UK bans teaching of creationism in any school which receives public funding

[TEPO]

What’s alarming is the glaring ignorance of some Americans regarding the very basics of scientific and the desire to allow out children to grow up as scientific troglodytes.

But like I said before- this problem only exists in more backwards portions of the US- where the evangelical infection is greatest.

I don’t know what you’re talking about. I’ve never heard of a modern science class where the science teacher taught the students that evolution was false and that we are all descendants of Adam and Eve from the bible… Not even in Evangelically “infected” areas…

…if teachers in the public schools of the UK were doing that, then maybe the UK really is backwards. That obviously must have been the case since they needed to pass this law.

…but here in the US, I haven’t heard of this nonsense -therefore such a law isn’t needed.

 

[cornbread_r2]

I don’t know what you’re talking about. I’ve never heard of a modern science class where the science teacher taught the students that evolution was false and that we are all descendants of Adam and Eve from the bible… Not even in Evangelically “infected” areas…

…if teachers in the public schools of the UK were doing that, then maybe the UK really is backwards. That obviously must have been the case since they needed to pass this law.

…but here in the US, I haven’t heard of this nonsense -therefore such a law isn’t needed.

See this article detailing how charter schools in Texas, Arkansas and elsewhere receive public funds and smuggle creationism into science class.

See this article mapping where these charter schools are located.

 

[TEPO]

See this article detailing how charter schools in Texas, Arkansas and elsewhere receive public funds and smuggle creationism into science class.

See this article mapping where these charter schools are located.

From what I read, the science classes still taught evolution though. They just highlighted that there were ‘loopholes’ in information -the things that science is unable to theorize on.

…why does the science community seem to panic when people point things out that cannot be explained -as if the Scientific Theory is the sole method for knowledge, and that nothing exists outside what scientific theory states as true. No thinking outside the box! At all!

That’s how computers work… We are humans though.

 

[TEPO]

…those who dare think outside scientific theory are immediately targeted as religious, and are dismissed as Creationists. To me, this indicates an ideological influence -which is more than simple knowledge… An it’s all empowering -students are not only expected to understand scientific theory, they are expected to practice it every day in all their dealings. That’s wrong.

 

[cornbread_r2]

From what I read, the science classes still taught evolution though. They just highlighted that there were ‘loopholes’ in information -the things that science is unable to theorize on.

…]

Yeah, I’m sure they don’t misrepresent the ToE in any way.

 

[anthony022071]

How do you account for them, then? Or for the total lack of modern forms alongside these prior species?

Species are created immediately as individual creatures,whether ex nihilo or from matter or from prior species.

It can never be proved with certainty when species have come into existence except in cases where new species are seen to appear from prior ones. The dating of the remains of species from thousands or millions of years ago is doubtful,as there is no way to verify the conclusions with past reality.

 

[TEPO]

Yeah, I’m sure they don’t misrepresent the ToE in any way.

Even if they do, is that any worse than lawfully demanding all educators to influence students with the ideology of Scientific Theory as the basis for how all things should be interpreted not only for science assignments, but even outside the classroom?

…are students in the UK permitted to discuss the origins of life, or is that restricted too since scientific theory hasn’t completed their analysis?

It’s as if scientific theory is all that matters, and that’s why Darwin is like a secular prophet. He’s the Jesus of the ideology of scientific theory -he must be considering that his findings (TofE) is common sense. I think I figured evolution out on my own when I was age 5…

 

[cornbread_r2]

Even if they do, is that any worse than lawfully demanding all educators to influence students with the ideology of Scientific Theory as the basis for how all things should be interpreted not only for science assignments, but even outside the classroom?

IMO, there can be no justification for intentionally misrepresenting (i.e. lying about) the science. I don’t know what you mean by the rest of that.

…are students in the UK permitted to discuss the origins of life, or is that restricted too since scientific theory hasn’t completed their analysis?

I don’t know, but I hope non-scientific hypotheses are kept out of science class.

 

[TEPO]

IMO, there can be no justification for intentionally misrepresenting (i.e. lying about) the science. I don’t know what you mean by the rest of that.

