- Joined
- Aug 10, 2005
- Messages
- 11,990
escargot1 said:
Kind of sums it all up, really.Richard (Dick to the Doc to the PhD said:... just tell me whose side it's on. ...
escargot1 said:
Kind of sums it all up, really.Richard (Dick to the Doc to the PhD said:... just tell me whose side it's on. ...
Pietro_Mercurios wrote:
If only he was more of a humourist.
Actually, I do think he is getting less strident (perhaps that spin doctor is doing some good after all!)
Quote:
“They are not burning my books yet. It would be rather fun if they did,” he said last week.
ted_bloody_maul said:
Atheist Richard Dawkins blames Muslims for 'importing creationism' into classrooms
What I like about this story is the way it confuses the Daily Mail - do they criticise the anti-religious Dawkins or do they side with the Islam-bashing, PC-baiting one? They don't know whether to have a hard-on or an outraged hard-on.
Devout Muslims are importing creationist theories into science and are not being challenged because of political correctness, one of the country's most famous scientists said tonight.
Professor Richard Dawkins argued that as a result teachers were promoting the 'mythology' of creationism over the science of evolution.
Professor Dawkins, a geneticist and author of the best-selling book The God Delusion, said: 'Islam is importing creationism into this country.
Richard Dawkins: 'Teachers are terribly frightened of being thought racist.'
'Most devout Muslims are creationists - so when you go to schools, there are a large number of children of Islamic parents who trot out what they have been taught.
'Teachers are bending over backwards to respect home prejudices that children have been brought up with.
'The Government could do more but it doesn't want to because it is fanatical about multiculturalism and the need to respect the different traditions from which these children come.
'The Government - particularly under Tony Blair - thinks it is wonderful to have children brought up with their traditional religions. I call it brainwashing.'
He added: 'It seems as though teachers are terribly frightened of being thought racist.
'It's almost impossible to say anything against Islam in this country because if you do you are accused of being racist or Islamophobic.'
According to the Koran, Allah created the heavens and Earth in six days.
Christian creationists also believe that God created the world in six days, as described in the Old Testament, and that Adam and Eve were the first humans.
According to evolution, we are the result of billions of years of gradual changes, shaped by the most advantageous genes and traits being passed from generation to generation.
Professor Dawkins, who holds the chair for the understanding of science at Oxford, called for evolution to be introduced into lessons from the age of eight.
Asked what should happen if parents do not approve, he said: 'For parents to deprive their children of an educational opportunity because of a traditional bigotry is unfair on the child.
'It is fine to teach children about scientific controversies.
'What is not fine is to say, 'There are these two theories. One is called evolution, the other is called Genesis'. 'If you are going to say that, then you should talk about the Nigerian tribe who believe the world was created from the excrement of ants.'
Evolution is taught at secondary school and ministers insist creationism is not part of the curriculum. The syllabus does, however, encourage its discussion.
Professor Dawkins's criticism echoes the concerns of Dr Rowan Williams who has said the creation story was not worth teaching alongside that of evolution.
The Archbishop for Canterbury added that classroom work should include the Bible only when 'discussing what creation means'.
The Royal Society, Britain's leading scientific body, has also criticised the teaching of creationist theories at some of the academy schools pioneered by Mr Blair.
It said: 'Young people are being poorly served by deliberate attempts to withhold, distort or misrepresent scientific knowledge and understanding in order to promote religious beliefs.'
A spokesman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families said teachers had the 'flexibility to tailor teaching to pupils' needs and aspirations'.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... l?ITO=1490
ihatethatmonkee3 said:so that's where they've been hiding the bombs and guns! it's been wrapped up inside their imports of a religious notion! is it just me, or does this smack of desperation to be included in a discussion on the effects of multiculturaism on british society?
Richard Dawkins: 'Teachers are terribly frightened of being thought racist.'
