workers to get and keep Britain at the front of industrial and economic competition. Biology as understood through evolution is at the heart of a multi-billion pharmaceutical and medical industry, validated again and again through research directed through that understanding. In what way does creationism contribute towards the economy?

Elementary Education Act 1870

[Tellos Athenaios]

Taxpayers money

Sure, it's a not a valid argument. One might say that from the perspective of national finances a school is more or less on par with a charity: as long as no criminal mismanagement occurs there is no reason to get in their way, and there are lots of good reasons to sponsor their efforts at improving our collective lot (be it through education or whatever charitable work they provide).

On the other hand, education is not your run of the mill "noble cause". The outcome actually matters, in much the same way that relief for the poor is not merely a charity but one of the principal responsibilities of society. Since the state is in the best position to act, it should therefore take charge of matters. That's more or less a settled argument since Enlightenment took hold. I expect you are familiar with it (since, it builds on older arguments by the Protestants on the importance of literacy in order to fully appreciate the teachings of the Bible as an individual).

From that argument it follows that the state has not merely the mandate but the duty to ensure school curricula are properly vetted, properly taught, and adequate as well as up to date. From there, striking creationism from science class is nothing but a mundane update to the curricula to update it to modern standards. It simply has no place in modern scientific understanding anymore.

[Beskar]

A case in point - I was linked to this article a while back: Skull of Homo erectus throws story of human evolution into disarray

A few months ago, the entire scientific establishment would have berated me for questioning the existence of many types of proto-human species. And yet it takes just ONE isolated discovery to prove their theory wrong. Turns out that what they attributed to evolution is in fact explained by standard genetic variation.

Young earth creationists have always said there were higher levels of genetic variability in earlier humans - looks like they were right.

I realise that this alone does not disprove evolution, but I find it remarkable how easily one of its core tenants was blown out of the water.

Sorry to inform you, Rhyfelwyr, but you have completely misread and misrepresented the source you linked.

There is no "disproving evolution" in the slightest, nor is "one of its core tenets was blown out of the water". There isn't a 'whole scientific establishment' berating you for questioning the existence of the many types either, they would have only berated you if you said something in complete and utter ignorance without any evidence or analysis as to where your argument is based upon. There is a clear difference between "This samples are too similar, I think they may be the same species" and "The Bible says otherwise", if you did the first, they would actually take a look at the samples and give you why they might believe otherwise if they do, it is an intellectual discussion.

You have done the intellectual equivalent of pointing out a spelling mistake in the bible and saying this disproves the existence of God.

You clearly do not actually understand the tenets of Science because your source is a very clear example of why Science is actually highly competent, it actually reanalyses and corrects itself to try to be the most accurate source of knowledge. Even then, it doesn't mean Science theory hasn't even radically changed either, as the old fossils would have to be further analysed to justify their relative positions and it is still homo-erectus and still one of our predecessors.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Sorry to inform you, Rhyfelwyr, but you have completely misread and misrepresented the source you linked.

There is no "disproving evolution" in the slightest, nor is "one of its core tenets was blown out of the water". There isn't a 'whole scientific establishment' berating you for questioning the existence of the many types either, they would have only berated you if you said something in complete and utter ignorance without any evidence or analysis as to where your argument is based upon. There is a clear difference between "This samples are too similar, I think they may be the same species" and "The Bible says otherwise", if you did the first, they would actually take a look at the samples and give you why they might believe otherwise if they do, it is an intellectual discussion.

You have done the intellectual equivalent of pointing out a spelling mistake in the bible and saying this disproves the existence of God.

You clearly do not actually understand the tenets of Science because your source is a very clear example of why Science is actually highly competent, it actually reanalyses and corrects itself to try to be the most accurate source of knowledge. Even then, it doesn't mean Science theory hasn't even radically changed either, as the old fossils would have to be further analysed to justify their relative positions and it is still homo-erectus and still one of our predecessors.

