Rant Evolution vs Creationism

[Scouse]

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.

As long as it's not done in science lessons, then great.

However, if a science teacher gets a question on creationism he shouldn't "debate" it with the kids in the science class - he should tell them to fuck off and ask their R.E. teacher instead. They're not there to learn different "opinions" - they're there to learn FACT.

Debate legitimizes...

 

[old.Tohtori]

Oh aye, i think i have a shipment of fail coming in as i didn't notice the "creationism in science class" bit. Ofcourse not, creationism isn't modern science, it's omnipotenism if anything. It COULD be alien science, if we took a route that aliens were percieved as gods/god in olden days(much possible) and the the world was constructed, but it's a bit far fetched.

Yes, creationism should be in separete teaching, but taught.

Teach 'em everything but don't mash it up, if you will.

 

[Sar]

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

That I will do Nath, cheers.

Oh and welcome back Staz!

 

[nath]

Yes, creationism should be in separete teaching, but taught.

Teach 'em everything but don't mash it up, if you will.

Should pastafarianism be taught too?

After all, I was touched by His noodly appendage and feel other people should be taught the truth.

 

[old.Tohtori]

If there's time, why not? It's a piece of histroy, an example of how some people don't accept religion as part of a viable source, how in different ways you can protest without shooting others.

It has a lot of potential for teaching.

And yes, if the schoolboard accepted, why not have a pastafarian teacher teaching it.

 

[Scouse]

Yes, creationism should be in separete teaching, but taught.

Teach 'em everything but don't mash it up, if you will.

I disagree. It shouldn't be taught at all.

If it's brought up in class by a child it should be debunked and shown up for what it is - an attempt at debunking science by certain religious tossers who see science as a threat.

Whilst I respect other's rights as far as holding religious views are, I don't have to respect the actual views. As far as I'm concerned creationism is organised intellectual violence and should be met as such by any right-thinking person.

And by right-thinking I mean people who want to fuck creationism right in the ear. And fuck anyone who thinks differently on this!

It may seem harsh - but there is no room for middle ground here, IMHO.

 

[SawTooTH]

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.

How can you comprehend something that is unbelievable.

Religion has had an easy ride. Society is geared towards protecting religion and even holds their leaders in high esteme (go figure).
Whats worst is that we are all exposed from an early age to the doctrines of our parents and society. To actually go against that is heroic in my view.

Just because people get comfort from an irrational belief doesn't mean they have to be protected from hearing the truth.

The truth is comforting, we have to take responsibility for ourselves and how we treat others.

 

[Jeremiah]

How can you comprehend something that is unbelievable.

You don't, you comprehend something that is believable. People can hold rational beliefs - why not respect them?

Religion has had an easy ride. Society is geared towards protecting religion and even holds their leaders in high esteme (go figure).

I can only speak for the UK, but I don't think religion has all that much "protection" in this country. If you mean people frown when you tell someone their beliefs are crazy, I think thats more to do with manners than anything else. Leaders are perhaps held up as "moral figures" but I've never seen them protected from criticism. I think we've got a balanced approach to it in this country - personal beliefs are protected, but attempts to force them upon the masses is resisted.

Whats worst is that we are all exposed from an early age to the doctrines of our parents and society. To actually go against that is heroic in my view.

Just because people get comfort from an irrational belief doesn't mean they have to be protected from hearing the truth.

The truth is comforting, we have to take responsibility for ourselves and how we treat others.

I think if you are going to "debunk" one angle (there is no God), you also need to be prepared to do it from the other angle (we have no proof of how life came to be). Afterall, isn't that the "truth"?

As to the original issue - I would agree that Creationism shouldn't be taught as science, and instead taught amongst other culture beliefs, such as Egyptians, Greeks, Vikings etc... Historic, yes: Scientific theory, no =)

 

[Kryten]

I personally believe that nothing religious should be taught in schools. We're now too multi-cultural a country for that to work properly, it seems to me that religious studies is something best taught perhaps by a relevant third party. Sunday school in a sense, but with a curriculum. Maybe even on a set period of the week, and those with no belief/faith do something else.
Education should concentrate on things we know are certain, it's rather hypocritical to be teaching subjects on what is basically heresay. Maths, physics, mechanics, your language. Jesus, Moses, Allah, prophecies, gods - things that are possible, probably, likely or unlikely need to be kept elsewhere. Not as a matter of disrespect, but so the right faiths get the right education on their own beliefs.
But then it's a bit more difficult for one faith to understand another. It would probably benefit a Christian, for example, to understand a little about a Muslim's faith and vice versa.

Huge topic really, many pro's and con's.

 

[Stazbumpa]

Another point worth bearing in mind is that there is no unified Hypothesis of Creationism (it can't be a theory, no observable evidence).
Every creationist has their own opinion of what creationism is, some will reject all science outright, others will attempt to mould some of their beliefs around the science they can understand.
The only unifying factor is the belief in a supernatural being that controls everything, but even then that unifying factor is tenous because nobody can agree on what this supenatural being is like or what it can do.

Given the above, I don't see how creationism can be taught in schools from a logical point of view, let alone an practicle or remotely scientific one. For me personally, and I have researched this because when I'm at work I have large periods of time where I do precisely "fuck all", the one true unifying factor within creationism is that the myriad of creationist opinions and views all operate from a deeply flawed, and often downright dishonest, view of scientific evidence and practice.

One more thing, theism does not automatically mean creationism. The two are quite different.

 

[Wij]

lo Staz

Kids who raise the creationist question in school should be given a knife to slice their parents' faces off tbh.

 

[kirennia]

If I was a teacher being forced to teach about religion in a science lesson, I'd start the term talking about how science is founded and the need for proof then openly talk about Jesus and Horus in comparison. Then I'd be promptly sacked and lynched by an angry mob...

Virgin birth on Dec 25th, 12 disciples (brothers), started work at the age of 30, died, resurrected 3 days later, yada yada. It's worth reading up on the astrology behind the creation of them both, I found it fascinating anyway. The dates quite blatently blow christianity out of the water too...

 

[SawTooTH]

You don't, you comprehend something that is believable. People can hold rational beliefs - why not respect them?



I can only speak for the UK, but I don't think religion has all that much "protection" in this country. If you mean people frown when you tell someone their beliefs are crazy, I think thats more to do with manners than anything else. Leaders are perhaps held up as "moral figures" but I've never seen them protected from criticism. I think we've got a balanced approach to it in this country - personal beliefs are protected, but attempts to force them upon the masses is resisted.



I think if you are going to "debunk" one angle (there is no God), you also need to be prepared to do it from the other angle (we have no proof of how life came to be). Afterall, isn't that the "truth"?

As to the original issue - I would agree that Creationism shouldn't be taught as science, and instead taught amongst other culture beliefs, such as Egyptians, Greeks, Vikings etc... Historic, yes: Scientific theory, no =)

We have no proof of how life came to be????

Well in terms of replicators we do, its called evolution. In terms of where the matter came from to make the replicators, thats for physicists to puzzle out at the LHC.

 

[old.Tohtori]

By the way, i think i need to define that i don't mean teaching kids "And then it came to pass", but top teach them "This is creationism etc etc" without the judgement, as many hold.

Teaching should not be, ever, about judging directly.

 

[tris-]

in my RE class i was always taught to take the bible as story rather than a factual document of history. i was also encouraged to argue in favour and against it and to make my own mind up on what i believe. it was more about understanding what others think.
i also had dedicated science classes that didnt bring religion into it. RE didnt bring science into it either.

basically, left to decide my self what believe in based on the information given. RE classes (at least in the modern age) is not about teaching you to believe something. RE classes are about thinking critically and understanding how others think. i have no idea how it was for you older folks back in the 60s and 70s.

 

[Scouse]

By the way, i think i need to define that i don't mean teaching kids "And then it came to pass", but top teach them "This is creationism etc etc" without the judgement, as many hold.

Teaching should not be, ever, about judging directly.

Nope. Creationists get a "win" if it's presented in that way. That is what they're desparate to achieve and why millions are being spent trying to achieve it.

Why? Because some kids will choose to believe it. And it is utter, utter shit.

