Rant Evolution vs Creationism

[Sar]

BBC NEWS | Education | Call for creationism in science

I'm sorry, but there's absolutely no place in a Science class for religious points of view.

The two points of view regarding Creationism and Evolutionary theory are diametrically opposed. You either teach science or you teach religion.

Would the Creationists like it if the establishment started forcing the view of Darwinists, or indeed followers of Dawkins down their childrens' throats during their R.E. lessons?

I don't think so.

 

[rynnor]

Lol - it should be considered a cultural worldview - what a load of crap!

Education is going down the pan - my kids infant school teaches Braingym which is utterly discredited pseudo science - feels like we are going backwards...

 

[SawTooTH]

Lol - it should be considered a cultural worldview - what a load of crap!

Education is going down the pan - my kids infant school teaches Braingym which is utterly discredited pseudo science - feels like we are going backwards...

Scientists or should I say Physisists should stop bringing god into science.
Calling the Higgs-bosen the god particle is a bit stupid

 

[Sar]

It was a 1998 Nobel winning physicist, Leon Lederman, head of Fermilab who coined it, and it was the title of a book he wrote in 1993.

Probably to sell books. But he had justification for calling it that.


Apparantly.

 

[Wij]

This world needs more James Randi.

 

[DaGaffer]

Actually, if you read the article:

Teachers should take the time to explain why creationism had no scientific basis, Prof Reiss said.

He stressed that the topic should not be taught as science.

I think that's fair enough. The role of a teacher isn't just to say "learn this, its on the board" (as a lot of my teachers did), its to encourage pupils to think. You can't do this just by ignoring something; better to address it and show why its not science.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Exactly said above by Gaffy.

They should teach them both, creationisism and science, then let pupils decide and figure things by themselves.

Saying "religion isn't science" is like teaching kids "rome isn't in jamaica".

 

[00dave]

Sounds like you're talking bollocks again.

Surely studying creationism is what religious education is for.

 

[nath]

They should teach them both, creationisism and science, then let pupils decide and figure things by themselves.

That implies that creationism and evolution should be considered equal and that it's OK for kids to make a decision between the two. It's just not, creationism is batty shit. If they start teaching it, they should teach the flying spaghetti monster theories too.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

It's just not, creationism is batty shit.

Nath's from Staines in the mid-nineties!

 

[nath]

You're the one who took batty to mean gay, I meant loony!

Bat shit crazy, if you'd like something more contemporary

 

[chipper]

Sounds like you're talking bollocks again.

Surely studying creationism is what religious education is for.

nothing else needs to be said creationism is based on god ie religious education science is about fact RE is about fiction

 

[Sar]

Exactly my point. Creationism has no place in a science class, and thankfully the Government are in agreement.

Creationists are a bunch of fucking whack jobs who completely ignore all the evidence that tells them that their ideology is a pile of crap.

The universe was created 6,000 years ago?

Fucks sake, The Queen's been on the throne longer than that ffs

 

[SawTooTH]

In the paper today I read that the Humanist society lost a case for Humanism being taught in religeous education classes as its not a religion. I always thought that RE was understanding other peoples beliefs. A belief in a naturilistic world view is a belief system in my book, backed up by reason and understanding. On the other hand Christians seem to want the right to present their unsustantiated claims for creation in science classes. Hmm

 

[chipper]

to be fair to the guy ive just actually read the article and he doesnt say that creationalism should be taught as truth more that if a child asks a question along the lines of god made the earth in 7 days the science teacher can explain that this is absolute bolloxs and talk them through a scientific explanation and why the creationalist version cannot be true

i actually agree with what hes saying its better to tell a student why they are wrong than simply say your wrong and ignore that child for the rest of that lesson.

 

[Sar]

In the paper today I read that the Humanist society lost a case for Humanism being taught in religeous education classes as its not a religion. I always thought that RE was understanding other peoples beliefs. A belief in a naturilistic world view is a belief system in my book, backed up by reason and understanding. On the other hand Christians seem to want the right to present their unsustantiated claims for creation in science classes. Hmm

Well that's one of the many things I agree with Richard Dawkins on wholeheartedly.

Religious debaters can try and denigrate scientific theory and fact all day long, and you're expected to politely put up with it, even though most of their arguments hold no water.

However, the minute a scientist starts to do the very same thing, then all of a sudden you're deemed to be "offending" their religious views.

I'm sorry but fuck off you hypocritical tossers. If you're patently unable to defend your own position, then don't get into the bloody debate to begin with. Don't blame Science because your cosmic Jewish Zombie overlord left you with no proof of his existence.

There will be no "respectul tip-toeing away" in this sort of argument from me, much like Dawkins.

 

[Sharma]

This is why religion and state should be completely separate.

 

[nath]

Sar, if you haven't, you might want to check out Sam Harris too. He even attacks religious moderates

 

[DaGaffer]

Exactly said above by Gaffy.

They should teach them both, creationisism and science, then let pupils decide and figure things by themselves.

Saying "religion isn't science" is like teaching kids "rome isn't in jamaica".