Nope, I read it, understood it, and presented it accurately. The article is titled "Skull of Homo erectus throws story of human evolution into disarray" and it is you that is claiming that it says something else, not me.

I think you are papering over the cracks in evolutionary theory much the same way as creationists do when you accuse them of the old 'God of the gaps' trick.

Now you can try to cover this up all you want with the same tired old language about the thoroughness of the scientific method and the concocted dichotomy between science and faith (things which say nothing of relevance or substance, but when used in this way do seem rather reminiscent of religious believers comforting themselves in repeated chants and mantras), but how about we let the article speak for itself:

"But while the skull itself is spectacular, it is the implications of the discovery that have caused scientists in the field to draw breath. Over decades excavating sites in Africa, researchers have named half a dozen different species of early human ancestor, but most, if not all, are now on shaky ground."

So, it says clearly that the very existence of most, if not all, of our supposed proto-human ancestors as a separate species has been called into serious question. Now, could you tell me, is or is not the existence of these proto-humans not a very central part in the supposed story of human evolution? If we were not in fact evolving at what was thought to be such a vital time in our evolutionary history, then IMO that is a gaping hole in your argument, and does much more to challenge your ideas than, as you say, a spelling mistake in the Bible would disprove God.

[Pannonian]

So how does the article show that creationism should be taught in science classes? In what way does it show that creationism offers a better explanation for the biological record than evolution mainly through natural selection?

[Beskar]

Nope, I read it, understood it, and presented it accurately. The article is titled "Skull of Homo erectus throws story of human evolution into disarray" and it is you that is claiming that it says something else, not me.

I am not claiming it is saying something is different, you are not understanding what is actually meant by the statement. You are confusing simple media techniques to make it sound more profound than it actually is to drum up interest in the article than what the actual consequences of the article portray.

"But while the skull itself is spectacular, it is the implications of the discovery that have caused scientists in the field to draw breath. Over decades excavating sites in Africa, researchers have named half a dozen different species of early human ancestor, but most, if not all, are now on shaky ground."

So, it says clearly that the very existence of most, if not all, of our supposed proto-human ancestors as a separate species has been called into serious question. Now, could you tell me, is or is not the existence of these proto-humans not a very central part in the supposed story of human evolution?

There is a difference between "They never existed" and "Some samples appear not to be as unique as we thought they were". Because a few of the findings are actually more related to another particular sample than we thought they were, doesn't really change anything in the 'grand scheme' of things.

Some people get a little zealous as they want to make discoveries, so they find a skeleton which looks different to others, then they try to make out it is a Homo-Rhyfelwyr. All this does is show that the Homo-Rhyfelwyr is just a variation of the Homo-Erectus, thus it doesn't deserve to be uniquely specified species. This is no where near as profound as disputing the entire existence of Homo-erectus itself. What your bolded statement actually means is "We need to go back and ensure our classifications are correct to paint a more accurate picture".


Unfortunately, from the rest of your post, it is clear you have some misunderstandings and prejudices against 'Science' that your statements are overreaching and out of your depth. This is not me saying "Rhy is an idiot", this is me saying "You are not knowing what you are talking about"/ Hindering your own understanding. It is the equal of talking about the Biblical Cannon and the Apocrypha (including differences between Protestant, Catholic and various Orthodox) with someone who believes every word in the bible is written as true since forever by the hand of god. There are barriers which prevent meaningful communication.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Nope, I read it, understood it, and presented it accurately. The article is titled "Skull of Homo erectus throws story of human evolution into disarray" and it is you that is claiming that it says something else, not me.

I think you are papering over the cracks in evolutionary theory much the same way as creationists do when you accuse them of the old 'God of the gaps' trick.

Now you can try to cover this up all you want with the same tired old language about the thoroughness of the scientific method and the concocted dichotomy between science and faith (things which say nothing of relevance or substance, but when used in this way do seem rather reminiscent of religious believers comforting themselves in repeated chants and mantras), but how about we let the article speak for itself:

"But while the skull itself is spectacular, it is the implications of the discovery that have caused scientists in the field to draw breath. Over decades excavating sites in Africa, researchers have named half a dozen different species of early human ancestor, but most, if not all, are now on shaky ground."