Creationism is an attempt by well-funded fundamentalist christian movements to confuse the waters and turn people away from science. It should never, ever, be presented in school unless it's to inform children that it's a massive sack of wank and if their parents believe it then they are brainless fucktards as well...

 

[tris-]

scouse; unless religion somehow takes over science globally, should we really care what some individuals will think?
what is it youre concerned with? to me it seems you think that gradually so many people will dismiss science that it will no longer exist or progress. i dont think that would ever happen. from the 6.5 billion people on earth, enough of them will take an interest in science to keep it progressing surely?

why does it concern you what joe blogs thinks? if he wants religion, why not let him have it? aslong as he doesnt plan on becoming a 'scientist' he doesnt need to know anything about science at all.

 

[Helme]

I guess the problem with religion is in other parts of the world, the middle east & USA mainly(hell I read some weeks ago that if McCain wins he wants to remove evolutionism teaching completly from schools, aswell as ban abortions etc). What most people are afraid of really would be the impact it has on us more "free" thinking countries.

 

[Scouse]

why does it concern you what joe blogs thinks?

Firstly, let me point out that I'm not against people holding religious beliefs if they want to - I'm anti-creationist. There's a big difference.

Creationism is a well-funded movement by fundamentalist christians in a deliberate attempt to undermine science. "Science" does not have the mechanisms or funding to fight back in the same way - mainly because it doesn't have legions of fucktards giving their money away to it for free every Sunday.

Secondly, I was going to make the point that the more people who believe this shit as truth the more dangerous it becomes - but Helme made this point so incredibly well for me in the post above that I actually laughed out loud!


So, that leaves me and people who think the same way to do our best to stomp all over anyone who argues for it's 'gentle inclusion' in our education system whenever it happens. It's poison. I'd much rather people tried to push heroin use on our kids as the long-term implications are much less far-reaching...

 

[Tom]

Children aren't stupid. Be honest with them and they'll figure it out themselves.

Evolution explains the lifeforms we see today - it still doesn't explain how life began though. At least not until we understand the mechanisms ourself.

 

[Scouse]

Children aren't stupid. Be honest with them and they'll figure it out themselves.

I'd like to agree with you here, but it's wrong. A proportion of kids will make the wrong choice and it's exactly that problem that the creationists seek to take advantage of - very sucessfully in America.

We are what we learn to a massive extent.

Evolution explains the lifeforms we see today - it still doesn't explain how life began though. At least not until we understand the mechanisms ourself.

I agree 100% with this - which is why I don't have a problem with people holding religious beliefs if they want to.

But creationism isn't a "religion" - it's an organised attack on science dressed in sheeps clothing and people are drinking it down like it's Satan's cum...

 

[Tom]

Its only a wrong choice in your eyes. I'd sooner see children schooled in keeping an open mind and arriving at their own conclusions, than a nation of sheep taught to stay within predefined boundaries.

Anyone who espouses creationism will have to find answers to the well tested and proven arguments against it.

If you believe in evolution, then surely you must also believe in survival of the fittest - and therefore, you'd expect such people to be less well adapted for the survival of their genes (ie intelligence) in the long run.

Let the stupid people breed themselves out of the gene-pool.

 

[Scouse]

Its only a wrong choice in your eyes.

I was waiting for someone to say that

There is fact, and there is fallacy. "Opinions" can be factually incorrect - and therefore wrong. If, in my opinion, the sky was red then you'd say I was wrong - and you'd be right and it matters fuck all what I believe about it.

Creationism is a lie. It's a well-funded very dangerous and seductive lie. Its application and promotion by well-funded and highly motivated organisations is designed to counter the growing influence of scientific thought on (specifically) western populations. It's large-scale take-up will bolster the power of religious fundamentalists to the detriment of us all.

If you wonder about the validity of that last statement have a good long think about the horrors that have been and still are perpetuated against human beings that would have been impossible without people basing their value system on an unprovable belief rather than an observable fact.

I'd sooner see children schooled in keeping an open mind and arriving at their own conclusions, than a nation of sheep taught to stay within predefined boundaries.

