UK government bans teaching creationism in schools

[Fragony]

I don't like this, as long as it doesn't replace biology-lessons it should be allowed. And if it does, as long as the actual exams are the same ones other schools make, what's the problem then? I kinda agree with the Scot, not directly quoted in word but it starts to look a bit like bullying.

[Kadagar_AV]

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.

Sorry, I meant in science class...

When studying religion, this should of course be brought up.

[Pannonian]

I don't like this, as long as it doesn't replace biology-lessons it should be allowed. And if it does, as long as the actual exams are the same ones other schools make, what's the problem then? I kinda agree with the Scot, not directly quoted in word but it starts to look a bit like bullying.

What's your opinion on government money being used to fund schools to teach Islam?

[Beskar]

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.

You pretty much summed up what I was trying to say but better.

[HoreTore]

it should be broached there as it is a cornerstone of Christian faith

Creationism is "a cornerstone of the Christian faith"?

Say what?

[Sir Moody]

Your trying to claim that a "benevolent creator" isn't a cornerstone of the Christian faith?

[HoreTore]

Your trying to claim that a "benevolent creator" isn't a cornerstone of the Christian faith?

There's a pacific ocean between that and creationism.

Creationism is biblical literalism. And fundies are rare, thankfully.

[Sir Moody]

There's a pacific ocean between that and creationism.

Creationism is biblical literalism. And fundies are rare, thankfully.

You are falling for a common trap and trying to group all creationists under one banner which unfortunately isn't the case

Young Earth Creationists are the Biblical literalists and yes they are Fundamentalists but they are not even the biggest group that slots into the Creationist movement.

There's the Old Earth Creationists which accept "most" science but reject Evolution, the Theist Evolutionists who accept Evolution but only as the tool used by God and the Intelligent Design groups which believe the complexities of the world are proof of a creator - ID is probably the biggest faction right now.

to equate them all with Young Earth creationists is to wildly underestimate the movement...

[Rhyfelwyr]

Rhyf - you're barking up the wrong tree.

Well, beyond the scientific argument, I think that the scriptural and the philosophical questions surrounding the issue should matter to us as Christians. What about that charge I levelled against you earlier?

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.

Right, but peoples erroneous views in the past on this matter were due to the very visible differences between dogs and wolves that had come about as a result of highly artificial breeding programmes - that doesn't happen with evolution through natural selection.

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.

We've always had a lack of transitional fossils. Now, I understand why this is, but it doesn't change the fact that ultimately, the evidence isn't there. We don't have that many ancient human/proto-human fossils in general:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...lution_fossils

If a chunk of what we did have is shown to be no longer part of an evolutionary narrative, then that is significant. It by no means disproves evolutionary theory, but is does deliver it a blow in one of its more vulnerable areas.

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.

It's once piece of the puzzle. A few months back it would have been unthinkable that one discovery could disprove the conclusions on so many others. You would have been using these discredited sub-species against me in a similar thread as proof I was wrong.

[HoreTore]

You are falling for a common trap and trying to group all creationists under one banner which unfortunately isn't the case

Young Earth Creationists are the Biblical literalists and yes they are Fundamentalists but they are not even the biggest group that slots into the Creationist movement.

There's the Old Earth Creationists which accept "most" science but reject Evolution, the Theist Evolutionists who accept Evolution but only as the tool used by God and the Intelligent Design groups which believe the complexities of the world are proof of a creator - ID is probably the biggest faction right now.

to equate them all with Young Earth creationists is to wildly underestimate the movement...

The Catholic Church fully accepts evolution. That accounts for the vast majority of the Christians today.

While they are good for the occasional laugh, I really can't be very bothered to check what the remaining few loonies believe in.

[HoreTore]

We've always had a lack of transitional fossils.

lol! No no no Rhy, please stop now.

Every fossil is a transitional fossil. You are a transitional form.

There's no lack of it - everything we have is a transitional fossil.

