Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Teaching Creationism As Science Now Banned In Britain's Schools

Soulskill posted about 4 months ago | from the pi-is-exactly-3 dept.

Education 649

sandbagger sends this news from io9: In what's being heralded as a secular triumph, the U.K. government has banned the teaching of creationism as science in all existing and future academies and free schools. The new clauses, which arrived with very little fanfare last week, state that the "requirement for every academy and free school to provide a broad and balanced curriculum in any case prevents the teaching of creationism as evidence based theory in any academy or free school." So, if an academy or free school teaches creationism as scientifically valid, it's breaking the funding agreement to provide a "broad and balanced curriculum." ... In addition to the new clauses, the UK government clarified the meaning of creationism, reminding everyone that it's a minority view even within the Church of England and the Catholic Church.

cancel ×

649 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Yep. (5, Insightful)

ledow (319597) | about 4 months ago | (#47267207)

Because sometimes, just sometimes, we actually have a brain.

Re:Yep. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47267303)

Don't congratulate yourself too hard. This was only ever a problem in free schools*; teaching creationism in state schools was never even considered. It's worth pointing out that the education system in the UK is very different from that in the US: for one thing, local residents and local government have no say in the curricula.

*These are a recent invention here, ones where parents and the public at large have a much bigger say in how the school is run. They can have faith-based schooling so long as the Department for Education is satisfied that they meet a bare minimum standard of the basics.

Re:Yep. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47267999)

So we're celebrating the State being able to dictate what can and cannot be taught? Great. I'm sure they'll never abuse that power for something insensible.

HALLELUJAH! :D :D :D (3, Funny)

Ann O'Nymous-Coward (460094) | about 4 months ago | (#47267217)

A beautiful victory for intelligence (as opposed to intelligent design (TM)(R)(C))

INB4 endless butthurt from Cretinists, er, Creationists.

Re:HALLELUJAH! :D :D :D (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47267377)

Using "hallelujah" as a response is quite ironic in this instance...

Re:HALLELUJAH! :D :D :D (1)

Alain Williams (2972) | about 4 months ago | (#47267527)

Why was this modded down as 'troll' ? It is deliciously funny!

Re:HALLELUJAH! :D :D :D (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47267769)

Why was this modded down as 'troll' ?

Because right wing assholes have too many moderation points... and they are definitely abusing their privileges.

A minority view? (1)

TsuruchiBrian (2731979) | about 4 months ago | (#47267225)

In addition to the new clauses, the UK government clarified the meaning of creationism, reminding everyone that it's a minority view even within the Church of England and the Catholic Church.

I suppose by creationism, they mean the idea that all animals were created at once, rather than simply the idea that God created animals?

Re:A minority view? (5, Informative)

ledow (319597) | about 4 months ago | (#47267273)

You could just read TFA:

"[A]ny doctrine or theory which holds that natural biological processes cannot account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth and therefore rejects the scientific theory of evolution."

Basically, if you claim that anything other than simple biology was at work in creating animals, then you lose your funding (and possibly right to call yourselves a school).

You can claim that God made biology possible by creating a universe in which biology could make them exist, but you can't claim that God "created" animals at all.

Re:A minority view? (2, Insightful)

TsuruchiBrian (2731979) | about 4 months ago | (#47267477)

You could just read TFA:

I guess....

You can claim that God made biology possible by creating a universe in which biology could make them exist, but you can't claim that God "created" animals at all.

This seems like a pretty dumb rule. If I claim human beings created computers, am I wrong because it turns out that computers are actually directly created by industrial machines?

By saying you think God created the universe you are still saying that God created all life (and probably that he knew he was creating life), but that evolution is the mechanism by which life was created (i.e. evolution can still be true even if God created the animals).

So really it seems that the heart of the issue is more to do with whether you are allowed to claim evolution is false, and less to do with claiming that God created life (which I would assume every religious person believes).

Re:A minority view? (1)

stinerman (812158) | about 4 months ago | (#47267543)

AFAICT, it looks like you can't use God scientific evidence of anything. This makes sense because the existence of a creator cannot be empirically determined (can you think of a repeatable experiment that would prove or disprove that there is a creator?). That is unless the creator revealed himself to us, at which point, the study of the creator would be a science.

Re:A minority view? (5, Interesting)

TsuruchiBrian (2731979) | about 4 months ago | (#47267955)

can you think of a repeatable experiment that would prove or disprove that there is a creator?

I suppose this would be similar to thinking of an experiment that would prove or disprove that some same particular species of spider lives in the rainforest.

The experiment is "look for the spider", and if you find it, then it exists, and if you don't, then you don't really know, but it makes sense to tentatively assume the null hypothesis (that it doesn't exist).

In this sense, the God hypothesis is not unfalsifiable in principle, just in practice. It's important to note this difference between falsifiability in principle and practice. The Higgs boson hypothesis was falsifiable by an experiment involving the LHC. The LHC didn't exist in the 18th century so if the Higgs boson were proposed in the 18th century would not have been practically falsifiable, but it was still falsifiable in principle (i.e. a machine like the LHC could one day, maybe hundreds of years in the future, be constructed).

