BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?

Subject: BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?
From: Folk Form # 1
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 03:34 AM

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20081223/tuk-creationism-should-be-taught-in-scho-dba1618.html

Click on to this and shudder. To quote Professor Hawkins: let us also teach astrology alongside astromony and alchamy alongside chemistry.

Subject: RE: BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?
From: Stu
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 04:28 AM

Appalling - these aren't science teachers, but peddlers of superstition and nonsense.

Can't they even get teachers that take the subject seriously?

Subject: RE: BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?
From: bubblyrat
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 07:24 AM

What doesn't seem to have ocurred to anyone is the idea that creationism is alive and well,and still happening after millions of years!! With that sort of time-scale,evolutionism and creationism would sit more happily with each other; I mean, why would God , who had/has all the time in history,want to cram it all into 7 days ?? No way, I say ! He carefully planned everything,for at least 100 million years in advance, and so far,apart from a few glitches, it's all going quite well !!
                            Merry Christmas !

Subject: RE: BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?
From: Cllr
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 10:02 AM

Thanks PE I hadnt heard the quote from Hawkins before, im going to use that.
Cllr

PS I notice on my mudcat page under google ads i have adverts for pro creation leaflets or as i call them fire kindling

PPS I think thats the first time in my life i have advocated book burning

Subject: RE: BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 10:16 AM

Kids are smarter to spot BS than we usually assume-- didn't WE all figger out some big things at that age? :~)

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?
From: Sleepy Rosie
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 10:52 AM

Creationism? Mmm. In theory I don't take issue with this subject being discussed alongside Darwin. If simply offered as an alternative view which some people propose, and why.

BUT I think the biggest issue I would take with the idea of teaching such a theory, is that in the West it appears to be far too intimately bound up with Old Testament mythology. i.e. Genesis. And especially where there is a potential non-secular (and indeed specifically Christian) agenda being promoted.

Nothing at-all wrong with teaching something like 'Comparative Creation Myths' IMO, so long as they are labelled as such, and taught within an appropriate subject, such as anthropology or comparative religion.

Subject: RE: BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 11:10 AM

"Nothing at-all wrong with teaching something like 'Comparative Creation Myths' IMO, so long as they are labelled as such, and taught within an appropriate subject, such as anthropology or comparative religion."

You are absolutely right, Rosie, but this is not what is being advocated. Supporters of Creationism or Intelligent Design (same car, different color) want this taught in sciences classes as if it were science. In a comparative religion class, or literature, or even a philosophy class, this would be an appropriate subject.

Merry Christmas (all 12 days of it) to all...whether you choose to celebrate or not.

Subject: RE: BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 11:18 AM

I didn't know you had those kinds of right-wing nuts in the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 12:11 PM

Strange creatures, human beings...

Subject: RE: BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?
From: Sleepy Rosie
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 12:15 PM

some of them to be sure..

can we get some gnostic myths in this creationism?
they seem to make much more logical sense than genesis..

Subject: RE: BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 01:17 PM

Subtle, McGrath!

Subject: RE: BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 02:02 PM

Maybe not!

Subject: RE: BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?
From: SINSULL
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 02:52 PM

Are they including the Adam's rib story as science as well? Geez!

Subject: RE: BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?
From: Sleepy Rosie
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 03:01 PM

Adams Rib. A true story...

Adam was returning home late one night in paradise after drinking with the dodo and the unicorn. Eve got angry and yelled at him: "YOU ARE SEEING ANOTHER WOMAN!" Adam responded: "Don't be silly, you are the only woman on earth" and went to sleep.

Later that night Adam woke up, feeling a tickle in his chest and saw it was Eve. "What are you doing?" he asked. "I'm counting your ribs" she responded.

Subject: RE: BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?
From: Alice
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 03:44 PM

Under George Bush, orders were given to the Park Service to favor creationism rather than geologically accurate books to be sold in the gift shop at the Grand Canyon National Park.

--------
For Immediate Release: December 28, 2006
Contact: Carol Goldberg [phone]

HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON? PARK SERVICE WON'T SAY — Orders to Cater to
Creationists Makes National Park Agnostic on Geology

Washington, DC — Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an
official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to
pressure from Bush administration appointees. Despite promising a prompt

review of its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood rather than by geologic forces, more than three years later no

review has ever been done and the book remains on sale at the park,

according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental

Responsibility (PEER).


"In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park

Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology," stated PEER
Executive Director Jeff Ruch. "It is disconcerting that the official

position of a national park as to the geologic age of the Grand Canyon is

'no comment.'"
Read the rest of it here. (click).


"As one park geologist said, this is equivalent of Yellowstone National Park selling a book entitled Geysers of Old Faithful: Nostrils of Satan,"

Subject: RE: BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?
From: Sleepy Rosie
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 03:52 PM

O... M... G...

Subject: RE: BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?
From: Gervase
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 04:00 PM

Sure, creationism should be 'discussed', in the same way that the idea of phlogiston should be discussed, but 'taught alongside'? I can't believe that so many teachers are either so stupid or ignorant - so surely there must be something awry with the survey methods.

Subject: RE: BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?
From: TheSnail
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 04:52 PM

I really hoped this was just bad reporting but here is Ipsos MORI's own article. The headline puts a different bias on it but the figures seem to be the same.

Scary.

Subject: RE: BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 05:04 PM

Kee-rist that is alarming.

Subject: RE: BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 05:21 PM

What's the difference between explaining something and discussing it and teaching it? Is it really anything more than the fact that the teacher might say something to the effect "and this is what I believe is true, along with all scientists" in the latter case?   

I don't think that there is any suggestiin that teachers should be prevented from doing this. And I think that there are remarkably few teachers in this country who would be likely to say that they believe in the very limited and strange notion of creation that "creationism" evidently entails.

Of course, human nature being what it is, there are inevitably going to be some children who will be inclned to disbelieve anything their teacher says is true. However excluding something from discussion is inevitably liable to make it more appealing to some children.

For an analogy - a lesson about the events of September 11 that did not touch on theories about government conspiracy would not dispel such ideas, it would reinforce them.

Subject: RE: BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 05:41 PM

Erm...as a matter of interest, how *do* science teachers explain to children where the whole universe, actually came from?

Because....nobody knows, nor will they, ever.

Subject: RE: BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 06:48 PM

Neither side knows where the Universe came from and they never will. But they like to talk in a way that sort of suggests that they know, but putting it in terms they can relate to. And then they argue bitterly about the other one's terms. ;-)

The scientific approach: Once there wasn't a Universe. We don't know what was there back then. Then there was a Big Bang. We have no idea how that happened, but there it was. That produced the Universe as we know it, over a tremendously long period of time. Now we are going to show how clever we are by telling you how long a period of time we think it was, give or take a few billion years, and we are going to baffle you with our reams of technical data. Just sit back and admire us for our tremendous brains and machinery and math and expertise, because this is going to be very complicated....

The religious approach: Once there wasn't a Universe. We don't know what what was there back then. Then God said, "Let There BE Light!" and there was a Great WHOOSH of Light! (think Big Bang) We have no idea how that happened, but that's what God did. That produced the Universe as we know it, over a tremendously long period of time which we are going to call "Seven Days". If some of you want to think of it as seven Earth days, go right ahead if it makes you feel good. Now we are going to show you how enlightened we are by telling you all about the further decisions God made about how to set up his Universe and the moral implications thereof, and we will imply that we know WHY he did all this, although actually we cannot know why because God is beyond human understanding. Just sit back and admire us for our tremendous spiritual knowledge, because this is going to be very complicated....


Now, what do I see there? 2 sets of insecure but curious people trying to say basically the same thing, but from an entirely different emotional basis, that's all. One wants to be mystical and emotional and passionate about it, the other wants to be non-mystical, impassionate, and dryly technical about it.

Is there any good reason for these 2 sets of people to be fighting over each other's different ways of expressing themselves? No. It's like 2 people arguing about which is a better color to wear on Monday...red or green. Useless. Just wear the color you happen to personally like on Monday and don't worry about it.

Subject: RE: BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?
From: Mrs.Duck
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 06:49 PM

Thbey never take much notice when I tell them 2 + 2 = 4 so why worry lol

Subject: RE: BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 06:58 PM

Online discussion on question "Does 2+2 always equal 4?" On forum Absolute Write Water Cooler

Subject: RE: BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 07:03 PM

Best comment I ever heard about "creation science" & bible literalism was from a caller to one of our National Broadcaster's religion programs.

She asked the bloke running the program what was Shakespeare's day - the 1st of Sept 1580 or ...

They both agreed "day" meant age (long time period), not 24 hours. As good christians (whatever that means) both agreed that the book that guided them was not a literal document.

My objection to the so-called science of "creationism" being taught in schools & other places is that it is only the belief of one set/sort of followers of one religion. What about the members of other religions & those who follow no religion & even more importantly, those who follow the same religion, but don't believe in the same pseudo science?

"Creation science" followers are here in Australia, too.

sandra

Subject: RE: BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 08:35 PM

LH,

Science isn't a belief system.

It isn't trying to say anything.

To say it is is to misrepresent it and to show a misunderstanding of it.

Science observes.

Thats it.

If I observe a dog day in day out, I will learn its habits and will be able to guess at its probable action the next day.

Science accepts that the dog may change its routine tomorrow, but in the meantime, if you're a betting man, you could make a bit of cash based on predicting according to the available data.

So we observe that some species die out, some survive and some evolve.

It isn't an opinion. Its an observation.

And in my opinion one that need not be in conflict with religious belief.

On the subject of religion, I've fpund myself discussin the whole Creationist vs Evolutionist illusion of an argument with young fundamentalist Christians and moslems and the point I've made to them is this.

If God is so great, y'know like omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, then you would assume that if someone said to him "why not make aa universe" that he might make something pretty fuckin awesome - like with galaxies and supernova and DNA and Dinosaurs etrc etc etc etc

So I have suggested that these fundamentalists give god a bit more credit.

Do they really think that this awesome supreme creative being is going to create a bloody childs tale that makes goldilocks seem like deep literature?

Come on!

What kind of God are people worshipping here?

And would he like to think that people see him in such a dim uncreative light?

I think that if the Universe had been intelligently designed, by a being infinitely more intelligent than I, that he would design a universe that was pretty darned amazing.

Subject: RE: BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 08:41 PM

"Sure, creationism should be 'discussed', in the same way that the idea of phlogiston should be discussed, but 'taught alongside'? I can't believe that so many teachers are either so stupid or ignorant - so surely there must be something awry with the survey methods."

I agree, Gervase. I can't help feeling that the results as presented can't possibly reflect the real sympathies of the majority of science teachers in the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 08:41 PM

Oh and by the way, I read the story of the Garden of eden as a beautiful and moving account of the process of growing up and having ones bubble of innocence burst by the harsh demands of adulthood.

I don't even subscribe to the whole sexual spin, though I concede that that is an inclusive part of it.

But being cast out into the wilderness after eating from the tree of knowledge is akin in my mind to having ones total confidence in oneself and ones world view and environment shattered as one learns of the finite nature of things.

We strive as children to eat the fruit of knowledge as we can't wait to grow up, and our childhood garden of eden goes on forever.

Then we grow up, become conscious of our mortality and have to face up to the gritty reality of survival.

Subject: RE: BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 09:04 PM

I find fundamentalist views embarrassingly childlike and simplistic too, lox, so no argument there. Many religiously minded people, however, are not fundamentalists and have no problem embracing the scientific viewpoint which is based, as you say, strictly on observation (and the observer's interpretation of what he has observed). Many religiously minded people have a concept of a God who (or which) created a complex and beautiful Universe precisely through the very mechanisms and natural laws which science is busy observing and trying to understand.

Therefore, I see no necessary or inevitable conflict between religion and science, providing the understanding of a religious person is not itself childish and unrealistic.

But that's not really what I was getting at. What I was getting at was that science arises out of a somewhat different attitude or pursuit than mysticism does. Science attempts to discover how things occur or by what process, while religions are driven more than anything else by a concern over ethics and meaning. Therein, I think, lies the crucial difference. They're engaged in fairly separate searches.

(not that scientists can't be concerned about ethics...they can) (and not that religions can't be concerned about observation and understanding of natural processes...they are).

The Edenic myth has a number of interesting possible interpretations. I think we would have to go back there with a time machine and talk to the people who first came up with it to be totally sure what they were trying to say, and whether it had anything to do with sex or not. It's most likely a symbolic parable, and it may be a parable on several different levels.

Subject: RE: BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?
From: Lox
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 09:31 PM

LH, I wouldn't for one second attribute any of the shallowness of a fundamentalist to you, I have read too many of your posts over too many years for that.

I just started waxing lyrical after I'd finished responding to this bit.

"Now, what do I see there? 2 sets of insecure but curious people trying to say basically the same thing, but from an entirely different emotional basis, that's all. One wants to be mystical and emotional and passionate about it, the other wants to be non-mystical, impassionate, and dryly technical about it."

My point is that, yes different scintists interpret data differently, but the job of a science teacher is to teach "science - the discipline".

Ths means arming the student with the ability to observe clearly and accurately.

It doesn't mean teaching any world view.

And in this respect, your post is in my view in error as it ascribes a "view" to science.

Newton, Einsten et al made observations about the behaviour of the universe that are useful to us and those observations are taught in science, not just because they have practical value, but because they are excellent examples of how to make useful and detailed observations.

In recreating their work, we can learn the importance of being rigorous and taking accurate measurements.

So we learn Science as a skill, not as a Dogma of any sort - dry and technical or otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 10:28 PM

Yes, I see what you mean. Science itself is a pure discipline, not a dogma. Some scientifically-minded types are inclined to become dogmatic in their condemnation of any form of spiritualism or religious thought. If so, they do it not because of any fault in the scientific method itself, but merely because of their own personal tendencies and their inner demons, whatever those may be. It's that kind of attitude which I react against when I encounter it. I have no objection at all to science, only to bigots who use their supposed allegiance to science as an excuse to justify their own bigotry against, for example, religious people.

I object similarly to religious bigots who attack the non-religious (or those of a different religion), needless to say. Bigotry is the problem, not science or religion, just bigotry, wherever it may be found.

Subject: RE: BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Dec 08 - 10:41 PM

LH - It seems to me that the bottom line here is not whether or not to teach creationalism, but whether or not to teach it as science. If the basic premis of creationalism is that science is wrong, than it wouldn't seem to make sense to teach such a belief a science.

Subject: RE: BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?
From: Sooz
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 04:17 AM

GCSE Science syllabuses require that a range of theories are taught and analysed. (Creation, Lamarkism, Evolution and Catastrophe Theory. They are all still theories anyway and it is important for young people to know what they are and how they arose so that they can make up their own minds.
Richard Dawkins is a hero of mine but I can't help having a sneaky admiration for the story teller who came up with "Creation". After all, the basic ingredients are there and in the right order, just condensed into a time scale that our primitive ancestors could comprehend. Coincidence?

Subject: RE: BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 04:26 AM

If you do have to teach about creation myths, in any lesson, it's only reasonable to teach all creation myths, and not give any special position or status to the Christian ones (remember there are at least two of those).

One of the problems is that "creation scientists" and "intelligent designers" assume that the single alternative to materialistic explanations is the accounts given by the Bible (and, if they are really thinking, the Koran), and that they make some kind of internal sense.

Subject: RE: BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?
From: Stu
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 06:29 AM

"GCSE Science syllabuses require that a range of theories are taught and analysed. (Creation, Lamarkism, Evolution and Catastrophe Theory. They are all still theories anyway and it is important for young people to know what they are and how they arose so that they can make up their own minds."

Creationism is NOT scientific theory, and it has sod all to so with science or it's methodology. There is simply no way it should be taught alongside science. It should be in RE or whatever they have these days. Lamarkism, Evolution and Catastrophe Theory are scientific theories that are testable and based on observation - they may be discarded or modified as new data become available. Creationism is part of a religious belief system and not the same thing at all. As has been pointed out, it's only part of one belief system and if you teach that in science you might as well also teach the fact the world is carried on a turtle's back, the earth is flat and just about anything else to boot.

Creationism taught as science is a step backward and should be thundered against.

Subject: RE: BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 06:42 AM

"If you do have to teach about creation myths, in any lesson, it's only reasonable to teach all creation myths, and not give any special position or status to the Christian ones (remember there are at least two of those)."

That was going to be my next point! There are a number of creation myths which are equally beautiful and equally valid - as mythology. Surely this is the stuff of RE and philosophy, rather than science classes?

My daughter is currently doing double RE in her GCSEs - ironic, for an athiest who grew up in an agnostic household? Not really, as she enjoys the philosophical and ethical studies and debates that are fundamental to RE. You can also only do the extra bits which lead to the Sociology GCSE, which she was really interested in, by doing the extra RE.

