Creationism In Schools Isn't Science

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just like history, there's been loads of Kings and Queens, why do we bother teaching them about anyone other than the current one?.

Because the older ones were more badass obviously. Leading the English and beating the French at Agincourt is far cooler than attending the Royal Variety Show.
 
Because the older ones were more badass obviously. Leading the English and beating the French at Agincourt is far cooler than attending the Royal Variety Show.

Some of those Greek Gods were pretty cool too...
 
Some of those Greek Gods were pretty cool too...
memes_odin_kills_ice_giants_memebase_45-s500x642-187955.jpg
 
But you missed the point. No one is saying don't have RE. What is being said is: don't teach faith as fact and don't try and introduce religion into other subjects which is what intelligent design and creationists evangelise.

In this case it was in an RE lesson and they were intending to bring in a real scientist to present the case for evolution... (or so they claim ;))

I completely agree with your above point though :clap:
 
In this case it was in an RE lesson and they were intending to bring in a real scientist to present the case for evolution... (or so they claim ;))

I completely agree with your above point though :clap:

Present a case? Is there any doubt that evolution is not happening?
 
Just like history, there's been loads of Kings and Queens, why do we bother teaching them about anyone other than the current one?

Because there is time to learn about them all - plus they all existed :D
 
Some of those Greek Gods were pretty cool too...
They were wusses :hiya: I decided to become a Norse-believer after the last General Chat religious discussion (i think it was the anti-atheist one).
If one's going to believe in deity(s), then pick a decent heaven. Forget harps and clouds, i want large breasted Valkyries and drinking :thumbsup:

As for RE/science/etc in schools: could religion be presented objectively as part of History, and have a segment on current religions? Then have separate morals and ethics classes, maybe with philosophy, all to encourage self-thinking. Lastly have RE Practical classes in the pub, with large breasted women, to learn about Vikings and Norse culture. Job done.
 
That appears to encourage ignorance and exposure to anything is surely part of learning and growing, even if you reject it.
That's part of my point above.

Mo matter what others may say, no child under the age of about 14 is competent to make any kind of judgement about the veracity of belief. Above that, include it in sociology or anthropology teachings.

I would allocate no formal school time whatsoever to anything which may smack of Religious anything. The creeds of one's schoolmates is of no more relevance or significance than the colour of their skin, and insofar as is possible it should be ignored,
 
Present a case? Is there any doubt that evolution is not happening?

Of course not, poor choice of wording on my part :blush:

Although, technically, it is still a Theory of Evolution and shouldn't be presented as fact.
 
Because there is time to learn about them all - plus they all existed :D

Prove it :D Just because it's written down in an old book doesn't mean it happened ;)
 
...Are they mostly deluded because they truely believe?...
Well, yes, obviously. They can't all be right; in fact only one can be. Given that no creed is followed by half of humanity, that inevitably leaves the majority deluded.
 
Of course not, poor choice of wording on my part :blush:

Although, technically, it is still a Theory of Evolution and shouldn't be presented as fact.
Don't let's start that old "it's only a theory" argument yet again, please! :mad:

No scientist ever presents anything as a fact, although mathematicians do.

Look up "Theory", "Hypothesis", "Postulate", "Conjecture".

Gravitation is a Theory. Evolution is a Theory.
 
Let's not then :) I wasn't. Just pointing out that a good scientist probably would present the case for Evolution.

Look up "Theory", "Hypothesis", "Postulate", "Conjecture".

No, I already know what they mean :)
 
Last edited:
Voldemort said:
But you missed the point. No one is saying don't have RE. What is being said is: don't teach faith as fact and don't try and introduce religion into other subjects which is what intelligent design and creationists evangelise.

Again, I have not missed the point. To quote your last post "the whole thing is ridiculous". I infer from that you mean the teaching of any sort of RE (If I am wrong, I apologise). So do you now think there is some room for some kind of RE, in an appropriate form?

Creationism is not taught as fact in Schools (if it is, it should not be), offered as a belief maybe, but certainly not given the same credability as evolution. Thats all I,m saying is that a balenced view should be taught, certainly including the arguments against.
 
I don't know how they treat children in schools now, but in the early 60s I used to skip (mitching we called it) RE. The headmaster caught me and I told him I am an athiest, that was my reason for mitching and not an excuse. He beat me, two canes on each hand and two on the arse.

In my new school that had assembly but the Jewish and RC kids had to sit in seperate classrooms whilst it was going on. No special room for athiests, but I didn't fancy another beating so I hid in the toilet.

If people are taking RE then Genesis must be part of those studies, you can't ignore a part of the book, however ludicrous it sounds, but to have religious nutters bible thumping then that is obviously wrong.