There is a good argument to be made that the existence of God is also not falsifiable in principle. You could have a super powerful alien capable of destroying entire worlds and causing us to hallucinate in anyway it desires. You could never really trust that an entity claiming to be the creator of the whole universe was telling the truth. Any beings significantly more technologically advanced than us would be practically indistinguishable from a God.

Also, even if there were really a God that created our universe, this God could not know for sure that he was really God in the sense that he couldn't know that there was nothing greater than himself (for the same way that we atheists can't know that there is nothing greater than us).

But if it turns out that God's existence is unfalsifiable in principle, then this means that even God presenting himself to us, is still not sufficient proof for his existence, because we don't even have a way to verify that a being is really God (i.e. that there is nothing greater) and not just some extremely powerful being.

If a powerful being showed us a video of himself creating the universe, we can probably assume he is powerful enough to fabricate a video. Obviously the proof is probably not going to be a conventional video, but whatever form the proof takes, it doesn't matter. We can assume that a sufficiently powerful being could convince us of anything, regardless of whether it's true or false.

Re:A minority view? (5, Informative)

NoKaOi (1415755) | about 4 months ago | (#47267503)

Basically, if you claim that anything other than simple biology was at work in creating animals, then you lose your funding (and possibly right to call yourselves a school).

No, only if you make it those claims (because they violate the scientific method) in a class that you label as "science." Nothing is preventing a school from teaching it in a class labeled as "theology." The point is to be clear that one idea is based on evidence backed up using the scientific method ("science"), while the other is based on belief without evidence and/or despite evidence to the contrary ("faith" or "theology"), or with supposed evidence that cannot be validated using the scientific method (pseudoscience).

Re:A minority view? (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 4 months ago | (#47268081)

So basically, you can still teach God as an evidence based theory, but not that evolution does not exist?

Re:A minority view? (5, Informative)

sumdumass (711423) | about 4 months ago | (#47267289)

Actually, if I read the summery correct and it is actually representative of the article and life in reality, by creationism they mean scientific support of creation either all animals created at once or by God creating them.

Or in other words, it doesn't ban the teaching, just the teaching that it is " as evidence based theory". You could likely teach it as a "this is what people used to believe until evidence showed this" and get buy with it.

Re:A minority view? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47267439)

"summery" ? You "mean summary", right?

"life in reality" ?? means what exactly?

"get buy with it"? I guess you mean "get by with it"

username "sumdamass", yes you are...., or a troll....

Re:A minority view? (1, Funny)

sumdumass (711423) | about 4 months ago | (#47267581)

Wow..Are you bored or just need to feel better about yourself today?

Oh, and it is sumdumass not sumdamass while we are not picking.

Re:A minority view? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47267723)

not picking

*nit picking

Re:A minority view? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47267787)

It was a beautiful summer day here, with skimpily dressed girls and boys ogling and copulating as it is customary at the mid-summer days. At this time of year it's always alright to use the word summery.

Re:A minority view? (3, Interesting)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 4 months ago | (#47267665)

Yes, you could teach it in a balanced way by looking at several creation myths from various religions, include it in a discussion of the enlightenment and maybe more people will leave HS understanding that religion and science split because blind faith and reason are fundamentally incompatible.

Re:A minority view? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47267323)

You're dealing with Anglicans here. They tend not to interpret the bible all that literally. If you were to say to one that the Universe was created in an instant over ten billion years ago they'd be much more likely to say "well, duh" than to start ranting about how it was hashed out over a week only 6000 years ago.

Re:A minority view? (4, Informative)

hendrips (2722525) | about 4 months ago | (#47267957)

And it's been that way for a while. The Archbishop of Canterbury, more-or-less the leader of the Anglican Communion, announced his enthusiastic acceptance of the basic tenants of the theory of evolution...in 1884.

Why is this news? (1)

X10 (186866) | about 4 months ago | (#47267279)

I mean, teach "creationism" in schools? Really.....

Re:Why is this news? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47267897)

They are trying their damnedest to do that in many of the States. Texas being the forefront of their movement, but not alone. We can only hope that this decision will some how affect our practices, but I doubt that. It is on the level of a Pyrrhic victory for the non-religious people of the US.

Çreationism and Northern Ireland (1)

jaeztheangel (2644535) | about 4 months ago | (#47267283)

Growing up in Holywood, Northern Ireland I went to a very religious independent grammar school.

While atheists and even atheism itself was generally frowned upon I have to say as the first Muslim and non-pink person to attend - I was very glad to have gone there and grown.

Despite what people may think the teaching there is some of the best in the UK and even with the deep and sincere commitment to faith you have an equally deep and sincere commitment to scientific enquiry and truth. We were never taught creationism, and any school or teacher considering it would have been politely but firmly shown the door.

I guess the thinking was us kids would need our wits about us out here to survive.

Ignorance usually leads to inequity (1)

EngineeringStudent (3003337) | about 4 months ago | (#47267295)

There is not one creationism. To treat it as a monolith is false.

Old-earth creationists are given short shrift in this approach - an approach that is not about being anti-religious. Atheism is not the same thing as pro-Scientific.

Questions of the super-natural are, by definition, outside of the scope of proper science. Science is about the natural.

Re: Ignorance usually leads to inequity (2)

Sasayaki (1096761) | about 4 months ago | (#47267355)

Sure. And that's fine. You can have religious questions in philosophy class, alongside Greek myths, African tribal legends, etc. If a student chooses to believe Zeus had sex with a swan and had a daughter that's okay, as long as it's not presented to the students by the faculty as plausible.

It's only when the school is presenting any religiously influenced doctrine as true when the scientific consensus disagrees that we have problems.

Science is not consensus (-1, Flamebait)

hsthompson69 (1674722) | about 4 months ago | (#47267525)

Science is the process of approaching the truth through the development and testing of necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypotheses.

There are cases when the scientific consensus is in fact, a religiously influenced doctrine (take AGW for example). The way we discern between science and not-science is by looking for the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.

Re:Science is not consensus (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47267557)

Science is not consensus, but non-experts would do well to heed scientific consensus, as it's likely to take them closer to the truth. Not always, but it's the best we've got.

Re:Science is not consensus (2, Interesting)

hsthompson69 (1674722) | about 4 months ago | (#47267593)

Actually, the best we've got is the scientific method, which democratizes knowledge by insisting that instead of simply *asserting* something, authorities must present a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis.

Experts may be necessary to construct these hypotheses, or even collect the data necessary to test them, but non-experts would do well to insist on the scientific method rather than a vote of a group of people in lab coats.

Feynman said it best, "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."

Re:Science is not consensus (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47267785)

Actually, the best we've got is the scientific method

Not for normal people who have no time to go around designing their own experiments or constantly reading about others' findings.

but non-experts would do well to insist on the scientific method rather than a vote of a group of people in lab coats.

Yes, and when there is scientific consensus, it's a good bet that the scientific method was used.

Re:Ignorance usually leads to inequity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47267357)

Questions of the super-natural are, by definition, outside of the scope of proper science. Science is about the natural.

A big fan of quantum mechanics then ?

Re:Ignorance usually leads to inequity (3, Interesting)

Immerman (2627577) | about 4 months ago | (#47267441)

Not really - old, new, or entirely unrelated to Christianity - if you claim that the creation of life by a supernatural being is position backed by scientific evidence, you are either misinformed or outright lying. At best you can insert a "God of the Gaps", but even that, by definition, has no supporting scientific evidence.

Proper science is falsifiable. (1)

hsthompson69 (1674722) | about 4 months ago | (#47267513)

"super-natural" is a buzzword - the real criteria for science is falsifiability.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org... [stephenjaygould.org]

No form of "creationism" I've ever been presented with has had a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement, but I'm welcome to hear one if you think you have one.

Good news for atheists! (2, Funny)

Tumbleweed (3706) | about 4 months ago | (#47267321)

Personally, I'm Eastern Orthodox Atheist.

But I'm not religious about it. :)

Re:Good news for atheists! (1)

NEDHead (1651195) | about 4 months ago | (#47267733)

Thank god!

Re:Good news for atheists! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47267981)

No need to thank me, just leave a monetary donation on the way out.

Re:Good news for atheists! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47268061)

Personally, I'm Eastern Orthodox Atheist.

But I'm not religious about it. :)

Ramen!

Headline should read (4, Insightful)

Sasayaki (1096761) | about 4 months ago | (#47267327)

Britain Rules Teaching Children Known Falsehoods In Science Class For Religious Reasons Now Deemed Inappropriate

Good. Honestly, though, this isn't a huge deal for Britain. Almost every developed country has this policy either formally or de-facto.

If this came out of the US, though, holy balls it would be big. The US seems to be the only country where a sizable body of Christians are allowed to lie for Jesus to impressionable children, or worse, genuinely believe creationist excrement and are still permitted to use their authority to teach it to others.

Re:Headline should read (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47268013)

many third world countries have the same policy.
The US is the only place I can think of where they try to teach that shit, other than maybe some terrorist hell hole.

Now they have to ban PARENTS from talking about it (0)

mi (197448) | about 4 months ago | (#47267337)

Forcing government-run schools, or the private schools needing government's license to continue to exist, is easy. But that is not good enough.

Now a way must be found to prevent parents from poisoning the young minds with things, the government considers incorrect.

This is harder — and may involve asking pupils to report their parents' attempts to teach them wrong things to the government, who may then have to talk to the offenders and, in the particularly hard cases, take their children into protective custody.

Re:Now they have to ban PARENTS from talking about (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47267449)

So you want the government to mandate and enforce behaviors. Much like the Taliban and other muslim governments do? You must realize that once a government enforces personal behaviors, its a matter of time until someone determines that a belief YOU have is unacceptable.

