tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-154495438763509967.post6984443231166020391..comments2024-01-28T06:24:50.005+00:00Comments on No Double Standards: The UK Government's Response to the Faith Schools Petition- Creationism is OK?Martin Freedmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16952072422175870627noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-154495438763509967.post-14866302259393313562008-05-23T15:58:00.000+01:002008-05-23T15:58:00.000+01:00Hi Jared"Teach the controversy" is completely appr...Hi Jared<BR/><BR/><I>"Teach the controversy" is completely appropriate because it is an historical fact that Darwinian evolution has never achieved the degree of cohesive, explanatory power and evidence-based confirmation that any other time-tested scientific theory has, and the number of respected scientists severely questioning many of its core tenants is large and growing by the day.</I><BR/>This is false in so many ways<BR/>1. ID/Creationism can be taught in religion classes<BR/>2. Historical controversies can studied in history clasees<BR/>3. Current controveries can be taught in contemporary affairs/politics classes<BR/>4. ID is a psuedo-controversy as far as science is concerned,and depending on the curriculum is already covered in showing how natural selection was a better theory than saltationism and other religiously derived discredited theories. <BR/>5. Anyway evolutionary biology is one of the most robust and tested theories ever, showing a higher degree of cohesive, explanatory power and evidence-based confirmation that many other time-tested scientific theories of the same calibre.<BR/><BR/><I>If there is such a solid and convincing body of knowledge in evolutionary theory, then can't be much of a threat from a small number of loons. You should welcome the conversation and public discourse!</I><BR/>Public discourse yes, using politics to corrupt science no and using politics to corrupt the minds of our future scientists no - that is immoral.Martin Freedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952072422175870627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-154495438763509967.post-56464040559303858562008-05-23T01:03:00.000+01:002008-05-23T01:03:00.000+01:00"Teach the controversy" is completely appropriate ..."Teach the controversy" is completely appropriate because it is an historical fact that Darwinian evolution has never achieved the degree of cohesive, explanatory power and evidence-based confirmation that any other time-tested scientific theory has, and the number of respected scientists severely questioning many of its core tenants is large and growing by the day.<BR/><BR/>If there is such a solid and convincing body of knowledge in evolutionary theory, then can't be much of a threat from a small number of loons. You should welcome the conversation and public discourse!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-154495438763509967.post-24480628428429390292008-05-22T13:19:00.000+01:002008-05-22T13:19:00.000+01:00Jared and AlexI fail to see why what Alex said is ...Jared and Alex<BR/><BR/>I fail to see why what Alex said is a strawman. Where is the evidence you claim to have seen? It is only arguments of the flim-flam type, to which Alex pointed, that I have come across, most recently commenting in <A HREF="http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2007/08/ben-steins-expelled.html" REL="nofollow">Ben Stein's 'Expelled'</A><BR/><BR/>And my main point still stands, that even if there were some evidence to make ID a proto-science that that is insufficient and premature to have it taught in schools. "Teach the controversy" is a very poor justification and do you not think it immoral to teach as fact what is most likely fiction to pupils?Martin Freedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952072422175870627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-154495438763509967.post-65797403109691320582008-05-20T18:07:00.000+01:002008-05-20T18:07:00.000+01:00Alex, almost everything in your post is a straw ma...Alex, almost everything in your post is a straw man. If teaching creationism or something else such as ID as a possible origins theory comprised of such flim-flam nonsense as you seem to indicate, I'd be totally against it as well. However, it doesn't. Apparently you're attacking a media-induced caricature of a movement that except for a few fundamentalist religious enclaves doesn't really exist. So go ahead and attack it. Nobody really gives a darn.<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, real scientific inquiry will encourage free thought, skepticism of current paradigms, and research into alternative and perhaps superior explanations. I welcome such academic rigour most emphatically.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-154495438763509967.post-46144379867835288662008-05-20T14:22:00.000+01:002008-05-20T14:22:00.000+01:00(but creationists and IDers have published many ot...(but creationists and IDers have published many other notable research.)<BR/><BR/>Name one! And if it involves Michael Behe I strongly suggest you look at the counter arguments before putting his tiny motors theory up as a candidate. <BR/><BR/>The fact remains education shouldn't be a matter of choice, any choice. What is the value of this parental choice if taken to such extremes, where choosing to teach falsehoods is the outcome?<BR/><BR/>Would you support choice Jared, if it meant gay parents choosing to send their children to a gay school that only studied gay literature, listened to disco music, and looked at history's gay figures? I'm guessing you wouldn't be keen!<BR/><BR/>All educational subjects have to pass muster on the level of academic rigour. Saying "the bible says..." as a justification for teaching a lot of secondhand mythology (that was never intended to be an academic text recall) is just self-indulgence religious behaviour. <BR/><BR/>The fact is the very science that's probably kicking electricity into the back of your PC comes from a nuclear powerstation whose very existence depends on the truth of carbon ageing, which in turn proves the age of the earth. You are wrong to teach fairy tales as facts for this and other reasons.alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14967057024756330455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-154495438763509967.post-81631086780504593752008-02-20T18:32:00.000+00:002008-02-20T18:32:00.000+00:00Even if it were in the running, which I severely d...Even if it were in the running, which I severely doubt, it is still not the type of topic suitable for school education. University maybe but not school and the same would go for any other proto-scientific endeavour. One should not confuse pupils by teaching controversial topics at school instead give them the core skills so they can evaluate it themselves as adults.<BR/><BR/>Anyway I have followed the biological literature for years and I have seen nothing yet of remotely any useful scientific value coming out of creationism/ID. Science is about reading the book of nature not the book of moses. You can get inspiration from anywhere but if cannot be shown to be in the book of nature it is not science.Martin Freedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952072422175870627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-154495438763509967.post-86898422939046113032008-02-20T18:25:00.000+00:002008-02-20T18:25:00.000+00:00The amount of innovative research in creationist c...The amount of innovative research in creationist circles over the past few decades blows away any knowledge we had 150 years ago prior to Darwin. This isn't some ragtag bunch of neanderthal hicks that think bananas are proof for God because they fit in your hand. I think you've mixed up some dopey televangelists with real scientists who have published numerous non-creationist papers in peer-reviewed journals. (Anything that smacks of creationism or intelligent design gets censored right off the bat, but creationists and IDers have published many other notable research.)