A bit of good news...

[AJS-]

carmonk said:

maniac0796 said:

How hard is it to say:

On one hand, many scientists and ordinary people believe the world was created by the big band etc etc darwinism etc, whereas on the other hand, Christians and religious folk believe that God created the earth.

And then letting the kids make up their own mind in due course?

Why does everything have to be at an extreme, why can't we just use moderation and rationality anymore?

I guess you're also in favour of teaching that the Earth rests on the back of a turtle, or that the universe was vomited from the guts of an immortal dragon, or that the sun came down to earth and walked around and animals and plants sprang up in her footsteps. And a thousand other nonsensical stories that have zero to do with science and everything to do with primitive superstition.

I think maniac's post was saying more like the opposite of that.

I would rather schools focussed on the methods of enquiry rather than any one doctrine or another. Teaching the historical context of enquiry is a legitimate part of that, and creationism is a part of that historical context.

Teaching either theory, or any other, as an absolute irrefutable truth serves no useful purpose and is opening the door to lots of other "accepted facts" being taught as such on the basis of current prevailing ideas. MMGW is one of them, which I am quite sure will already be taught as gospel.

[carmonk]

AJS- said:

carmonk said:

maniac0796 said:

How hard is it to say:

On one hand, many scientists and ordinary people believe the world was created by the big band etc etc darwinism etc, whereas on the other hand, Christians and religious folk believe that God created the earth.

And then letting the kids make up their own mind in due course?

Why does everything have to be at an extreme, why can't we just use moderation and rationality anymore?

I guess you're also in favour of teaching that the Earth rests on the back of a turtle, or that the universe was vomited from the guts of an immortal dragon, or that the sun came down to earth and walked around and animals and plants sprang up in her footsteps. And a thousand other nonsensical stories that have zero to do with science and everything to do with primitive superstition.

I think maniac's post was saying more like the opposite of that.

I would rather schools focussed on the methods of enquiry rather than any one doctrine or another. Teaching the historical context of enquiry is a legitimate part of that, and creationism is a part of that historical context.

That's not what he said, he said 'let the kids make up their own minds' but with no mention of how they might be able to achieve this. It was me who said they should be taught the scientific method so that if and when they encounter woo, or plausible theories, they are able to make up their own minds.

AJS- said:

Teaching either theory, or any other, as an absolute irrefutable truth serves no useful purpose and is opening the door to lots of other "accepted facts" being taught as such on the basis of current prevailing ideas. MMGW is one of them, which I am quite sure will already be taught as gospel.

If science is taught as 'irrefutable proof' then it's been done wrongly. Teaching the theories for which significant evidence exists is nothing to do with conclusive finality, it's basic common sense. As I've already said, if you're going to teach Christian creationism, why not teach other other thousands of other creation myths together with remote viewing, mediumship, astrology and spirit channelling? Nobody is saying that maybe a lesson shouldn't be given over to what people who aren't familiar with the scientific method believe (e.g. creationism) and discussing why it might not be a good idea to believe in something absurd that has no evidence, but that's hardly the same as teaching it in the same way evolution should be taught.

[98elise]

I still can' t believe my son is forced to take RE as a GCSE. When we did his options there were many useful subjects he could have taken, but couldn't because he could only chose 3.

Its not a faith school, and I'm atheist, so it stupid that he couldn't take an additional science, or ICT etc over fairy stories.

[carmonk]

98elise said:

I still can' t believe my son is forced to take RE as a GCSE. When we did his options there were many useful subjects he could have taken, but couldn't because he could only chose 3.

Its not a faith school, and I'm atheist, so it stupid that he couldn't take an additional science, or ICT etc over fairy stories.

Just one example of many illustrating how the repressive nature of religion is forced upon us all.

[turbobloke]

Blib said:

That could spell the end of teaching theories contrary to the prevailing "concensus" on Climate Change.

We can but hope! Gov't advisers have formally proposed its removal from the science curriculum, and presumably elsewhere.

[mattnunn]

98elise said:

Its not a faith school, and I'm atheist, so it stupid that he couldn't take an additional science, or ICT etc over fairy stories.

indeed, why learn about the corner stone philosophies that have shaped civilisation and been the single most important cultural tool in humanities shared experience when you can learn to do a pivot table in excel or make an html script website.