Schools teaching evidence based science is one thing, forcing parents into your personal pattern of behavior because that is what YOU think is right is so far out of the bounds of our constitution that i am amazed any advanced western intellect would conceive of it.

That assumes that you are an advanced western intelligence. That is obviously arguable.

Re:Now they have to ban PARENTS from talking about (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about 4 months ago | (#47267497)

Does advanced western intelligence include the ability to detect sarcasm?

Re:Now they have to ban PARENTS from talking about (1, Informative)

sumdumass (711423) | about 4 months ago | (#47267729)

It's hard to detect sarcasm when speaking of this nature about Brittan. The government there already places surveillance cameras in private homes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]

http://www.infowars.com/uk-gov... [infowars.com]

Now I know someone will say but those are slanted and biased sites. Yes they are and they are somewhat polar opposite in their slants so it should mean the story is true. However, for the crazy still needing more, it appears the local governments don't want left out of the fun filled craze.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... [dailymail.co.uk]

Re:Now they have to ban PARENTS from talking about (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about 4 months ago | (#47267451)

Now a way must be found to prevent parents from poisoning the young minds with things the vast majority of the scientific community considers incorrect.

That's better, just a minor correction.

There's no reason to outlaw parents from teaching their children mythology as if it were commonly accepted fact, just like they did not outlaw schools from doing so. The school would just lose its government funding. I'm not sure if there would be a similar kind of incentive to get parents to also refrain from spouting mythology and legend as though it were fact, but if so it would certainly help promote the raising of a generation of free thinkers. Requiring schools to stick to actual facts is a decent start though, hopefully it spreads.

Re:Now they have to ban PARENTS from talking about (1)

uCallHimDrJ0NES (2546640) | about 4 months ago | (#47267599)

He was kidding, Amicus. You're creeping me out.

Re:Now they have to ban PARENTS from talking about (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about 4 months ago | (#47267767)

I know he's kidding, he was using hyperbole to suggest that this is government overreach. I don't think it is.

Re:Now they have to ban PARENTS from talking about (1)

uCallHimDrJ0NES (2546640) | about 4 months ago | (#47267863)

I know he's kidding, he was using hyperbole to suggest that this is government overreach. I don't think it is.

Even creepier. Also, I consulted every site on the Internet and a consortium of literature professors, and they told me you don't know what "hyperbole" means. You may have been looking for "satire".

Re:Now they have to ban PARENTS from talking about (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about 4 months ago | (#47267927)

Also, I consulted every site on the Internet and a consortium of literature professors, and they told me you don't know what "hyperbole" means. You may have been looking for "satire".

The funny thing about that is that I looked up the definition of hyperbole less than 30 minutes before I wrote that because I didn't want to use it incorrectly somewhere else. Maybe it was just on my mind. I'm pretty sure that's irony.

Re:Now they have to ban PARENTS from talking about (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47267509)

Your unbelievable. And why should I take your belief system (whatever it may be, God not) and use it to teach my kids. The government, or you have no business forcing me to teach my kids anything. And you certainly don't have more authority than the parents. There are many other things besides where we came from. Without introducing anything else, I would argue that you have no scientific foundation for imposing any laws or way of live on someone. What scientific law gives the government or you any authority of me more my children!?

Re:Now they have to ban PARENTS from talking about (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47267951)

"government, or you have no business forcing me to teach my kids anything" well if you live in the uk Im afraid the Government does Your a SUBJECT not a citizen.

The queen through parliment owns you and there are still lots of statute on the boxes to this effect.

Hear, hear! (1)

uCallHimDrJ0NES (2546640) | about 4 months ago | (#47267587)

Finally, someone with the strength and will to power to come out and say what must be done in order to bring about our glorious new age of perfect government-approved science and PROGRESS! Are we holding any rallies soon? Where can we sign up? Also, I have an incinerator-making company in need of construction contracts, and some remote campsite locations for sale. Who's with us?

Peer reviewed evidence wins (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47267353)

To all creationists, before you sound off, I have one simple question for you:

What peer reviewed evidence do you have to support the existence of a god ?

Until you can answer that question, your ideas have no place in science class.

You show me yours, I'll show you mine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47267591)

Not a creationist here, but a Christian with an actual scientific degree from a respected university.

What peer reviewed evidence do you have to support the non-existence of a god ?

Until you can answer that question, teaching my children that there is no god has no place in science class.

(Leave religion and philosophy to theologians and philosophers - the scientific method can be applied to most anything else, thanks.)

Is God falsifiable? (3, Insightful)

hsthompson69 (1674722) | about 4 months ago | (#47267653)

Science, at its most basic, requires falsifiability.

The "God" question (or the "which God" question), is not subject to falsifiability, and therefore, clearly doesn't belong in a science class. If that question should come up, it should be clearly answered with "gods are not falsifiable, so they don't belong in science class - ask a theologian or philosopher".

Now if by denying a 7 day creation period for the planet in science class, we're implicitly denying the existence of God, and your kids pick up on that, I'm not terribly sympathetic. Science may not speak to whether or not God exists, but it has no responsibility to avoid contradicting any particular mythology with the scientific method.

