Teaching of Evolution being removed in Turkish schools

[h4rm0ny]

Oh FFS,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40384471

The Turkish minister for education has ordered the removal of a paragraph on evolution in textbooks for 14-15 year olds stating:

Students are "too young to understand 'controversial subjects'", he said, adding that the topic will be delayed until undergraduate study.

I believe the modern expression is: "I don't, I can't even..."

 

[h4rm0ny]

Irrelevant joke aside, this is par for the course for an islamist hole.

Most Muslim countries do teach evolution in their schools, I think. Iran does. Saudi Arabia (big surprise) does not. Nor does IS in the areas they hold.

Yet again, we support the most backwards of Islamic nations against the more progressive.

 

[h4rm0ny]

I was going to post a link to this earlier but settled for sadly rolling my eyes.

The really tragic thing is that this seems another backwards step for a country that the best part of 100 years ago had such a progressive leader in Mustafa Kemal Atatürk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atatürk

The article mentions they introduce a law many years after his death criminalising insults towards him. I bet he would have disapproved of that law, too! :/

What I don't understand is the inability for evolution and creationism to be combined. For example, why could God not have created the universe using what we understand as a big bang and formed it over time, even letting creatures evolve in their own ways as part of the creation? Genesis is a Jewish writing and one that both Christians and Muslims use as basis for creation. The Jews are fond of their stories to illustrate points and its likely the early parts of the bible let's say pre Moses are passed word of mouth. So its pretty certain (though obviously not 100%) that the 7 day creation is a story to illustrate creation of all the different parts of the world.

To clarify as well, I believe fully in God (Christian) but appreciate most people on here don't.

Ever seen Noah, starring Russell Crowe and Jennifer Connelly? There's a scene where he combines Creationism and Evolution all in one mad montage. It's bonkers and great, all at the same time. From the above, you'd probably enjoy it.

Why "obviously not 100%" certain that the world was not made in 7 days?

Minor and petty quibble! It took six days to make the world and all the things on it. The seventh day God put her feet up.

I'm in favour of that. Being religious shows the inability to think critically and should therefore instantly bar that individual from public office as they are not fit to make sensible decisions.

Two flaws immediately apparent in the above. One - there are plenty of religious people who think critically and historically many of our great thinkers have been actively religious. Isaac Newton was a deeply religious man, for example. Two - that's an appallingly inconsistent benchmark. By it, you would ban some person who prays regularly but makes all their economic policy decision based on evidence, whilst allowing in some dogmatic and committed marxist who disregarded all evidence in favour of ideology. As one example of how being religious is far, far from where you should start if you're going to start disqualifying people from public office.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Theresa May is Britain’s ‘first Catholic prime minister’,

http://catholicherald.co.uk/news/20...st-catholic-prime-minister-says-michael-gove/

First openly Catholic one, anyway. Blair converted to Catholicism suspiciously shortly after leaving office. (A few months iirc). Blair's cynical manipulation extends even to avoiding open commitment to his own religion for the sake of political gain. (Probably).

 

[h4rm0ny]

Yes Isaac Newton was a deeply religious man and did some quite terrible things actually, not a great character to reference in all honesty...

Newton is a great person to reference. I don't care if he was nice! What does nice matter? He was someone who had superlative critical reasoning ability and was a deeply religious example. I only need one green mammal to disprove a statement that green mammals do not exist; and history is filled with great and critical thinkers who were religious.

You are creating a false dichotomy here, just because people would be excluded on religious grounds does not mean that other dogmatic people would not also be excluded.

You have stripped away the part of what I wrote that is inconvenient to you claiming it's a false dichotomy. Much like a creationist ignoring an inconvenient fossil and for the same reason. I made the supported point that religion is far from the starting position for excluding people and doing so would exclude candidates who are far superior to worse candidates that are not excluded. A false dichotomy is not me pointing out that your criteria is too weak to filter on. If you attempt to filter on a discriminator as statistically insignificant as that, you're excluding good candidates. That's what weak statistical discriminators do. I can explain the principle if needed.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Yes and politicians who are atheist haven't?

Well according to Dianne Abott, Chairman Mao did more good than bad on balance.

 

[h4rm0ny]

Missing the point

Was just a humorous reference to a terribly stupid idea. I think you actually agree with me that being religious doesn't mean an absence of critical thinking ability.

She isn't openly Roman Catholic, she's CoE.

My error, then. Easyrider said she was the UK's first Catholic Prime Minister. I was simply replying to suggest that Tony Blair had been.

 

[h4rm0ny]

It's a good idea to teach the pros and cons.

Of Creationism vs. the Theory of Evolution?

I actually agree - but to me that means teaching children: "we believe Evolution is the explanation because ... and here is the evidence against a 4,000 year old Earth". Not "Some believe this, some believe that - all opinions have merit". Teaching the "pros and cons" or to put it more accurately arguments for and against, means you're going to be teaching evolution. And removing it from school syllabuses is a mistake.

 

[h4rm0ny]

I would t even go that far. Teach creationism in religious education/RE/RS and teach evolution in science. The closest to doing so should be saying in science that some believe this, but science shows it's not true...

No need to mix the two up.

Any teaching of Science should include how you reached those conclusions. Whether that's Newton's laws or the Theory of Evolution. It doesn't have to be comprehensive, but teaching of Science just as facts rather than "we know this because" is a waste, imo.

So teaching of Theory of Evolution properly inherently includes the justifications for it, I believe.