Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8961 total)
205 online now:
AZPaul3, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, xongsmith (4 members, 201 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,429 Year: 1,177/23,288 Month: 1,177/1,851 Week: 301/320 Day: 1/72 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Help in teaching 11-12 Year olds (RE (Religious Education) in the UK)
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 489 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 20 of 126 (531907)
10-20-2009 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by JJtheJester
10-19-2009 3:32 PM


There is one, and only one, reason to think that Creationism is true: and that is the idea that the Bible is the "literal" and infallible word of God.

There is one principle reason to believe Evolutionism is true: the idea that reality can be determined and described by rational investigation.

To teach your pupils anything else is to lie to them. Evolution and Creation aren't competing ideas; one is a simple faith statement backed up by FUD and lies, the other is a scientific theory backed by a wealth of empirical investigation. And, frankly, I'm kinda disappointed that our country has sunk enough that this Creationism is even considered an idea worth discussing.

I suppose if you did want to discuss it in a Religious Education class you could start by discussing other science Christianity has been historically wrong about like sun going round the earth. That could put Creationism in it's proper context.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by JJtheJester, posted 10-19-2009 3:32 PM JJtheJester has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by JJtheJester, posted 10-20-2009 6:26 PM Dr Jack has responded

Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 489 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 26 of 126 (532057)
10-21-2009 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by JJtheJester
10-20-2009 6:26 PM


Re: Last post...
... and to teach them that this is no other point of view is a lie by omission. Your paranoia and insecurity is a testament to your fear of discussion, as is your use of emotive language.

Of course there are other points of view. Just as there is a point of view that the Earth is flat, the Black people are inherently evil, that the the Holocaust was made up as part of a Jewish conspiracy - the list of "points of view" goes on and on and on. But I'd hope you'd not present these as valid alternatives to reality.

The evidence will speak for itself, one way or another-

The evidence does speak for itself, but 11-12 year olds - and Religious Education teachers for that matter - lack the scientific background to properly assess it.

*Who* should decide if anything is worth discussing? Why shouldn't it be discussed?

Because the role of schools is to educate pupils; not provide a platform for misinformation. Does your history department discuss whether the holocaust happened? Of course it doesn't; it just teaches children what actually happened. Why then do you want to take similar denialism and promote it as if it is an alternative and equally valid proposition to reality?

Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by JJtheJester, posted 10-20-2009 6:26 PM JJtheJester has not yet responded

Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 489 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 33 of 126 (538546)
12-07-2009 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Peg
12-07-2009 6:40 PM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
why dont scientists present a Theory of Creation???

Is it because they refuse to believe that a God could exist???

No, it's because of their tiresome dedication to presenting what reality teaches.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Peg, posted 12-07-2009 6:40 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Peg, posted 12-07-2009 7:26 PM Dr Jack has responded

Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 489 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 49 of 126 (538655)
12-08-2009 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Peg
12-07-2009 7:26 PM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
ok, so if we look at what evolutionists teach, it should be able to be tested and varified like gravity can. Gravity can be demonstrated, tested, and proved in the lab and elsewhere.

As indeed, it can.

so tell me, does the evidence support the evolution of life from inanimate chemicals? Has that be tested in a lab and has it been proved that inanimate chemicals can make the leap from non living to living matter?

For the hundred, trillion, billionth time: EVOLUTION DOES NOT ADDRESS THE ORIGIN OF LIFE.

Why do Creationists struggle so with this insanely simple point?

And, in any case, we know for a cast iron fact that life emerged from non-life. We know, for a fact, no life 13.7 billion years and no life on earth 4.5 billion years ago. We also know that was life on Earth by 3 billion years ago, and probably 3.8 billion years ago. Therefore between these two times some kind of life emerged from non life.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Peg, posted 12-07-2009 7:26 PM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Peg, posted 12-09-2009 6:18 AM Dr Jack has responded

Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 489 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 56 of 126 (538682)
12-09-2009 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Peg
12-09-2009 6:18 AM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
If i told that you I had a baby, but there is no father, you'd call me nuts. Yet that is what evolutionsists expect us to believe with regard to evolution of life.

Your apples they are not oranges.

We know evolution happened because of the incredible array of independent evidence that it did. NOT ONE SHRED OF THAT EVIDENCE PERTAINS TO THE ORIGIN OF LIFE.

Scientists know for a fact that life emerged full stop.

they dont know from where it emerged, or how it emerged.

I never said otherwise.

Scientists know that life became prolific during the cambrian period, fully formed and in great variety. They cant prove that evolution from the muck was how that life got there...they cant show that a slow evolving from the muck took place.

Life was prolific long, long before the Cambrian; there was a massive diversion of multi-cellular life in the Cambrian and specifically multi-cellular life with hard, fossilisable parts.

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Peg, posted 12-09-2009 6:18 AM Peg has not yet responded

Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 489 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 61 of 126 (538689)
12-09-2009 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Peg
12-09-2009 6:34 AM


Re: Do not mix science and religion
Perhaps to a person who believes in evolution, yes. (and i do get it btw)

But to a person who believes in creation, they are very much dependent on each other.

An inability to understand how conclusions are drawn for evidence, doesn't make the reality that the origin question is irrelevant to the truth of evolution a matter of opinion.

Once again with feeling: none of the evidence for evolution depends on how the origin of life occurred

Edited by AdminModulous, : Sections not related to education hidden.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Peg, posted 12-09-2009 6:34 AM Peg has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020