• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins attacks faith schools.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1872331.stm

School attacked over evolution teaching


There are struggles in the US over evolution lessons

Leading scientists are calling for school inspectors to re-examine a UK faith school over the way it is teaching evolution.
Professor Richard Dawkins and others claim fundamentalist Christian teachers at the top school are steering children towards a purely biblical explanation of how the world was created.

Professor Dawkins, the famous genetics author from Oxford University, says children at Emmanuel College in Gateshead are being taught "ludicrous falsehoods".

The row mirrors those in the United States, between religious groups, which want Creationism taught in schools, and scientists.

Christian school

In the Commons on Wednesday, Prime Minister Tony Blair defended Emmanuel College saying reports that it was promoting creationism were "somewhat exaggerated".

The school is a City Technology College, set up with private money, and it does not have to follow the national curriculum. It is also a non-denominational Christian school.

Professor Dawkins says the schools' inspectors, Ofsted, who gave Emmanuel College a glowing report, could not have understood the school's approach to science and should re-inspect.



These children are being taught ludicrous falsehoods

Professor Richard Dawkins, Oxford
He told BBC Radio Four's Today programme: "I am very aware that it got very good ratings in the previous inspection.

"I can only think that the inspectors overlooked or were not shown what was going on in science teaching.

"I think the same could be said of Tony Blair in the House of Commons yesterday.

"He, no doubt, had seen the Ofsted report. He naturally has to take what the report says."

Professor Dawkins has written to Ofsted asking for the school to be re-inspected.

Other leading scientists who have made the same call include genetics expert Professor Steve Jones of University College, London (UCL), and Professor David Colquhoun, also of UCL.

Professor Dawkins said he had proof that Emmanuel College was telling its teachers to question any references in textbooks to the world being billions of years old, because creationism suggested the Universe was no more than a few thousand of years old.

Willing

He told Today: "These children are being taught ludicrous falsehoods.

"This is not a matter of one scientific position against another scientific position.

"There is no scientific position which states that the Earth is a few thousand years old. Any bishop would say the same."

The school's head teacher declined to comment, but Sir Peter Vardy, who donated £2m to help fund the school, said it was more than willing to have Ofsted return to see what it was doing.

One question this raises is, when exactly does it become 'religiously intolerant' to suggest that a religions principals, as unlikely as they seem, should not be taught.
 
Where does the Bible Say....?

I am a Christian who believes in what the Bible says. The Bible does not say that the world is only a few thousand years old. I know some oddball bishop claimed that the world was created on a specific date in 4004 BC (I think).

The Bible does not say this and I do not think that any of the fundamental Christians in the large church I go to belive it either.
 
Since they're a private school, seems they can teach whatever crap they want to; but good that its being critisized.

Creationism=teh funny.
 
There's more to the attack on faith schools than plain anti-creationism... more info here.

But on the creationism argument, I don't think you can consider it anti-religion to argue that children should be taught Darwinism, simply because it is more contested than Darwin's theories...

Take, for instance, the universities and schools which slapped stickers on evolution textbooks to say that Darwinism is a 'contested theory' and that they should take a skeptical view of the book (probably skewed that while paraphrasing, sorry). Is that a good sign? I think this is a case of religion intruding into parts of society where it shouldn't... but then again, I'm a staunch atheist.
 
I'd like to see a bit more than just Richard Dawkins' say so.

I went to a christian school. With one notable exception, the faculty promoted evolution and other "anti-creationist" theories. (We had one "Science" teacher, who told some crap about various "paradoxes" in biology that showed a creator behind everything, but I knew even then that he was wrong about some key elements.)

Dawkins says he has evidence that they are doing this, but doesn't say what that evidence is, and clearly the BBC don't have it. Let me see the evidence, and I'll make up my own mind, rather than let Dawkins make it up for me.
 
I think that we can safely take Richard Dawkins' word for it and follow his advice in this matter. He is the pre-eminent scientist in this area bar none. There is no way that any of us can look at the evidence and come to a better or more rational conclusion than Dawkins.