[drone]

You are falling for a common trap and trying to group all creationists under one banner which unfortunately isn't the case

Young Earth Creationists are the Biblical literalists and yes they are Fundamentalists but they are not even the biggest group that slots into the Creationist movement.

There's the Old Earth Creationists which accept "most" science but reject Evolution, the Theist Evolutionists who accept Evolution but only as the tool used by God and the Intelligent Design groups which believe the complexities of the world are proof of a creator - ID is probably the biggest faction right now.

to equate them all with Young Earth creationists is to wildly underestimate the movement...

This is the main reason to ban teaching creationism in science classes. Teach the "wrong" kind and the PTA meetings become sectarian fistfights.

[Kadagar_AV]

Right, but peoples erroneous views in the past on this matter were due to the very visible differences between dogs and wolves that had come about as a result of highly artificial breeding programmes - that doesn't happen with evolution through natural selection.

directed breeding differs from nature... How?

I agree that you can make evolution work faster with focused breeding, but surely you mus agree that there are the same principles at work here? It's just the time span that is different. No?

We've always had a lack of transitional fossils. Now, I understand why this is,

Let me stop you right there. You obviously do NOT understand why that is. You actually pretty damn clearly with that sentence alone illustrate just how misguided you are here...

EVERY single fossil is from a organism that is a work in progress. Heck, YOU are a work in progress, or did you somehow think we humans stopped evolving now? You don't think we will look rather different in, say, a few million years? Or a few hundred billion years.


There is a longer time span between a Stegosaurus and a T-Rex, than it is between YOU and a T-Rex. That is the time spans we talk about here, to put things in perspective.

but it doesn't change the fact that ultimately, the evidence isn't there. We don't have that many ancient human/proto-human fossils in general:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...lution_fossils

If a chunk of what we did have is shown to be no longer part of an evolutionary narrative, then that is significant. It by no means disproves evolutionary theory, but is does deliver it a blow in one of its more vulnerable areas.

No it doesn't...

As an example, science now believe there are fewer different Dinosaur types than before... As they changed quite some while growing up, and what we before thought was two different types of dinosaurs, now has been proven to be the same type, only one younger and one older.

Did this new info lead to "OMG scientists were WRONG about dinosaurs"?

Of course not. It's just another part of the puzzle, and the scientific view is now more more complete and better off than before.

It's once piece of the puzzle. A few months back it would have been unthinkable that one discovery could disprove the conclusions on so many others. You would have been using these discredited sub-species against me in a similar thread as proof I was wrong.

My dinosaur example is spot on... When a fossile was found that showed that two different types were in fact the same type, it meant it disproved surely tens or hundreds of findings or so...

Did it change the narrative? Nope, not at all. In fact, science is stronger after this, than before.

So you really seem to lack a point here.

[Kadagar_AV]

I don't even see anything particularly controversial about the lighter types like ID. Obviously you wouldn't teach it in a science class, but to attack it on metaphysical grounds would be silly and vindictive.

The problems with ID isn't that the universe can't have been intelligently designed...

The problem comes when you say it is intelligently designed, and you know why, and people should cut off their foreskin and not work every 7 days.



See the problem?

[Beskar]

The problems with ID isn't that the universe can't have been intelligently designed...

The problem comes when you say it is intelligently designed, and you know why, and people should cut off their foreskin and not work every 7 days.

If I was going to intelligently design a world, I wouldn't have included Malaria.

Or given men nipples.

If you really think about the ID route, you have to wonder what kind of person did what they did and you will find yourself disappointed.

[Pannonian]

Well, beyond the scientific argument, I think that the scriptural and the philosophical questions surrounding the issue should matter to us as Christians. What about that charge I levelled against you earlier?

What about that question I posed to you earlier, concerning the 1870 Education Act ensuring compulsory primary education for all children? How do your scriptural concerns square with the utilitarian nature of the Act? How does creationism in science classes contribute towards Britain's industry and economy?

