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

[TEPO]

A better course for student scientists, would be to learn how to observe unbiasedly, without clinging to previous theories, because to build one theory on another theory upon another theory will eventually create a huge margin of error.

The best course of science is always unbiased observation. Eventually, we’ll evolve to this point I think, because a huge collection of data is much more productive than theory building. It allows for change rather than trying to find ways to maintain.

 

[TEPO]

I worry how our new ‘Faith Schools’ in UK are possibly able to circumvent our National Curriculum and get away with teaching creationism and other religious extremist ideologies.

One from the UK might want to ponder on one possibility. If religious extremism equals absolute faith in all texts as 100% accurate, then is it possible that there is such thing as scientific extremism -where the scientific theories of this age are accepted 100%, and are appreciated to such an extent that the scientific method then becomes bonded with the mind in such a way that it becomes blended into ones personality?

The result of this scientific extremism possibly then produces arrogance and blatant distrust in all things that cannot be proven by facts and statistics? This lack of trust eventually develops into social coldness and self centered secular humanism based on doing ones part statistically?

No more emotion just pitiless indifference with methodological statistic based thinking… I believe this kind of extremism can and does exist. We should mention it in all fairness.

 

[Kaninchen]

I worry how our new ‘Faith Schools’ in UK are possibly able to circumvent our National Curriculum and get away with teaching creationism and other religious extremist ideologies. Also, I’m amazed that we in UK haven’t learned any lessons about religious segregation from our own doorstep, in N Ireland.

The thing is that the UK’s had denominational schools for a couple of centuries - perhaps it takes a “critical mass” of mutual tribal annoyance to arrive a Northern Ireland situation?

I agree with you that there’s a risk in current policies over academies and free schools and I expect that these regulations are just part of the manoeuvring that will be necessary before things settle down.

 

[TEPO]

The thing is that the UK’s had denominational schools for a couple of centuries - perhaps it takes a “critical mass” of mutual tribal annoyance to arrive a Northern Ireland situation?

I agree with you that there’s a risk in current policies over academies and free schools and I expect that these regulations are just part of the manoeuvring that will be necessary before things settle down.

…and by “settle down”, I’m assuming you mean universal acceptance of some theories that the scientific heierarchy lays down as dogma. Perhaps even scientific method as a moral obligation.

IMO, no “theories” need to be taught mandatory in order to teach young people how to make critical observations or to dissect or to do chemistry. There’s really no bad consequence that can come from excluding theories altogether from the classroom. Is there…?

 

[ringil]

Indeed. It happens every time a historian doubts the historical accuracy of the Bible.

Oh and of course, literal Genesis.

And really big boats carrying every creature on Earth.

No, no, I mean BIG boats.

 

[Rin]

I’m assuming

That you do indeed. And a lot, at that.

 

[Kelt]

One from the UK might want to ponder on one possibility. If religious extremism equals absolute faith in all texts as 100% accurate, then is it possible that there is such thing as scientific extremism -where the scientific theories of this age are accepted 100%, and are appreciated to such an extent that the scientific method then becomes bonded with the mind in such a way that it becomes blended into ones personality?

The result of this scientific extremism possibly then produces arrogance and blatant distrust in all things that cannot be proven by facts and statistics? This lack of trust eventually develops into social coldness and self centered secular humanism based on doing ones part statistically?

No more emotion just pitiless indifference with methodological statistic based thinking… I believe this kind of extremism can and does exist. We should mention it in all fairness.

You’re mixing up science and philosophy again. Science is a discipline that requires constant checks and experiment to prove and develop its theories. (By theory, I mean science theory - there are, confusingly, 2 meanings for the word). Religion and philosophy can take one in circles and sometimes end up back when one started…it doesn’t require ‘proofs’ in the same way as science does. The more we have found out very recently, about DNA , the more we can add proof to the theory of evolution. But where is the problem? In the last sentence of the Descent of Man Darwin says;
‘I have given the evidence to the best of my ability: and we must acknowledge, as it seems to me, that man with all his noble qualities, with sympathy which feels for the most debased, with benevolence which extends not only to other men but to the humblest living creature, with his god-like intellect which has penetrated into the movements and constitution of the solar system - with all these exalted powers - man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin’.
Modern science, and old old geology confirm his theory.
Your fear of ‘social coldness’ and ‘pitiless indifference’ is is just that - a personal fear - that has no relevance to the truth behind our existence.
As we differ from other animals in that we have an awareness and consciousness of ourselves, our environment, our history and future…THIS is where religion and philosophy come in! WHY are we different?
A proper understanding of how evolution works is a truly amazing, fascinating and awe inspiring discovery which in no way should diminish your faith in God - unless it is on shaky ground already. On the contrary, to bring everything down to some sort of set of magic tricks by a divine conjurer - in the face of modern discoveries - is diminishing indeed.

