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

The Teaching Of Creationism

It is frightening isn't it? I had expected Ireland to be hit first.
 
I don't know why everybody's getting worked up now. ALL our R.E. lessons are taught from a Christian perspective. Our text books don't say..

"Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God and came to save us, etc."

Instead it says...

"Jesus is the son of and came to save us, etc."

Another thing... Shouldn't there be a Natonal Curriculam? How can the teachers at one school decide to teach something different to another school? How the hell is this allowed???

:madeyes:
 
Purely out of interest, how did Prof Dawkins et al find out about this?

The best thing any teacher ever told me was "think for yourself!".

Jane.
 
I expect one of the students or teachers told him about it.

I like the description a "non denominational Christian church". As for R.E. I also were never really educated in anything besides Christianity untill high school. That seems really stupid. We were also never told that Moses and such weren't historical figures. I didn't think the world was 6000 years old, but I did think that Jericho had really fallen the way they told me.
 
Xanatic said:
As for R.E. I also were never really educated in anything besides Christianity untill high school.
Click to expand...

You had it lucky! We were only taught Christianity in primary school and have only done one half term's work on Islam in high school. I've asked my teacher if in Religous Education we are going to learn about any other religions to which she responded with an excuse about other religions not being on our course. :rolleyes: :madeyes:
 
FER CRYING OUTLOUD...

SO, how long before we get Excorcism taught in Med school?

If 'creationism' is to be taught as a viable alternate and equivalent therory to Dawinism, or other evolutionary theories, do we include the creation 'theories' of all major current religions. I always liked the ancient Egyptian 'Cosmic Hand-Job' one myself. Also, form memory, the idea of the monkey god splitting the rock and the waters pouring forth may be worth examining.

However, since this is just the beginning, I'd like to put myself forward for the role of 'Witchfinder General' and, being the traditionalist I am, would be targeting solitary crones...

8¬)
 
Re: FER CRYING OUTLOUD...

harlequin said:
SO, how long before we get Excorcism taught in Med school?

8¬)
Click to expand...

I sometimes think that it's heading that way, we already have complimentary therapies being offered in some hospitals, at the same time as being unable to reduce waiting lists for major treatments.
 
What worries me is that these fundamentalists have their own well equipped private army in mid-america to defend their faith against infidels such as us, ie. anyone of a different faith or who dares to question their teachings. So history has taught them nothing, and of course, nothing changes in the business of crusades:mad:
 
thank (insert deity here) that no religion has enough following around here to actually influence anyone in anyway at all.
Incidentally, my RE books at secondary school taught that 'christians say this...' Nice, atheistic Scottish education. That whole Calvinism thing left rather a bad taste in our collective mouth, I think.
 
A long Article here reports the full lecture as given by Steven Layfield at Emmanuel College, Gateshead on 21 September 2000.

Just a couple of paragraphs as a sample:

"Note every occasion when an evolutionary/old-earth paradigm (millions or billions of years) is explicitly mentioned or implied by a text-book, examination question or visitor and courteously point out the fallibility of the statement. Wherever possible, we must give the alternative (always better) Biblical explanation of the same data. We shall look at a few examples from each of Physics, Chemistry & Biology in due course. Remember, 'The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him'. (Pr 18:17)


Display a variety of topical data which is not readily explained by current orthodox science. E.g. presence of information in DNA; lack of Solar neutrinos; rapid decay of Geo-magnetic field; recessional velocity of the Moon; lack of intermediate fossils to mention but a few! Posters can readily be constructed from cut and pasted copies of old 'Creation ex Nihilo' magazines which are brightly coloured and always helpfully illustrated."

Although I must admit that he does echo one of my own quibbles with evoltionary theory as it is sometimes put forward, what I call the Just So stories:

"Perhaps too, students would do well to read a little of Rudyard Kipling in order to appreciate how relatively easy it is to devise a story-like explanation for alleged evolutionary adaptations. They should be reassured that in most cases, the evidence marshalled in support of such fables is simply non-existent."

But this does not send me rushing to the Bible, Koran or whatever for an alternative explanation - it just makes me want to make the science more rigorous and accurate.

And so we march proudly into the 21st century - facing backwards.
 
Anti-Darwinism

According to the BBC a group of scientists is challenging the view that Darwinism is the only legitimate theory of the origin of life that should be taught in schools:

'A group of 27 creationist scientists has written to the education secretary arguing against any narrowing of England's school science curriculum to focus on Darwinian evolution.

Their letter is in response to a previous letter from 36 academics, expressing alarm that creationism theory - the Biblical account of the origins of life - was being taught in schools...


...The row began with reports that a leading school - Emmanuel City Technology College in Gateshead - was teaching creationism.'

An excerpt from their letter;

'We find it most inappropriate that some well-meaning scientists have given the impression that there can only be one scientific view concerning origins. By doing so they are going way beyond the limits of empirical science which has to recognise, at the very least, severe limitations concerning origins. No one has proved experimentally the idea that large variations can emerge from simpler life forms in an unbroken ascendancy to man. A large body of scientific evidence in biology, geology and chemistry, as well as the fundamentals of information theory, strongly suggest that evolution is not the best scientific model to fit the data that we observe. '

Nowhere in the letter text on the BBC site do they explictly state that creationism should be taught in schools.