Re:You show me yours, I'll show you mine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47268035)

Any chance of you getting a refund on that degree? I think you got ripped off.

Re:Peer reviewed evidence wins (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 4 months ago | (#47267849)

I would think the bible of the three largest religions would be the peer reviewed evidence but I'm not entirely sure why it is important. God is a supernatural being, that means he or she or it is beyond the laws of nature and if the stories are true, actually created the laws of nature that we are bound to.

In other words, we have limits that a God or gods do not have. The entire realm of science could have been created in an instance and we are taking forever to uncover and understand it. We do not know and because it would be beyond the constraints of nature, you cannot prove or show it didn't happen.

My suggestion, let theology be theology and let science be science. When they cross, understand that one if a tool for theology and the other is a tool for science. Its like a hammer and screw driver. Both are tools but get less than desired results when using one for the other. But when applied properly, you can build something useful or fix broken things or just have fun.

Doesn't solve anything, pure politics (1)

mattmarlowe (694498) | about 4 months ago | (#47267361)

If education is done right, with teachers and schools that care to really develops a childs mind, then the kids learn the difference between science and religion, what it means for a scientific theory to be credible and widely held, how to evaluate scientific evidence, and what questions that religion attempts to answer that science at least, at this point, can not. They also can go through all the current scientific evidence for and against evolution, creationism, and other theories. Kids learn how to identify their own values and make their own decisions on what to beleve. It isn't hard and parents should be responsible for ensuring their kids find the best schools and teachers, and ensuring that religion and science are both addressed properly in the classroom.

Politicians interjecting themselves into what subjects teachers are allowed to introduce in the classroom and how such subjects must be discussed does _nothing_ to produce an educated population. It is nothing more than blowing at windmills to gain votes on whatever educational topic is popular for the day. The farther education decisions get removed from the parent, the more students become trained to become regurgitators of approved politically correct information rather than becoming adults with adapative minds capable of of grasping subtle connections and knowing truth from falsehood.

Re:Doesn't solve anything, pure politics (1)

narf0708 (2751563) | about 4 months ago | (#47267645)

Politicians interjecting themselves into what subjects teachers are allowed to introduce in the classroom and how such subjects must be discussed does _nothing_ to produce an educated population. It is nothing more than blowing at windmills to gain votes on whatever educational topic is popular for the day. The farther education decisions get removed from the parent, the more students become trained to become regurgitators of approved politically correct information rather than becoming adults with adapative minds capable of of grasping subtle connections and knowing truth from falsehood.

The entire purpose of the public school system is to systematically pump out batches of "good citizens" who don't question anything, particularly not the government. Did you actually think that the government running these schools was acting out of benevolence and desire for rational people instead of only looking out for its own power and self-interest?

Re:Doesn't solve anything, pure politics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47268051)

Most children probably won't bother to think in rational terms about these things. Applying the scientific method to everything they see and hear is work, after all you will have to do your own research, which has to be done with great care. You simply can't expect children to follow this. They might be inquisitive, but they mostly seek simple explanations. It's much more convenient to take the teachers at their word, at least from my experience it is what most kids do.
You can try it yourself. Take a kid and let them watch two documentaries. One from Stephen Hawking and one about Bible stories. Ask them which one they liked/believed more. With a high probability it won't be the Stephen Hawking documentary.

This doesn't mean that we should stop teaching the scientific method, by all means, it should taught more thoroughly, but it means that it is alright to keep Creationism out of science classes. It should made to sound like an equally valid rival to evolution. Certainly it could be taught in the context of history, culture and ethics classes, since Religion has shaped our culture and ethics without a doubt.
Other than that there is another thing that bothers me about Creationism. Why do we only consider teaching the Judeo-Christian Creation story? Doesn't almost every religion have its own Creation story? When we talk about a "balanced" view, why not actually teach every perspective/opinion on the topic?

Re:Doesn't solve anything, pure politics (1)

Livius (318358) | about 4 months ago | (#47268115)

Kids learn how to identify their own values and make their own decisions on what to bel[i]eve

...eventually, but children do not start out that way.

Creationism belongs in Religious/Historical class (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47267363)

And NOT in a science class

It is not a scientific theory, there is no significant evidence supporting any of it's many hypothesis, and should NOT be taught as science.

However, if you want to include it as a part of a history or comparative religion class (since catholics don't have a monopoly on creationism) then I don't have a problem with it. Just keep it out of the science class. It's NOT science.

"science" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47267367)

Teaching evolution as science should be banned from schools. Man-made global warming should also be banned from schools. Neither are real science.

Evolution isn't science (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47267415)

Agreed. Evolution (as is Creationism) is an attempt to describe history - it is not science. It's not testable, verifiable or falsifiable. This issue is skirted by attempting to equate natural selection/selective pressure with molecules to Margaret evolution - stating they are on in the same, which they are (and they know it too...)

Evolution isn't science (edit...) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47267431)

Last sentence should read: "which they are not (and they know it too...)".