So, it says clearly that the very existence of most, if not all, of our supposed proto-human ancestors as a separate species has been called into serious question. Now, could you tell me, is or is not the existence of these proto-humans not a very central part in the supposed story of human evolution? If we were not in fact evolving at what was thought to be such a vital time in our evolutionary history, then IMO that is a gaping hole in your argument, and does much more to challenge your ideas than, as you say, a spelling mistake in the Bible would disprove God.

Ryf, recognizing that there were other species of hominid who may have inter-bred with homo-sapiens does not discredit evolutionary theory. Also, how do you think that they are coming to these theoretical realizations? By finding new pages in the Bible? They are using the scientific method.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Tiaexz its seems like you are willing to do just about everything save actually address the facts presented in the article. At one minute you blame hyperbole, the next you misquote me to fight a strawman, then you blame glory-hunting on the part of scientists, then you dismiss what I say on the grounds that I "don't know what I am talking about". I haven't once seen you actually present a factual argument as to why you think the conclusions of these scientists are not as significant as they say they are.

I am not claiming it is saying something is different, you are not understanding what is actually meant by the statement. You are confusing simple media techniques to make it sound more profound than it actually is to drum up interest in the article than what the actual consequences of the article portray.

From what I read the title seemed to be in-keeping with the content of the article:

"But while the skull itself is spectacular, it is the implications of the discovery that have caused scientists in the field to draw breath."
"The dimensions were so strange that one scientist at the site joked that they should leave it in the ground."
"We are not saying that palaeoanthropologists did things wrong in Africa, but they didn't have the reference we have. Part of the community will like it, but for another part it will be shocking news."

There is a difference between "They never existed" and "Some samples appear not to be as unique as we thought they were". Because a few of the findings are actually more related to another particular sample than we thought they were, doesn't really change anything in the 'grand scheme' of things.

No, I said "they never existed as a separate species", which is not the same as saying "they never existed". The former is related to the scientists comments that "Some samples appear not to be as unique as we thought they were". You seem to be missing the significance of the fact that it is not just an issue of challenging our notions of what is normal genetic variability, it is the fact that it challenges the evolutionary narrative. A chunk of the evolutionary tree has been scythed down - something that was unthinkable just a few months ago.

Some people get a little zealous as they want to make discoveries, so they find a skeleton which looks different to others, then they try to make out it is a Homo-Rhyfelwyr. All this does is show that the Homo-Rhyfelwyr is just a variation of the Homo-Erectus, thus it doesn't deserve to be uniquely specified species. This is no where near as profound as disputing the entire existence of Homo-erectus itself. What your bolded statement actually means is "We need to go back and ensure our classifications are correct to paint a more accurate picture".

Yes, there are many systematic problems like these within the scientific establishment, and it is good to see that more rigorous study has brought them to light. It has now been demonstrated that much of the evidence for evolution during the relevant time period and the concept of "many, if not all" proto-human species is bogus.

Unfortunately, from the rest of your post, it is clear you have some misunderstandings and prejudices against 'Science' that your statements are overreaching and out of your depth. This is not me saying "Rhy is an idiot", this is me saying "You are not knowing what you are talking about"/ Hindering your own understanding. It is the equal of talking about the Biblical Cannon and the Apocrypha (including differences between Protestant, Catholic and various Orthodox) with someone who believes every word in the bible is written as true since forever by the hand of god. There are barriers which prevent meaningful communication.

Dismissing me on the grounds that I "don't know what I am talking about" would seem to be the biggest barrier to meaningful communication here.

[Beskar]

Tiaexz its seems like you are willing to do just about everything save actually address the facts presented in the article.

I haven't addressed them? I am pretty sure I did.

