Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Schouwenaars

UK bans creationism as science in schools

Recommended Posts

I can still remember  my high school Biology class back in the early 60's.   The day we started the Chapter on evolution our teacher made an interesting speech.....    I can only paraphrase it now, but I wish I had his exact words.....   it went something like this.

 

Today we start a chapter in Biology.   I am forced to go through this, and if you wish to graduate you must go through it yourself and I am instructed to give you a test on the material and to graduate you must pass the test.  There is hardly a single word of it that is true, but you must know about it to get out of high school.....     so let us begin.....       Mr. Foster was  also my Sunday School Teacher...    It was a very interesting semester...  i learned more about creation that year than I would have if we studied it outright.....

 

There are always ways for teachers to get the truth across..... laws or not.  In every step of the way Mr. Foster always would say....   "They say this or they say that."   Never this is the way it is......    and somehow in the midst of it all we understood the truth though he never came right out and said it....   he was simply an awesome teacher.

 

 

 

As far as this article in the OP is concerned,  I can see where this approach may well end up doing what Mr. Foster did with us.  It would/will depend solely on how the teachers present it.  If Creationism is presented in the right form even as religion, it can easily show evolution as a lie....  

 

But Schouwenaars,   to teach evolution as a scientific fact is an evil lie that will come back to haunt the society that does it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can still remember  my high school Biology class back in the early 60's.   The day we started the Chapter on evolution our teacher made an interesting speech.....    I can only paraphrase it now, but I wish I had his exact words.....   it went something like this.

 

Today we start a chapter in Biology.   I am forced to go through this, and if you wish to graduate you must go through it yourself and I am instructed to give you a test on the material and to graduate you must pass the test.  There is hardly a single word of it that is true, but you must know about it to get out of high school.....     so let us begin.....       Mr. Foster was  also my Sunday School Teacher...    It was a very interesting semester...  i learned more about creation that year than I would have if we studied it outright.....

 

There are always ways for teachers to get the truth across..... laws or not.  In every step of the way Mr. Foster always would say....   "They say this or they say that."   Never this is the way it is......    and somehow in the midst of it all we understood the truth though he never came right out and said it....   he was simply an awesome teacher.

 

 

 

As far as this article in the OP is concerned,  I can see where this approach may well end up doing what Mr. Foster did with us.  It would/will depend solely on how the teachers present it.  If Creationism is presented in the right form even as religion, it can easily show evolution as a lie....  

 

But Schouwenaars,   to teach evolution as a scientific fact is an evil lie that will come back to haunt the society that does it.

And indeed, Other One, creationism is still tought in those school.

But just not as science any more.

I find that an approvement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I dont see how creationism is any more or less scientific than evolution. Evolution is a theory that science cannot prove. It seems to me if education was what was the actual topic, both "theories" would be available. This is obviously a ploy to erradicate teachings of God and to indoctorinate children with only one "theory" as truth. That is no kind of education. There is a chinese proverb that says a wise man reads both books and then decides. Personaly I dont hold proverbs other than whats in the bible to have authority, but I can see the wisdom in it. Can you?

 

The students can still read and chose any book they want.

The only thing that is forbidden now is that creationism is teached to be scientificly proven, and that it is involved in science lessons as science.

During lessons like religion or whatever, students still learn what it is, so that they will be able to make their own choice.

I am supporting this, because if the large majority (like 90%) of the scientific world says creationism isn't scientificly correct, then we should not still teach that to children.

If 90% of the people, who really know what they are talking about, say it isn't true, then we might make some changes in what we teach children.

I do not say that people may not believe in it. Only the scientific base falls.

 

And indeed, i can see the wisdom in some of it.

 

Evolution isn't scientifically proven and it isn't science.  Evolution is by definition a "religion."

 

 

I think I didn't mention evolution somewhere on this topic, did I?

My topic has nothing to do with evolution(theory).

 

My point  is that saying creationism isn't science is meaningless given that the alternative (evolution) isn't science either and isn't scientifically proven and can never be scientifically proven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done UK. Keep science in the classroom and religion in church.

