DELETED_74993

b.cummins · 12 May 2011 at 07:21

"Crisis Petition:

You are signer number 1666"

This an omen?

Richdog · 12 May 2011 at 07:24

b.cummins said:
"Crisis Petition:

You are signer number 1666"

This an omen?

No, or you would be signer 666.

Mr^B · 12 May 2011 at 07:28

What specific "scientific fact" are they talking about here:

"Creationism is known, and officially acknowledged, to be contrary to scientific fact."

?

I'm not disagreeing with the premise that Creationism has no part in science, but I'm afraid they've made the mistake of not understanding what science is actually about. *hint* it's not about "facts".

semi-pro waster · 12 May 2011 at 07:46

Castiel said:
My Wife and my Son both attended and still attend respectively a Catholic School, and my son spends very little time learning about religion, none whatsoever attending church (except to visit the local Cathedral and a Synagogue) and he doesn't have to attend mass or take communion, my wife concurs with this.

None of the various faith schools I attended tried to indoctrinate me either, we had a religious assembly each day and RE a couple of times a week, but like most kids I pretty much ignored it, as I think you'll find is true of most children in faith schools.

So much for indoctrination.

While I agree with your general point that faith schools aren't necessarily bad (in fact they're often better than many secular schools in regard to educational achievement - we can argue correlation/causation on that issue I'm sure) but it seems a little too much to imply that indoctrination wouldn't or couldn't happen at faith schools. It's great that it hasn't affected you or your family but I'd be wary of assuming that it's not an issue in some schools or that it shouldn't be guarded against.

Mr^B said:
What specific "scientific fact" are they talking about here:

"Creationism is known, and officially acknowledged, to be contrary to scientific fact."

?

I'm not disagreeing with the premise that Creationism has no part in science, but I'm afraid they've made the mistake of not understanding what science is actually about. *hint* it's not about "facts".

"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms." - Stephen Jay Gould

As above you mean? It's possible they're using the term fact as a shorthand for "currently accepted scientific theories based on observed evidence to date" - it's not right to use but it's a bit pithier to use the phrase "scientific fact".

RomanNose · 12 May 2011 at 07:52

Castiel said:
It's not that rational either if you feel the need to emote over my stating that it is not very liberal to want to remove public funding from schools that a significant portion of the tax paying public wish to send their children to. Generally because they offer better education than secular state schools.

You do not have to send your children to a faith school, but it isn't a very liberal attitude to obstruct others who do.

My Wife and my Son both attended and still attend respectively a Catholic School, and my son spends very little time learning about religion, none whatsoever attending church (except to visit the local Cathedral and a Synagogue) and he doesn't have to attend mass or take communion, my wife concurs with this.

None of the various faith schools I attended tried to indoctrinate me either, we had a religious assembly each day and RE a couple of times a week, but like most kids I pretty much ignored it, as I think you'll find is true of most children in faith schools.

So much for indoctrination.

This is true in the state sector, but certainly not true in the independent sector.
A vast majority of independent schools adopt a much different approach than your average state faith school, you should go and have a look around your local one and there is a massive difference. Crucifixes in the class room, usually a chapel with a priest on site. The differences are pretty obvious and the children have to remain at the school that their parents choose.

Mr^B · 12 May 2011 at 08:06

semi-pro waster said:
"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms." - Stephen Jay Gould

As above you mean? It's possible they're using the term fact as a shorthand for "currently accepted scientific theories based on observed evidence to date" - it's not right to use but it's a bit pithier to use the phrase "scientific fact".

Still doesn't answer what "fact(s)" it is that creationism is supposed to be contrary to.

*shrugs*

Vonhelmet · 12 May 2011 at 08:36

Mr^B said:
Still doesn't answer what "fact(s)" it is that creationism is supposed to be contrary to.

*shrugs*

Age of the universe, manner of its formation, origin of the species...