 

[Estevao]

^^^ See this is the kind of stuff I’m talking about. You have naive youngsters who, upon the authority of their high school biology teachers and introductory biology course instructor, spout this kind of religious dogma as if it were “science”. This is no different than teaching creationism, but there’s no rabid atheists calling for us to keep this kind of religion out of the science class rooms.

Hey since we’re posting quotes from the Descent of Man…

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”- Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

It’s funny how people name the theory of evolution after this racist and eugenicist instead of its co-discoverer Alfred Russel Wallace, who was not like that.

 

[Kelt]

The thing is that the UK’s had denominational schools for a couple of centuries - perhaps it takes a “critical mass” of mutual tribal annoyance to arrive a Northern Ireland situation?

I agree with you that there’s a risk in current policies over academies and free schools and I expect that these regulations are just part of the manoeuvring that will be necessary before things settle down.

As I went to school and taught in England I can speak about the history of England’s education. It’s slightly different in Scotland and Wales. In the mid 19th century the Church of England had a huge building project across the country, modernising ( and sometimes spoiling!) and rescuing old churches and building new schools in almost every village so that local children could all receive a basic education. Alas, these village primary schools are now nearly all turned into private houses or village halls as they have become uneconomic and the demographics have changed - young families can’t afford to live in our villages any more. (Our school holidays still reflect the church and the farming year.) I’m not sure when the first Catholic state primary schools opened. All schools were open to everyone, regardless of religion or none. Parents had the right to withdraw their child from any religious instruction if they wanted. This is still the case, but the new ‘faith’, ‘free’ and ‘academy’ schools, still government funded, but run by private groups, be they company/church/charity or group of individuals, are often not controlled by the local council and do not have to keep to the National Curriculum. As I see it this opens the door to all sorts of dangers. We already have one school teaching creationism ( although it’s SUPPOSED to keep it out of science), and we have some all-Muslim schools possibly already teaching fundamentalist dogma. They’ve been all over the news of late. As these schools are in Muslim areas, while they are technically open to everyone, it’s very unlikely that any non- Muslim will want to go there and stand out as ‘different’. Therefore we start to have a ‘them and us’ situation arising - always a danger in some segregated communities, but not, in the past, in state schools where at least the children as well as some of the parents, came together and learned to tolerate each other. I use a Muslim school as an example but segregation of any group of children is dangerous to our society.
Northern Ireland history is a very different story and the sectarian divide has been exacerbated by separate schools. While it’s relatively peaceful at the moment, it will take generations for the mistrust between Catholic and Protestant communities to fade. Until the children mix at school the troubles will rumble on. I thought we’d just about understood that, but it seems we’re in danger of not learning from their mistakes.
To emphasise the divide between the two communities in N Ireland…there is an old joke: At a roadblock in Belfast a driver is asked if he’s a Mick or a Prod? I’m a Jew! says the driver. Ah but are you a Catholic Jew or a Protestant Jew?!

 

[Kelt]

^^^ See this is the kind of stuff I’m talking about. You have naive youngsters who, upon the authority of their high school biology teachers and introductory biology course instructor, spout this kind of religious dogma as if it were “science”. This is no different than teaching creationism, but there’s no rabid atheists calling for us to keep this kind of religion out of the science class rooms.

Hey since we’re posting quotes from the Descent of Man…

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”- Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

It’s funny how people name the theory of evolution after this racist and eugenicist instead of its co-discoverer Alfred Russel Wallace, who was not like that.

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make in your first paragraph…are you likening the theory of evolution to a religion? Or have I got that wrong?
I don’t think you can accuse Darwin of being a eugenicist…he’s a man of the 19th century and just being objective - as he saw it! He could see that we ‘civilised’ people would soon wipe out some of the more ‘primitive’ peoples, which we are doing, by destroying their environment, giving them diseases to which they have no immunity or just by intermarriage. There are now no true Maori people left in NZ for example. As for our primate cousins, we are on course for wiping them out in the wild.
As for racist, well, that attitude to other races was how it was in the 19th century. It was what allowed colonialism and slavery. It sounds hideous to us now, because we have progressed! We would have to call most people in the west in the 19th century ‘racist’.
Darwin couldn’t get every detail right…it’s his theory of modification by natural selection that is proved to be true by modern research, whether you consider him to be a racist or not. And yes, Wallace should get more recognition.

 

[Kelt]

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.