Let's get our childrens education in order.

What they need is an atheist instruction manual, i shall call it the "whyble".

[M@H]

mattnunn said:

98elise said:

Its not a faith school, and I'm atheist, so it stupid that he couldn't take an additional science, or ICT etc over fairy stories.

indeed, why learn about the corner stone philosophies that have shaped civilisation and been the single most important cultural tool in humanities shared experience when you can learn to do a pivot table in excel or make an html script website.

[carmonk]

mattnunn said:

98elise said:

Its not a faith school, and I'm atheist, so it stupid that he couldn't take an additional science, or ICT etc over fairy stories.

indeed, why learn about the corner stone philosophies that have shaped civilisation and been the single most important cultural tool in humanities shared experience when you can learn to do a pivot table in excel or make an html script website.

What garbage. Not everyone wants their kids to be brainwashed and grow up with a head full of woo instead of a solid, relevant skill set that will help them get a job and contribute to society. And besides, what you're describing is called history, not RE, so maybe you need to read up on the syllabus.

[Gene Vincent]

carmonk said:

What garbage. Not everyone wants their kids to be brainwashed and grow up with a head full of woo instead of a solid, relevant skill set that will help them get a job and contribute to society.

See the above people... un-common common-sense that is!

[mattnunn]

carmonk said:

What garbage. Not everyone wants their kids to be brainwashed and grow up with a head full of woo instead of a solid, relevant skill set that will help them get a job and contribute to society. And besides, what you're describing is called history, not RE, so maybe you need to read up on the syllabus.

Should I infer you consider the religious to be less contributable to society, dear oh dear, the intolerance, prejudice and civility of the "humanist" knows no bounds...

So the resurection of christ IS history is it? Strange position for an antitheist to take...

You sure you're not just looking for a hook to hang your things on too... We all need a bossom for a pillow, don't we...

[carmonk]

mattnunn said:

carmonk said:

What garbage. Not everyone wants their kids to be brainwashed and grow up with a head full of woo instead of a solid, relevant skill set that will help them get a job and contribute to society. And besides, what you're describing is called history, not RE, so maybe you need to read up on the syllabus.

Should I infer you consider the religious to be less contributable to society, dear oh dear, the intolerance, prejudice and civility of the "humanist" knows no bounds...

If you can't understand English then feel free to make that conclusion.

mattnunn said:

So the resurection of christ IS history is it?

No, it's nonsense. But because you are now making the opposite point you did a few posts back I don't see the need to elaborate.

mattnunn said:

You sure you're not just looking for a hook to hang your things on too... We all need a bossom for a pillow, don't we...

We're back to the impenetrable pseudo-philosophical babble I see.

[Einion Yrth]

carmonk said:

mattnunn said:

You sure you're not just looking for a hook to hang your things on too... We all need a bossom for a pillow, don't we...

We're back to the impenetrable pseudo-philosophical babble I see.

Nah, it's a line from a Cornershop song, albeit badly spelled as usual.

[Einion Yrth]

groak said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

I think the main focus will be on teaching that there are useful adjectives in the English language which don't start with "f" and some handy nouns which don't start with "b"...

As used in the post, isn't the 'f' one an adverb?

It's a gerundive. HTH

[glazbagun]

maniac0796 said:

How hard is it to say:

On one hand, many scientists and ordinary people believe the world was created by the big band etc etc darwinism etc, whereas on the other hand, Christians and religious folk believe that God created the earth.

And then letting the kids make up their own mind in due course?

Why does everything have to be at an extreme, why can't we just use moderation and rationality anymore?

In RE, by all means, but not in science. Just as we don't teach ancient Egyptian or Roman origin theories. Science based subjects should include Science, perhaps the history of the subject area and little else.

[turbobloke]

Einion Yrth said:

carmonk said:

mattnunn said:

You sure you're not just looking for a hook to hang your things on too... We all need a bossom for a pillow, don't we...

We're back to the impenetrable pseudo-philosophical babble I see.

Nah, it's a line from a Cornershop song, albeit badly spelled as usual.

Well spotted, it's had an implant