Mr^B · 12 May 2011 at 08:50

vonhelmet said:
Age of the universe, manner of its formation, origin of the species...

None of those are contrary to the belief in a supernatural creative force.

Evolution has certain rules, who/what determines those rules? The universe was created by a big bang, what created the big bang? We know the age of the universe approximately, since the big bang, but did it actually happen? We think it did, but the big bang might have been the result of the collapse of the previous universe itself, and if so, how many turtles down does it go? And what was the cause of the first big bang?

Don't confuse creationism with an existing religion. Many religions make oblique references to the age of the earth, which I agree are probably incorrect. But that's not what creationism is about. Not at all.

Vonhelmet · 12 May 2011 at 09:07

Mr^B said:
None of those are contrary to the belief in a supernatural creative force.

Evolution has certain rules, who/what determines those rules? The universe was created by a big bang, what created the big bang? We know the age of the universe approximately, since the big bang, but did it actually happen? We think it did, but the big bang might have been the result of the collapse of the previous universe itself, and if so, how many turtles down does it go? And what was the cause of the first big bang?

Don't confuse creationism with an existing religion. Many religions make oblique references to the age of the earth, which I agree are probably incorrect. But that's not what creationism is about. Not at all.

If the only thing being taught is that the Big Bang may have had a God behind it as the prime mover, then fine. No one knows either way, and that's a faith based question. However, I doubt very much that the "creationism" being protested about begins and ends there.

spudbynight · 12 May 2011 at 09:13

AGD said:
There's no point in this petition - you need to campaign against faith schools. They are the real issue. It goes beyond creationism to matters of equality, freedom of expression and thought, and proper teaching of all religions and non-religious views.

Yes, campaign against faith schools. That will show how right on you are.

Are you comfy in your sandals and are your lentils tasty?

martinbeaver · 12 May 2011 at 09:31

eatcustard · 12 May 2011 at 10:10

signed

Morbius · 12 May 2011 at 10:18

Richdog said:
No, or you would be signer 666.

It should be 616, the original number. 666 was just a misprint.

Mr_Orange · 12 May 2011 at 10:31

Makes sense. It shouldn't be taught in a science lesson but it is important for kids to know about it from a cultural point of view.

I've been through Catholic education and scientific principles are taught in science as per the curriculum and religious principles were taught in RE as per the curriculum. What went on in this school is not the norm at all. The only issue with RE I had was that we didn't have to opportunity to learn about other religions to give us a sound understanding of the cultural spectrum of the world. Maybe they thought that it would lead to us not embracing christian values

A.N.Other · 12 May 2011 at 11:22

Signed - with pleasure.

FNGsam · 12 May 2011 at 11:29

1736 signs now

Andy · 12 May 2011 at 11:32

I have never understood the logic behind faith schools. Religion should be taught in factual historical manor, not forgetting to mention history is written by the winners and isn't always correct.

Strange that the majority of new faith schools are Muslim. I asked my Muslim friend about faith schools and the only answer he had was that the religion keeps them in-line which is clearly bull****. Kids are more scared of their parents than God.

THMRK · 12 May 2011 at 12:01

Ok so the education secretary is against this and so far only one example of some idiot attempting to teach in one school is all you've got?

I'd sign it but I don't think it'll achieve much. Furthermore, if it's not a part of the curriculum then it's not going to make its way into many schools.

Hatter The Mad · 12 May 2011 at 12:06

chaosdestro0 said:
This is true in the state sector, but certainly not true in the independent sector.
A vast majority of independent schools adopt a much different approach than your average state faith school, you should go and have a look around your local one and there is a massive difference. Crucifixes in the class room, usually a chapel with a priest on site. The differences are pretty obvious and the children have to remain at the school that their parents choose.

I went to a fairly regular Catholic comprehensive and I had crucifixes in the classrooms, an on-site chapel, a full-time chaplain and a visiting priest.

Ben Harrison · 12 May 2011 at 12:36

Signed.