• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Creationism Banned In U.K. Schools

gturner said:
Scientists say that, but they don't actually use the word "theory" that way, because they never bothered to make up another word that takes the place of "theory" when a theory bites the dust. So we still have luminiferous aether theory, the steady state theory, and caloric theory. In theory, we shouldn't still call them theories, but in fact we do.
Click to expand...

Science is taught poorly, EVERYWHERE and that's why there are is so much confusion about terms. Part of the problem is that scientist themselves don't know how to use the term. I've read more than one medical article that use the word "theorize" rather than hypothesize. The other problem as you stated that there are many bad and outdated theories that poison the well.

Some people also get confused about a scientific law, as if a law can't be violated, but Bode's law of planetary distances is a good counterexample.
Click to expand...

A scientific law is a theory in mathematical form. That's it but I've read so many text book and many refuse to explain it so clearly.
 
you mean you have no classes on sexuality (and how to avoid the consequences) at US schools?? Not surprising there are so many teenage mothers.
 
gturner said:
I think you're missing what I'm trying to get at. Currently the creation science argument is that "God did it" is somehow a valid scientific viewpoint, and they think their religious view is the only valid alternative. They sometimes have to do this before judges who are deciding whether certain education proposals have merit.
Click to expand...
I understand what you're saying just fine. You're saying that when they argue for creationism's scientific merit before a judge, they would have to prove that THEIR version of creationism is more legitimate than, say, Greek creationism or Summerian creationism.

My point is you're assuming that creationists can be defeated in a fair trial, which is exactly the sort of trial creationists go out of their way to avoid precisely because they haven't actually WON a fair trial since 1925. No judge who isn't already in their pocket would (or has) EVER found creationism to have a sound scientific basis. Thus they generally avoid trials altogether (by appealing to legislators, lobbyists, school boards and PR companies). They never actually get dragged into court until they have already used some tactic to get creationism inserted into the curriculum in the first place, in which case they are being sued for violating the religious freedom of their students, a suit they almost always loose.

When it DOES come to trial, creationists make very little serious attempt to argue the scientific merits of creationism itself because that, too, is a point they never win (unless they have bribed the fuck out of the judge, but that only seems to work on Kansas). Instead, the standard set of court arguments is either to seek to uphold the right of school boards or legislators to pass laws as they see fit (see "states rights" or "small government principals") or they argue that an alternate proposed theory is uniquely biased AGAINST Christianity and would therefore violate the establishment claus.
 
I think it's wrong to ban Creationism, or any kind of religion, in school. School is about education, not censorship. A class "Religion and ethics", that's the right way. Learn about all relevant religions, learn about all relevant philosophies, learn about their historical and social contexts, and then decide for yourself what you want to believe in.
 
TayLaLaLa said:
Bazinga!
Click to expand...
Well, our whole universe was in a hot dense state.

JarodRussell said:
I think it's wrong to ban Creationism, or any kind of religion, in school. School is about education, not censorship. A class "Religion and ethics", that's the right way. Learn about all relevant religions, learn about all relevant philosophies, learn about their historical and social contexts, and then decide for yourself what you want to believe in.
Click to expand...
Amazing, nobody ever thought that before. Thanks for sharing this surprising, thoughtful, insightful piece of wisdom that was never mentioned before in this thread, or in any other debate about the topic.

Then, when you take a few minutes off from sharing your wisdom with us, maybe notice how the discussion is about taking out Creationism (or any other religious-inspired discourse) from SCIENCE classes.
 
iguana_tonante said:
Then, when you take a few minutes off from sharing your wisdom with us, maybe notice how the discussion is about taking out Creationism (or any other religious-inspired discourse) from SCIENCE classes.
Click to expand...
Creationism attacks scientific theories with non scientific methods and pseudo science. That can and should be dealt with in a class. Use it as an example of how not to do it. It's a major contemporary issue and you can't just will it away by ignoring it. We also learned about the geocentric models in astrophysics and understand where they came from and why they are wrong. We also learned about the four elements in chemistry and understand where they came from and why that view is flawed. In biology we also mentioned the pull out method, where it came from, and why it doesn't work.

It really shouldn't be that hard to understand that you need to anticipate and tackle the arguments the kid's parents are going to use when the kid says "but in biology today we learned that...".
 
Last edited:
You have the history of the scientific method and how it emerged from scientists working out how to prove a hypothesis. In context it's an interesting background to the scientific method but it still has nothing to do with what we're talking about here.
 
JarodRussell said:
iguana_tonante said:
Then, when you take a few minutes off from sharing your wisdom with us, maybe notice how the discussion is about taking out Creationism (or any other religious-inspired discourse) from SCIENCE classes.
Click to expand...
Creationism attacks scientific theories with non scientific methods and pseudo science. That can and should be dealt with in a class. Use it as an example of how not to do it. It's a major contemporary issue and you can't just will it away by ignoring it.
Click to expand...
Which of course is what will be done. Nobody ever tried to ban talking about Creationism, but teaching Creationism as a scientific theory.

But good strawman, tho.
 
Has JarodRussell even read the bloody article I wonder? It makes it perfectly clear within the first three paragraphs precisely what is happening, and not a word of what he is blabbering on about is relevant to it.
 
JarodRussell said:
iguana_tonante said:
Then, when you take a few minutes off from sharing your wisdom with us, maybe notice how the discussion is about taking out Creationism (or any other religious-inspired discourse) from SCIENCE classes.
Click to expand...
Creationism attacks scientific theories with non scientific methods and pseudo science. That can and should be dealt with in a class. Use it as an example of how not to do it. It's a major contemporary issue and you can't just will it away by ignoring it. We also learned about the geocentric models in astrophysics and understand where they came from and why they are wrong. We also learned about the four elements in chemistry and understand where they came from and why that view is flawed. In biology we also mentioned the pull out method, where it came from, and why it doesn't work.

It really shouldn't be that hard to understand that you need to anticipate and tackle the arguments the kid's parents are going to use when the kid says "but in biology today we learned that...".
Click to expand...

It might just be me but I'm sure when I did chemistry a couple of decades ago there were 90+ elements not just 4 (unless of course you mean the so called classical elements).

As has been pointed out several times in this thread, Creationism, Intelligent Dresign etc.. have no place being taught in a science class, as they are religious in origin, they belong in Religious Classes.

It's been even longer since I did biology (my weakest science) than chemistry, but I can't remember learning anything that wasn't the correct scientific understanding at that time. So why would children and parents be getting into an argument about being taught current scientifc fact/theroy?
 
IF a child in science class asks about creationism in biology a teacher can and probably should use the opportunity to explain teh scientific method (depends on the age of the kids though and how much basic understanding they already have).

By no meansshould it be taught as an alternate equally plausible idea that deserves merrit because it IS NOT science!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top