We have to allow for the idea that people who have made a lifelong study of a given subject can reach an unassailable expert status and that their views should be seen as correct. We can't have every Tom, Dick or Harry claiming the right to judge things for themselves and thinking that their opinions are equal in status or meaning to those of the experts. That would be like arguing with Neil Armstrong about what the surface of the moon looks like up close: he is undoubtedly better qualified to judge than any of us. It's the same with Dawkins when it comes to judging the situation relating to the teaching of evolution in schools.

There is no scientific disagreement that evolution has taken place and continues to be observable all around us. It is an absolute fact and is unassailable by anyone who agrees to partake of a rational line of thinking. There may be a few open questions as to the exact mechanisms through which evolution takes place but I'm not aware of any.

To teach children anything other than the truth about this matter is child abuse, because the child concerned could suffer for the rest of its life as a result. At the very least it will look stupid later in life if it acts in a way totally consistent with the creationist dogma. Imagine he was going on holiday with his friends and they advised him to take a passport. The person convinced of the creationist message might decide to pray to God that the customs people will let him through without a passport. Or if he catches a disease he might choose to pray to God for a cure instead of taking his medicine.

Politicians need to take the bull by the horns and ban all denominational schools and declare it a crime to teach anything but the truth about evolution.
 
Umm, steady on. I was referring to the matter of what the school is teaching, not whether evolution is correct or not.

Richard Dawkins is far from the foremost authority. Until his death, the foremost authority on evolutionary biology was Stephen Jay Gould. I'm not sure who it would be now, but I don't really think it's Dawkins.

As to the matter of what is going on in the school, I doubt Dawkins is an authority. By his own admission his evidence is second hand, and he is yet to produce it, at least as far as I can see.

As to your claims of child abuse, and your examples of how Christians might behave in certain circumstances - where do you get these ideas from? I'm yet to hear of anyone praying for God to allow them through Customs. And you also seem, by extension, to imply that the Christian Scientists and Jehovah's Witnesses are child abusers. Perhaps we should round them all up and put them in camps?
 
No expert is unassailable, even though we may bow to his/her greater knowledge. This is the very essence of Forte!
However I would think there is very little doubt about the process of evolution even if some detail is debatable.
As for indoctrination, I was fed creationism as a child at Sunday school and believed in it implicitly until I grew older.;)
 
I think that any child or adult who has a questing (and questioning) mind, will make up his or her mind about this issue, regardless of what is taught at school.
I was brought up by Baptists, who believe in the creation implicitly. I made up my own mind as I grew up, became an atheist/humanist, and accepted evolution as the preferred explanation.
 
No, I'm not saying that these people abuse children in any other way than the fact that presenting lies to them as if they were the truth is in itself child abuse.

Stephen J Gould was a brilliant and very entertaining essayist, but there was no way that he could have been thought of as being pre-eminent in the field of evolution. He was very misguided about several things and tended to lean towards a more superstitious interpretation of events in the world's past than becomes a true scientist.

His essays on the Burgess Shale fauna were inspiring but I think he tended to see the "cambrian explosion" as something much more mystical than it actually was. He saw it as requiring an alternative explanation to the prevailing darwinian model, which I think showed his lack of true understanding of what the darwinian model actually is.

But still, as I said, many of his essays were excellent examples of the genre as a whole and were interesting reading altogether.
 
Not wanting to get bogged down in a huge debate between the rights and wrongs of weather or not a school is teaching creationalisam, but lets be honest it is blown out of all proportion, where would someone use evolutionary theory in everyday life if not a biologist ? it's nice to know whats going on but hardly a life or death matter what side of the fence one sits on the debate (assuming there really is one).

The real crux of the matter is Dawkings is an evangelical aithiest, if a christian acts in the same way he dose he's the first in the que to critisise them without realising he is doing exactly the same thing. he is consumed by the same feaver an evangelical christian is but his chosen religion is aithiesam and he feals he has science to back him up where as the evangelical fundementalist christian feals he has theology to back him up.
Both pick and chose the best examples to back up their aruments and at the end of the day they both end up misrepresenting things, dawkins mis represents the scientific comunity by making people belive there is no place for belif within it (not true) and the evangelical fundementalist christion mis represents christianity by making out there is no place for science in christianity (again not true take a look at the church of england for example).