'Most devout Muslims are creationists - so when you go to schools, there are a large number of children of Islamic parents who trot out what they have been taught.
ihatethatmonkee3 said:surely the point of education at a young age.isn't it when you're older that you should feel free to question what you know?
ihatethatmonkee3 said:i do kinda agree with him on that, but not in such a blatentl xenophobic way. the fact is that many great countries are built on immigrants - america and austrailia being the prime examples - and the influx of afro-carribean people and those from indian and pakistan in the 50s/60s has helped shape britain into the great country it was when labour came to power. the problem has been since then, with people coming here and not being expected to integrate inot our society, causing secularism, which then creates racial disharmony.
ihatethatmonkee3 said:and installing atheism into the minds of young children isn't?
ihatethatmonkee3 said:not true, the majority of muslims in this country can take constructive criticisms about their faith, it is when those comments reach extreme islamic people that problems are made, not by the people who have said something against islam, but by the extreme islamics themselves.
ihatethatmonkee3 said:*high pitched voice* hypocrite!
ihatethatmonkee3 said:yes, even if they don't have the capacity to understand it....
ihatethatmonkee3 said:if yo're not going to teach evolution with creationism, then surely you could be said to not be teaching a theory, you are then teaching a fact as you are offering no counter theory for it?
Evolution is taught at secondary school and ministers insist creationism is not part of the curriculum. The syllabus does, however, encourage its discussion.
ihatethatmonkee3 said:i cannot remember being forcefed the notion that god created us at school, either at primary or secondary level. in fact, it never came up at a secondary level of education, and if i have been brainwashed into believing the creationist theory, then surely i would not be an atheist.
ihatethatmonkee3 said:the problem being that blair was bush's little lap dog, and bush has a direct line to God, so when bush started "outlawing" evolution theories in schools, blair did what he could, knowing full well that he would not be able to get away with doing what bush had.
Churchman creates creationism controversy - September 12, 2008
As Scientific American put it recently – to the rage of the Discovery Institute – “If it's September, it's time for creationism in schools. That's how some would like it, anyway.”
And so it came to pass after Michael Reiss came out in favour of allowing discussion of creationism in UK science classes. Reiss is director of education at the Royal Society. He is also a minister with the Church of England.
In a speech to the British Association Festival of Science he says:
My central argument of this article is that creationism is best seen by a science teacher not as a misconception but as a worldview.
...
So when teaching evolution, there is much to be said for allowing students to raise any doubts they have (hardly a revolutionary idea in science teaching) and doing one's best to have a genuine discussion. The word 'genuine' doesn't mean that creationism or intelligent design deserve equal time. However, in certain classes, depending on the comfort of the teacher in dealing with such issues and the make up of the student body, it can be appropriate to deal with the issue.
These arguments from Reiss are actually not hugely surprising. His article ‘Should science educators deal with the science/religion issue?’ in this month’s edition of Studies in Science Education states, “I conclude that there are increasing arguments in favour of science educators teaching about the science/religion issue.”
And his speech is actually not that different to the position he was setting out in 2006 in an interview with the Guardian:
"I am really interested in how you teach in a way that is true to science, but doesn't put many capable, sensitive young people off science for life, nor denigrate them," says Reiss.
...following the Royal Society's line, Reiss stresses his opposition to the teaching of creationism in science classes (though teachers should be able to deal with it if it comes up in discussion). "There is a role for science teachers. Religious education teachers can't be expected to know about the evidence for and against evolution," he explains.
Given the number of journalists at the BA festival though (basically all the science correspondents who weren’t at the LHC), Reiss’s comments were always going to be big news.
Most incensed is the Times, which declares in its lead editorial slot:
Were Professor Weiss to have argued merely that schools should show respect for religious belief, his remarks would be correct and unexceptionable. And were he alone, his views might be counted an idiosyncracy. It is in arguing that creationism has a place in science lessons that the professor has made his error. And unfortunately he is not alone.
...
Children should be taught about faith, and it is to be hoped they will learn respect for it. But in science classes? Please teach science.
The Guardian reports the story thus: “Creationism and intelligent design should be taught in school science lessons, according to a leading expert in science education.”
It quotes biologist Lewis Wolpert as saying, “Creationism is based on faith and has nothing to do with science, and it should not be taught in science classes. There is no evidence for a creator, and creationism explains nothing.”
The Financial Times quotes physicist John Fry: “Science lessons are not the appropriate place to discuss creationism, which is a world view in total denial of any form of scientific evidence.”
I’m going on the transcript rather than the speech but this seems to be a misinterpretation of what Reiss is actually saying. Reiss is not arguing for the teaching of intelligent design in science classes a la Palin. He’s saying that when students raise their views you should be willing to discuss them.
Putting intelligent design on school curriculums would be a disaster. But saying to someone ‘you’re wrong, and here’s the evidence’ doesn’t seem like a bad idea to me.
