http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/961
Finally. This is quite a good victory for those who like evidence based system. Hopefully they take it one step further and ban it in independent schools as well.
Government changes Free School model funding agreement to ban creationist schools.
- Thread starter RomanNose
- Start date
Finally. This is quite a good victory for those who like evidence based system. Hopefully they take it one step further and ban it in independent schools as well.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
It doesn't stop faith schools, does it? It stops faith based Free Schools.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 12,488
- Location
- Bath
Yawn.
Can't we just teach kids the facts as we currently know them, and a range of theories to that interpret the facts including the theory of evolution and the theory of creationism, and then let the kids be free to make up their own minds on which to believe?
Teaching them only one theory (be it evolution or creationism) seems a bit brain-washing to me.
Can't we just teach kids the facts as we currently know them, and a range of theories to that interpret the facts including the theory of evolution and the theory of creationism, and then let the kids be free to make up their own minds on which to believe?
Teaching them only one theory (be it evolution or creationism) seems a bit brain-washing to me.
Is creationism actually taught outside of Christian schools?
As well as teach them that mavity may be as a result of aliens?
There's zero evidence for that mavity is caused by aliens, and there's zero evidence to back up creationism.
As well as teach them that mavity may be as a result of aliens?
There's zero evidence for that mavity is caused by aliens, and there's zero evidence to back up creationism.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
Yes, in religious studies. It's not taught as a fact though.
Associate
- Joined
- 4 May 2011
- Posts
- 29
The theory of evolution is a scientific theory so should be taught in science.
the theory of creationism is not a scientific theory so should not be taught in science.
The facts that we currently know them is that the theory of evolution is true.
Why should we teach them something in science that is not scientifically credible?
Should we teach them other alternative theories for everything such as intelligent falling? Science is science, it's not religion. I don't care if you teach Creationism in R.E or whatever you like. It's just demeaning to say that creationism is a scientific theory.
This only stops creationist schools, Christian schools can still be created if I am right.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 12,488
- Location
- Bath
Maybe I'm just got an axe to grind against science in British schools, actually that's probably true as my Chemistry teacher was a useless ****
, but I swear that every year the teacher would start with "Basically everything we taught you last year was a lie, as you weren't clever enough to understand what it really is". Rinse and repeat each year.By GCSE's kids were saying "But Miss, you said that last year. Can't you just tell us it how it is!"
For the record: I'm not a ZOMG SCIENCE IS A LIE loon
. I did Chemistry & Physics for A-Level, and am doing a BSc degree.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
It's not really a case of not being smart enough to understand, it's more a case of having to match the topics on the curriculum. For Chemistry a lot of the GCSE stuff if relevant at A Level, although i'm kind of glad that it's not required. For instance the GCSE atomic model isn't wrong so much as an alternative theory. It's useful in some cases, like when working out how something might bond to something else in a certain way, but it doesn't explain things like trends in ionization energies. Similarly the A Level model has flaws too, so it's just better to know both and to know when to use them.
It doesn't do either.
It quite rightly stops free schools from teaching creationism as a science. Which the vast majority of Faith Schools don't do anyway as the two largest supporters of Faith Schools in the UK, The Church of England and The Catholic Church do not ascribe to a Literalist Creationist Doctrine and fully support Evolution.
The 'The Evolution, not Creationism' campaign was supported by Atheists, Agnostics and Theists....Groups as diverse as the Humanist Society to Ekklesia support the idea that Evolution is a scientific position to be taught in a science environment and promoted as the accepted scientific theory on how we evolved, creationism is a theological position (one which is greatly disputed theologically btw) that has no place being taught as a valid alternative to Evolution.
Last edited:
There isn't 100% proof of evolution.
There isn't 100% proof of evolution.
Whilst I do agree with the posts above, scientific methodologies dictate that we can never prove a hypothesis 100%... It will only ever be 99.99% etc... I haven't explained it that well. Maybe someone else can explain it better
Just to reiterate... I believe in evolution, however I think there is a 0.01% (the value decreases with an increase in knowledge of the matter) chance that there might be an alternative.