I'm good with all of this, and delighted that my daughter is interested in ideas and philosophical discourse. If she was being taught any of this as part of the science syllabus, however, I'd have cause for concern.

Subject: RE: BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?
From: Sleepy Rosie
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 06:58 AM

Something of an aside here. But I genuinely believe that many children could benefit from studying Philosophy at GCSE level. Children are naturally inquistive and their capacity to ask 'stupid' (note quotes) quesions is one which should never be discouraged. One of the things my old Philosophy tutor said was: "Philosophy keeps asking 'why' long after Science is satisfied with it's conclusions." In fact he said he used to drive his Chemistry professor mad!! The willingness to intelligently question and challenge accepted beliefs or theorys or facts, is fundamental to constructive change. Both in the individual and in society at large. This is one of the reasons I personally would not take issue with Creationism being *discussed and debated*, though I agree it should in no way be offered as a viable Scientific theory. Comparative Creation Myths perhaps belong best taught in Philosophy.

Subject: RE: BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?
From: Stu
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 07:27 AM

Agreed - I would suggest actively debating these issues can only be a good thing, but presenting them as science is at best wilfully ignorant or at worst outright manipulative.

I used to love RE, and enjoyed the fact our teacher encouraged us to ask questions without hesitation. The problem is Creationists aren't really interested in entering into debate, they are pushing their own agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?
From: Sooz
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 07:40 AM

I taught GCSE RE (Philosophy and Ethics) last year. We had great results and the young people enjoyed the course. Some of them did worry that an A* in RE would be bad for their street cred though!

Subject: RE: BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?
From: Sleepy Rosie
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 09:46 AM

Sooz, personally I don't know that I feel Philosophy should be a sub-set of RE at all. Philosophy in all it's forms is an extremely valid stand-alone subject (which *IMO* is of far superior long-term value to a developing mind.) Of which religious debate can take it's place alongside theories of mind, language, ethics and so-on. I would far rather see The Philosophy of Religion and Metaphysics, taught within the far broader spectrum of Philosophy as a whole, than the other way around.

I do not pretend to know how Religious Education is taught in schools these days, but although a spiritually inclined person, like Stig/Jack says on Creationism, I dislike the potential agenda such a subject may be utilised to promote, and believe that religion as such, belongs within the home environment.

Understand I'm not taking any kind of issue with *your post* here, merely what I feel as the inappropriate placing of Philosophy in schools, under the subject umbrella of RE.

Subject: RE: BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?
From: Gervase
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 09:55 AM

I remember being furious with my stepson's school when the RE teacher used her role to push a pretty fundamentalist Christian agenda to the kids, completely ignoring other religions save for a sketchy outline and the dogmatic assertion that they were wrong.
I'm sure she'd be one of the teachers who would love to teach creationism.
I'd love to see RE replaced wholly by Philosophy - it would give youngsters some rigorous mental training and help them understand ethical issues properly rather than give knee-jerk emotional responses.
Internet forums would become a lot less irritating, too!

Subject: RE: BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 11:47 AM

I think it would be best if children lived in an environment where they could learn about all the various cultural and religious creation stories as well as all the present scientific views. It's better to know about many things rather to know only about one or two views on something. That way you can use the brain that either God...or Nature...or both (whatever you like)...gave you, and make up your own mind about what you think.

What scares the hell out of most parents is that their kids might start to think independently, think for themselves, and end up believing something different from what their parents believe. And that is the main impetus that keeps older people trying constantly to control the information that younger people might be exposed to. This is as true of religious parents as it is of atheist parents.    They're protecting their own mental turf and trying to extend it into the indefinite future through their children, that's all.

When I was a child, I wanted to know it all. I didn't want to be told just one story and told "That's all there is to it". But I was, of course, affected by my parents' preconceptions, and they were atheists, so I was basically atheistic too until I reached my early twenties. Then the natural spirit of rebellion in me got me reading a lot of spiritual stuff, and I eventually ended up believing in both the scientific view and the spiritual view of life. I find much value in both of them. I am no fundamentalist. I hope that all young people get a chance to learn about both science and the great religions of the past, as well as more modern spiritual viewpoints coming out now, and I hope they have as little prejudice pushed down their throats as possible.

That will depend more on their parents than on their schools, but it will depend on both.

