Message 46 of 129 (620387) 06-16-2011 3:43 AM

Put creationism in the schools, then you'll have Richard Dawkins on the front pages of the newspapers, expounding on how stupid it is. Creationism won't be able to stand up to the attention that it thinks it wants.

Moose

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose

Message 47 of 129 (620565) 06-17-2011 6:18 PM

Reply to: Message 45 by Robert Byers 06-16-2011 3:10 AM

Such as?

I'm not proposing we dismiss critics. I'm just proposing we don't teach criticisms that fail to meet scientific standards of critique.

I'm glad to see that you see that creationism is almost entirely an attempt to discredit evolution, rather than as an idea of its own merit. However, since creationism came first - evolution might be more appropriately construed as a criticism of creationism. Since creationism fails to meet scientific standards of rebuttal, they don't get those ideas taught in a science class (though they may come up in PSE or RE)

Creationism does not have any rights, its just an idea. Creationists do have the legal right to teach creationism to their kids - and we know as an empirical fact they tend to do this.

I think education should be safeguarded so that idealogues don't get to teach falsehoods or erroneous arguments to children to further their agenda. That there should be standards that are met before something receives state funding.

You have the right to rebuttal, many take advantage of that right.

Yes, and I have no problem teaching that creationism is a common belief. Though it should be noted, it is not nearly as common in Britain as it is in the USA, for example. I'd wager that a significant percentage of creationists in Britain are Muslim.

I would agree that censoring it would be immoral, but I disagree any censorship is taking place. Limiting the scope of subject matter of a course to include no more than the consensus of the experts in the relevant fields should not be construed as censorship.

I fear that falsehoods would be taught by authority figures and that the credulity of children might be exploited, as they are in schools where creationism is essentially taught right here in Britain.

I am perfectly happy to teach children the truth about creationism. See my threads Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for) and Intelligent design. Philosophy of ignorance.. But I do not wish to teach them falsehoods. If there is some truth about creationism you think is excluded from the British curriculum that you think should be included maybe you could get specific.

Message 48 of 129 (620568) 06-17-2011 6:50 PM

Reply to: Message 45 by Robert Byers 06-16-2011 3:10 AM

Yes, in fact it has. You just do not want to accept the reality since it conflicts with your dogma.

Yes, we can. Without any evidence, with just creationists' insisting they must be right based only on their fear of losing their faith, we can dismiss the rubbish chants of "goddoneit" very easily.

Yes it does, but in church only, not in the public classroom of a secular nation and most certaily not in any science curriculum anywhere. You do not qualify for that privilege.

Rebut all you want. Any claim to science by creationism is long dead and burried. Done in by creationists themselves.

You've been re-butting for the last 150 years and it has only worked to show how stupid your dogma actually is.

It is you who want to control. You want to control all of society. You want to start with the young minds and build a theocracy where only you control. You want to brain wash all of society into kowtowing to your specific brand of religious dogma to the exclusion of all other befiefs (even other Christian ones).

You have a history of killing freedom and free inquiry in any society you can sink your fangs into. We will not repeat this mistake again.

We see you coming, Robert.

It is a fact that creationism is the demented ravings of a minority religious cult seeking control of the society.

You do not qualify for a science class any more than the old alchemy does. That is not censorship. It is a fact of life. Deal with it.

We are teaching the kids the reality of this world and how to think. Your propagandizing them into uncritical allegience to some bloody 2500 year old myth is anathema to human freedom of thought.

Dark ages Europe. Present day Iran.

Message 49 of 129 (620968) 06-22-2011 3:56 AM

Reply to: Message 47 by Modulous 06-17-2011 6:18 PM

Creationism is censored by law. The people are fine with it by a good majority.
Censoring ideas is just censoring ideas by some boss.
by your standard we could censor evolutionism just because of some gain of power.

Again. There is no difference between our ability to deal with and replace evolutionism.
There is no difference in quality or quantity of evidence.
Ones opponents to do not have veto power over ones credibility on ideas.
Its just impossible to censor creationism based on its historic and common acceptance for some ideas in origin subjects.
Its immoral and illegal and dumb.
You can invoke the word experts all you want and its just still another way to censor criticisms that are well established, well received, and famous.
In fact many would say God and the bible are the experts.
Who says its the right of the state to say otherwise?
Its just truth oppression.