[Pannonian]

If I was going to intelligently design a world, I wouldn't have included Malaria.

Or given men nipples.

If you really think about the ID route, you have to wonder what kind of person did what they did and you will find yourself disappointed.

Or the David Attenborough question of what kind of benevolent creator would create a parasitic worm that lays eggs in the eyes of a little girl and makes her incurably blind. And on the intelligent design issue, one of his programmes mentioned eyes as the classical example of a complex structure that could not have evolved by itself, as it need many things put together to work. Except, of course, he gives examples of every stage of eye evolution, from the simplest sensory organs that can only distinguish between light and dark, through to the eyes that we have, and every stage in between, with examples in currently living species as well as in the fossil records. Similarly with other transitional forms between different branches of the animal groups (eg. the platypus, which is a rudimentary proto-mammal with vestiges of a reptilian past). Even the most famous missing link of all, archaeopteryx, has a living equivalent in the hoatzin.

[Montmorency]

This always confuses me when people talk about benevolent creators.

If we're entertaining the notion of an omnipotent and omniscient God, we have several options when it comes to 'evils' or 'imperfections' in life:

1. Assume that our values do not match up with the God's, whose values are superior.
2. Assume that the God knows what he's bloody doing.
3. Assume that the human perspective (or more precisely one's personal perspective) is the ultimate rule against which a putative God must be held.

Frankly, the third is just as delusional as the belief itself in a benevolent creator...

[Papewaio]

Kadagar AV and HoreTore in agreement! End world now.

=][=

As for fossils they are like road markers. They are useful and reveal a lot of information but we also have access to the road itself for information. DNA is the road and it explains handily the relationship between flora and fauna around the world and over time.

We share the same DNA with a lot of the life forms around us, not just apes but much more exotic forms of life. DNA corroborates, reinforces and explains the mechanisms of Evolution and the fossil record to such a high degree.

=][=

There might be a dozen different flavours of Creationism. Intelligent Design certainly is a large faction with funding and political clout. They influence in the US the Texas textbook purchasing which then dominos out to other states.

Problem with intelligent design is that the premise is that it takes intelligence to create complex systems. Yet surely every government is a working example of this not being the case. Burecracy is not designed, it forms without an overarching plan, yet virtually every older government has more and more layers of it forming over time with redundancies and contradictions building up over time.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, beyond the scientific argument, I think that the scriptural and the philosophical questions surrounding the issue should matter to us as Christians. What about that charge I levelled against you earlier?

Apply Ockham's Razor -

Which is more likely?

That the scribes who compiled Genesis (and we know it was a disparate group) were mistaken, or that the body of evidence compiled over the last several centuries (evolution is much older than Darwinism as an idea) is entirely falsified.

More likely we misunderstand God than we misunderstand the physical world, I think.

Right, but peoples erroneous views in the past on this matter were due to the very visible differences between dogs and wolves that had come about as a result of highly artificial breeding programmes - that doesn't happen with evolution through natural selection.

Traditional dog breeds, or working dogs (like Collies) closely resemble wolves, they were classified separately due to the tendency to over-classify, and due to relatively limited interbreeding observed by scientists (but regularly practised otherwise).

It was always an idiotic distinction.

We've always had a lack of transitional fossils. Now, I understand why this is, but it doesn't change the fact that ultimately, the evidence isn't there. We don't have that many ancient human/proto-human fossils in general:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...lution_fossils

If a chunk of what we did have is shown to be no longer part of an evolutionary narrative, then that is significant. It by no means disproves evolutionary theory, but is does deliver it a blow in one of its more vulnerable areas.

OK, well the variation within H. Erectus accounts for the gap previously bridged by multiple "species" so there are no new "gaps". As far as "transitional" fossils go - we don't have every generation from our earliest ancestors to us - but we can still see both the physical and genetic progression from one to another. The "missing links" simply indicate that there are temporal gaps between fossils.