Why people can't be aloud to belive what they want as long as they're not hurting anybody I don't know :rolleyes:
 
People may believe what they wish, but the question is whether it should be taught in school as fact, particularly if there is little or no evidence to support it.
If religion is a personal affair, then it should remain outside and be taught on sundays, unless a parent wants to pay for the honour. The only use for religion in state school is to enable a better understanding of other cultures, which is a vital life skill. Otherwise, it has no place being there. Religion should be about freedom of choice, not indoctrination (in an ideal situation, obviously).
 
Re: Where does the Bible Say....?

Andrew of Ware said:
I know some oddball bishop claimed that the world was created on a specific date in 4004 BC (I think).

The Bible does not say this...

Literal word of God mate. Add up your 'begats':

http://agards-bible-timeline.com/bible_timeline_online_40BC.html

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/ussher.htm

Details or working here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher-Lightfoot_Calendar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimates_of_the_date_of_Creation
 
Oh, shhh. No Christian takes the entire bible literally; that's impossible. You have to cherry pick the parts that make sense.

And about evolution not being important for kids to learn- its a building block of all natural sciences... sure, most kids don't NEED to know it, but what's the alternative? Teaching outright falsehoods (creationism)? Not mentioning it?
 
Lord_Flashheart said:
Dawkings is an evangelical aithiest, if a christian acts in the same way he dose he's the first in the que to critisise them without realising he is doing exactly the same thing.

I really could not agree more. While I am far from a creationist I equally dissaprove of those who use the theory of evolution as the supreme answer to absence of a greater power.

Dawin himself realised his theory was far from the full truth, but like the 'plum-pudding' model of the atom it is the best one we have to go on so far.

Richard Dawkins scares me, in fact anyone who believes in something so deeply scares me.
 
Let me make something clear, here.

I did not attack Dawkins on his work relating to evolution. I did not claim that there was no evidence for evolution, as such a claim is ludicrous to anyone with a basic knowledge of biology.

I stand by my statement that he is not the formost authority on evolution. In the words of another poster, he is merely an accomplished essayist.

The only criticism I have levelled against him is that his accusations against the school in question are, so far, unsubstantiated. I am sure that Dawkins would support me not wanting to take the evidence of a single source before passing judgment.
 
Darwin's own theory has been developed since he first proposed it. As an example, at the time he proposed the theory of evolution he was unable to even begin to hazard a guess at the mechanism, which might account for it.

Darwin was a very religious man, but it is not a strong or worthwhile argument to point this out as if to say that if we accept his theory of evolution we must also accept his views on religion. The same is true of Einstein in case anyone was thinking of throwing him into the pot for good measure.

Well documented experiences with psychadelic molecules have proved to my mind that it is possible for an individual human to experience the numinous. This is also borne out by reports of enlightenment experiences by some practitioners of some Eastern religions.

So I am not saying that there is not a spiritual side to the Universe and our existence. In the wee small hours of the morning when I wake up with a devastating feeling of dread and awe about my own inevitible death I am certain that there must be something behind it all.

But still, the Judaeo-Christian religions are based on some of the least profound and least sophisticated parables, myths and stories of tribal in-fighting that I have ever seen written down. They have no basis in reality and have been massively destructive throughout their history. They ought not to be tolerated in our schools.

Amen
 
I'm yet to hear of anyone praying for God to allow them through Customs.

Sadly I knew some people that did just that. Born agains from a UK church who went to Russia to assist with church planting on behalf of their US based multinational organisation, and didn't realise that they needed a seperate visa for the Ukrane (which their train journey took them to).

So then they came back and testified about how they'd prayed to god to get them through, and everyone was telling them that nobody got through without a visa, and lo and behold, they were allowed to pass through.

He didn't say how they got through again on the way back...:confused:
 
Re: Where does the Bible Say....?

The Yithian said:

No one seriously believes in Ussher.