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbe ... onism.html
The Bristol Oasis Academy will, as from next September, be sharing some of its premises and students with the secular, and yet at the same time extremely multi-cultural F E college for which I work (we've even got our own Islamic suspected terrorist, I'll have you know.)Pietro_Mercurios said:....Every time I read a piece about social control, thinly disguised as religion:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/08/faithschools
I wonder at the duplicitous hypocrisy. God as the policeman in the sky...
That's certainly true. Unfortunately - and I'll show my prejudices straight off - many hard core rationalists share an almost autistic and terrier like obsession with deductive reasoning that abandons the social systems that surround them. They also deny the multitude of instincts functioning humans are subject to.Pietro_Mercurios said:Dawkins most important asset is the fact that he doesn't believe that people need any mental props, beyond Reason, to get by. He may be naive, but at least he's honest.
There's no accounting for individual judgement, is there?DougalLongfoot said:I find that there is a common perception that athiests arrive at their position through reason and deep thought, whilst people of faith are subject to gullible superstions. I had an athiest once tell me that the reason he didn't believe in God was that since the invention of the aeroplane, humans had proved heaven didn't exist because when you fly above clouds there are no angels with harps sitting on them!
Lord Robert Winston has renewed his attack on atheist writers such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens, whose arguments he said were "dangerous", "irresponsible" and "very divisive".
The science populariser and fertility expert said that the more bombastic arguments of atheist scientists were making dialogue between religion and science more difficult.
What does all this philosophy mean, to someone who is to be executed for downloading something deemed blasphemous off the internet?colpepper1 said:Rationalists share at least one thing with many practicing religious, which is a highly simplistic notion of what God 'is'. If he/she/it exists they will clearly be so far beyond any intellectual or creative realm humanity can consider that perceiving their existence or lack of it through the mechanics of the universe will be fruitless - fascinating endeavour that it undoubtedly is.
An oft cited variation of Occam's shaving kit is one should believe in only sufficient deities required for understanding i.e. zero, which is a reasonable proposition but tells us nothing about whether a progenitor exists or not. A refusal to contemplate possibilities, then make a TV career of vilifying the gaps seems a bit rich, more the kind of thing one might expect of clerics.
I quite agree. Lopping hands and heads has nothing to do with a creator and everything to do with vile old bullies hanging onto power. Humankind doesn't need religion to behave in beastly ways as the C20th is evidence to.Pietro_Mercurios said:What does all this philosophy mean, to someone who is to be executed for downloading something deemed blasphemous off the internet?
Rationalists share at least one thing with many practicing religious, which is a highly simplistic notion of what God 'is'. If he/she/it exists they will clearly be so far beyond any intellectual or creative realm humanity can consider that perceiving their existence or lack of it through the mechanics of the universe will be fruitless...
barfing_pumpkin said:In a nutshell, it doesn't really matter of one's notion of god is simplistic or not, because there is no real evidence for god in the first place.
I've never quite undestood why it wouldn't though. Or at least a working customer services' numbercolpepper1 said:What makes you think a deity, if one existed, would leave an evidence trail?
I don't like the sound of this though - it's hard to know where to start ... is this directed at the previous poster? Are you saying objectivity is bad? That it's an emotion? That some emotions are creamier than others?!Don't come here with your stuff looking for objectivity like that's the cream of emotion.
What makes you think a deity, if one existed, would leave an evidence trail?
barfing_pumpkin said:What makes you think a deity, if one existed, would leave an evidence trail?
That is one of the most incredible pieces of sophistry I have ever read. It is utterly wrong, but completely beyond argument at the same time. I can only congratulate you in an unashamedly patronizing way, because quite frankly ... that's all it deserves.
Well done, you. Really. Well done. That was very clever.
Maybe the eArth isnt all that old. Loki could be planting false evidence. Its what he'd do
Written like Nu-Puritan bp. If you allow for the possibility of a deity, even the faintest glimmer, there's no reason why the universe should resemble a country house who-dunnit with an answer at the middle rather than say a functioning, self-regulating system.barfing_pumpkin said:What makes you think a deity, if one existed, would leave an evidence trail?
That is one of the most incredible pieces of sophistry I have ever read. It is utterly wrong, but completely beyond argument at the same time. I can only congratulate you in an unashamedly patronizing way, because quite frankly ... that's all it deserves.
Well done, you. Really. Well done. That was very clever.