There isn’t any lying going on though. What’s going on is that students are being restricted from thinking about things outside of what science has declared true through scientific theory, statistics, peer review, etc.

It’s damning for educators and students alike to speak publicly now about things like origins of life. Teachers will be fired and students ridiculed by their peers -all because it’s considered ‘anti-scientific theory’. This is beyond free-speech… It’s thought control.

…and it’s all because Scientific Theory cannot ever be wrong or ridiculed. It is the all powerful ideology of the future that we must all embrace in unity. It makes no mistakes. It illuminates almost all things (and we mustn’t speak of anything outside it’s illuminating light).

 

[TEPO]

I wonder if the global History community holds such tight standards… surely there must be some rogue history teachers we should also be lawfully restricting out there… Sending the wrong information. If we’re going global in one subject why not go global in history too…?

First, we just need to figure out which ideologies in every culture across the globe were most liberal in every way. Then we’ll erase every bad thing they did and emphasize the bad parts of all conservative parts of every culture globally…

Heck, we’ll even make up some things that suggest liberals have historically been pro-scientific theory in subtle ways. Now we’re really progressing.

It will all just make so much sense. And any teacher who suggests that this history is faulty will be prosecuted with the full extent of the law… And fired.

 

[anthony022071]

This is ad-hoc thinking; you pose a complicated hypothesis because you’re opposed to the simpler theory for ideological reasons. This kind of thinking is anything but scientific.

I didn’t pose a complicated hypothesis. And the evolutionary account of how species came to exist is not simpler than saying that species are immediately created as individual creatures.

All conclusions from empiric research are logically non-sequitur. The antecedent is inferred from the consequent. It’s similar to infer that it has rained if you observe that the street is wet. But it could just as well have been washed, or something else. However, in most places and times, it would be statistically more probable that it has rained. This is why science doesn’t really conclude, but presents probabilities. In some cases (one of them being evolution), that probability is close to 100% - but there will always be an infinitesimal chance that something comes up to disprove it - in this case, we’d have the biggest paradigm shift since heliocentrism.

The conclusions of empiric research are not non sequiturs unless the supposed antecedents and consequents (causes and effects) do not correspond. It is a question of what has the necessary power to cause what else. Antecedents or causes can be logically inferred from consequents or effects by considering what kind of power is necessary and proper to produce the effects. As St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Bonaventura would say,every effect has its proper cause. And they considered the natures and attributes of things. That is how they proved by reason the existence of God and his power over creatures.

There are no conclusions in science. However, a theory is as near to a conclusion as you can possibly get.

There are conclusions in science. Conclusions are obviously drawn from evidence and research,so it doesn’t make sense to deny that there are conclusions. The fact that other tests can yield different results and that theories can be discredited does not mean that there are no conclusions in science.

And this again is why every single alternative hypothesis to evolution I’ve seen to date is ad-hoc. That again is a product of ideology, not ration.

That is a non sequitur. Your belief that evolution theory is as near to being certain as possible does not mean that all alternative ideas are ad hoc or a products of ideology or irrational. And anyway,the main definition of ad hoc is ‘for the particular end or case at hand without consideration of wider application’,which does not mean something is badly done.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

First, we just need to figure out which ideologies in every culture across the globe were most liberal in every way. Then we’ll erase every bad thing they did and emphasize the bad parts of all conservative parts of every culture globally…

Isn’t this what Christianity did to:

• Romans
• Assyrians
• Greeks
• Egyptians

Good God if you’re going to talk thought police, this religion isn’t one talk. Heck, it’s among the least that should talk.

 

[TEPO]

Isn’t this what Christianity did to:

• Romans
• Assyrians
• Greeks
• Egyptians

Good God if you’re going to talk thought police, this religion isn’t one talk. Heck, it’s among the least that should talk.

Mr. Wanderer, if I were there then I would have spoken out against it. But honestly, I don’t doubt one bit that the clergy in the Vatican themselves are in full support of the UK passing this law right now.

…if it doesn’t deal with the common good, or the poor among us or the temporal needs of the less fortunate -you can expect a silent pass.

 

[cornbread_r2]

There isn’t any lying going on though. What’s going on is that students are being restricted from thinking about things outside of what science has declared true through scientific theory, statistics, peer review, etc.

