Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8936 total)
40 online now:
Captcass, DrJones*, dwise1, jar, PaulK, RAZD, ringo, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (8 members, 32 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,608 Year: 16,644/19,786 Month: 769/2,598 Week: 15/251 Day: 15/23 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Opening the doors to creationism in British Schools?
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2622 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 8 of 129 (617122)
05-26-2011 1:18 AM


excellent. Freedom of speech, thought, and enquiry are what education is about.
Its about learning the truth on things.
For too long false ideas and censorship of those ideas or of better ones on origin issues has gotten away with it in Britain.
The times are changing and creationism is being more desired by the people and generally the freedom to discuss the great issues is desired by most people.
censoring creationism has always been a immoral, illegal, and unintellectual stance.
Let the truth prevail and so don't ban opinions.
Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by bluescat48, posted 05-26-2011 1:36 AM Robert Byers has responded
 Message 10 by CogitoErgoSum, posted 05-26-2011 4:42 AM Robert Byers has responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2622 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 11 of 129 (617266)
05-27-2011 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by bluescat48
05-26-2011 1:36 AM


bluescat48 writes:

Which version of creationism? There are over 1000

let the people through the legislature decide. Its their right.
Otherwise who is deciding?
In reality as on this forum only one creationism matters.
The historic acceptance amongst the most intelligent people and civilization in history. The Anglo-American one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by bluescat48, posted 05-26-2011 1:36 AM bluescat48 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by bluescat48, posted 05-27-2011 8:28 AM Robert Byers has responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2622 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 12 of 129 (617267)
05-27-2011 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by CogitoErgoSum
05-26-2011 4:42 AM


CogitoErgoSum writes:

excellent. Freedom of speech, thought, and enquiry are what education is about.
Its about learning the truth on things.
For too long false ideas and censorship of those ideas or of better ones on origin issues has gotten away with it in Britain.
The times are changing and creationism is being more desired by the people and generally the freedom to discuss the great issues is desired by most people.
censoring creationism has always been a immoral, illegal, and unintellectual stance.
Let the truth prevail and so don't ban opinions

Yes, sorry to burst your bubble but Gove has banned creationist movements from opening free schools in this country.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...reationism-is-not-science.html

and it's not about censorship, creationism is not desired in a science classroom. As a science teacher I couldn't even think about where to start teaching it as viable science. Just one more question, and please answer it honestly, would you advocate teaching flat earth theory in Geography lessons ?

The truth should be taught.
If there is a contention in the nation then likewise school should represent this in its teachings.
Its not about science.
its about the truth on conclusions in some matters of origins.
if the conclusions are from science and then this is questioned in its competence or better ideas from other investigations then why not accept criticism.
Creationism is all about taking on conclusaions and with that any claims of high standards of investigation behind the wrong conclusions.
Its about the merits of the evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by CogitoErgoSum, posted 05-26-2011 4:42 AM CogitoErgoSum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by CogitoErgoSum, posted 05-27-2011 4:41 AM Robert Byers has responded
 Message 14 by Modulous, posted 05-27-2011 7:28 AM Robert Byers has responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2622 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 16 of 129 (618036)
06-01-2011 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by CogitoErgoSum
05-27-2011 4:41 AM


Re: Truth ?
Its not up to me to decide what is taught.
its the people through the legislature.
Thats a free country. otherwise a dictator decides.
You pick a unreasonable conclusion to show how the people should not decide.
yet they would not teach a flat earth thing because the evidence is that it is not. nO one says it is.
however in origin issues the evidence and criticism of evidence is popular on all sides.
the truth can not be the motive if one side is censorsed.
unless its official policy that one side is wrong.
so who decides that?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by CogitoErgoSum, posted 05-27-2011 4:41 AM CogitoErgoSum has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by frako, posted 06-01-2011 4:50 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2622 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 17 of 129 (618037)
06-01-2011 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Modulous
05-27-2011 7:28 AM


Huh?
Its about conclusions and ideas being put forward in these school subjects.
Creationists attack the conclusions by the same investigative abilities as those who propose evolutionary conclusions.
Science class is not about science. its about the great conclusions from the special investigative process called science.
science is not a thing on a shelf.
Organized creationism has the right to take on and put in doubt in these classes certain issues of origins.
I find many people try to say the conclusions from scientific methodology are themselves pieces of science.
science is at best, if that, a methodology.
Science class is not really methodology class but about conclusions that mattered to mankind.
they invoke the method to give a certitude to the conclusions.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Modulous, posted 05-27-2011 7:28 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Modulous, posted 06-01-2011 6:38 AM Robert Byers has responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2622 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 18 of 129 (618038)
06-01-2011 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by bluescat48
05-27-2011 8:28 AM


The confidence of north america is that the people can decide their own laws and ways. Its democracy.
the people would not vote for murder..
Dictators have shown they would.
fighting the peoples wisdom and morality will not help your cause.
you need better answers.
In fact by your reasoning today the people could vote for murder and only the courts stop them.
then just pick the right judges.
This is not reality however in any option.
Truth first and peoples right to govern themselves and creationism is sure to prevail.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by bluescat48, posted 05-27-2011 8:28 AM bluescat48 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by bluescat48, posted 06-01-2011 9:06 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2622 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 24 of 129 (618583)
06-04-2011 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Modulous
06-01-2011 6:38 AM


Modulous writes:

Huh?
Its about conclusions and ideas being put forward in these school subjects.