Edited by jerryR34

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I dont see how creationism is any more or less scientific than evolution. Evolution is a theory that science cannot prove. It seems to me if education was what was the actual topic, both "theories" would be available. This is obviously a ploy to erradicate teachings of God and to indoctorinate children with only one "theory" as truth. That is no kind of education. There is a chinese proverb that says a wise man reads both books and then decides. Personaly I dont hold proverbs other than whats in the bible to have authority, but I can see the wisdom in it. Can you?

 

The students can still read and chose any book they want.

The only thing that is forbidden now is that creationism is teached to be scientificly proven, and that it is involved in science lessons as science.

During lessons like religion or whatever, students still learn what it is, so that they will be able to make their own choice.

I am supporting this, because if the large majority (like 90%) of the scientific world says creationism isn't scientificly correct, then we should not still teach that to children.

If 90% of the people, who really know what they are talking about, say it isn't true, then we might make some changes in what we teach children.

I do not say that people may not believe in it. Only the scientific base falls.

 

And indeed, i can see the wisdom in some of it.

 

Evolution isn't scientifically proven and it isn't science.  Evolution is by definition a "religion."

 

 

I think I didn't mention evolution somewhere on this topic, did I?

My topic has nothing to do with evolution(theory).

 

My point  is that saying creationism isn't science is meaningless given that the alternative (evolution) isn't science either and isn't scientifically proven and can never be scientifically proven.

 

The article doesn't say either that now evolution is going to be teached by science. And evolution isn't the only alternative view on the world i guess. They just keep creationism in church now.

Science can be given too without religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Schouwenaars, nice try, but you are incorrect, the article does claim such. It says "we believe teachers and students should have the acedemic freedom to openly discuss the scientific difficulties with evolutionary claims."

This statment is found in the first paragraph. this statment clearly declares belief in evolution as well as what the lesson plans will include.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice try from you too Cletus, but this article is written by a christian who expresses his OWN tought in that specific sentence. He himself thinks that. But that doesn't mean evolution is now the only 'opponent' in those schools. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Nice try from you too Cletus,

 

but this article is written by a christian who expresses his OWN thought in that specific sentence.

 

He himself thinks that.

 

But that doesn't mean evolution is now the only 'opponent' in those schools.

 

:thumbsup:

 

The Opponent

 

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Genesis 3:1(a-c )

 

And The Truth

 

For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged. Romans 3:3-4

 

~

 

PS: Beloved, The Pagans (The Godless) In Their White Coats Can Not Help 

 

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Genesis 1:1-2

 

But To Mix Their Religion Into Their (Anti) Science

 

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Hebrews 11:3

 

Reports You See?

 

Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

 

Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

 

Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. 1 Peter 1:18-21

 

~

 

Beloved

 

 

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

 

And Be Blessed Beloved

 

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:

The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

 

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27

 

Love, Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

How is it a 'step forward' to ban all but ONE theory?  And evolution is just that, a theory. 

 

 

Germ Theory is also JUST a theory. The Theory of Gravity is JUST a theory. When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning then the normal everyday use. In science, a theory is not a guess, it's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be. You seem to think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.  Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

How is it a 'step forward' to ban all but ONE theory?  And evolution is just that, a theory. 

 

 

Germ Theory is also JUST a theory. The Theory of Gravity is JUST a theory. When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning then the normal everyday use. In science, a theory is not a guess, it's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be. You seem to think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them. An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.  Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested.

 

 

 

========================================================================

 

Thanks for the Explanation.

 

Are you trying to somehow Equivocate (Fallacy) the Theory of Gravity and the Theory of evolution to parasitically evoke some conjured justification via a pseudo-lateral merit transfer for the latter from the former because they both have the term "Theory" in their description?

It's funny, I never here people when arguing the tenets of either Newtonian or Einsteinian Physics say: "well, this has the same validity as evolution"! You?

Each Theory, Hypothesis, or Postulate is evaluated on the sole basis of it's own merit!

 

 

Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it.

 

I've dealt with general relativity here (Scroll down to the end): 

 

 

There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory.

 

I beg to differ sir....Truth. 

 

Laws and Theories are completely different animals "Higher" or "Better" are irrelevant descriptors.  It's almost Tantamount to saying: Apples are "better" than Manifold Gaskets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×