Creationism isn't about "freedom of thought" it's about enslaving the minds of those who are starting to think freely. Who want to base their lives on an open and critical way of thinking. It's not about spirituality - I'm a spiritual person myself.

The creationist's way of argument is the archetypal wolf in sheeps clothing. It appeals to our very sense of freedom when our freedom is the very thing it seeks to kill.

Anyone who espouses creationism will have to find answers to the well tested and proven arguments against it.

And this is the crux of the argument. No. They won't and they don't and they never will.

Those who are taught to believe in creationism will, by very definition, base their critical thinking on a belief-system, not an evidential process of observation. It is subversion of the worst kind.

If you believe in evolution, then surely you must also believe in survival of the fittest - and therefore, you'd expect such people to be less well adapted for the survival of their genes (ie intelligence) in the long run.

Let the stupid people breed themselves out of the gene-pool.

Evolution isn't as simple as 'survival of the fittest' - it's a much messier and complicated process which, especially in our case, can be distorted and manipulated. The rise of creationism seeks to inhibit and deny purely rational thought. It wants to put "god" back at the top of the tree that Scientists are shaking.

Not just "god" though. But the white, bearded Christian one. One that is having an increasingly hard time of coming by funds as less and less people find Christian teachings relevant to their day to day lives. So the creationist myth is a direct-counter to evolutionary theory in an attempt to muddy the waters.

It's a fucking good attempt too

If anything is "evil" then creationism is and should be treated as such. I'll state again - there is no room for middle-ground here.

 

[Athan]

Let the stupid people breed themselves out of the gene-pool.

Unfortunately it's precisely the stupid that go on breeding like the Earth has unlimited resources. It's the more intelligent people that (for this and other reasons) don't reproduce so much any more.

It's a comedy, but sometimes, watching US politics, it seems scarily like prescience -> Idiocracy.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Scouse i get what you're saying, and while i disagree on the "should not be taught" aspect, i have to point out the apparent fallacy of your opinion:

Forcing something, sneakily or not, is wrong ofcourse, but can you see the fallacy of saying "they shouldn't be even told about this" when you wish to preserve free will?

Kinda like, maybe bad example but, you got two apples, green and red. Red ones are normal apples, green ones are secretly poisoned.

You want people to willingly choose red, as green is poison.

But you're not telling about the green apple even exists, only apple that you say exists is the red one, effectively doing what the green apple salesmen are trying to do.

What should be done is tell people about red apples, and green apples, tell that red apples are commonly known and accepted apples because of this and this while the green apples are commonly frowned upon because of this and this.

Unless ofcourse you're taking the "i know what's good for them" approach, in which case forget my example

 

[Scouse]

I think it shouldn't be taught, as in be part of the syllabus. I don't think it's got any place in school - any more than any religious belief system should have - that's for church and home.

When it's brought up then the truth should be told. That creationism is religion in disguise. Once it's discussed in that context then fine. Presenting it as a "this is just as valid an alternative" is not on...

 

[DaGaffer]

Presenting it as a "this is just as valid an alternative" is not on...

I don't think anyone has suggested that, including, if you read the article, the guy from the Royal Society who started this kerfuffle in the first place.

 

[Bodhi]

I just find it ironic that Scouse is arguing against religious Dogma, whilst I'm sure with very little searching you can find one of his posts epousing MMGW, which is rapidly becoming the most prevalent form of religion touted as science.

Do as I say not as.....

 

[Scouse]

If I believe in MMGW Bodhi maybe it's my education? I've only got a degree in an environmental subject after all...

 

[tris-]

that's for church and home.

i dont agree.

firstly i dont and would never have regularly attended a church.
secondly no one afaik in my entire family believes in a religion.

if it wasnt for religious studies i would never of gained the general knowledge of religions. i wouldnt of learnt about being critical of things either because suprisingly, that was the only class that taught us that particular skill.

if its not going to harm anyone, if it helps a student to look critically at different things and evaluate them, if it is taught in an unbias manner, where is the harm in it?

oh also, if its as much bull shit as you say then anyone being taught the two different things would work that out for them selves. they can compare the ideas of both sides and realise one is complete shit, or not?