Teaching Creationism As Science Now Banned In All UK Public Schools

[justoh]

The question then becomes how do you establish what to teach? How would you teach history?

At some point, you have tested something enough to teach it. Evolution predicts and comes up with the correct answers. Creationism does not give any testable predictions, and thus is not science. This has nothing to do with the elite, but subject matter and its classification. Evolution may be wrong, but the things its predicting are accurate, so the theory is thought.

You are only looking at a political issue that both sides have in common, and that is each side thinks they are "right". The difference is that the side of evolution is on the side of the scientific method, and Creationism is on the side of theology.

He obviously just didn't read the thread title very closely, and then didn't think before posting. It was specifically stated that it's banned from being taught as science. I think even most religious people would agree with that. He does sometimes make a lot of sense though.

 

[Jhhnn]

That's because they've been trying to pass it off as "Intelligent Design."

eg: Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

They also like to couch it in terms of "Teaching the controversy", thus elevating Christian Creationism to a status it doesn't deserve. It is one among many ways that people have sought to better explain the world around them with the tools at their disposal. When those tools can't deliver all the answers, people use their imaginations to fill in the gaps. None of the creation theories of various religions are any more valid than the others for that very reason. Any that attempt to employ science as proof merely engage in ontology.

I believe in God, just not in any conventional religious way. I also recognize it's what I want to believe & therefore irrational at the same time. It lets me accept the unexplainable as unexplainable.

 

[GaiaHunter]

I've learned it in Portugal some 15 years ago and basically it was mostly being taught as history of science, just like Lamarckism.

I rather think it is important to understand that in science the theories aren't something set in stone and keep evolving and being replaced.

 

[brandonb]

Don't be that guy.

Alright... I don't need to nitpick the guys comment on "fact." We all know it to be fact without the need for science.

 

[Moonbeam]

He obviously just didn't read the thread title very closely, and then didn't think before posting. It was specifically stated that it's banned from being taught as science. I think even most religious people would agree with that. He does sometimes make a lot of sense though.

I always make sense, and you see it only when you can keep up.. I know what the situation is, I understand the problems involved. and I said I don't like it. You may find one day that your certainty about what should or shouldn't be taught may come back to bite you. In fact my wisdom is so much deerer than yours that you should be banned.

 

[realibrad]

I always make sense, and you see it only when you can keep up.. I know what the situation is, I understand the problems involved. and I said I don't like it. You may find one day that your certainty about what should or shouldn't be taught may come back to bite you. In fact my wisdom is so much deerer than yours that you should be banned.

There are opportunity cost in every decision we make. What line do you draw for what gets in and what does not? I would draw the line at science in science class, and theology in the theology class.

I dont doubt there are people pushing for it to be banned because they think its wrong, but the issue is really about teaching science in science class. Many things in science class were wrong throughout the years. The issue is that one is simply not science.

 

[realibrad]

Alright... I don't need to nitpick the guys comment on "fact." We all know it to be fact without the need for science.

The reason the person said it, was that it makes you look stupid. You are misusing the word "theory".

http://ncse.com/evolution/education/definitions-fact-theory-law-scientific-work

"Science uses specialized terms that have different meanings than everyday usage. These definitions correspond to the way scientists typically use these terms in the context of their work. Note, especially, that the meaning of “theory” in science is different than the meaning of “theory” in everyday conversation.

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.

Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."

 

[surfsatwerk]

Alright... I don't need to nitpick the guys comment on "fact." We all know it to be fact without the need for science.

You're still doing it.

 

[shadow9d9]

Evolution was still a theory 20 years ago when I was in HS... Has it been proven yet, scientifically?

Wow...you didn't learn anything in class did you... Scientific theories are NOT the same thing as the layman term theory. Your education failed.

 

[Moonbeam]

There are opportunity cost in every decision we make. What line do you draw for what gets in and what does not? I would draw the line at science in science class, and theology in the theology class.

I dont doubt there are people pushing for it to be banned because they think its wrong, but the issue is really about teaching science in science class. Many things in science class were wrong throughout the years. The issue is that one is simply not science.

It's not called creation
Science because the fools
Who believe it is don't believe it is, is it?

 

[Vic]

There are places where you can have your child taught creationism. They're called churches.

 

[Moonbeam]

Wow...you didn't learn anything in class did you... Scientific theories are NOT the same thing as the layman term theory. Your education failed.

Everything fails when the mind is motivated unconsciously not to face certain facts because of prior inculcated beliefs.

Ideally one hopes that allinds will be persuaded by reason. This is why I dislike using force like bans on heretical beliefs. I have found in my experience that the most heretical idea is truth. People who know anything are very rare and tend to get burned at the stake by the imbeciles of certainty.

 

[brandonb]

The reason the person said it, was that it makes you look stupid. You are misusing the word "theory".

http://ncse.com/evolution/education/definitions-fact-theory-law-scientific-work

"Science uses specialized terms that have different meanings than everyday usage. These definitions correspond to the way scientists typically use these terms in the context of their work. Note, especially, that the meaning of “theory” in science is different than the meaning of “theory” in everyday conversation.

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.

Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."

Got it...

Theory was indeed the wrong word that I used. That's all encompassing.

 

[realibrad]

It's not called creation
Science because the fools
Who believe it is don't believe it is, is it?