It’s damning for educators and students alike to speak publicly now about things like origins of life. Teachers will be fired and students ridiculed by their peers -all because it’s considered ‘anti-scientific theory’. This is beyond free-speech… It’s thought control.

…and it’s all because Scientific Theory cannot ever be wrong or ridiculed. It is the all powerful ideology of the future that we must all embrace in unity. It makes no mistakes. It illuminates almost all things (and we mustn’t speak of anything outside it’s illuminating light).

You’re approaching the critical mass for hyperbole here without a few citations.

 

[edwest2]

There isn’t any lying going on though. What’s going on is that students are being restricted from thinking about things outside of what science has declared true through scientific theory, statistics, peer review, etc.

It’s damning for educators and students alike to speak publicly now about things like origins of life. Teachers will be fired and students ridiculed by their peers -all because it’s considered ‘anti-scientific theory’. This is beyond free-speech… It’s thought control.

…and it’s all because Scientific Theory cannot ever be wrong or ridiculed. It is the all powerful ideology of the future that we must all embrace in unity. It makes no mistakes. It illuminates almost all things (and we mustn’t speak of anything outside it’s illuminating light).

You are quite right. Incorrect thinking immediately creates problems for any who voice them, even on internet forums. The Technocracy has no need for anything but science.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Hans_W]

There isn’t any lying going on though. What’s going on is that students are being restricted from thinking about things outside of what science has declared true through scientific theory, statistics, peer review, etc.

It’s damning for educators and students alike to speak publicly now about things like origins of life. Teachers will be fired and students ridiculed by their peers -all because it’s considered ‘anti-scientific theory’. This is beyond free-speech… It’s thought control.

…and it’s all because Scientific Theory cannot ever be wrong or ridiculed. It is the all powerful ideology of the future that we must all embrace in unity. It makes no mistakes. It illuminates almost all things (and we mustn’t speak of anything outside it’s illuminating light).

I am still baffled by the level of ignorance on matters of science and the general anti-science worldview shown by some posters here. It seems to be on a par with the hatred for religion coming from the most militant atheist circles. I assume that this type of fanaticism only represents a tiny minority of the US population.

 

[_Ruby]

…are students in the UK permitted to discuss the origins of life, or is that restricted too since scientific theory hasn’t completed their analysis?

Of course they can. Religious Education classes form a compulsory part of the UK education syllabus, so all schools are required by law to teach it.

Obviously this includes teaching creation stories from a number of faiths.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Mr. Wanderer, if I were there then I would have spoken out against it.

Never too late to start.

 

[RACJ]

I am still baffled by the level of ignorance on matters of science and the general anti-science worldview shown by some posters here. It seems to be on a par with the hatred for religion coming from the most militant atheist circles. I assume that this type of fanaticism only represents a tiny minority of the US population.

There is no hatred here on my part. Can you point to anything you have seen on this thread that is hateful? We disagree with what evolutionists claim, that’s all. There are simply too many “coincidences” in nature which enhance survival chances for given species to believe that they occurred through evolutionary processes. The eye and ear are maddeningly miraculous. If you can look at a culture of protozoa today, and then imagine that at some distant time, after BILLIONS of generations have passed, those protozoan offspring will be able to hear the wind blow and watch the sun rise, you can believe in evolution.
To call those of us who are skeptical of this possibility “fanatics” is wrongheaded. I think that we are rather discerning. Rob

 

[edwest2]

I am still baffled by the level of ignorance on matters of science and the general anti-science worldview shown by some posters here. It seems to be on a par with the hatred for religion coming from the most militant atheist circles. I assume that this type of fanaticism only represents a tiny minority of the US population.

On the contrary. I think your perception is too extreme. There are many in the US that have valid concerns and problems with the topic. Their skepticism is well-founded, and it is not a group of people who are ‘anti-science’ or ignorant. Hatred does not come into the picture.

I have, and have had, genius level friends who have expressed doubts about this or that aspect of science. But there is a campaign that is ongoing in the US to figure out a way to get full compliance. The evidence tells me it has nothing to do with the topic.

Peace,
Ed