Re:Evolution isn't science (3, Insightful)

hsthompson69 (1674722) | about 4 months ago | (#47267481)

Evolution is falsifiable - find a modern rabbit fossil in the Precambrian.

Just because you can't setup a laboratory experiment for something *doesn't* mean you can't test it.

Re:Evolution isn't science (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47267699)

There are NUMEROUS examples of so-called "out of place" fossils (out of place in accordance with Darwinian doctrine). When these occurrences are found they are either discounted, "explained" away, or outright covered up.

Re:Evolution isn't science (2)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 4 months ago | (#47267709)

Cite one.

Re:Evolution isn't science (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47267789)

Nope. You can find plenty of examples by doing your own research, I'm not doing it for you. It won't take long, a simple Google search for "out of place" fossils. When you look at results you will find plenty of examples that are either discounted, "explained" away, or outright covered up.

And, you, as most other ardent Darwinian's won't give half a thought to the bigger picture and happily swallow the "explanation" knowing full well it doesn't make sense.

Re:Evolution isn't science (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47268029)

Nope. You can find plenty of examples by doing your own research, I'm not doing it for you. It won't take long, a simple Google search for "out of place" fossils. When you look at results you will find plenty of examples that are either discounted, "explained" away, or outright covered up.

And, you, as most other ardent Darwinian's won't give half a thought to the bigger picture and happily swallow the "explanation" knowing full well it doesn't make sense.

You were offered a chance to present evidence and refused. You lose the argument.

Re:Evolution isn't science (4, Insightful)

hsthompson69 (1674722) | about 4 months ago | (#47267739)

You found a modern rabbit fossil in the Precambrian? Pics, or it didn't happen.

Oh, and "the fossil was obviously disturbed and moved to a different strata in the earth" is a *valid* explanation.

Re:"science" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47267547)

Man-made global warming should be a hard requirement in all schools and they should teach it in many classes. Teach about the spread of the idea and contrarian view in religious studies. Teach about correlation and causation and significance in mathematics. Teach about deconstructing conflicting texts to determine your own viewpoint in language classes. Teach about the climate of the earth, it's types of measurements over the course of history and the influences (or not) of various events based on verifiable evidence in science. Maybe if this happened then we wouldn't have so many sheep willing to accept the rantings of those they are most exposed to as fact.

Re:"science" (-1, Flamebait)

hsthompson69 (1674722) | about 4 months ago | (#47267611)

Start with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for AGW, and you can include it in school.

Oh, wait, you don't have one?

Back of the line with creationism and astrology.

English is fun (4, Funny)

otis wildflower (4889) | about 4 months ago | (#47267373)

With just one little comma...

"Teaching Creationism, As Science Now Banned In Britain's Schools"

Very surprising (1)

Trachman (3499895) | about 4 months ago | (#47267389)

Very surprising to hear from UK government where the government actually is insisting on truth. The same day UK government cheekily explains that total surveillance is absolutely legal. I wish somebody could explain and reconcile these extremities, those instances where UK Government is randomly making pro-humanity and anti-humanity moves.

Re:Very surprising (2)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 4 months ago | (#47267977)

A "good" lawyer/politician is not looking for the truth, they are trained to debate either side and "win". Their job is to obscure the evidence that supports their opponents view and to do that they must know the subject. In such a system it is up to the jury/voters to judge their arguments, unfortunately they often do not have the ability to research an answer for themselves, nor do they have the training to see through the deliberate distractions and half truths of the debating process.Add to that the tribal nature of party politics and the subjective qualities of "good policy" and it's easy to see why decisions appear to be random.

It's damned hard work to understand every issue, so the whole thing devolves into rhetoric and propaganda, normal people who try to understand the big issues simply become frustrated and lose interest in the political process (but not the issue itself). At that point they tend to lose track of who is arguing for what and simply vote against the most appalling soundbite they've heard lately.

Finally! (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | about 4 months ago | (#47267393)

This is a major step forwards in logical thought and scientific teaching, now if the US / Canada could follow.

Re:Finally! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47267691)

Well, to be fair, the Britts are traditionally much more prone to be told what to think by the state. ((Most of the smart Germans ran like hell well before hitler even showed up). Of course the U.S. has already fulfilled it's purpose of giving the lethargic Chinese a clue. What we need to do here in the Americas is teach our serfs how to polish black boots. Good fascists wear shiny black boots... and schools? Schools are still communist bastions still. And they can't teach much of anything, much less science. If I were you, I'd consider going to church. You fucking morons. - That's how Mexico will take over the shithole that has been under construction since our civil war.

Re:Finally! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47267707)

no it's not. If they did something to actually help people understand the whole process and think for themselves and not just blindly believe what they're told, then that would be a major step forward in scientific teaching. This is simply "you shall believe what this person says, and not what that other person says".

Re:Finally! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47267821)

I don't think it is a major breakthrough until they start firing those xian teachers. The teachers that are spewing their hate are still there. All this law will do is just make their kind a little more brazen. They'll still teach as much of their racist xian shit as they think they can get away with.