Actually, ‘History’ when written by the victor, HAS to be treated with care! History has constantly been rewritten after the event…it happened to varying extents after the American civil war, after the Rwandan genocide, after WWI and II and, I very much expect, after the English civil war etc etc throughout time. A modern history student is taught the importance of source material and it’s interpretation in their study of history. This doesn’t mean that they ‘re-write’ history…on the contrary, they try to get more to the truth by being aware of possible inaccuracies and/or bias of those sources.

 

[Kelt]

I doubt that, especially in Eastern Europe in places like Germany. I personally can see the cultural differences for instance between my Eastern European grandparents and my Western European grandparents. It’s clear to me how things are.

…and the whole continent is bent on unity -as if it’s the most valuable ideology of all time … It’s not.

I just read your post here. I’m not sure you ARE quite so clear on ‘how things are’.
A war on our continent is still in living memory here in UK. My own generation was brought up by parents who had suffered directly from the conflict - not just the fighting troops but physical and mental damage from bombing. I can remember bomb-sites and scars on surviving buildings in cities which took years to rebuild. I listened recently to a man who described, as a child, coming up from the underground in London to see dead bodies all over the place and running home to see if he still had a home. My family got to know German people not so long after the war - there was a sad, unspoken tension at times when we remembered our parents had been enemies. Yes, I’m for unity, I’m for living and trading with my neighbours in Europe. I hate to see the anti-Europe brigade here, trying to whip up Nationalism. United, we have each other’s interests at heart.
If you can see differences between your European grandparents, it’s probably because they are your GRANDparents and are from another generation. Today we are not so different between countries in Europe…there ARE differences and the E U is not without problems but it’s good to be unified.

 

[Hans_W]

…lol……

Okay, you get points for that one -but not because you out maneuvered me. That was more like a penalty shot because you got me on grammar. What I meant was astronomy, not astrology.

(I don’t follow astrology at all… Hilarious.)

…what is interesting though, involving crystal balls, is that it would only take one molecule of iron to reach the outer layer of a red giant to cause a simultaneous chain reaction explosion of that sun, which would leave behind a moon-sized crystal ball core floating in space. It’s just a “fun-fact” I heard once.

But it would be equally interesting, IMO, to observe a giant crystal ball in space. Not with any hypothesis or theories attached. But just to observe it, and watch it’s orbit style, and take note of things. That would be some good science.

Yes, let’s ignore that Freudian slip of mixing up astronomy with astrology, but didn’t you have biology in your list of favorite science subjects?

How then can you disagree with 99.9% of biologists who accept evolution? In 1973 Theodosius Dobzhansky, an Orthodox Christian, put it very simply “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”. And in the last four decades we have uncovered tons of more evidence.

 

[Hans_W]

A better course for student scientists, would be to learn how to observe unbiasedly, without clinging to previous theories, because to build one theory on another theory upon another theory will eventually create a huge margin of error.

The best course of science is always unbiased observation. Eventually, we’ll evolve to this point I think, because a huge collection of data is much more productive than theory building. It allows for change rather than trying to find ways to maintain.

A scientific theory is the best explanation for a great variety of observations and findings. It is well-substantiated and corroborated within various related scientific disciplines. Of course, it is based on induction and therefore will always be open to be proven wrong.

Scientific theories are constantly being checked against the real world. If a theory conflicts with any observation, it needs to be modified, or replaced with a better theory.
One famous example is when Newton’s theory of classical mechanics was replaced with Einstein’s theory.

Can you give us some examples when, in your opinion, our observations are biased, when we cling to old theories, or when we try to build one theory on another one?

 

[Hans_W]

^^^ See this is the kind of stuff I’m talking about. You have naive youngsters who, upon the authority of their high school biology teachers and introductory biology course instructor, spout this kind of religious dogma as if it were “science”. This is no different than teaching creationism, but there’s no rabid atheists calling for us to keep this kind of religion out of the science class rooms.

Have you got a more recent quote for biology teachers teaching religious dogma?

 

[Hans_W]

I know you’re right. Sadly, I just never seem to learn

Edit: Perhaps it’s because I myself once, in my late teens, was a creationist, and saw reason. But I’m starting to wonder if I’m an exception.

No, you are not the only one. Sadly, there are others who become atheists once they introduce reason into their thinking. As children they have been brainwashed: you either believe in God, or you believe in science.

I thank God every day that I grew up in a good Catholic home, where I was encouraged to look at God’s wonderful world with an open mind, supported by all the knowledge we have accumulated over the last few centuries.

 

[Hans_W]

…and by “settle down”, I’m assuming you mean universal acceptance of some theories that the scientific heierarchy lays down as dogma. Perhaps even scientific method as a moral obligation.

IMO, no “theories” need to be taught mandatory in order to teach young people how to make critical observations or to dissect or to do chemistry. There’s really no bad consequence that can come from excluding theories altogether from the classroom. Is there…?

You really don’t have a high opinion of scientific theories. I wonder how science could ever have been your “favorite subject”.

How do you imagine teaching chemistry, or say astronomy, without bothering with any theories. Wouldn’t that take us back to alchemy and astrology?

 

[TEPO]

Can you give us some examples when, in your opinion, our observations are biased, when we cling to old theories, or when we try to build one theory on another one?

Well, dark matter and dark energy seem to stem from a theory that’s in place already. Although the “dark” concept is still in hypothesis mode, it’s very existence stems from figures that didn’t quite add up from a theory -so something needed to be created to fit the missing piece of the puzzle.

 

[TEPO]

Yes, let’s ignore that Freudian slip of mixing up astronomy with astrology, but didn’t you have biology in your list of favorite science subjects?

How then can you disagree with 99.9% of biologists who accept evolution? In 1973 Theodosius Dobzhansky, an Orthodox Christian, put it very simply “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”. And in the last four decades we have uncovered tons of more evidence.

As I pointed out previously, I do actually believe in evolution. I just also happen to believe that there are other forces at work that exist outside what we know now -like the reason we are able to mutate after time in a direction that relates to our environment. I don’t believe that natural selection is the sole force for why we mutated from tiny microscopic one celled creatures to what we are now.

I’m also fascinated in the fact that there are anti-mutation forces at work within our bodies -such as gaining tolerance to medication, etc. there’s a resistance to change and there is a allowance for change as well.

…this is very similar to our all-too-human ‘traditional’ and ‘progressive’ dilemmas that we face in politics and in so many other aspects of our lives -it’s as if our activities represent life. It’s as if human minds mirrors life itself in so many ways… It’s almost as if by studying humans we could gain a better understanding of life. As if science and philosophy and anthropology could be blended in such a way as to be better than each one is independently. This is why I’m against the method used solely by itself.

 

[edwest2]

No, you are not the only one. Sadly, there are others who become atheists once they introduce reason into their thinking. As children they have been brainwashed: you either believe in God, or you believe in science.

I thank God every day that I grew up in a good Catholic home, where I was encouraged to look at God’s wonderful world with an open mind, supported by all the knowledge we have accumulated over the last few centuries.

Sadly, biology textbooks introduce obvious bias:

We can see this in current biology textbooks:

“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose — Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; emphasis in original.)

“Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.”
(Stephen J Gould quoted in Biology, by Peter H Raven & George B Johnson (5th ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pg 15; (6th ed., McGraw Hill, 2000), pg. 16.)

“By coupling **undirected, purposeless **variation to the **blind, uncaring **process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.”
(Evolutionary Biology, by Douglas J. Futuyma (3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc., 1998), p. 5.)

“Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that **matter is the stuff of all existence **and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
(Biology: Discovering Life by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed… D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphases in original.)

“Adopting this view of the world means accepting not only the processes of evolution, but also the view that the living world is constantly evolving, and that evolutionary change occurs without any goals.’ The idea that **evolution is not directed **towards a final goal state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself.”
(Life: The Science of Biology by William K. Purves, David Sadava, Gordon H. Orians, & H. Craig Keller, (6th ed., Sinauer; W.H. Freeman and Co., 2001), pg. 3.)

“The ‘blind’ watchmaker is natural selection. **Natural selection is totally blind **to the future. “**Humans are fundamentally not exceptional **because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and brains “Natural selection is a bewilderingly simple idea. And yet what it explains is the whole of life, the diversity of life, the apparent design of life.”
(Richard Dawkins quoted in *Biology *by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reese. & Lawrence G. Mitchell (5th ed., Addison Wesley Longman, 1999), pgs. 412-413.)

“Of course, no species has 'chosen’ a strategy. Rather, its ancestors ‘little by little, generation after generation’ merely wandered into a successful way of life through the action of random evolutionary forces. Once pointed in a certain direction, a line of evolution survives only if the cosmic dice continues to roll in its favor. “[J]ust by chance, a wonderful diversity of life has developed during the billions of years in which organisms have been evolving on earth.
(Biology by Burton S. Guttman (1st ed., McGraw Hill, 1999), pgs. 36-37.)

“It is difficult to avoid the speculation that Darwin, as has been the case with others, found the implications of his theory difficult to confront. “The real difficulty in accepting Darwins theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance. Earlier, astronomy had made it clear that the earth is not the center of the solar universe, or even of our own solar system. Now the new biology asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.”
(Invitation to Biology, by Helena Curtis & N. Sue Barnes(3rd ed., Worth, 1981), pgs. 474-475.)

Peace,
Ed