I don't know what they mean by 'no one has proved experimentally the idea that large variations can emerge from simpler life forms in an unbroken ascendancy to man.' The only way I can imagine to replicate evolution in the lab is to run it in real time which doen't seem very practical. I also note that they cast doubt on Darwinism indirectly by claiming that other fields of science do not support it, without giving either details or references.

I seem to remember that the Technology College mentioned in the article is being funded by a businessman who professes literalist Christian beliefs. This all ties in with those US states which have reinstated creationist teaching in schools, rolling back the Monkey Trial victory.

What next? Repeal the law of gravity?
 
Re: Anti-Darwinism

Wastrel said:
...The row began with reports that a leading school - Emmanuel City Technology College in Gateshead - was teaching creationism.'

An excerpt from their letter;

'A large body of scientific evidence in biology, geology and chemistry, as well as the fundamentals of information theory, strongly suggest that evolution is not the best scientific model to fit the data that we observe. '
Click to expand...

As usual they don't tell us what the "better" model actually is. (Methinks that it may have something to do with "seven days." Would you Adam and Eve it.;))


What next? Repeal the law of gravity?
Click to expand...


That is of course the problem. If creation happened as the creationists insist, then they would also have to throw out pretty much all of astronomy, as well as a sizable bit of physics. Strangely, this doesn't tend to get mentioned.
 
*sigh*

Why dont we just teach kids what we know and let them hold their own spefic theories if they so wish.

To me the problem comes becuase everyone wants the educational system to teach the definitive truth.... and the fact is.... we dont have a fucking clue what that is.
 
The difference between "Creationist" and "Non-Creationist" methods is that the Creationist says "I Believe; this is what happened," and the Non-Creationist says "I believe this is what happened,"

One admits the possibility of being wrong, the other doesn't

And would these academics want Lamarckianism given equal weight as well? I don't think so.
 
I’m a bit confused about all this. When I went to school (in the 60s and 70s), I was taught in RE lessons (and at Sunday school) about the creation of the world in 7 days. I was also taught in other lessons about Darwin’s theory of evolution. I have a feeling that I made up my own mind about which I found more feasible.
Are the scientists saying that the theory of evolution should no longer be told to children or, conversely, are other scientist saying that the Bible stories should no longer be taught?
Does this issue only affect a minority of people with extreme views or is it something of which all parents should be aware? In the current climate of declining numbers of Christians in this country, is this a publicity stunt to increase awareness of the Bible? Or is this not a Christian idea at all ( as the story is in the Old Testament)?
 
Re: Anti-Darwinism

Wastrel said:
According to the BBC a group of scientists is challenging the view that Darwinism is the only legitimate theory of the origin of life that should be taught in schools:

'A group of 27 creationist scientists has written to the education secretary arguing against any narrowing of England's school science curriculum to focus on Darwinian evolution.


...The row began with reports that a leading school - Emmanuel City Technology College in Gateshead - was teaching creationism.'

An excerpt from their letter;

'We find it most inappropriate that some well-meaning scientists have given the impression that there can only be one scientific view concerning origins. By doing so they are going way beyond the limits of empirical science which has to recognise, at the very least, severe limitations concerning origins. No one has proved experimentally the idea that large variations can emerge from simpler life forms in an unbroken ascendancy to man. A large body of scientific evidence in biology, geology and chemistry, as well as the fundamentals of information theory, strongly suggest that evolution is not the best scientific model to fit the data that we observe. '
Click to expand...

I always find it disturbing that creationists always seem to regard humanity as the pinnacle of evolution, that everything has been geared to creating us. Humanity is an accident, one of the branches of the 'tree of life', not an inevitability. I have also yet to see much in the way of empirical evidence that contradicts evolution. Can anyone recomend any publications that deal seriously with this subject?

Of course I also enjoy looking at the rivals side. While I do not believe in the Genesis story, I see no reason why a divinity may not have had a hand in creating human intelligence and self-awareness of ourselves and our world. We do seem to be unique after all. I just don't understand why!

On the other hand there are those recent studies with apes where the researchers are achieving true two-way communication which would support evolution and take away our uniqueness. And what about parrots......?
 
I read a log form a chat session with a gorilla, and I saw a program with a talking parrot. To be honest the parrot was much more impressive. That one really seemed to know what it was saying. With the gorilla it just said a random word that the keeper then twisted to fit with the questions.

There is a book by a guy called John Morris, I think it is called "What is Creation Science" that is actually quite good. Not just another redneck, and it was the first that really made me think they could be right.
 
Re: Re: Anti-Darwinism

Mana said:
I always find it disturbing that creationists always seem to regard humanity as the pinnacle of evolution, that everything has been geared to creating us. Humanity is an accident, one of the branches of the 'tree of life', not an inevitability. I have also yet to see much in the way of empirical evidence that contradicts evolution. Can anyone recomend any publications that deal seriously with this subject?