No, its not science because it did not follow the scientific method.

 

[Moonbeam]

You seem confused.

Teaching science in a science class is appropriate.

They can discuss, religion, political thought, philosophy, or whatever they want, where appropriate.

And science, or specifically evolution, doesn't intentionally or explicitly deny faith. There are implications which I think necessarily challenge religious belief, inadvertently, but they aren't being taught what to believe or what not to believe.

Not teaching creationism isn't an endorsement of reason, nor is it denouncing faith.

You can't compare banning faith being taught as fact with facts being taught as facts. You can't compare teaching evolution with teaching creationism or intelligent design in the way you try to. Well, you can, but you'll just come across as confused, even if well-intentioned.

I had no intention other than to express other than my distaste for being put in a posission where I am dictating to others what is what. I feel the same about vaccinations. It's going to make some mothers suffer. People didn't choose to be ignorant, they were made that was and they may be delusional but their pain is real.

 

[shira]

We cant do that as a nation but we could with sates and by how much money the fed gives to them.

Teaching creationism as scientifically valid now banned in all UK public schools
Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-N...K-public-schools/5631403128922/#ixzz35BWBikQj​

99.999% of all biologists agree that life on earth evolved over billions of years, with mankind arriving only in the last 100,000 years or so.

But as we've learned from climate-change deniers, we much scour all studies related to evolution to find one or two that seem to disagree in some way with the consensus. Then we must trumpet these studies and claim that evolution is "just a theory."

 

[realibrad]

I had no intention other than to express other than my distaste for being put in a posission where I am dictating to others what is what. I feel the same about vaccinations. It's going to make some mothers suffer. People didn't choose to be ignorant, they were made that was and they may be delusional but their pain is real.

I dont get why you think that taking non science topics out of the science class is dictating to others opinions they should be holding.

 

[justoh]

Everything fails when the mind is motivated unconsciously not to face certain facts because of prior inculcated beliefs.

Like your mistaken belief that you make sense more often than occasionally?

 

[justoh]

I dont get why you think that taking non science topics out of the science class is dictating to others opinions they should be holding.

Maybe because he's confused?

 

[Zebo]

Ive never understood how creationism is contradictory to evolution. Least way my mom, a 3x a week church going Catholic, taught us. She said god made the atoms come together to make simplistic lifeforms then morphed them into more complicated beings he chose to eventually making man in his image.

I was a rebel still am so never really went. But made sense to me and never conflicted with biology and genetics I was taught in college. When you have a invisible hand explaining everything hard to contradict. lol

 

[classy]

I have never understood the debate here. One does not discount the other. Both are theories and they don't contradict each other.

 

[realibrad]

I have never understood the debate here. One does not discount the other. Both are theories and they don't contradict each other.

Its all in how you define Creationism. If you say that the singularity that started everything was God, and then evolution happened after that, then they dont conflict per se.

Evolution does not incorporate God, because it does not see any evidence in a divine creator.

The problem arises when you go to the main view of people and Creationism. The popular belief of Creationism is that things were designed, and change very little, and that evolution did not create people.

The 2nd big issue is that Science is not supposed to speculate with out data. Creationism can never be tested, as you cant test the supernatural. The reason you cant test the supernatural, is because only the natural can be tested. You cant test the actions of beings, if the beings dont act.

 

[Darwin333]

I have never understood the debate here. One does not discount the other. Both are theories and they don't contradict each other.

You obviously either didn't have a very good science teacher or didn't pay much attention in class.

One is actually a scientific theory and the other isn't even an educated guess as far as science is concerned. You don't get to redefine what a scientific theory is because of your faith.

Come back when Creationism has actual tested facts that can be reproduced and then we can talk about it being an actual Theory. Until then it has, quite literally, as much merit as Santa clause, flying reindeer with huge glowing red noses and the Easter bunny. Do you think the "theory of Rudolph the red nosed reindeer" should be taught in science class as well?

 

[classy]

Its all in how you define Creationism. If you say that the singularity that started everything was God, and then evolution happened after that, then they dont conflict per se.

Evolution does not incorporate God, because it does not see any evidence in a divine creator.

The problem arises when you go to the main view of people and Creationism. The popular belief of Creationism is that things were designed, and change very little, and that evolution did not create people.

The 2nd big issue is that Science is not supposed to speculate with out data. Creationism can never be tested, as you cant test the supernatural. The reason you cant test the supernatural, is because only the natural can be tested. You cant test the actions of beings, if the beings dont act.

All that is true, but I have said this before, its the same thing with evolution. We have zero proof of the big bang. Science speculates a natural occurrence but there is no proof that it actually happened. Science speculates man evolved from a lower primate but to this day no proof that actually happened.

 

[lotus503]

All that is true, but I have said this before, its the same thing with evolution. We have zero proof of the big bang. Science speculates a natural occurrence but there is no proof that it actually happened. Science speculates man evolved from a lower primate but to this day no proof that actually happened.

Actually its not really a big bang anymore its more inflation theory. And while there is no proof it occurred what science does is examine the existing to determine what occurred, given that the universe is still expanding and they can detect waves from the suspected start of the universe, it support inflation.

Its real easy from the faith camp as God can pretty much do anything, science has a burden of repeatable results.