From what I read the title seemed to be in-keeping with the content of the article:
"But while the skull itself is spectacular, it is the implications of the discovery that have caused scientists in the field to draw breath."
"The dimensions were so strange that one scientist at the site joked that they should leave it in the ground."
"We are not saying that palaeoanthropologists did things wrong in Africa, but they didn't have the reference we have. Part of the community will like it, but for another part it will be shocking news."

Again, this is not facts, it is subjective and completely in-keeping with my comments, not contradictory. See the exaggerated usage and emotive writing to appeal to the reader? "caused them to draw breath". It is merely word-play to make it all seem exciting and thrilling, perhaps to readers who don't fully understand what is going on, or draw them to parallel to what some people feel about these things. This is something I recognised and stated and because you are swept up with its usage seeing it proof that creationism maybe the answer to everything doesn't mean anyone else shares it.

The former is related to the scientists comments that "Some samples appear not to be as unique as we thought they were". You seem to be missing the significance of the fact that it is not just an issue of challenging our notions of what is normal genetic variability, it is the fact that it challenges the evolutionary narrative. A chunk of the evolutionary tree has been scythed down - something that was unthinkable just a few months ago.

Again, I painted the situation clearly with my Homo-Rhyfelwyr example but it doesn't challenge the 'evolutionary narrative', it challenges a very specific narrative which even has disputes to its model before this showed up. These things are not written in mythical stone that cannot be changed, it was a broad acceptance/acquiescence by a community. Whilst I found the article interesting, it is pretty clear we took separate things from it. I know what kind of effects this has in practise, and I know for a fact this doesn't throw the evolutionary narrative out of the window, an argument you are proposing this article supports.

the concept of "many, if not all" proto-human species is bogus.

It doesn't mean what you are purporting it is representing.

It means that "many, if not all" the proto-human categories/classifications need to be revisited during the time period. It doesn't mean they are 'bogus', a word that stipulates fabrication and falsehood with negative connotations. The any reclassification will result into something more water-tight and accurate (hopefully) to the genuine picture, so the fundamentals are still in existence and not being questioned. The entire concept is not bogus or thrown out.

Dismissing me on the grounds that I "don't know what I am talking about" would seem to be the biggest barrier to meaningful communication here.

Dismissing you would be simply going "You know nothing, Rhyfelwyr Snow" and leaving it at that. I am attempting to explain why your approach and conclusions about the newspaper article are incorrect.

Explaining things is not my strongest suite, so I apologise if I am doing a bad job of that.

[HoreTore]

lol, young earth creationism. I don't really see any reason to engage in that, except to give this handy list of the branches of science you have to ignore in order to make YEC work.

Back on topic, I don't really see the 'taxpayer money' as an issue, I'm usually happy to throw money at all sort of crazy stuff. For me, the schtick is that an education which teaches education is not an education at all, and should not be recognized as such. If a course in natural science is required for a degree(at whatever level), and you have included a creationist course in it, it should disqualify you from said degree. Just as if you had spent the time sitting in the couch smoking pot, which is arguably a much better use of ones time.

Kinda like having an 'education' in homeopathy.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't believe that Ryf is actually advocating these absurd things. He is merely arguing "10th Man" safeguards. I will continue to believe this irrespective of what he says.

[HoreTore]

He is merely arguing "10th Man" safeguards.

I am unfamiliar with this term....

[Beskar]

I am unfamiliar with this term....

It is from the film, World War Z.

Without giving too much away about the plot, there was a Mossad agent trying to explain to Brad Pitt’s character why Israel was far more prepared for a zombie outbreak than the rest of the world. The reason was the 10th Man Rule.

He explained that Israel’s security council had 10 advisors that looked into big picture issues. If the first 9 dismissed an issue or potential danger to the country, then the 10th man was forced to overrule them on principle and look into the issue no matter how far-fetched the scenario. That way Israel would always be prepared for black swan events. This allowed them to build a large wall to help keep out the zombies.

[Papewaio]

The history of man is rife with interbreeding.

Apparently one theory has that Maori are a mix of Polynesian and New Guinea ancestors. One group made out like Genghis Khan and slaughtered all the males and mated with the woman making for a different mix of genes to most Polynesians.