Of course I also enjoy looking at the rivals side. While I do not believe in the Genesis story, I see no reason why a divinity may not have had a hand in creating human intelligence and self-awareness of ourselves and our world. We do seem to be unique after all. I just don't understand why!

On the other hand there are those recent studies with apes where the researchers are achieving true two-way communication which would support evolution and take away our uniqueness. And what about parrots......?
Click to expand...

I quite agree. To consdier that humanity is the pinacle of anything except the food chain is egotism of the first water. Its seductive, since we *WANT* to be special. To quote the sig of another poster who's name escapes me... 'We were monkeys... Deal with it'

8¬)
 
Xanatic said:
I read a log form a chat session with a gorilla, and I saw a program with a talking parrot. To be honest the parrot was much more impressive.
Click to expand...
Was it Alex, the African Grey who lives in the US? (He's a mate of mine). He's very impressive, and has two proteges now. If I were really a parrot I'd be able to spell protege.
 
I think it was an african grey, but named coco or jaco or such. The bad thing is that parrots apparently only talk if they are lonely. And keeping them lonely on purpose is a bit cruel.
 
Fortis is right!

It's not just a question of Creation vs. Evolution. The Creationists have to explain how, if their view is to be adopted, you can twist physics and biology to make it all fit.

It's no good just saying, "Hey! God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. He can do whatever he likes!" That's cr*p! :mad:

What can you do with creationist dogma? Where does it get you in a real-world sense? What usable insights does it provide for advancing a coherent corpus of scientific knowledge? Having read some of the stuff Xanatic refers to, I would have to answer "B*gger-all"!

To accept creationism you just have to accept some pretty dodgy general theorising about the wider setting needed to make it all work. That's why it's not worth spending any more time considering that sort of rubbish. Let's face it, Shakespeare says it best "... a tale told by an idiot. Full of sound and fury. Signifying nothing!" :madeyes:
 
That book I read, there were some things I could see were wrong myself, and others I have found out elsewhere were wrong. But there are still some things I would like to know more about.

Also in science, it does seem there is a lot of assumptions made when it comes to different constants. That they all have been the same values since the Big Bang.
 
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

-Einstein

I think we need both the religious stories and the scientific knowlege, but we shouldn't confuse the two, but it's called the theory of evolution, meaning that it's open to debate. Evolution may have some holes in it, but it's the best theory I've heard about how life may have evolved on this planet. And the ascendancy of man is such an egotistical 19th century idea. We aren't the first species to be successful, and one day we'll probably all be wiped out and something else will appear, - maybe more sophisticated.
 
To me, science without religion is lame because it wouldn't have any particular goals to achieve, no reason to exist. Without religion, scientists would not know where to start.

Science is like eyesight because it is a way of seeing the world , but it's just a tool basically, it can't make decisions.
 
No, Rich. Einstein had a problem when it came to the interface between science and religion. Remember his famous statement that "God does not play dice"? Well, he was dead wrong. Quantum theory has been shown to accurately (if that's the right word) describe the foundations of reality time and again.

Science is both an activity and an approach to activities that feeds into the decision making process. But the need for decisions doesn't just grow out of a religious world-view. The need for decisions grows out of the experience of living. All living things make decisions, whether they're conscious of it or not.

To paraphrase the very unfashionable D.H. Lawrence, most of our day to day decisions are made in response to the pressure of our unborn children. Even slime moulds feel it.
 
Quantum theory has been shown to accurately (if that's the right word) describe the foundations of reality time and again.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about that. I thought Quantum Theory actually showed us the limits of what could be understood. It's more of a set of mathematical tools to allow us mere apes to make the leap from classical (Newtonian) to modern (post-Einsteinian) physics without having our puny brains boil over and dribble out of our ears.

What surprises me about anti-Darwinists is they way the refuse to believe the evidence written in the stars and rocks and hidden at the very heart of the atom. They'd rather hang on to a book which was patched together over millenia. The greater part of which spent hundreds, if not thousands of years as carefully preserved oral traditions.

What an insult to any God. To say, that the evidence laid out before us wasn't meant to be interpreted by scientists, striving their utmost to understand the story of the universe and mankind's place in it, without reference to `Genesis.' and Noah's flood.

For preference, all written in the, admittedly beautiful, poetic English of the King James the Sixth version. Of course.
 
Sebastian said:
No, Rich. Einstein had a problem when it came to the interface between science and religion. Remember his famous statement that "God does not play dice"? Well, he was dead wrong. Quantum theory has been shown to accurately (if that's the right word) describe the foundations of reality time and again.
Click to expand...

One of the main problems in Physics is that Quantum theory and Relativity do not seem to follow the same rules, but it's a bit premature to call one of them "wrong" as each works well in it's own sphere.

But I think Einstein is talking about ethics rather than physics, and when he says "religion" he means the general emotional/spiritual instincts of mankind rather than any particular brand of book-bashing.

The problem though, is with these creationists. What on Earth is motivating them to fill people's heads with nonsense? Any ideas?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top