A bit of good news...
Discussion
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/644588-richard-...
Leading scientists and naturalists, including Professor Richard Dawkins and Sir David Attenborough, are claiming a victory over the creationist movement after the government ratified measures that will bar anti-evolution groups from teaching creationism in science classes.
The Department for Education has revised its model funding agreement, allowing the education secretary to withdraw cash from schools that fail to meet strict criteria relating to what they teach. Under the new agreement, funding will be withdrawn for any free school that teaches what it claims are "evidence-based views or theories" that run "contrary to established scientific and/or historical evidence and explanations".
Leading scientists and naturalists, including Professor Richard Dawkins and Sir David Attenborough, are claiming a victory over the creationist movement after the government ratified measures that will bar anti-evolution groups from teaching creationism in science classes.
The Department for Education has revised its model funding agreement, allowing the education secretary to withdraw cash from schools that fail to meet strict criteria relating to what they teach. Under the new agreement, funding will be withdrawn for any free school that teaches what it claims are "evidence-based views or theories" that run "contrary to established scientific and/or historical evidence and explanations".
That sounds like one of those rules that's going to come back to hurt them - much like the National Curriculum (which was introduced to combat the problem of lefty teachers teaching rubbish).
What happen's when Labour gets back in and they decide that any school that doesn't teach climate change as fact will lose their money?
More or less defeats the point of Free Schools too if the Government tells them what to teach.
What happen's when Labour gets back in and they decide that any school that doesn't teach climate change as fact will lose their money?
More or less defeats the point of Free Schools too if the Government tells them what to teach.
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?
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?
Gene Vincent said:
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/644588-richard-...
Leading scientists and naturalists, including Professor Richard Dawkins and Sir David Attenborough, are claiming a victory over the creationist movement after the government ratified measures that will bar anti-evolution groups from teaching creationism in science classes.
The Department for Education has revised its model funding agreement, allowing the education secretary to withdraw cash from schools that fail to meet strict criteria relating to what they teach. Under the new agreement, funding will be withdrawn for any free school that teaches what it claims are "evidence-based views or theories" that run "contrary to established scientific and/or historical evidence and explanations".
sounds like a dodgy bit of legislation to me.Leading scientists and naturalists, including Professor Richard Dawkins and Sir David Attenborough, are claiming a victory over the creationist movement after the government ratified measures that will bar anti-evolution groups from teaching creationism in science classes.
The Department for Education has revised its model funding agreement, allowing the education secretary to withdraw cash from schools that fail to meet strict criteria relating to what they teach. Under the new agreement, funding will be withdrawn for any free school that teaches what it claims are "evidence-based views or theories" that run "contrary to established scientific and/or historical evidence and explanations".
"contrary to established scientific and/or historical evidence and explanations"
means that the validity of subjects will be assessed on the authority behind them (i.e. what organisations and people support somethibg_.
this is obviously a bulls
t way to evaluate the weight or strength of any argument, scientific or otherwise, because the correct way to go about doing this is to consider the strength of the argument itself and not the numbers or qualifications of those who support it.Science indeed progresses through new theories and evidence challenging existing beliefs.
so to sum up: what a load of crap.
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.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?
And in relation to the OP, yep it's a significant but small step forwards. Long may it continue.
Edit: Here's something I posted elsewhere on the subject (before the teaching ban):
When a person genuinely believes in creationism, at least in the developed world, then ignorance of the facts has to be combined with a strong desire to deny, or avoid seeking out, evidence. Ignorance can be forgiven, willful ignorance cannot.
Creationism is an article of faith and therefore has nothing to do with science (faith being defined as belief without reason). I object strongly to the teaching of any religion or belief-requisite theology to children but doubly so for the teaching of creationism. The reason being that creationism is blatantly anti-science. Creationism denies science. They are mutually exclusive.
Creationism, as well as being absurd, is a done deal. This is just one way in which it is anti-science, specifially anti- scientific method. The scientific method dictates that theories be strengthened, modified, or dispensed with in the face of new evidence. With creationism there is none of that. It's all written down and cannot be changed. Goddidit, end of (fairy) story. How is that compatible with science, or even theory?
It was mentioned earlier that children should be taught to differentiate between good and bad theories, and I agree. The way to do this is by teaching them the scientific method alongside those theories that best explain observation and evidence such as evolution, relativity and quantum mechanics. In this way, children can evaluate any new theory they might hear about against the requirements of the scientific method. For example, if they come across the idea that a god created the universe, or that we have an invisible mind called a soul that goes to live in a nice house in the sky when we die, or that Santa is a real person or that Elvis lives on the dark side of the moon with the Flying Spaghetti monster, they can quickly come to their own conclusions about whether it's worth further consideration.
We should no more teach creationism in schools than astrology or mediumship or any other woo-woo. To suggest we isolate creationism from all the other nonsense we could teach is to subscribe to the canard that religious beliefs must be given respect, simply for the reason that they are strongly held. We are told this day in day out, and it's even enshrined in law. A scandalous situation.
I'd also argue that creationism is more damaging than any of the examples I listed - mediumship, remote viewing or what-have-you. Creationism is so anti-science and even anti-logic that it's not too melodramatic to term it an attack on truth itself. Biology, cosmology, physics, chemistry - almost all scientific disciplines need to be partially or wholly rejected in order to believe in creationism. It isn't so much a question of an unsupported belief, it's more a perversion of logical thought. If such reason and evidence as supports evolution and the cosmic timeline is thrown out then what can be sensibly evaluated? Would you trust somebody who is not able to apply basic reasoning and logic? I wouldn't.
Edited by carmonk on Sunday 15th January 22:20
VinceFox said:
When they all leave school able to read and fking write, THEN we can waste time on this bks.
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"... king write, THEN we can waste time on this bks.Ozzie Osmond said:
VinceFox said:
When they all leave school able to read and fking write, THEN we can waste time on this bks.
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"... king write, THEN we can waste time on this bks.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff