Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
Do you have the empirical answer to your question?

Yeah but you're only young and it might scare you.

Is this what you mean by pointless twaddle. Question avoidance. Sneaky Ignore?

UK UPDATE

Quote:

Creationism 'banned from free schools'
(By Stephen Adams, The Telegraph, 20 May 2011)

Creationism, intelligent design and other theories that contradict evolution are to be banned from being taught as science in free schools.

Critics have warned that evangelical groups will be able to teach such ideas without interference, as free schools will not have to follow the national curriculum.

But now the Department for Children, Education and Schools has issued guidance explicitly stating that teaching such theories as science will not be allowed.

The "minimum requirements" guidance, published earlier this week, reads: "Creationism, intelligent design and similar ideas must not be taught as valid scientific theories."

The guidance is to help those assessing applications for free schools.

More than 300 groups have already applied to set up free schools, including one by the Everyday Champions Church in Newark, Notts., which wants to include creationism as part of the national curriculum.

In January Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, said applications from creationist groups would be considered on a case-by-case basis.

That prompted a letter from the British Centre for Science Education (BCSE), which warned that creationists intended to use free schools to launch a "concerted attack" on science education.

In March the DfE said Mr Gove was "crystal clear that teaching creationism is at odds with scientific fact".

Nonetheless, speculation continued that creationism would be allowed, as no guidance was issued on the subject.

A DfE spokesman said on Friday that Mr Gove "will not accept any academy or free school proposal which plans to teach creationism in the science curriculum or as an alternative to accepted scientific theories".

The spokesman said such ideas could be legitimately discussed as beliefs in religious education classes, but not taught as science.

Roger Stanyard from the BCSE - which describes itself as "the leading anti-creationist organisation in Europe" - said it was "largely happy" at the DfE's stance.

However, he said: "It depends how it is implemented. People will always find ways around the rules."

Pastor Gareth Morgan, leader of the Everyday Champions Church, said the guidance would have no impact on their plans to open a secondary school for 652 pupils in Newark. They submitted the application in January.

He said: "We have no intention of teaching creationism in the science curriculum. It will be taught in RE.

"It is very very clear, and has been from the start, that teaching creationism as science will not be allowed.

"We must be happy with that, or otherwise we would not have bothered submitting the proposal."

2 Replies

@wandeljw,

The Brits are smart; the US is dumb. We keep struggling with this stupid issue, because those in and out of education wants to push their religious agenda onto our children. The only way to stop this idiocy is to fine those who continue to push for creationism in our public schools is to fine millions of dollars for each incident.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I dont think so. We have a non-sectarian constitution and UK actually has a state religion. I dont think I would want that. Firstly, I would not like to have to support some airhead clerics who are using fairly tales and parables to scare us strait.

Our system requires much closer monitoring but has defined the lines over which we shouldnt use public funds to support.

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

Quote:

The spokesman said such ideas could be legitimately discussed as beliefs in religious education classes, but not taught as science.

Amen .

0 Replies

@farmerman,

I don't think Rowan Williams the Archbishop Of Canterbury goes round scaring people straight. He seems to spend most of his time trying really hard not to upset anyone.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

Is this what you mean by pointless twaddle. Question avoidance. Sneaky Ignore?

Nah!! It would scare you rl. Really. Why do you think I'm on Ignore so much and I've only been hinting.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

I was speaking in the broader sense re clergy in general. I used to be a Catholic and I was always unimpressed by the archbishop "Mumbles" Bevalaqua. Mumbles would speak general theoplatitudes and sweet 'pi e in the sky" messages. The parish priests, on the other hand, were the Shock Troops for Jesus. (of course that was when they werent molesting little boys).

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Over my life I've come to call a priest a friend. A genially good man he had his faults, but they are countered by his strengths. I'm not a Catholic so the surrender to dogma is not what I consider a strength, but from what I have observed over the years, if there is a gawd, and if gawd is with a man, father bluejeans is a good candidate. That is more than I would say for any preacher I've met.

Rap

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Don't you think it's ironic though, America has no state religion and has a huge number of 'blood and thunder,' type preachers. The UK has a state religion and as a result is the least religious country in the world.

I must admit I'm no supporter of state religion, but one of the positives is that a CofE vicar, as a civil servant is responsible for everyone in the diocese, not just his own flock. That makes reaching out to other faiths,and an increase in inter-faith dialogue part of his mandate.

3 Replies

@raprap,

There are good ones and bad ones all over. Its just that Catholics make an institution of being sanctimoneous. They refer to the rest of the world as "NON CATHOLIC" or at most "Separated bretheren" (for Orthodox Christianity).

When I learned the rules of logic and fact enough to reject the CAtholic Church Ive been more in tune with natural law and the Platonic "good". (Not that I practice it Always). Ive known several parish priests whove been examples of good priests and citizens. However, they all "circle the wagons" around these child molesters and try to somehow justify the action.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Our Constitution doesnt guarantee that "the free expression of religion" wont yield some particularly whacky practices and dogma.
Most pf us just let that roll ff our backs unless one of these jerk-off sects tries to make itself "main stream".

Our Constitution wasnt always treated as a parseable document so that every clause was defined by the US SUpreme Court. In fact, evolution was, until about the 1920's , considered a "deviant" form of theology and early (19th century) biology texts were rife with "How Creation Manifests itself" and "After the Flood" or the beliefs that man was the result of a miracle.

The very center text of the Scopes Trial, the more modern "Civic Biology" was itself loaded with bullshit science and racism, and nobody did a damned thing about that . What the Buler Act was offended about was that this text had the offending language about evolution , even though it was amazingly mild in light of what our science texts look like today.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

It's not only the Brits who has a "state" religion, but are more sectarian than the US. Many Muslim countries are the same, and in Central Asian countries, pushing any religion is a crime.

BTW, most Americans have the wrong impression of Muslims. The majority are not terrorists - no more than we have here in the US. Many of their children are multi-lingual (some speak seven languages), and are friendly towards visitors to their country. When I visited Central Asia a couple of years ago, the children would stand up in public transportation to let us seniors sit. You "never" see that in the US. They approach tourists freely to practice other languages.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

Don't you think it's ironic though, America has no state religion and has a huge number of 'blood and thunder,' type preachers. The UK has a state religion and as a result is the least religious country in the world.

Hence the reason for the separation of Church and state. To keep the US religious. Obviously. It's not ironic. It was planned. The FFs were lawyer types and didn't want any rival organisations. They had seen the status of lawyers in Rabelais.

Have you seen the alternative G8 conference? Science makes its move on politicians for control of the world. First warriors, the the Church, then politics and then Science. If it works out you get Alphaville. After that warriors have a renaissance only equipped with more than sharpened sticks.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

When I was a kid we always stood up for grown ups on buses.

Had you gone to Central Asia before the Christians arrived they would have cooked you. Or, more or less, anywhere else.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I used to teach in a rough boys' school. It was really ethnically mixed, Moslems, Sikhs, Hindus, Cof E, Protestants, Catholics(mostly Polish), Jews, Athiests, Agnostics, and kids who didn't even know what religion was. They were all little bastards, every single one.

1 Reply

@spendius,

When you were a kid, you stood up for the National Anthem in cinemas.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Your brain has been tainted by your experience in that "bad boys school."

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

You can say that again.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

I did too. Just about. The British Legion clubs play the National Anthem at the end of the night and if you don't stand up for it you get banned. So if you want to go on the coach trips with the widows you are advised to do your duty.

1 Reply

Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know