I think what you mean to say is whether creationism is actually taught outside of America.
The major Christian faiths in the UK already recognise evolution, I really would wonder whether there is any evidence that this is a real issue in the UK except in one or two isolated cases.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 12,488
- Location
- Bath
Actually that's a good point. It may will currently be the best theory that fits the evidence, but it isn't yet 100% proven fact. And unless someone invents a time machine it's probably going to remain as that.
Again; I'm all for it being taught, as a theory, but not "This is the 100% truth, everything else is rubbish and you should instantly dismiss everything else you hear without even giving it any consideration what so ever. Anyone that raises the possibility of an alternative theory is thick.".
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
Evolution is a fact. Natural selection is the 'theory'. We do have a time machine. It's called the Universe. We go forwards through time. We can observe evolution. We do observe evolution.
They've created and observed cells evolve in the laboratory for a long time now, if that's not evidence of evolution then what is? There's also historical evidence of it in fossils and other scientific artifacts. The Cosmos itself evolves, we know this from observing the skies and are currently seeing solar systems being born and dying relentlessly, stuff that happened billions of years ago.
There isn't 100% proof of evolution.
Whilst I do agree with the posts above, scientific methodologies dictate that we can never prove a hypothesis 100%... It will only ever be 99.99% etc... I haven't explained it that well. Maybe someone else can explain it better
Just to reiterate... I believe in evolution, however I think there is a 0.01% (the value decreases with an increase in knowledge of the matter) chance that there might be an alternative.
First of all, where are you getting this 0.01% number from?
Secondly, what is best to teach, something that is "99.99%", or something with no evidence?
Thirdly, evolution may not be be provable for every species right now, but it has happened and been documented in the past century.
I dont think creationism is much of a theory a theory should have at least some evidence to point the theorist to their conclusion....
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2005
- Posts
- 12,488
- Location
- Bath
I wouldn't be so sure of that.
Without wanting to generalise and speak for people:
Everybody recognises Natural Selection. http://nerdfighters.ning.com/profiles/blogs/natural-selection-from-my It's blooming obvious. Go to the Arctic and look at Rabbits, they'll all be the white ones not the brown ones! But, what those who accept Natural Selection and disagree with Evolution would say is that, brown and white are both in the original gene pool. The Rabbits haven't evolved into having a whole new colour (well apart from the glow in the dark rabbit on Sherlock!) It's just survival of the fittest. Selecting the best traits from the original gene pool.
For them to believe evolution the rabbits would have to evolve into something that's not in the original gene pool, or you'd have to take them back in a time machine and show them a half monkey/half human.
Associate
- Joined
- 4 May 2011
- Posts
- 29
Whilst I do agree with the posts above, scientific methodologies dictate that we can never prove a hypothesis 100%... It will only ever be 99.99% etc... I haven't explained it that well. Maybe someone else can explain it better
Just to reiterate... I believe in evolution, however I think there is a 0.01% (the value decreases with an increase in knowledge of the matter) chance that there might be an alternative.
Yes, it wouldn't be science if it was 100% without any doubt. There isn't 100% proof that our theory of mavity is true or any other theory/law. Everything has to be able to be proven wrong, in evolutions case its finding a species(fossil) which belongs in the wrong time period, finding something in dna which prevents major changes even over time, etc.
There isn't 100% proof that there are no invisible rabbits roaming the earth and flying through space.
However, at our current understanding.. Evolution is true and invisible rabbits do not exist.
He means in science nothing is ever 100% fact except the observations we have made, our conclusions of those observations are never 100%. Our current theory of mavity could be proven wrong tomorrow with the discovery of a galaxy which does not operate how it is suppose to and would require us to tweak/change our current theory. Same as evolution, all the evidence gathered supports the theory of evolution and any attempt to disprove it (theres been many) have all failed.. However, that does not make it 100% fact. People regard them as facts and you probably can but you must understand its never 100%.
Last edited: