Dawkins 1 - Creationists 0

[HAL9000]

Richard Dawkins celebrates a victory over creationists

Free schools that teach 'intelligent design' as science will lose funding

Leading scientists and naturalists, including Professor Richard Dawkins and Sir David Attenborough, are claiming a victory over the creationist movement after the government ratified measures that will bar anti-evolution groups from teaching creationism in science classes.

The Department for Education has revised its model funding agreement, allowing the education secretary to withdraw cash from schools that fail to meet strict criteria relating to what they teach. Under the new agreement, funding will be withdrawn for any free school that teaches what it claims are "evidence-based views or theories" that run "contrary to established scientific and/or historical evidence and explanations".

The British Humanist Association (BHA), which has led a campaign against creationism – the movement that denies Darwinian evolution and claims that the Earth and all its life was created by God – described the move as "highly significant" and predicted that it would have implications for other faith groups looking to run schools.

Dawkins, who was one of the leading lights in the campaign, welcomed confirmation that creationists would not receive funding to run free schools if they sought to portray their views as science. "I welcome all moves to ensure that creationism is not taught as fact in schools," he said. "Government rules on this are extremely welcome, but they need to be properly enforced."

Free schools, which are state-funded and run by local people or organisations, do not need to follow the national curriculum. Scientific groups have expressed concerns that their spread will see a reduction in the teaching of evolution in the classroom.

Several creationist groups have expressed an interest in opening schools in towns and cities across England, including Bedford, Barnsley, Sheffield and Nottingham. Critics say they seek to promote creationism, or the doctrine of "intelligent design", as a scientific theory rather than as a myth or metaphor.

One creationist organisation, Truth in Science, which encourages teachers to incorporate intelligent design into their science teaching, has sent free resources to all secondary schools and sixth-form colleges.

A BHA campaign, called "Teach evolution, not creationism", saw 30 leading scientists and educators call on the government to introduce statutory guidance against the teaching of creationism. The group said if the government would not support the call, an explicit amendment to the wording of the funding agreement could have the same effect. Last week the Department for Education confirmed it had amended the agreement, although a spokesman denied it was the result of pressure from scientists. He said the revision made good on a pledge regarding the teaching of creationism given when the education secretary, Michael Gove, was in opposition. "We will not accept any academy or free school proposal which plans to teach creationism in the science curriculum or as an alternative to accepted scientific theories," the spokesman said, adding that "all free school proposals will be subject to due diligence checks by the department's specialist team".

The revised funding agreement has been seized upon by anti-creationists who are pressing for wider concessions from the government.

"It is clear that some faith schools are ignoring the regulations and are continuing to teach myth as though it were science," Dawkins said. "Evolution is fact, supported by evidence from a host of scientific disciplines, and we do a great disservice to our young people if we fail to teach it properly. "

A spokeswoman for the BHA said: "The government's new wording is quite wide and in practice could prevent those who promote extreme religious or particular spiritual or pseudoscientific approaches from including them as part of the school curriculum as science or as evidence-based."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education...-creationism-intelligent-design?newsfeed=true


A victory for reason!

 

[J-Money]

Victory indeed.

 

[corwin]

Yay! Don't like someones theory then crush it by government regulations or changing the rules...

 

[MovingTarget]

I fully support this move to get creationism outside of science classrooms, including the so called "intelligent design". Dawkins is still a dick, though.

 

[crashtestdummy]

Yay! Don't like someones theory then crush it by government regulations or changing the rules...

In fairness, it's hardly a theory. It's an unsupported, untestable hypothesis, much as if I claimed that all bad things in the world happen because of a pack of flying purple hippos orbiting around Alpha Centauri. You can't tell me I'm wrong, but also have no reason to believe I'm right.

 

[Ancalagon44]

Yay! Don't like someones theory then crush it by government regulations or changing the rules...

Its not a scientific theory, its a myth.

 

[Texashiker]

A victory for reason!

Victory in crushing opposing opinions.

Don't like someones opinion, just regulate it out of existence.

I think equal time should be given to different opinions on how the universe and life began. Science has proven itself to be wrong from time to time.

Why should we take something that is always changing as fact? If it changes, then its clearly not fact. Since science changes its opinion on the history of the universe and how life began, then it should not be blindly accepted as fact.

2+2 = 4 is fact. We can prove that all day long.

Wait a few months or a few years, and science will change its opinion on the universe. But yet we are supposed to accept it as fact?

 

[J-Money]

Victory in crushing opposing opinions.

Don't like someones opinion, just regulate it out of existence.

I think equal time should be given to different opinions on how the universe and life began. Science has proven itself to be wrong from time to time.

Why should we take something that is always changing as fact? If it changes, then its clearly not fact. Since science changes its opinion on the history of the universe and how life began, then it should not be blindly accepted as fact.

2+2 = 4 is fact. We can prove that all day long.

Wait a few months or a few years, and science will change its opinion on the universe. But yet we are supposed to accept it as fact?

Big difference when 1 has supporting evidence and changes to it come with more real evidence and 1 has nothing but on old book written thousands of different ways with zero actual evidence.

 

[HAL9000]

Victory in crushing opposing opinions.

It's not a scientific theory, if it's not science and shouldn't be taught in science classrooms I don't see the problem.

 

[Texashiker]

and 1 has nothing but on old book written thousands of different ways with zero actual evidence.

You just lost all credibility, because its clear you have no idea what you are talking about.

Instead of repeating what you have heard others say, do your own research and try posting you own opinions.

It's not a scientific theory, if it's not science and shouldn't be taught in science classrooms I don't see the problem.

I see a problem when one opinion is allowed to oppress other opinions.

 

[HAL9000]

I see a problem when one opinion is allowed to oppress other opinions.

The others aren't opinions they are valid scientific theory based on empirically measurable evidence...

 

[J-Money]

You just lost all credibility, because its clear you have no idea what you are talking about.

Instead of repeating what you have heard others say, do your own research and try posting you own opinions.




I see a problem when one opinion is allowed to oppress other opinions.

Sorry to ruin your dreams.

I'd be mad too if my parents lied to me all those years ago. Luckily my parents were smart enough to realize it's crap.

but hey as long as a preacher didn't molest you in church you'll get past this.

 

[ichy]

I see a problem when one opinion is allowed to oppress other opinions.

You're right, 9/11 conspiracy theorists and Holocaust deniers should be given equal time in school history classes.

 

[Texashiker]

The others aren't opinions they are valid scientific theory

And that is where your argument fails.

The words "valid" and "theory" do not go well together.

If it was "scientific fact", that would be a different story. But fact can not change, fact is fact. Since the opinions on the origins of the universe change from time to time, they can not be considered fact.

You're right, 9/11 conspiracy theorists and Holocaust deniers should be given equal time in school history classes.

Differing opinions should be given equal time, yes.

Why should we take children, ram-rod information into their heads, and say this is "fact", when all the kids are being taught is opinion.

I wish I could go back to the 1970s and 1980s, and tell those teachers that spewed the "metric is the future" garbage that they were wrong. 25 - 30+ years later, and we are still using the standard system. But for some reason my generation was force fed metric.

 

[ichy]

Differing opinions should be given equal time, yes.

I have news for you, science is not about opinions, it is about the evidence that you have to support your theories. Maybe you'd like to see us go back to the dark ages and teach alchemy or other similar garbage but I'd actually like our students to know a thing or two about science.

 

[J-Money]

And that is where your argument fails.

The words "valid" and "theory" do not go well together.

If it was "scientific fact", that would be a different story. But fact can not change, fact is fact. Since the opinions on the origins of the universe change from time to time, they can not be considered fact.

You should probably stop since you don't know what a theory is in the science world.

You just embarrassed yourself hardcore.

Pro tip: Theory in science and theory in normal everyday talk aren't the same thing.

 

[Texashiker]

I have news for you, science is not about opinions,

Some forms of science can be proven with experiments, other forms of science are opinions based on the available evidence.

There is a big difference between the two.

One we can prove is right by doing experiments. The other we "think" is right until more evidence is discovered.

In other words, one is fact, the other is opinion.

 

[HAL9000]

And that is where your argument fails.

The words "valid" and "theory" do not go well together.

If it was "scientific fact", that would be a different story. But fact can not change, fact is fact. Since the opinions on the origins of the universe change from time to time, they can not be considered fact.

OK then allow me to rephrase, it's not a scientific theory. There is no possibility of it being validated or evaluated, it has no reasonable logical rational merit, it cannot be empirically proven or tested, it has no basis in science. It shouldn't be taught in science classes as a result.

The only things that are fact are maths. That doesn't mean everything else is opinion.

 

[HAL9000]

Some forms of science can be proven with experiments, other forms of science are opinions based on the available evidence.

There is a big difference between the two.

One we can prove is right by doing experiments. The other we "think" is right until more evidence is discovered.

In other words, one is fact, the other is opinion.

Actually all science is logical conclusions based on the available evidence, gravity, friction, mass, etc they are all just the best theory we have currently, based on the evidence available.

 

[ichy]

Some forms of science can be proven with experiments, other forms of science are opinions based on the available evidence.

There is a big difference between the two.

One we can prove is right by doing experiments. The other we "think" is right until more evidence is discovered.

In other words, one is fact, the other is opinion.

Wow, I realized I'm wasting my time responding to this garbage.

 

[shadow9d9]

You should probably stop since you don't know what a theory is in the science world.

You just embarrassed yourself hardcore.

Pro tip: Theory in science and theory in normal everyday talk aren't the same thing.

It always amazes me how people don't seem to get that a "scientific theory" has little in common with the layman term "theory." Huge mistake by scientists for naming it like that.

 

[corwin]

OK then allow me to rephrase, it's not a scientific theory. There is no possibility of it being validated or evaluated, it has no reasonable logical rational merit, it cannot be empirically proven or tested, it has no basis in science. It shouldn't be taught in science classes as a result.

Sounds like you're talking about evolution there...

 

[brandonb]

It's England. Don't care.

That said, I don't see a problem with a teacher teaching anything, be it creationism, intelligent design, or evolution. Since none of those are proven, and as long as the teacher states that everything being taught is in fact theory or fairy tale, I don't see a problem.

I remember my teachers doing that all the time: "I'm going to go through this for an alternate viewpoint, even though personally I don't believe it to be true." The more information given to anybody is fine.

Look at it this way. If Creationism was taught, and Evolution as well, which one holds more scientific "weight"? Which ones makes the other one look silly? If both were taught to school kids, don't you think Creationism would fall flat on its face, and kids would be more apt to follow evolution as the one closer to the truth?

 

[Texashiker]

Actually all science is logical conclusions based on the available evidence, gravity, friction, mass, etc they are all just the best theory we have currently, based on the evidence available.

Can't we test certain theories, such as mass, friction and gravity?

We can do certain test to prove friction exist, and how it works.

Do we have a way to recreate the universe? Do we have a way to create mass from nothing? I have yet to see a scientist create a miniature universe from nothing. Lets see a scientist recreate the "big bang" from nothing.

 

[HAL9000]

Sounds like you're talking about evolution there...

Errm no, Evolution has valid science behind it, we have evidence of many different stages of evolution, we have the genetic similarities, we have carbon dating.

Creationism has the bible.