If you killed both my parents and erased all trace of them, you'd be less inclined to believe I was related to my great grandfather, but I am, and the genetic progression from him to fa fa, to my father, to me is very obvious.

It's once piece of the puzzle. A few months back it would have been unthinkable that one discovery could disprove the conclusions on so many others. You would have been using these discredited sub-species against me in a similar thread as proof I was wrong.

Hardly unthinkable - it happens all the time.

And I wouldn't have been "using them against you" because I don't need them to demonstrate the progression from H. Erectus to H. Sapiens, to us.

[HoreTore]

I don't even see anything particularly controversial about the lighter types like ID. Obviously you wouldn't teach it in a science class, but to attack it on metaphysical grounds would be silly and vindictive.

1. It lacks any kind of evidence.
2. It makes non-falsifiable claims.

Teach it along with homeopathy and other nonsense, but keep it away from schools.

[Kadagar_AV]

Kadagar AV and HoreTore in agreement! End world now.

Actually, as both are Scandinavian we agree on a whole lot of issues (being unbearable european smugg to name one).

It's purely coincidal when we agree though, as I stopped bothering to read his posts.

Now, get me, HoreTore, Rhyfelwyr and rvg to agree on a post... And you can go for the presidency... In pretty much any country on the globe...

[HoreTore]

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

Sorry I missed this earlier, but:

History is poorly taught? What? History is taught in every single subject with the possible exception of mathematics. It forms an integral part of every class trip, and nearly all school activities. In addition to that, the subject also have its own class!

If, however, you mean the skills needed to make sense of history(ie. the scientific method for humanities/history) rather than the actual history itself, then yeah, you're probably right.

[Papewaio]

Actually, as both are Scandinavian we agree on a whole lot of issues (being unbearable european smugg to name one).

...

Now, get me, HoreTore, Rhyfelwyr and rvg to agree on a post... And you can go for the presidency... In pretty much any country on the globe...

Simple I'm sure all three can agree you can be a particualarly smug ski instructor about you sexual exploits.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Sorry only have time to reply to some things...

Oh look its the usual outrage and blustering based on technicalities that they don't even understand.

lol! No no no Rhy, please stop now.

Every fossil is a transitional fossil. You are a transitional form.

There's no lack of it - everything we have is a transitional fossil.

Let me stop you right there. You obviously do NOT understand why that is. You actually pretty damn clearly with that sentence alone illustrate just how misguided you are here...

EVERY single fossil is from a organism that is a work in progress. Heck, YOU are a work in progress, or did you somehow think we humans stopped evolving now? You don't think we will look rather different in, say, a few million years? Or a few hundred billion years.

Ho hum, yes everything is a transitional fossil. Categorizations are fluid, we are dealing with a continuum, bla bla I get it.

The term 'transitional fossil' is used much more specifically than it could be interpreted in a more literal sense. Please note that Charles Darwin himself spoke of transitional fossils in this way and conceded that it was a major weakness in his theory (and please don't bother telling me what discoveries we have made since his time).

Why not do some basic reading on the topic instead of obfuscating and corrupting terms?

No it doesn't...

As an example, science now believe there are fewer different Dinosaur types than before... As they changed quite some while growing up, and what we before thought was two different types of dinosaurs, now has been proven to be the same type, only one younger and one older.

Did this new info lead to "OMG scientists were WRONG about dinosaurs"?

Of course not. It's just another part of the puzzle, and the scientific view is now more more complete and better off than before.

We have hundreds to thousands times as many dinosaur fossils as we do fossils of ancient humans/proto-humans. The existence of dinosaur species is indisputable, but the transition from common ancestor to ape and man still has extremely limited evidence in the archeological record.

At the end of the day guys, it comes down to this - you don't have the evidence to conclusively show that transition from common ancestor to human. There is no definitive missing link.