There are so many geneologies in the Bible and few of them tie up neatly. Which one do you choose? Some are very selective - the one at the start of Matthew's gospel , for example, is selected neatly to have three groups of fourteen.

It's all very well to say that 'x' was the father of 'y' - but when did 'x' become the father of 'y'? The Bible rarely gives ages of fathers when children were born.

Thus anyone who tries to age mankind by Bible geneologies is batting on a sticky wicket.
 
Steve Jefferson said:
But still, the Judaeo-Christian religions are based on some of the least profound and least sophisticated parables, myths and stories of tribal in-fighting that I have ever seen written down. They have no basis in reality and have been massively destructive throughout their history. They ought not to be tolerated in our schools.

Amen

Yeah, like in the USSR! :yeay: :rolleyes:
 
Re: Re: Where does the Bible Say....?

Andrew of Ware said:
No one seriously believes in Ussher.
For a start, where was Methuselah during the Flood? From memory he should have been on the Ark, due to his age.
 
Long Faces

And if there were only 2 ants on Noah's Ark then what did the two anteaters eat?
 
Can you imagine how the zebra felt when Noah told them he was going to do it alphabetically? Bet the water was up to their ears by then.

And what poor buggar reinforced the deck for the elephants?
 
Re: Long Faces

Steve Jefferson said:
And if there were only 2 ants on Noah's Ark then what did the two anteaters eat?
They were all vegetarian, just like in the Garden of Eden.
 
I personally also think that religion should be out of schools. The science classes should teach current theories of the time, such as evolution and perhaps anything else that I don't know of, while religious beliefs taken care of more at home (e.g. by the parents taking the children to church), since it's not like Christianity is the only religion, so it seems vaguely unfair to give it preference over any other. It might also produce more inquisitive/questioning children if they're told conflicting ideas. I remember when I was at Primary School they'd have the occasional religious lesson where the local minister would pop in and ask us questions and such, that really annoyed my dad although I thought little of it (and certainly can't remember the specifics of any of it ;) ) As I recall we'd also sometimes sing hymns and such, sometimes for the local church, although I didn't mind that as singing is singing, perhaps it'd encourage someone to do more performance-related stuff (not like that baritone horn they had me use). (They also sometimes had us say prayers at assemblys/church, although I don't remember those. I think one was a pretty common one)
 
quote:

Can you imagine how the zebra felt when Noah told them he was going to do it alphabetically? Bet the water was up to their ears by then.

And what about the Unicorns?
"there were two alligators, two long necked geese, some humpty-backed camels and some chimpanzees........."

I used to get very upset by that song when i was a child...:(
 
I sort of believe that religion should be taught in schools but in an objective way alongside a study of various cultures, encouraging an understanding of others people and their beliefs. I think that all religions, past and present should be looked at, not biased towards any main ones.
 
toolofthestate said:
Can you imagine how the zebra felt when Noah told them he was going to do it alphabetically?

Yes, and I think it was probably at that point that the notoriously selfish xylanthrani changed its name to 'aardvark'
 
I vaguely recall that at High School, during "Personal and Social Development" class (previously known as "Social and Health" but mysteriously renamed about half way through High School) we did some stuff on other religions around the world, but it very much felt like a token effort.
 
I agree... either religion out of schools or a complete, (as much as possible) bias-free look at world religions. What tends to happen is everyone learns about christianity until secondary school before looking at christianity plus a little of judaism, islam, hindu and buddhism.

School assemblies should be secular... forced religion is a terrible thing, and saying prayers and singing hymns in assembly is just not the way it should be as they will not take into account the other religions.

However, the government made the religious component of schools compulsory (not solely in RE, but through social and moral content in the national curriculum). Because of this, my school had to develop a whole new slant for teaching that comprised introducing a religiously moral slant on ethics in science and the likes... That was about 3 years back.

In an ideal world, the private and the public would be completely separated, a la Hobbes (I think, I'm an international politics student and I don't know :hmph: ). To me, religion comes into the private section... and school into the public. But then again, I'm atheist and biased :)
 
Back
Top