Right, which is why I brought up the ideas being put forward in these school subjects in British Schools. How did that manage to confuse you?


Science class is not about science. its about the great conclusions from the special investigative process called science.
science is not a thing on a shelf.

I agree that science isn't a noun. But then neither is history, German, art, music, mathematics, geography or any other school subject.

Just like history class should be about history.
Art class should be about art.
Science class should be about science.

Organized creationism has the right to take on and put in doubt in these classes certain issues of origins.

Yes they do, but those criticisms need to meet the standards of the subject. If creationists wish to introduce criticism of a scientific theory, then they need to produce scientific standards of critique. Don't you agree?

Science class is not really methodology class but about conclusions that mattered to mankind.

My first lesson in high school science was 'Read the instructions fully before starting.' I remember it well. At primary school I was taught to record anything that I learned, not just the results of the experiment as expected by teachers. I don't know where you went to school, but the methodology is as important as the conclusions derived from it here in British schools.

Fine if you want 'science" class to be about methodology.
In fact however science class is about the great conclusions discovered by science. One could almost say most science classes are history classes and only a little bit of repeating methods takes place.
Even the latter is no different then cooking class.
in reality investigations into nature have nothing to do with kids.

Creationism does the same quality of investigation as anyone in these origin issues which by the way creationists say are not easily open to the scientific method and are not.
Science class in fact has no right to talk about biological or geological conclusions. they are about past and gone events.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Modulous, posted 06-01-2011 6:38 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by frako, posted 06-04-2011 4:59 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 26 by Modulous, posted 06-04-2011 6:41 AM Robert Byers has responded
 Message 27 by Panda, posted 06-04-2011 7:46 AM Robert Byers has responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2622 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 29 of 129 (619057)
06-08-2011 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Modulous
06-04-2011 6:41 AM


History class is mostly about conclusions from history and very little about methodology.
Science class likewise is mostly about conclusions. Just some more methodology.
Science class therefore is not about science largely. Fine but conclusions , for origins, are the problem here. creationists say the conclusions are not any more scientific then creationisms and they are wrong.
So equal time in conclusion class..

Origin issues are not science ones to use the word science as a high standard of investigation.
origin issues being about past and gone events are not flexible for investigation of a high standard with boundarys.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Modulous, posted 06-04-2011 6:41 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by caffeine, posted 06-08-2011 3:46 AM Robert Byers has responded
 Message 33 by Modulous, posted 06-08-2011 9:21 AM Robert Byers has responded
 Message 34 by Son, posted 06-08-2011 10:23 AM Robert Byers has responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2622 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 30 of 129 (619058)
06-08-2011 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Panda
06-04-2011 7:46 AM


Panda writes:

Robert Byers writes:

One could almost say most science classes are history classes...

Robert Byers writes:

Science class in fact has no right to talk about [past and gone events].


You appear to be contradicting yourself within the same post.

Nope. both statements were the same species.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Panda, posted 06-04-2011 7:46 AM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Panda, posted 06-08-2011 8:26 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2622 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 35 of 129 (619491)
06-10-2011 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by caffeine
06-08-2011 3:46 AM


caffeine writes:

Robert Byers writes:

History class is mostly about conclusions from history and very little about methodology.
Science class likewise is mostly about conclusions. Just some more methodology.
Science class therefore is not about science largely. Fine but conclusions , for origins, are the problem here. creationists say the conclusions are not any more scientific then creationisms and they are wrong.
So equal time in conclusion class..

Origin issues are not science ones to use the word science as a high standard of investigation.
origin issues being about past and gone events are not flexible for investigation of a high standard with boundarys.

I don't know if history is taught substantially differently in Canada, but when I was studying history in school it was very much about methodology, with the proportion of methodology increasing the longer you continued with the subject. If you stuck with the subject past the age of 14, it became all about sources and how to interpret them - the specific historical subjects you stuck with were treated as kind of a case study in the historical method.

Fine.
Nevertheless if the great conclusions of origins are taught from a evolutionary point then thats the issue.
Creationism demands to give its view because it does no less then the others in investigation.
It is here that the great conclusions are what science class talks about.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by caffeine, posted 06-08-2011 3:46 AM caffeine has not yet responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2622 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 36 of 129 (619493)
06-10-2011 4:48 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Modulous
06-08-2011 9:21 AM


Modulous writes:

Origin issues are not science ones to use the word science as a high standard of investigation.
origin issues being about past and gone events are not flexible for investigation of a high standard with boundarys.

I understand your opinion, but your opinion might be wrong. So I'm asking you, who do you think should decide what gets to be taught in science class? The problem with deferring all education decisions to 'the people' (as you seemed to be suggesting earlier) is that it is 'the people' we are trying to educate. If they decide what is to be taught alone, then there is no way to correct common misconceptions.