And now, I await several responses of the usual nitpicking, dismissive mocking and faux intellectualism over my use of the term 'missing link'.

inb4 "Rhy doesn't know what missing link means".

[Pannonian]

We have hundreds to thousands times as many dinosaur fossils as we do fossils of ancient humans/proto-humans. The existence of dinosaur species is indisputable, but the transition from common ancestor to ape and man still has extremely limited evidence in the archeological record.

At the end of the day guys, it comes down to this - you don't have the evidence to conclusively show that transition from common ancestor to human. There is no definitive missing link.

And now, I await several responses of the usual nitpicking, dismissive mocking and faux intellectualism over my use of the term 'missing link'.

inb4 "Rhy doesn't know what missing link means".

Why should there be conclusive fossil records of the development of homo sapiens? Archaeopteryx was important as a "missing link" because it showed characteristics of 2 major branches, ie. reptiles and birds. Biologically, proto-humans and humans are virtually the same, when seen from the same perspective that we look at dinosaurs. To demand that we find full records of the change from proto-human to human, is like demanding that we find full records of the change from archaeopteryx to a slightly more birdlike but genetically definitely related version of archaeopteryx. It might interest you more because homo sapiens is your own species, but there is no particular reason to expect there to be an especially detailed fossil record for the ancestry of this one species.

[Ironside]

Nah, I'm going to give you a harder one Rhyf.

In your own words, define what you require for a fossil to be a "missing link". And don't be vague on it.

This always confuses me when people talk about benevolent creators.

If we're entertaining the notion of an omnipotent and omniscient God, we have several options when it comes to 'evils' or 'imperfections' in life:

1. Assume that our values do not match up with the God's, whose values are superior.
2. Assume that the God knows what he's bloody doing.
3. Assume that the human perspective (or more precisely one's personal perspective) is the ultimate rule against which a putative God must be held.

Frankly, the third is just as delusional as the belief itself in a benevolent creator...

We do have the concept of "worthy of worship". That's basically what we humans gains on worshipping the god in question. An absent god gives nothing. A benevolent god might reward you for your good actions, but aren't that big into punishment simply for disobidience. An evil god might reward you for evil actions and are usually more into punishing disobidience for itself. A cruel god might not torment you if you bribe him.

Those parts are from your own perspective and is thus falling into alternative 3.

[Sir Moody]

I don't even see anything particularly controversial about the lighter types like ID. Obviously you wouldn't teach it in a science class, but to attack it on metaphysical grounds would be silly and vindictive.

thats the thing - ID isnt "lighter" it is actually rebranded Old Earth Creationism in reverse - they still reject Evolution and demand it not be taught or that their particular brand should be taught alongside in Science classes.

To make it worse as the latest group on the scene they have plenty of backing which means they are well funded and politically connected...

Now as i said before I have no problem with ID or classic creationism in Religious Studies or Humanities since that is where they should be taught - that isnt however what ID groups want...

[Sir Moody]

Sorry I missed this earlier, but:

History is poorly taught? What? History is taught in every single subject with the possible exception of mathematics. It forms an integral part of every class trip, and nearly all school activities. In addition to that, the subject also have its own class!

If, however, you mean the skills needed to make sense of history(ie. the scientific method for humanities/history) rather than the actual history itself, then yeah, you're probably right.

We in the UK have a terrible track record when it comes to teaching history - generally you are taught 3 "periods" and nothing else unless you continue to A Level - in my case this was 1930's Germany, the Irish conflict and the Tudors - If it wasnt for the Totalwar games I would never have had the "will" to look into the massive gaps on my own...

[Pannonian]

We in the UK have a terrible track record when it comes to teaching history - generally you are taught 3 "periods" and nothing else unless you continue to A Level - in my case this was 1930's Germany, the Irish conflict and the Tudors - If it wasnt for the Totalwar games I would never have had the "will" to look into the massive gaps on my own...

1066 and all that.