Re:Finally! (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 4 months ago | (#47267995)

It would be a major step in Texas, in the UK it's merely enshrining the status quo.

I have a request. (I doubt it'll be honoured) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47267397)

Can we please have one topic about the UK that doesn't require me to sift through hundreds of comments from people from the US who have no idea how our system works but will gladly jump at the chance to complain how theirs is broken? Just once, I'd like to read about something that affects my country and be able to find comments made by people who are likewise involved.

Re:I have a request. (I doubt it'll be honoured) (1)

uCallHimDrJ0NES (2546640) | about 4 months ago | (#47267643)

No. There are way more of us than you, and we have more Internet than you. You got Americans to watch your glossy, soapy, US-television-imitating Doctor Who remake. Isn't that enough? Now go back to your beans on toast, and stop making unreasonable requests.

Re:I have a request. (I doubt it'll be honoured) (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | about 4 months ago | (#47267667)

This is a US-based site. Not only that, but Americans significantly outnumber Brits.

Your only hope is to go to some sort of site that English-language yet regional enough to overcome your overall minority status.

Simpler criteria - require falsifiability. (0)

hsthompson69 (1674722) | about 4 months ago | (#47267469)

No need to specify individual hypotheses in order to get science right - simply demand that the hypothesis be falsifiable.

This demand neatly excludes creationism, intelligent design, anthropogenic global warming, homeopathy and astrology, while allowing evolution, astronomy, physics, vaccination and chemistry.

Not all ideas are scientific ones - and the way we tell them apart is to look for the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.

Mainly because of Muslims (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47267471)

This only seems to have become a problem since the academies and free-schools bullcrap allowed a bunch of 'Muslim charities' to run schools.

Fine by me. (1)

hey! (33014) | about 4 months ago | (#47267529)

As long as nobody stops me from teaching Lord of the Rings as history.

The Ministry of Knowledge (1)

knobsturner_me (1210594) | about 4 months ago | (#47267575)

Its the thin edge of the wedge. Pretty soon they will ban other things too. If dummy parents want to pay & send their kids to schools that teach trash, then let them. Otherwise you are in 1984. Its been a long wait, but it actually looks like its coming.

Who will tattle? The students?

England != UK && England != Britain (1)

divec (48748) | about 4 months ago | (#47267607)

UK = England + Scotland + Wales + Northern Ireland. The central government only controls education policy for England, not for the rest of the UK. State-funded schools in Scotland and Wales were never permitted to teach creationism. I don't know the situation in Northern Ireland but it may be different.

Laws of Physics have become Heresy? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47267637)

Engineers understand Creation, because: 1) that's what they do; and 2) they study the formal laws of physics that govern the process of creation.
Biologists pat animals, and study their shit, but they don't have a clue how to make any animals, otherwise they would.
Now the 2nd law of thermodynamics says: "All natural systems (e.g. nature) progresses from a state of order (creations) to a state of chaos (puddle of mud)".
In other words, shit doesn't magically build itself, any more than it falls upwards.
By exploiting a basic human weakness (we can't comprehend 100 years, a 1000 degrees, or a million dollars), Evolution essentially states that in a million, billion, trillion years, shit will fall uphill; but the laws of physics says: no it won't!
It says: Engineers (intellegent designers) build stuff, using money (energy), intelligence (order), and perserverance.
It says: 99.99% of all species become extinct this century, and yes, we were expecting that.
We call it "the way of all things"
These laws point to the fact that the world as we know it is slowly but surely crapping out.
Sure, you can draw some arbitrary system boundaries between the earth and the sun, to try to prove something relatively meaningless, but apart from some viruses and bacteria that were designed to mutate (in order to destroy stuff better), nothing is going to evolve, ever.
Sorry, the laws of physics are all about crushing your hopes and dreams.
Let me leave you with a quote from Darwin: "In the near future, the civilised races of humans will destroy the savage races"
That's pretty much the crux of it - a psuedo-scientific justification for killing the lower species of humans (and it turns out that the Chinese are the master race, according to their military thinkers).
Essentially, Engineers and Physics are such pussies, they were totally overrun by some nutbag faith-based doctrine - this time it was Athiesm - nice one guys.
FYI - the creator reckons that all mankind are created in his image, that his spirit (breath, word, life) dwells in them, and therefore we are all fundamentally equal, and even our gender-based differences will dissappear in the next life. Oh yeah, and you're accountable to him, and 'defective' units go in the trashcan.
Ps. Can any of you genius's make a working device that can: 1) heal itself; 2) reproduce; 3) feed people in death (join the circle of life).
Its not like you don't have a million working examples to pick from (yeah that number is decreasing, not increasing, so better get cracking).

Jeremy Connell (BE, BSc)
Mike Connell Ministries

Re:Laws of Physics have become Heresy? (4, Informative)

hsthompson69 (1674722) | about 4 months ago | (#47267703)

Um, no. The relentless path of universal entropy doesn't exclude localized reversals of entropy. When you create waste heat while building your lego house, you're creating localized order, but still, entropy is increasing in the universe as a whole.