Europeans interbred apparently with Neanderthals.

Mauritius and other islands have diverse ancestoral backgrounds too.

Essentially human history is essentially if it moves hump it. So no real news story that there might be more mixing in our ancestoral paths.

In Guns, Germs and Steel it is outlined how many more races of human are in Africa then most people realize ie Pygmies etc.

So more a discovery of consistency.

[Greyblades]

Europeans interbred apparently with Neanderthals.

Supposedly that's how we ended up with blond hair and blue eyes being part of our genetics.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Ever since I found out that animals from one species can breed with another, any doubt in my mind that homo-sapiens bred with other species of human really went out the window. It doesn't mean that we aren't all the same species now, it just means that humans from different areas of the planet are not solely from one branch of the hominid tree. Which is pretty cool.

[Brenus]

Kinda like having an 'education' in homeopathy.” Hey, don’t underestimate the placebo effect…

[Pannonian]

The history of man is rife with interbreeding.

Apparently one theory has that Maori are a mix of Polynesian and New Guinea ancestors. One group made out like Genghis Khan and slaughtered all the males and mated with the woman making for a different mix of genes to most Polynesians.

Europeans interbred apparently with Neanderthals.

Mauritius and other islands have diverse ancestoral backgrounds too.

Essentially human history is essentially if it moves hump it. So no real news story that there might be more mixing in our ancestoral paths.

In Guns, Germs and Steel it is outlined how many more races of human are in Africa then most people realize ie Pygmies etc.

So more a discovery of consistency.

Doesn't the genetic evidence also indicate that Australians and New Zealanders interbred with ovis aries?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

In the abstract, it's good to have no creationism being taught in schools. But you are all missing the elephant in the room here. This campaign to ban creationism from school is not part of an "improve schools" initiative:

"The British Humanist Association, which has been advocating for the change since 2011, congratulated the Government on the move.

"[We] believe that... the objectives of the campaign are largely met," noted BHA Head of Public Affairs Pavan Dhaliwal in a statement.

"However, there are other ongoing areas of concern, for example the large number of state financed creationist nurseries, or the inadequate inspection of private creationist schools, and continued vigilance is needed in the state-funded sector."

The whole evolution/creationism in school debate is mired in this disgusting idiocy. If someone actually believes that their side supports science and the other rejects it, I want them as far away from making policy as possible. People, regardless of whether they are religious or atheist, tend to reject science if it conflicts with beliefs that are important to them. Why is creationism singled out?

Feminists are notorious for claiming that mental and behavioral differences between men and women either don't exist or not influenced by genetics. Should that teaching be banned? What about people who blather away about "IQ tests only measure how well you do on IQ tests", should scientifically illiterate statements like that be banned? I would say that blank slate theories are a far more significant denial of evolution than the claim that god set the whole thing in motion. And very ironically our school system is partially based on the pseudo-scientific belief that people are more malleable than they actually are.

Science is objective, about facts, etc, sure. But the decision on what to teach in the science classroom, what to emphasize as important, is not scientific. Even the claim that it is good to know the truth is not at all scientific, it is moral/philosophical. The claim that science should be taught at all is not scientific or objective. Maybe we should focus much more on history for normal schools and have only a few special schools for training scientists. It's all has to be argued for--pointing out that it's true is not sufficient for saying it should be taught. Science and math are overrated as far as getting a real education is concerned. Should we go through every religion and holy book and specifically teach that the errors they make are wrong? What if the claim that it is important to do so is wrong? Is "continued vigilance" on this issue really what's needed? What's the functional literacy rate in Britain compared to other countries?

And what about history anyway? It's not like historical myths are better than religious myths. Should it be illegal to repeat silly myths about Galileo and the inquisition? Should we go through the campaign speeches of one political party and pick out the most egregious historical errors and make it illegal to teach them?

