Creationism Banned In U.K. Schools

[Alidar Jarok]

The whole idea of "military" tribunals came from the UK which were used during "the Troubles" and are still in place.

The military tribunals seem more likely to be based on the ones that existed in World War II to try German saboteurs. They're similar in the sense that they're outside the normal legal norms for both the criminal justice system and our military courts (the two instances are the main examples I can think of in US history). Either way, because we have our own precedent that predates the British one, I'd imagine that's where we got the idea.

I believe that their history in the US goes back, in some form or parlance, to Revolutionary days but certainly were applied in a major way during the Civil War.

I think those were regular military tribunals - the same ones that would try soldiers. I'm talking about specialized military commissions set up for this specific purpose. I could be wrong, though. I remember Andrew Jackson's trial of two British "spies" in Florida. I don't know how regular that tribunal was.

In the Civil War, any trial by military tribunal was controversial when American courts were still operating. That's different something formally different like the US used against the German saboteurs in World War II.

 

[T'Girl]

It should be as simple as this science is taught in science class, religious beliefs taught in church/religious classes.

And if a child's parent don't take them to church-temple-mosque, and they wish to learn of religion, what better place than the public school they are already attending?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

And if a child's parent don't take them to church-temple-mosque, and they wish to learn of religion, what better place than the public school they are already attending?

Certainly not in science class, which is about, you know, science. If exposing kids in public school to elements of religion is important to a community, they should lobby their district and state to offer a course on comparative world religion, assuming it's not already available.

 

[Spider]

And if a child's parent don't take them to church-temple-mosque, and they wish to learn of religion, what better place than the public school they are already attending?

Certainly not in science class, which is about, you know, science. If exposing kids in public school to elements of religion is important to a community, they should lobby their district and state to offer a course on comparative world religion, assuming it's not already available.

There's no reason Creationism can't be taught in schools as long as it's labeled correctly, as religion, not science. If the public school can afford it, it's no different than any other class on religion or mythology.

 

[gturner]

I once wrote up a long post on Mayan creation theory, which agrees with science a hundred times more than does Judeo-Christian creationism. Their universe starts with a four-fold symmetry and folding operations on strings, along with some other complex dynamics. Then they get to some geological history, and then attempts by the committee of somewhat inept but experimenting gods to create man. The attempt prior to us resulted in monkeys, but the monkeys couldn't speak, so the gods tried again.

My thought was that if Christian creation just got of foot-note in creationist science because a much better, polytheistic creation theory existed, the Christians might back off on the idea of having their kids taught about a pantheon of bizarre Mayan gods, human sacrifice, self-mutilation, and the importance of carving out the beating hearts of captives.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

So for example hypothically if you shouted fire in a cinema falsely and caused a panic would you be procted under the First Ammendment?

Don't be facetious. That has nothing to do with freedom of expression. You could shout that everyone in the cinema is an a**hole, but you'd probably be cited for disturbing the peace.

So are you are saying it's not an absolute right? And saying it does have some exceptions?

It has quite a number of exceptions, especially if the subject of your speech turns out to be untrue (in which case you can potentially be sued for libel and/or defamation). Certain types of speech are considered disruptive (e.g. setting off fireworks in public places or shouting through bullhorns in crowded rooms) while others are explicitly prohibited (feminists' topless protests).

Oddly, the Supreme Court seems to believe that spending money counts as protected speech, so theoretically throwing money at people (e.g. handing a stack of bills to the cop who just pulled you over) is perfectly okay as long as you don't explicitly ask for something in return.

Yet it's okay to teach Big Bang in public schools?

Until a better theory comes along, yes.

just wondering why one particular "willed into existence" event is permitted and another is not.

Because Big Bang Cosmology doesn't assume anything about the "will" of the Big Bang. That, again, would be theology or philosophy, not science.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

My thought was that if Christian creation just got of foot-note in creationist science because a much better, polytheistic creation theory existed, the Christians might back off on the idea of having their kids taught about a pantheon of bizarre Mayan gods, human sacrifice, self-mutilation, and the importance of carving out the beating hearts of captives.

You erroneously assume that creationists actually CARE whether or not what their education system accurately reflects reality. That is entirely besides the point.

Creationists want the education system to conform to CHRISTIAN DOGMA, not to science, not to logic, not to reality, and not even -- strictly speaking -- to the Bible. They want their chosen worldview to be taught as unquestioned truth because doing so allows them (they think) to maintain a lockstep moral and political power bloc that conforms to the priorities of their social and political leaders.

IOW, they push creationism not because they've examined it and believe it is true, but because they have been TOLD it is true by the people they follow and because questioning the moral authority of their lives makes them deeply uncomfortable.

 

[MacLeod]

It should be as simple as this science is taught in science class, religious beliefs taught in church/religious classes.

And if a child's parent don't take them to church-temple-mosque, and they wish to learn of religion, what better place than the public school they are already attending?

I did say religious classes, so sure they can learn about the various religions and their beliefs in school and associated religious ideas just keep things like Intelligent Design/Creationism etc.. out of science and taught in those reglious classes.

 

[gturner]

My thought was that if Christian creation just got of foot-note in creationist science because a much better, polytheistic creation theory existed, the Christians might back off on the idea of having their kids taught about a pantheon of bizarre Mayan gods, human sacrifice, self-mutilation, and the importance of carving out the beating hearts of captives.

You erroneously assume that creationists actually CARE whether or not what their education system accurately reflects reality. That is entirely besides the point.

Creationists want the education system to conform to CHRISTIAN DOGMA, not to science, not to logic, not to reality, and not even -- strictly speaking -- to the Bible. They want their chosen worldview to be taught as unquestioned truth because doing so allows them (they think) to maintain a lockstep moral and political power bloc that conforms to the priorities of their social and political leaders.

IOW, they push creationism not because they've examined it and believe it is true, but because they have been TOLD it is true by the people they follow and because questioning the moral authority of their lives makes them deeply uncomfortable.

Well, that would be kind of the point of it. To them, teaching that there are many other gods is far, far worse than evolution. It goes back to the core fight between Christianity and pagans, without the panoply of pagan gods being taught as silly myths, and worse, it's not a cute, harmless polytheism from India, it's a screaming, human sacrifice paganism where they peel people's skins off and wear them as coats. It even freaked the Spanish conquistadors out. Al Qaeda and ISIS would run away screaming. Nazi SS officers would wet their pants. Baptists would burn the schools down before they would let anyone seriously teach Mayan cosmology and religion.

And yet scientifically, the Mayans were probably closer than anyone else, because the truth is not what most human cultures assumed. Whereas Christian theologians spent countless man-years agonizing over why God created diseases, and trying to explain it away, the Mayans thought that some gods think it's funny to watch humans twitch and die, bleeding from both ends, because they didn't take the trash out (blame Trashmaster).

Their religion also makes testable predictions about the world, which can be experimentally verified or refuted. That puts it into the domain of science, which is something you can't do very well with Christian creationism, which just makes excuses for everything.

As one archaeologist once put it, all the alien races on Star Trek are recognizable elements of recent Western civilization, but the Mayans were truly alien. They were so alien that the captive who knew he was going to have his skin peeled off and worn as a coat would party for a week with the family that was going to do it, because to get your skin peeled off and your chest ripped open and your heart ripped out was a great honor that had cosmological significance. Mayans would fight battles to lose their armies, hoping their warriors would be defeated, brutally tortured, and butchered in a vivid public display. And it actually makes sense, given their creation stories.

 

[gturner]

There's a bit more about UK school policy in today's UK Telegraph.

Schools face closure if they fail to promote British values

Plans for a major overhaul of Ofsted inspections will see 20,000 schools in England required to challenge parents and teachers who express support for radical Islamic practices

Schools face being closed down by the government if they fail to promote British values such as ensuring children know the difference between right and wrong, under plans to prevent extremism in the classroom.

A major overhaul of Ofsted inspections will see 20,000 schools in England required to step in to challenge parents, teachers or pupils who express support for radical Islamic practices andother beliefs contrary to the fundamental tenets of British society.

If inspectors find schools are failing to meet the new requirement, headteachers and governors could be sacked or in the worst cases the school could be closed.

 

[RoJoHen]

Shouting "Fire" in a crowded cinema is not free speech, it is illegal and you can be arrested for it.

Indeed. Freedom of Speech does not mean Freedom to disrupt society and cause a panic.

It means you're free to have opinions, and you're free to express them as you wish. Rights go out the window, however, as soon as you start putting people in danger.

 

[HIjol]

There's a bit more about UK school policy in today's UK Telegraph.

Schools face closure if they fail to promote British values

Plans for a major overhaul of Ofsted inspections will see 20,000 schools in England required to challenge parents and teachers who express support for radical Islamic practices

Schools face being closed down by the government if they fail to promote British values such as ensuring children know the difference between right and wrong, under plans to prevent extremism in the classroom.

A major overhaul of Ofsted inspections will see 20,000 schools in England required to step in to challenge parents, teachers or pupils who express support for radical Islamic practices andother beliefs contrary to the fundamental tenets of British society.

If inspectors find schools are failing to meet the new requirement, headteachers and governors could be sacked or in the worst cases the school could be closed.

Hmmm...seems like Creationism is not the only thing on the radar...

...with all due respect as an American full of love and admiration
for the Empire (nothing but sincerity here) is anyone else seeing the above news item as a Slippery Slope?...

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Shouting "Fire" in a crowded cinema is not free speech, it is illegal and you can be arrested for it.

Falsely shouting fire.

Just want to emphasize the phrase is "falsely shouting fire."

 

[CorporalCaptain]

is anyone else seeing the above news item as a Slippery Slope?...

Not really, if for no other reason then because it's the government's purview to regulate the schools, similarly to how it is here in the states. But that really is a discussion for another forum, and not about science or science education, isn't it?

 

[Spider]

Public schools, paid for by our tax dollars, are places of learning for the kids. The curriculum should be open so the students can move in a direction they like, but yet still be required to learn science, math, language, history, and whatever. I don't care if they offer a course on witchcraft as long as it's labeled correctly.

But political agendas have to stay out of public schools while still teaching the political process. The subject of the thread is Creationism and this is being pushed by the religious right wing Republicans. Most people don't believe in Creationism nonsense even if they are religious. I would like to see the outcry from the far right if a Global Warming class or a truly informational Human Sexuality class were offered.

Curriculum issues should be handled between the school boards and the people who voted them in anyway. If that's not how it's done where you live, then you should vote to change that. Of course half the damn country can't be bothered to vote but that's another issue.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Creationism is a religious construct and is as valid as Jainism, Hinduism, I could go on but you get my drift.

Oooo-weeeeeee are you reading me wrong...please let me try again, more simply...in NO way am I saying ANY religious beliefs are wrong...NO way...I am simply saying that, as of today, none of the ideas about where we started from can be proven BY SCIENTIFIC METHOD

Decker, I don't think he gets your drift.

Yet it's okay to teach Big Bang in public schools?

There is science to back up the Big Bang, science that can be observed and tested.

Metryq does not "believe" in the Big Bang theory, or in any current cosmological model, really. Basically because maths is hard and he doesn't want to deal with it.

 

[MacLeod]

There's a bit more about UK school policy in today's UK Telegraph.

Schools face closure if they fail to promote British values

Plans for a major overhaul of Ofsted inspections will see 20,000 schools in England required to challenge parents and teachers who express support for radical Islamic practices

Schools face being closed down by the government if they fail to promote British values such as ensuring children know the difference between right and wrong, under plans to prevent extremism in the classroom.

A major overhaul of Ofsted inspections will see 20,000 schools in England required to step in to challenge parents, teachers or pupils who express support for radical Islamic practices andother beliefs contrary to the fundamental tenets of British society.

If inspectors find schools are failing to meet the new requirement, headteachers and governors could be sacked or in the worst cases the school could be closed.

Hmmm...seems like Creationism is not the only thing on the radar...

...with all due respect as an American full of love and admiration
for the Empire (nothing but sincerity here) is anyone else seeing the above news item as a Slippery Slope?...

How is promoting British values in Britain a slippary slope? people come to places like the UK and US because of values such as free speech etc.. Promoting British values isn't much different than saying if you want to live and work in this country you should be conversant in English. If for example I moved to Germany would it not be wise of me to learn the language?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

My thought was that if Christian creation just got of foot-note in creationist science because a much better, polytheistic creation theory existed, the Christians might back off on the idea of having their kids taught about a pantheon of bizarre Mayan gods, human sacrifice, self-mutilation, and the importance of carving out the beating hearts of captives.

You erroneously assume that creationists actually CARE whether or not what their education system accurately reflects reality. That is entirely besides the point.

Creationists want the education system to conform to CHRISTIAN DOGMA, not to science, not to logic, not to reality, and not even -- strictly speaking -- to the Bible. They want their chosen worldview to be taught as unquestioned truth because doing so allows them (they think) to maintain a lockstep moral and political power bloc that conforms to the priorities of their social and political leaders.

IOW, they push creationism not because they've examined it and believe it is true, but because they have been TOLD it is true by the people they follow and because questioning the moral authority of their lives makes them deeply uncomfortable.

Well, that would be kind of the point of it. To them, teaching that there are many other gods is far, far worse than evolution.

Which is why they would not under any circumstances allow that to happen.

It goes back to the core fight between Christianity and pagans

Actually it doesn't go back nearly that far because Christianity found it easier to assimilate pagan beliefs than crush them outright.

Really, it goes back to the doctrinal fights between Christians themselves. It's one thing to speak of "Christian Creationism" in the context of, say, Pagan or Islamic or Zoroastrian creation myths. But which denomination gets the final say on what creationism really is? Should we include the Catholic depiction of original sin, or the Witness' interpretation of predestination? Do we teach a literal six-day creation cycle or an allegorical six thousand year cycle?

Modern Christians have no trouble at all suppressing alternate religions. It's suppressing EACH OTHER they have trouble with, and keeping those doctrinal fights out of political discourse (and vice versa) is exactly the reason why church and state were separated in the first place.

And yet scientifically, the Mayans were probably closer than anyone else, because the truth is not what most human cultures assumed.

And if Creationists cared what the Mayans thought, they wouldn't be creationists.

 

[gturner]

But my point is that the creationists have had to try an argue their case in court against a large array of scientists. The Mayan angle raises a completely new argument for them to confront, which is why their version of creationism should get to be taught alongside science when there is a much better creation story that they themselves are suppressing or ignoring, and which agrees much more closely with known facts. In science, you don't teach your third or fourth best theories (like steady-state cosmology, luminiferous aether, or the miasma theory of disease, you teach what is best confirmed and best fits the evidence. This makes it much harder for them to argue that they're just offering an "alternate" theory because they're not offering up the better alternate theory, simply because the reject it on purely religious grounds.

Legally, this is like having your hard-fought, expensive, and self-financed court case against a corporation interrupted by a lawyer who establishes that if you do win it, the entire multi-million dollar judgment will go to your bitterly-despised ex-wife and her new husband.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

But my point is that the creationists have had to try an argue their case in court against a large array of scientists.

No, they have specifically avoided doing that whenever it was possible to do so, mainly because the scientists invariably grip the massive logical and scientific holes in their case and proceed to rip it to pieces in five minutes or less. There hasn't been a serious attempt to argue creationism on its own merits since the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925.

The preferred tactic is to hire unprincipled and unaccredited hacks who self-identify as "experts" in some field or another but really function more as political lobbyists and hucksters and never do any actual research of their own. For them, it's not about being right about creationism or even about mainstream science, it's about not having to be told (and not having people tell their children) that they are WRONG.

Just to be clear: on some level, most creationists really DO know that they are wrong. It's having to be reminded of this all the time that they are seeking to avoid. There's nothing more frustrating to conservatives and zealots than having to defend a belief system that has already proven indefensible.

Legally, this is like having your hard-fought, expensive, and self-financed court case against a corporation interrupted by a lawyer who establishes that if you do win it, the entire multi-million dollar judgment will go to your bitterly-despised ex-wife and her new husband.

And the creationist response would be to fabricate documents proving that she was never your wife and isn't really married. Or, failing that, to avoid bringing up the lawsuit in the first place and simply lobby the government to take legislative action against that corporation, bribing half of congress along the way.