Perspective. Get some.

Re:Laws of Physics have become Heresy? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47267743)

So you have a general rule, with some random rare exceptions.
Calculus: what do you suppose happens then, in the limit as time tends to infinity - the exception, or the rule?

Re:Laws of Physics have become Heresy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47267971)

Infinity is mathematical travesty, a house of cards. you moron. Where is your scientific method for that? And you have the gall to use your religious belief in infinity as a proof.

What a dumbass.

Re:Laws of Physics have become Heresy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47268047)

The fuck are you talking about?
There are no exceptions to entropy.
My wall socket also creates energy from nothing if I disregard the whole power distribution net it's connected to.

Re:Laws of Physics have become Heresy? (0)

Jeremy Connell (3699021) | about 4 months ago | (#47267911)

If you won't hear it from a qualified Engineer, then perhaps a 'trashy' magazine like SciAm can walk you through it slowly? http://www.scientificamerican.... [scientificamerican.com]

Re:Laws of Physics have become Heresy? (3, Informative)

onkelonkel (560274) | about 4 months ago | (#47267943)

You are correct. Life on earth can't get more complex over time, because that would require energy and the sun doesn't exist.

Re:Laws of Physics have become Heresy? (-1, Troll)

Jeremy Connell (3699021) | about 4 months ago | (#47268089)

Energy is like money, in the sense that you also need an Engineer to make stuff with it, otherwise you would just be making garbage. The action of nature is to destroy all the cool stuff we make. All of it. For Free. That is the 2nd Law, and it conflicts directly with Evolution. His creations have some interesting real-world features that we aren't clever enough to reproduce. We made some interesting but quite poisonous stuff, but we wiped about most of nature in the process. Darwin = White Supremacist. Man != God.

Re:Laws of Physics have become Heresy? (2)

Sasayaki (1096761) | about 4 months ago | (#47268109)

A post which is signed, but posted as Anonymous Coward, is worth nothing.

This response isn't to the GP, it's to anyone who might read the above and nod along.

There are no "arbitrary system boundaries between the earth and the sun". In truth, between neutrinos and other such space weirdness, there are no truly, perfectly closed systems. But we use the term in every day engineering, physics and chemistry discussions because it is useful. We accept that there are no perfectly spherical frictionless cows, but seemingly ludicrous simplifications like that are made every day.

We use them because they are useful. Not because they are the literal representation of what we are trying to model, but because they allow scientists, physicists, and engineers to make predictions. For example: I predict a perfectly spherical ball on a perfectly flat plane will roll in the direction of that plane's tilt, even if that tilt is infinitesimally small, or remain motionless if that plane is perfectly perpendicular to the sole source of gravametric pull.

Of course, we do not have a perfect sphere, nor a perfectly flat plane, nor a region of space completely devoid of any and all gravity except one source. This doesn't mean that rough spheres on roughly flat planes on Earth will not roll if we tilt that plane a bit.

The model is not perfect -- with a small enough tilt, and enough imperfections in the ball, it might well roll a different way for a time or not move at all -- but this allows us to make predictions.

So. The Earth, although commonly assumed to be a closed system (makes sense, right?) is really not. It's bombarded by radiation of all times, meteor impacts, it passes through the tails of comets and stellar gasses and neutrinos and all manner of things. If you drive out to the countryside the Earth at night might seem quiet and alone, but in reality the Earth is drafty. We eject atmospheric material, matter, energy, and all manner of things into the universe and it regularly bombards us with stuff in return.

The Earth is not a closed system. Evolution completely obeys the laws of physics; insects used to be huge, back when the planet had much more oxygen and could support such life. As the planet's atmosphere changed, creatures grew smaller as -- you guessed it -- the big ones died out, and the little ones survived to pass on their genes. The littler, the more chance of surviving, so insects shrank and shrank until being being smaller presented problems and the size stabilized.

There was no way evolution could conquer this lack of oxygen. Instead, the creatures merely adapted to survive in their new environment. This part's the most important: they didn't change the laws of physics to survive, they changed themselves instead.

That is the most important piece of the puzzle. The laws of physics aren't something that are a problem for evolution; in fact, they're critical to its success.

Side note: Biologists, as a whole, aren't interested in creating new species. That's not their job. Neither is the creation of a device that heals itself, reproduces, or feeds itself in death. Biologists, in general, study things and attempt to know. There are practical implementations of this knowledge, but the quest to create life from nothing is not, in a broad sense, one of them.

Not a paragon of scientific virtue (1)

amightywind (691887) | about 4 months ago | (#47267701)

I don't see Great Britain as a paragon of scientific virtue. It is the epicenter of the global warming fraud after all.

Great place for our God-less democrats to move to! (1)

JohnnyConservative (1611795) | about 4 months ago | (#47267953)

Sounds like a great place for all of the United States God-less democrats to move to after they have renounced their citizenship!!!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?