<BR/><BR/>Anyway, creationism is most definitely in the running, though perhaps not so much in the hallowed halls and ivory towers of traditional academia.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-154495438763509967.post-89765114466641228252008-02-20T18:10:00.000+00:002008-02-20T18:10:00.000+00:00You live in the USa and you should well know that ...You live in the USa and you should well know that creationism is regarded there, as elsewhere, as a religious and not scientific idea. <BR/><BR/>In school we should teach the best of breed thinking in the sciences and noting else. Creationism is not remotely in the running, as a science it was failed project nearly 150 years ago. We do not teach phlogiston in chemistry, phrenology in psychology nor should we teach creationism in biology.<BR/><BR/>As an adult you are free to pursue whatever you want to.Martin Freedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952072422175870627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-154495438763509967.post-34260041014946151782008-02-20T17:25:00.000+00:002008-02-20T17:25:00.000+00:00Creationism is the scientific exploration of the g...Creationism is the scientific exploration of the geological origin of the earth and the biological origin of lifeforms from a catastrophic, special creation perspective rather than a uniformitarian, gradualistic perspective. It is not a religious claim, but a scientific claim. Creationism is not theology.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-154495438763509967.post-34642227922756327762008-02-20T11:40:00.000+00:002008-02-20T11:40:00.000+00:00I have already said that creationism can be taught...I have already said that creationism can be taught in religious education and clearly not biology - where it obviously has no place - so what are you complaining about?Martin Freedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952072422175870627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-154495438763509967.post-30603487385944771632008-02-19T18:25:00.000+00:002008-02-19T18:25:00.000+00:00All right, I understand what you're saying now, bu...All right, I understand what you're saying now, but that brings me back to my original point, which is that parents should be able to choose to send their children to a school that provides the eduction they want them to receive. In terms of public schools specifically (private in the U.S.), I think it's censorship to say that the government can dictate what particular position on controversial scientific topics can be taught. Obviously students should be exposed to evidence and subsequent interpretations from mainstream points of view, but to require only one particular stance is not a reasonable position but one borne out of dogmatism. I would think that as someone who prides himself on his free thinking, you would be supportive of schools that encourage students to question the status quo.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-154495438763509967.post-74913998104588783992008-02-19T17:09:00.000+00:002008-02-19T17:09:00.000+00:00There were two petitions on this topic and this wa...There were two petitions on this topic and this was the stronger one and not the one that I helped initiate.<BR/><BR/>Yes I am against any form of government funding for faith schools in the state system. As for public schools (what you call private schools) anyone can create any school, providing it fulfills a state set of educational requirements. This would exclude teaching creationism in a biology class, but allow it within a religion class. Whatever specific extra-curricular religious instruction such as school might provide it should also teach comparative religion/religious education which would cover the facts of all significant religions not just the preferred one the public faith school.Martin Freedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952072422175870627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-154495438763509967.post-25281845485507316022008-02-19T16:40:00.000+00:002008-02-19T16:40:00.000+00:00Again, I apologize if I am mistaken in my assessme...Again, I apologize if I am mistaken in my assessment due to my poor knowledge of the UK school system, but the original petition you quoted sounded like it was pushing for the abolishment of all faith schools in the UK regardless of funding status. Are you saying that as long as taxpayer-funded government support of faith schools isn't in play, the right of such schools to provide education to those who wish it is not in question?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-154495438763509967.post-23704381577649053652008-02-19T16:12:00.000+00:002008-02-19T16:12:00.000+00:00First of all Jared you are missing the point. This...First of all Jared you are missing the point. This was specific petition with specific clams and I was analysing the governments response to it. It is generally worrying that the government feels fit to reply to a petition and make no statement about one of the key points in the petition, at the very least they should make a full reply stating its position. In this case in particular, that it was silent on one specific point, over teaching creationism in state schools.<BR/><BR/>The question of teaching creationism is not over censorship. Nothing prevents parents sending their children to Sunday school where they can learn this. It is not the role of state school to teach controversial positions, but provide the best education possible to equip our children to function as independent adults in the real world, including then being able to make up their own minds on controversies. On this basis creationism does not warrant being on any syllabus except religious education within which I have no problem it being taught, along with other creation myths, of course.Martin Freedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952072422175870627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-154495438763509967.post-83531956475544792122008-02-14T20:59:00.000+00:002008-02-14T20:59:00.000+00:00So in spite of the fact that many respected scient...So in spite of the fact that many respected scientists, historians, and Biblical scholars approve of a creationist explanation of origins, and in spite of the fact that some parents chose to send their children to schools that teach this interpretation, you wish the government to censor teaching simply on the grounds that evolutionists and atheists don't like it. Apparently the right of parents to educate their children as they see fit is less important than indoctrination into the evolutionary worldview which you support.<BR/><BR/>I'm an American, not a Britisher, so I don't know how the connection between school choice and government funding works, but as long as parents aren't obligated to send their children to any particular type of school, religious or not, it seems to be that the best thing to do is to allow schools to flourish and give parents the responsibility. It is hardly the government's job to decide what worldview, if any, is ultimately true or not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com