Everyone wants their children to be taught the truth in school, but who wants to let other people decide what the truth is and enforce their vision? It's obvious that there are tremendous differences in what people think is true and what people think is important. There is no real solution to the problem. Banning creationism is a fake solution for idiots who are marginally less scientifically illiterate than the creationists they despise.

[Montmorency]

There is no real solution to the problem.

Did you ever consider that there doesn't need to be a 'final solution'? Of course, with creationism the issue is not just that it is blatantly wrong, but that it forces a specific religious doctrine from a select few sects to be the basis of children's entire conceptual understanding of the world.

Not all "myths" are created equal. It obviously doesn't hurt very much to have children learn, say, that Vikings were violent barbarians who pillaged the world while wearing horned helmets.

What about people who blather away about "IQ tests only measure how well you do on IQ tests", should scientifically illiterate statements like that be banned?

That "scientifically-illiterate" position is actually quite useful.

Feminists are notorious for claiming that mental and behavioral differences between men and women either don't exist or not influenced by genetics.

Not all feminists.

Maybe we should focus much more on history for normal schools and have only a few special schools for training scientists.

Maybe we should do the opposite. Oh, whoops, the problems with that are obvious. Hmmm...

Science and math are overrated as far as getting a real education is concerned.

Just because history is poorly taught as a rule doesn't mean science and math have encroached upon it.

People, regardless of whether they are religious or atheist, tend to reject science if it conflicts with beliefs that are important to them.

Note also that there's a difference between rejecting "science" and rejecting specific findings for various methodological reasons, and so on.

[Pannonian]

In the abstract, it's good to have no creationism being taught in schools. But you are all missing the elephant in the room here. This campaign to ban creationism from school is not part of an "improve schools" initiative:

The whole evolution/creationism in school debate is mired in this disgusting idiocy. If someone actually believes that their side supports science and the other rejects it, I want them as far away from making policy as possible. People, regardless of whether they are religious or atheist, tend to reject science if it conflicts with beliefs that are important to them. Why is creationism singled out?

Feminists are notorious for claiming that mental and behavioral differences between men and women either don't exist or not influenced by genetics. Should that teaching be banned? What about people who blather away about "IQ tests only measure how well you do on IQ tests", should scientifically illiterate statements like that be banned? I would say that blank slate theories are a far more significant denial of evolution than the claim that god set the whole thing in motion. And very ironically our school system is partially based on the pseudo-scientific belief that people are more malleable than they actually are.

Science is objective, about facts, etc, sure. But the decision on what to teach in the science classroom, what to emphasize as important, is not scientific. Even the claim that it is good to know the truth is not at all scientific, it is moral/philosophical. The claim that science should be taught at all is not scientific or objective. Maybe we should focus much more on history for normal schools and have only a few special schools for training scientists. It's all has to be argued for--pointing out that it's true is not sufficient for saying it should be taught. Science and math are overrated as far as getting a real education is concerned. Should we go through every religion and holy book and specifically teach that the errors they make are wrong? What if the claim that it is important to do so is wrong? Is "continued vigilance" on this issue really what's needed? What's the functional literacy rate in Britain compared to other countries?

And what about history anyway? It's not like historical myths are better than religious myths. Should it be illegal to repeat silly myths about Galileo and the inquisition? Should we go through the campaign speeches of one political party and pick out the most egregious historical errors and make it illegal to teach them?

Everyone wants their children to be taught the truth in school, but who wants to let other people decide what the truth is and enforce their vision? It's obvious that there are tremendous differences in what people think is true and what people think is important. There is no real solution to the problem. Banning creationism is a fake solution for idiots who are marginally less scientifically illiterate than the creationists they despise.

See the origins of universal education in the UK. State-funded education has been utilitarian from its beginning, and creationism lost the argument on these grounds even back in the 19th century. This is not a campaign to oust one view with another in the education field. That campaign was over even before the 20th century began. This is the re-assertion of standards that have been long set, that are generally agreed to the correct standards, and certainly which have not been superseded by the creationism which has been re-barred. Literacy and numeracy have been greater areas of concern, but there are no calls to teach in Latin and in Roman numerals. In these areas, the English language and Arabic numerals have similarly won their arguments long ago.