You seem to be suggesting that no origins should be discussed in biology for example, but earlier you also wanted creationism in the classroom? Is there something untrue being taught in British classrooms about origins? Could you specify what that is?

In origin issues there is a prohibition of creationism.
the people, if they choose, must have the right to demand creationism as a option for origins.

Indeed i would say origin issues are not scientific ones as a high standard of investigation, like in others, can't be done.
Biology is fine but not biological ideas on former biology .


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Modulous, posted 06-08-2011 9:21 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Modulous, posted 06-10-2011 10:23 AM Robert Byers has responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2622 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 37 of 129 (619496)
06-10-2011 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Son
06-08-2011 10:23 AM


Son writes:

It seems you don't understand what science is about so I'll try to explain to you in simpler terms what the difference between science and creationism. Science is about a methodology that actually works and produce tangible results (cars, computers, Internet, etc...) whereas creationism is about a methodology that has failed to wield significant results for thousands of years. That's why they don't belong in the same class.

Of course, you could disagree, but then your objective shouldn't be about integrating creationism into science (since you seem to think your method is better), but create this "creation science" with the fundings from churches and get better results than the current science. Since you believe your method to be superior to those of the actual scientific community, you will get better results and be able to finance yourself after the start.

Science is not just a word for inventions.
I don't accept there is a different species of investigation called science.
Everything is just people thinking.
however they try to say science is a higher standard of investigation and so a higher confidence in its conclusions.
thats how most people see it.

Origin issues are not open to a high standard of investigation because they are about unobservable or repeatable events and processes.
ideas can be floated but thats it.

So when they TEACH conclusions about origins and call it SCIENCE and so a proven thing as most understand it because of high standards then we cry foul.
We do as much as them and both don't do much as evidence is scanty.
Equal time or nobody in SCIENCE class.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Son, posted 06-08-2011 10:23 AM Son has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Son, posted 06-10-2011 9:34 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 39 by CogitoErgoSum, posted 06-10-2011 9:47 AM Robert Byers has responded
 Message 63 by deerbreh, posted 06-30-2011 4:50 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 64 by frako, posted 06-30-2011 6:01 PM Robert Byers has responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2622 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 41 of 129 (620063)
06-14-2011 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by CogitoErgoSum
06-10-2011 9:47 AM


Re: Lesson planning
I answered about your geography thing.
Its up to the people to decide. if they think its a flat earth then they can demand it be taught also.
Yet the people wouldn't do this because the evidence to them is persuasive it ain't flat.
Creationism is persuasive to enough or they think its close enough to be a viable alternative.

It depends on the subject your teaching.
If a subject is needing conclusions about origins then creationism is ready for it.
We start from the bible but then bring in investigation of nature to compliment it.
You must also make a decision on the bible and you reject it. then start from basic data and draw conclusions.
in all this however is the point that creationism can do equal investigation with anyone.
Again i don't see 'science' being done in origin subjects. its a special case to investigate past and gone events and processes.
its not like rockets.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by CogitoErgoSum, posted 06-10-2011 9:47 AM CogitoErgoSum has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by bluescat48, posted 06-14-2011 12:58 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2622 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 42 of 129 (620072)
06-14-2011 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Modulous
06-10-2011 10:23 AM


Much problems here.
First you keep saying that kids are to study science. Whats a science. ? in fact science is the mechanism for study or investigation!
You should say instead you want kids to study the methodology and the details that led to agreed conclusions.

You throw in a number of evolutionary presumptions.

You exclude revealed religion as if its been proven wrong and its settled.
Yet this the truth and historic truth. So it must be a option for investigation.

Its all fine about the list of how to have a high standard of investigation byt in fact origin issues are not open to these methods. Yet great conclusions are taught as if this methodology was employed.

creationism is a different presumption to start from and has assertions and criticisms of evolution etc.
Censoring creationism is censoring investigation into the truths in nature.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Modulous, posted 06-10-2011 10:23 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Modulous, posted 06-14-2011 6:51 AM Robert Byers has responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2622 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 45 of 129 (620386)
06-16-2011 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Modulous
06-14-2011 6:51 AM


Well you keep saying that this or that has been decided.
Yet it hasn't.
creationism is a critic of evolution etc. you can't just dismiss your critic.
thats my whole point.
creationism dOES have the right to criticize and make its own conclusions and teach it to the kids.

if these folks are teaching creationism was proved wrong back in the day well rebuttal is our right.
You seem to think that freedom of a nation or freedom of enquiry is to be controlled by some boss.

it simply is a fact that creationism is a historic and present common conclusion on many matters in the nations.
Censoring it is immoral and illegal and just poor form where truth is the desired goal.
if you think your side proved creationism wrong then let the kids weigh the evidence themselves.
What's your fear?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Modulous, posted 06-14-2011 6:51 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Modulous, posted 06-17-2011 6:18 PM Robert Byers has responded
 Message 48 by AZPaul3, posted 06-17-2011 6:50 PM Robert Byers 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 © 2019