Subject: RE: BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?
From: TheSnail
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 01:00 PM

It is not whether children should be taught ABOUT creationism but whether they should be TAUGHT creationism. Here is the question from the poll -

To what extent do you agree or disagree that, alongside the theory of evolution and the Big Bang theory, creationism should be TAUGHT in science lessons?

The point is that the theory of evolution and the Big Bang theory might be wrong. Science works by trying to rip every new theory to shreds. If it survives, it becomes stronger; if it fails a knew one comes in it's place. Science is a search for the best answer and a better one may be just round the corner.

Creationism starts with the answer - God did it. After that it is just a matter of fitting the facts to that basic premise. You are not allowed to question the core belief.

Subject: RE: BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 24 Dec 08 - 01:55 PM

An important stumbling block for this kind of conversation that needs to be addressed is that many people who think they know what a theory is, actually don't.

Most people confuse the meaning of "theory" for the meaning of "hypothesis".

They believe that a theory is a point of view or an opinion, imagined and elaborated on to offer an explanation for things. They say "my theory is as good as yours since neither of us knows for sure."

Theory has different meanings in different contexts.

Like the word "Kind" which has different meanings dependant on where it is employed.

In the context of science, "Theory" has the following definitions.

"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

" a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory" "

"In science, an explanation or model that covers a substantial group of occurrences in nature and has been confirmed by a substantial number of experiments and observations. A theory is more general and better verified than a hypothesis."

Creationist theory, according to the above definitions, is not a scientific theory as it is not based on observation, but is merely an idea for which proof is saught by creationists.

Yes we can all offer possible explanations for the universe, but they would not be Theories as that is not what the word means.

Subject: RE: BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 25 Dec 08 - 03:59 AM

I have enjoyed much of the above, especially lox, but let me be blunt:

The world / Universe wasn't made recently in 7 days. People who teach this are wrong, ignorant and stupid and we must question and challenge why they teach this at all.

People who believe this nonsense are ill-educated and in some cases it will stop them understanding some of the most important and exciting ideas that people have ever generated.

Most christians don't believe in 'creationism' I don't know what most muslims believe. Many religious people don't know the details of their own faith or the books central to their faith. The Old Testament is a jumble of stories written by lots of people over a long time. We don't use it as a road map of Palestine and for the same reasons people shouldn't use as a history book or a geology book.

I will celebrate the shortest, darkest days knowing longer, lighter days are on the way, accepting that christians have done all sorts of things around now.

Cheers

L in C

Subject: RE: BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Dec 08 - 07:49 PM

Surely Lamarkism is not currently taught, save as a matter of history.

The most likely explanation of the survey results is that most scientists are appalling users and interpreters of language. It was a major reason why I got out of science after getting my engineering degree. I was pissed off with supervisors and even permanent teaching staff (and the occasional professor) marking my grammar as wrong when I was right and they were wrong.

As for writing elegant English - forget it.

Subject: RE: BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?
From: Cap't Bob
Date: 25 Dec 08 - 11:17 PM

I have never payed any attention to either astrology or mythology. However, just recently I ran across a site on youtube that I found very interesting involving both astrology and mythology and their relationship to modern religions. I would be interested in anyone with youtube letting me know about what you think of these three segments on the Truth of Religion. The first site is "Truth of Religion part 1 of 3":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjGkRFFBd0A

Cap't Bob

Subject: RE: BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?
From: Mr Happy
Date: 27 Dec 08 - 10:13 AM

...........or check this one out - says it all IMO!

Subject: RE: BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?
From: Mr Happy
Date: 27 Dec 08 - 10:14 AM

This one:http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=9goLXFJzSik

Subject: RE: BS: creationism to be taught in UK schools?
From: john f weldon
Date: 27 Dec 08 - 10:35 AM

Oh my. In public high school (Montreal) back around 1960 we were taught evolution in biology class, but we also got a healthy dose of religion in "Home Room". We also had a course called "A Growing Knowledge of God", which taught that the early parts of the Bible were hogwash, but it got increasingly "true" as it went along.

Biology class was regularly disrupted by a student who was the son of a Baptist minister, who would rant about the evils of Darwin while the teacher & class breathed weary sighs and waited for him to run out of breath. He later became a doctor, and admitted to having to "modify some of his early views".

What emerged from this mish-mash of contradiction? I suspect most of my fellow students had very little in the way of a metaphysical position. "Go with the flow" pretty much summed it up.