[Beskar]

What about people who blather away about "IQ tests only measure how well you do on IQ tests", should scientifically illiterate statements like that be banned?

That is actually the opposite, it is the common-consensus within the Psychological community that IQ-Testing only reliability test IQ, it is more accurately "Intelligence quotient is a score from several standardized tests which measure Intelligence Quotient".

Whilst IQ-testing can be used in several ways to make informed choices and study trends, it is a imperfect way to measure intelligence and suffers from some fatal-flaws if abused as it is commonly is done by the general public, especially those 'measure your IQ' websites. Examples such as the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale are far more accurate in their ability to measure a representation of intelligence and involve a one-to-one session(s) with an educational psychologist. Wechsler is the main assessment used within the UK for diagnosis of Learning Disabilities, as Dyslexia/Dyspraxia/Aspergers/etc show up due to their characteristic patterns.

Edit: For an amusement, I just took one of those Free online tests. Apparently 20 questions is all it takes to work out I should be in Mensa. For the record, anything over 140 is highly unreliable.

[Papewaio]

Kinda like having an 'education' in homeopathy.” Hey, don’t underestimate the placebo effect…

Oh you're just sugaring the argument ;)

[Papewaio]

Doesn't the genetic evidence also indicate that Australians and New Zealanders interbred with ovis aries?

Hmm as a dual national Kiwi-Aussie, a West Islander if you will... I'm not helped much by having a Welsh mum for these jokes.

What is the leading flavoured version of KY Jelly in New Zealand?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Mint

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Tiarex, you are an intellectual snob and a terrible ambassador for rationalism.

Rhyf - you're barking up the wrong tree.

Consider, if you will, that we used to believe that Wolves were a seperate species from modern dogs, Canines and Lupines. We now know that, in fact, dogs are nothing more than infantile wolves - there is no species difference.

All the discovery in Georgia did was demonstrate that our evolutionary path was much smoother than previously believed, but all those "sub species" were really just variations in one species. That's not that big of a deal even, because most of those species were posited as "dead ends" that died out.

Basically, the find was embarrassing for all those people who claimed to "discover" new species, but that's it - it certainly does nothing to alter the narrative, or the timeline, in a meaningful way because all those species were group closely together in time, relatively speaking.

[Kadagar_AV]

Tiarex, you are an intellectual snob and a terrible ambassador for rationalism.

Rhyf - you're barking up the wrong tree.

Consider, if you will, that we used to believe that Wolves were a seperate species from modern dogs, Canines and Lupines. We now know that, in fact, dogs are nothing more than infantile wolves - there is no species difference.

All the discovery in Georgia did was demonstrate that our evolutionary path was much smoother than previously believed, but all those "sub species" were really just variations in one species. That's not that big of a deal even, because most of those species were posited as "dead ends" that died out.

Basically, the find was embarrassing for all those people who claimed to "discover" new species, but that's it - it certainly does nothing to alter the narrative, or the timeline, in a meaningful way because all those species were group closely together in time, relatively speaking.

A very good explanation.

An important thing to add though, is that even IF, say, evolution was proved wrong (which it wont be)... That still says absolutely nothing about there being a christian god, even less the version of christian god one happens to believe in.

So should creationism be taught in schools? OF COURSE NOT... Not even in private schools.

Every single school, and every subject, should have a thought out base model of what to teach the children. This should be based on the latest accepted science of the day...

[Sir Moody]

So should creationism be taught in schools? OF COURSE NOT... Not even in private schools.

Every single school, and every subject, should have a thought out base model of what to teach the children. This should be based on the latest accepted science of the day...

slightly too far there - Creationism has its place in school - that place is the Religious Education classes (or Humanities depending on the school) - it should be broached there as it is a cornerstone of Christian faith - they should also be introduced to other creation myths as well from the other prevalent faiths - understanding a persons faith is important even if you disagree with them.