Message 51 of 129 (620982) 06-22-2011 7:48 AM

Reply to: Message 49 by Robert Byers 06-22-2011 3:56 AM

No, creationism is not censored by law. If a course called Creationism was put forth, it would be legitimate. What is not legitimate is wanting creationism is a biology class, since it is not evidence based.
The same rational is why alchemy is not taught in chemistry classes or astrology is not taught in astronomy classes, the fact they aren't evidence based.

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Message 52 of 129 (620994) 06-22-2011 9:06 AM

Reply to: Message 49 by Robert Byers 06-22-2011 3:56 AM

This is an untruth. You are either lying, deliberately misrepresenting my expressed views are are suffering from a serious problem with your reading comprehension. This is why you cannot quote me saying this once, let alone repeating it.

No it isn't. That is why this discussion is legal in my country, and yours. Furthermore, this thread is about legislation opening the doors to creationism in British Schools, which seems about as opposite to 'censorship by law' as one can get.

Not in Britain, and I've already commented on this method for deciding what to teach kids and you chose to ignore it in order to repeat yourself. If the majority said not to teach creationism, would that be grounds to not teach it? If the majority believed Christopher Columbus proved the world is round, should we teach that?

abe: The counterargument, in case you missed it, was that this method can end up with merely reinforcing common misconceptions as opposed to educating the populace.

Clearly, since you aren't taking into account anything that I have said, and probably aren't even paying attention to this post, further discussion is pointless.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Message 54 of 129 (621136) 06-24-2011 2:14 AM

Reply to: Message 52 by Modulous 06-22-2011 9:06 AM

If creationism can be taught in brit schools in the classes that deal with origins then great.
The people should decide, by the legislature, these matters if there is prohibition or just not both sides.

Yes. If the majority said creationism should not be taught then it shouldn't.
Unless theres some great law demanding all sides.
I bet there ain't.

Your still trying to ban creationism because you or your side has decided its not true.
This is what you keep saying.
Otherwise let the people decide.
Not a few elites at the top.
Why are you afraid of competition in subjects that are only barely able to introduce these subjects to the kids?
Freedom of thought is a better trail to truth then censoring ones opponents.
What other subjects are banned?
Why just the most famous, historical, and popular one that touches on contention.
HMMM.

Message 55 of 129 (621137) 06-24-2011 2:28 AM

Reply to: Message 54 by Robert Byers 06-24-2011 2:14 AM

No, simply since it has no evidence to back it up. Show some real evidence and it could then be taught.

It would be like teaching , in a math class that pi = 3.

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Message 56 of 129 (621150) 06-24-2011 6:31 AM

Reply to: Message 54 by Robert Byers 06-24-2011 2:14 AM

You've not given a sufficient number to draw any reasonable conclusion about my taste for your answers.

Yes, but I did not say what you said I said.

Then you are not on topic.

Do you have a solution to the problem of reinforcing popular misconceptions?

No, I'm trying to make sure that the only thing taught in science class is science as understood by experts of science. You seem to think that we should include popular misconceptions of science and you have not given justification for this.

I've not said it once, and I have admonished you once for misrepresenting me. I see you are incapable of learning.

I fear popular misconceptions and phoney pseudoscience will be taught to children and we need safeguards in place to avoid that. Do you disagree? Do you think we should teach falsehoods to children?

Since creationism isn't banned, I fail to see the relevance in this question.

Message 57 of 129 (621151) 06-24-2011 6:39 AM

Reply to: Message 54 by Robert Byers 06-24-2011 2:14 AM

I, as a teacher, am thinking more about the censorship of creationism in American schools based on the fact/fiction issue thing. We tend to try and censor out the fiction from science.

Why is that? Science is the investigation of what is true, not what is popular opinion. When you have a leak in your roof do you canvas your neighborhood for popular opinion on how to fix it or call a professional roofer?

Boo freaking hoo.

The things we now know aren't true. As I explained, this isn't a church/state issue as much as a fact/fiction issue. To paraphrase Sagan, in science your preferences do not matter.

Lurker

Message 58 of 129 (621201) 06-24-2011 12:27 PM

Reply to: Message 53 by Robert Byers 06-24-2011 2:03 AM

Like what? What type of origins?

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008