That's NOT what I said. I said they should put creationism into context and show why its NOT science, and there's nothing wrong with doing that in a science lesson.

 

[mank!]

the problem with education in schools nowadays is you don't get tom waits teaching you.

YouTube - Tom Waits Press Conference

 

[old.Tohtori]

That's NOT what I said. I said they should put creationism into context and show why its NOT science, and there's nothing wrong with doing that in a science lesson.

I'm not saying what you said i meant the part about teachers not going "now this is how it is".

I simply stated that they should be tauht both, or told about both, from a default line with no sides.

Exaplin why science shows how creationism is wrong, and then tell about creationism as well, on another class or some such.

Otherwise we get another patch of "that's bullsh*t and you should burn for being that way" wankers out the school doors.

That implies that creationism and evolution should be considered equal and that it's OK for kids to make a decision between the two. It's just not, creationism is batty shit. If they start teaching it, they should teach the flying spaghetti monster theories too.

No, that implies both should be told about from an equal standing point. Aka, no sides taken in teaching and teaching being factual.

Lot more "Some believe..." teaching and less "This is your mantra..." teaching.

 

[Ctuchik]

Actually, if you read the article:



I think that's fair enough. The role of a teacher isn't just to say "learn this, its on the board" (as a lot of my teachers did), its to encourage pupils to think. You can't do this just by ignoring something; better to address it and show why its not science.

if this "something" is that something called "GOD" created this planet in 7 days, then YES its grounds for being agressively ignored.

because, part from a boring ass book, theres ZERO evidence that neither he ever existed nor that this planet were created in 7 days.

and EVERYTHING points that the evolution is actually what happened.

i mean, what the fuck? WHO in their right mind actually BUYS that shit thats in the bible?

i even dare to say that that book probably started off as a result of some wierd ass psycopathic clan leaders self biograpghy to keep a firm hold on his followers.

granted i have no evidense about that last statement but hell, i could always write a book about it. because then it HAS to be the truth, atleast if the religious fanatics has anything to say about how things are/should be.

 

[mank!]

you suck at comprehending people's beliefs and faiths.

a lot of people find a great deal of comfort, guidance and solace in religion. i don't think that's deserving of scorn or mocking. it's only the fanatic nutters that are an issue.

 

[Furr]

CentreRight: RE: Should creationism be permitted to be taught in schools?

Another site with this debate.

 

[Stazbumpa]

a lot of people find a great deal of comfort, guidance and solace in religion. i don't think that's deserving of scorn or mocking. it's only the fanatic nutters that are an issue.

This.

The people who find their comfort in religion generally are not the ones who scream that creationism is the same as evolution and the theory of evolution. They are far too intelligent for that.

What I do find entertaining is that Creationist's like to call normal people "Evolutionists", as if it somehow puts their mental view of the world on a par with evidenced scientific fact.

PS: Hi everyone, I have returned.


(Whaddya mean, "who?")

 

[Scouse]

They should teach them both, creationisism and science, then let pupils decide and figure things by themselves.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!

I knew this thread had come to shit when it got to two pages. I'd been avoiding it.

Keep Creationism out of schools. It's religion dressed in science's clothes. Anyone who thinks/muses/opines otherwise is a FUCKTARD.

No, that implies both should be told about from an equal standing point. Aka, no sides taken in teaching and teaching being factual.

Lot more "Some believe..." teaching and less "This is your mantra..." teaching.

< May not seem like an argument but it's all you need to deal with this shit, being better than anything creationists have ever come up with...

 

[DaGaffer]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!

You can't keep creationism out of schools, because kids (and teachers) bring it in with them. Far better to face up to it, and show why its not science, than pretend the idea of creationism doesn't exist. I don't agree with Teh Seal that creationism and evolution should be treated the same, not at all, and that's what the article was saying as well. Am I speaking fucking sanskrit or something?

 

[Stazbumpa]

No, that implies both should be told about from an equal standing point. Aka, no sides taken in teaching and teaching being factual.

That would depend on what you call "equal standpoint". If you mean creationism classes in science so that the creationist view can be explained on a par with scientific fact then no way at all, ever.

If you mean creationism being mentioned as method of teaching why we should always rely on evidence, logic and reason, then fair enough. IE: "hey kids, this is creationism and here's why its bullshit....."

Lot more "Some believe..." teaching and less "This is your mantra..." teaching.

I would prefer it if they relied on teaching what is established fact, or what is most likely factual on the balance of probability.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Yeah, gaffer isn't agreeing with me on my standpoint on HOW, but the method i believe is the same, that it should be kids choice to choose what to believe.

This is how i mean it from an "equal standpoint":

Noone calling it dumb f*ckwit stupid thing to do.

Tell what creationism is, tell what science is, tell what religion is(preferably MANY religions, old and new) and then let the kids do their own thinking.

 

[mank!]

it should be kids choice to choose what to believe.

[...]

Tell what creationism is, tell what science is, tell what religion is(preferably MANY religions, old and new) and then let the kids do their own thinking.

it's this kind of radical thinking that causes children to grow up with the crazy notions that they have the powers of free thought, personal choice, individuality and freedom!