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there schools in the States that will only teach creationism as fact. Perhaps there are schools here in the UK that do the same.
 
I have to say I am against RE being mandatory in schools, particularly public schools. What disturbs me is when creationists deny evolution. Evolution is simply the label given to the observation of the process, and you cant deny what is happening all around us. Everything from mini fashion dogs to people that can see clearly underwater serve as proof of that yet it gets denied, which seems crazy to me.

I am all for respecting the beliefs of others, but what happens when you dont wish your child to learn RE, why arent those beliefs respected.
 
IronGiant said:
Although, technically, it is still a Theory of Evolution and shouldn't be presented as fact.

Can of worms. Opened.

Richard Dawkins feels that evolution is a fact- as robust as any in science. so why shouldn't it be taught as such? is it to do with how you define 'fact'? eg. something that can be proven? if so, define 'proof'. can you prove Australia exists? I've certainly never seen it :)

There must come a point when the evidence for something becomes strong enough to be considered a teachable fact. evolution has long since graduated to that status.

Creationism fails at the starting gate.
 
gibbsy said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there schools in the States that will only teach creationism as fact. Perhaps there are schools here in the UK that do the same.

I think there are those in the "bible belt", but I suppose certain private, religious schools do it here. I suspect some home schooled kids are "taught" this in th UK
 
Can of worms. Opened.

Richard Dawkins feels that evolution is a fact- as robust as any in science. so why shouldn't it be taught as such? is it to do with how you define 'fact'? eg. something that can be proven? if so, define 'proof'. can you prove Australia exists? I've certainly never seen it :)

There must come a point when the evidence for something becomes strong enough to be considered a teachable fact. evolution has long since graduated to that status.

Creationism fails at the starting gate.

Tempting though it is, it is impossible to argue with someone you agree with :laugh:
Can closed :p
 
Nice one, I remember signing this so glad to see a decent outcome. Let them fund their own ridiculous claptrap.

So we deny providing children with education about religious beliefs, WITHOUT telling them its a fact or attempt to indictronate them?

You can't simply ignore the beliefs of millions of people, even if it conflicts with our own, can you?

No, I have not. "religious claptrap" seems to me anyway, to be the end of Kav's argument IMO. I cant really argue against his honest POV.

In answer to the belief of millions and the truth, we are not taking about a closed society, we are talking about millions spread across all different types of societys, colours, gender etc. Are they mostly deluded because they truely believe?

I dont want children to be indoctrinated either way. Kav seems, IMO, to be totally anti and you, IMO, seem to want it taught in a proper context. Forgive me if I am wrong, but if I do read you correctly, I happen to agree!

I think you misread my post travid. I said "ridiculous claptrap", not "religious claptrap" as you've quoted me as saying.

My point was that there are (or were) attempts to put creationism on a par with scientific evidence for evolution, as if there are two potential possibilities up for discussion. This is madness, pure and simple, and attempting to present creationism to children as a viable alternative to evolution (or even to be considered at all) has no place in our education system. Children are sponges, it's our responsibility to ensure what they soak up is beneficial to them.

On the wider point around religious education, I didn't mention that at all in here but I have said on multiple occasions that I wholeheartedly support RE classes focussed on teaching what religion (and the lack of religion) means, how it impacts on society, etc. It's pretty much essential education nowadays but not when it's presented with an obvious bias in favour of a particular religion - only if it's presented neutrally. The following suggestion from Toko Black would be ideal IMO:

Personally I believe we should abolish R.E and restructure a new subject in it's place that discusses a fixed national syllabus where religious beliefs are all discussed equally as merely a part of a wider subject of ethics, morality and social behavior.
 
Prove it :D Just because it's written down in an old book doesn't mean it happened ;)

Well my Gran has seen the last four, and her mother the previous two. If you want to go up against her then I suggest you suit up :laugh:
 
I think you misread my post travid. I said "ridiculous claptrap", not "religious claptrap" as you've quoted me as saying.
just reminded me of this great film from Bill Maher

 
Well my Gran has seen the last four, and her mother the previous two. If you want to go up against her then I suggest you suit up :laugh:

Hearsay :)

I take your second point on board :D
 
Why is that a problem? :devil:

It's good to have people with different viewpoints freely discussing their beliefs, or lack thereof on here :)

It's not a problem in itself with regards to my statement, merely a problem for the idea that only a tiny minority represented by fanatics and extremists hold those ideas.

We constantly dismiss the notion that those that represent ideas we may be uncomfortable with logically or idealogically to be so small as to be insignificant or to be transformed into mysterious weirdos that don't behave or look like the rest of us. This is a fallacy and merely wishful thinking.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom