UK Government Mandates the Teaching of Evolution As Scientific Fact 783
An anonymous reader writes "A story at the BBC explains how the UK government has put an extra clause into a funding bill to ensure that any new 'free schools' (independent schools run by groups of parents or organizations, but publicly-funded) must teach evolution rather than creationism or potentially lose their funding. 'The new rules state that from 2013, all free schools in England must teach evolution as a 'comprehensive and coherent scientific theory.' The move follows scientists's concerns that free schools run by creationists might avoid teaching evolution. Sir Paul Nurse, president of the Royal Society, said it was 'delighted.' Sir Paul told BBC News the previous rules on free schools and the teaching of evolution versus creationism had been 'not tight enough.'"
good (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:good (Score:5, Insightful)
The government has a duty to step in when parents abuse their children. This is not up for debate, we do it all the time when we remove children from dangerous households.
The only question is if this meets that bar or not.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree with your point. But for anyone to say that this matter would amount to abuse is simply as anti-freedom and anti human-rights as possible. If freedom means anything at all, it means the ability to teach your children that the Government is wrong - even when it goes against science. I agree with evolution completely, and yet it's plain that is a very, very nasty slippery slope that anyone who cares about human rights should fear greatly.
Re:good (Score:4, Informative)
I disagree.
You may teach your children as you like, but to never teach them about evolution is abuse.
You may feel free to teach them about evolution and your own view that a magic man in the sky created everything. That would be silly, but not abusive.
Re:good (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. I think teaching children about fictional all powerful beings as if they were real is a form of abuse. This perpetuates a society which can't distinguish between right and wrong, real and imagined, and fosters abuse of the minority (be it communists, pedophiles, African Americans, gypsies, jews, or some other group).
Re:good (Score:4, Insightful)
You miss a detail, when a religion says "believe" and "announce the good news, that people can be saved", and it becomes "this God is real and I'll punish you for not obeying what [I say] it is saying", the problem is not the religion.
Then you miss the whole picture, together with everybody else.
IT IS A FAKE dualism, the one between evolution and creation. A hypothetical creator outside time does not create the initial state of the universe and lets it evolve. It creates the whole timeline together with the whole space in one step. Else he'd be travelling himself in time, a creator bound by the thing it is going to create? IMPOSSIBRU)
Evolution is orthogonal to religion, the how is not the who.
OTOH if somebody comes up with a young earth theory that fits some ancient religious books, why not? Does not prove any book correct in its impossible to prove religious messages, so what is the problem? It does not rule out evolution automatically. Maybe DNA is shakered faster when some cosmic ray showers occur :)
Re:good (Score:5, Insightful)
That's absurd. There's no agenda to atheism. By definition, *there's nothing to believe in*.
If I told you I was an a-unicorn-ist (that is, someone that doesn't believe in unicorns) would you think that I have some sort of agenda? Some sort of RELIGION?
At best, you can describe atheism as a philosophy, but it's more accurate not to call it anything at all. It's like the number 0. It's there, it's useful to define the absence of something (i.e., I have 0 oranges at my desk), but in the end, there's literally no belief structure tied to it at all.
You can make the point that there are ANTI-religious people and that THEY have an agenda, but don't tell me I have a religion specifically because I don't believe in any of them.
Re:good (Score:5, Insightful)
You are right about one thing. It is a psychological cliche to believe you are a better than average driver. Indeed.
However, as I argued above, I feel many atheists simply don't believe because they haven't seen anything to support the notion there is something to believe in.
Quite honestly, I don't understand your notion that atheism is truth. For all I know one day we can all be caught with our knickers down when we do discover there is a supreme being of some sort, even if it could be a wanker like Q from star trek.
The thing that most atheists would like is this:
- Quit trying to debunk factual phenomenon because they don't fit your antiquated book
- Quit trying to impose a system on morality on others based on what some dude with a beard wrote in Babylon 2500 years ago (talking about Torah here)
That's not so much debunking Christianity / Judaism / Islam as more trying to get the Christians / Jews / Muslims to shove it into our faces all the time with shitty and immoral legislation.
Re:good (Score:4, Insightful)
Your view on atheist morality is dangerous and disturbing at best. Firstly you confuse the notion of atheism and evolution in your mind. Atheism does not teach anything, certainly not that survival of the fittest is the rule. Atheism simply means that one does not believe in any deity, no more no less.
Evolution theories of today don't even teach survival of the fittest. It has been proven that in many species altruistic behavior is an Evolutionarily Stable Strategy as it's called, so helping one's neighbors and even members of other species is definitely wired into our system.
As far as Evolution not being a fact because of lack of proof, that is simply not true. We have fossil records that are becoming ever more complete, both in the plant- as well as in the animal side of things. This fossil record amounts to a mountain of proof on which to base the hypothesis that evolution occurred and how it occurred.
Now if you add to that the real-time observations and experiments that were carried out, you can argue that evolution as a concept has been proven in an ironclad way, and the only thing that remains is the figuring out of the details.
Now the creationist view and the view of non-evolution have never, ever had a shred of evidence to support those notions. It really reminds me of XKCD comic 373, The Data So Far. Google it.
Quite frankly, since altruistic behavior is pretty much wired into our system, we have an inherent sense of morality that really exists outside of any religious source. As a matter of fact, I think that the religious writings are an apt reflection of the human condition in its full breadth.
Actually, Humanism and Liberalism in this country was phrased by non-religious people. Baruch Spinoza even got kicked out of the Jewish congregation because he wrote humanist books. We could have the tedious exercise where I would put the religious wars and inquisition in the fray, and you'd come up with Stalin and Hitler (although they were also dogmatic), and that whole discussion with you is just a very tedious chess game in which I know all the moves you'll play but I also know we'll agree to disagree.
It's just very boring to have to deal with your kind of arguments, because we've seen 'm all before, they've been logically refuted a million times over and yet people with your line of reasoning crawl out of the woodwork wherever I turn.
Re:good (Score:4, Insightful)
You may teach your children as you like, but to never teach them about evolution is abuse.
I could easily come up with dozens of scientific theories and concepts that are certainly more important to be taught than evolution.
Do you consider it abuse to not teach kids about Newton's laws of motion? Sadly, I would be willing to bet that most products of the public education system have a better concept of evolution than of inertia.
This is the problem that I have with the whole evolution/creationism in education debate: the theory of evolution is just not that important. The loudmouths on both sides of this debate aren't interested in education; they're just using it as a proxy to attack their political enemies.
Try fixing the general state of science education, and then you can go attack the evolution in education question all you want.
Re: (Score:3)
There are 12 years of basic education, surely 30 minutes can be devoted to evolution.
For the record I do believe children should have to learn about Newton's laws of motion.
Re:good (Score:5, Insightful)
I could easily come up with dozens of scientific theories and concepts that are certainly more important to be taught than evolution. ... The theory of evolution is just not that important.
I'll put it this way: Trying to do modern biology without learning evolution is like trying to do modern chemistry without learning how the periodic table works.
Re:good (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason this issue is important is not because the theory of evolution is important, but because allowing the creationist alternative means undermining the validity of the entire Scientific Method and endorsing religious Faith as "scientific" instead.
Re:good (Score:5, Insightful)
I could easily come up with dozens of scientific theories and concepts that are certainly more important to be taught than evolution.
Do you consider it abuse to not teach kids about Newton's laws of motion?
No one is teaching their kids that Newtonian Dynamics is bunk and all objects move only because god will it.
Re:good (Score:5, Informative)
I think the problem is a unique one. Well, almost unique. There are (too many) people out there who not just deny evolution exists, but rabidly so. They go so far as to try to get local education ministries to change their curriculum to suit their own twisted world view.
You mention Newton's laws, but that's not comparable. There are no groups of people roaming the countryside with placards in hand trying to deny that gravity exists and insisting that schools teach students that an big invisible hand is coming out of the sky and pushing things down towards the ground.
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the state of science education itself. The problem is all the whackjob morons out there that *think* they know better, trying to undermine the efforts of said education.
This is evolution we're talking about. It is an indisputable fact. If they were trying to pass legislation demanding that, say, pre-birth fetuses are actually parasitic organisms, then I can see it being a controversy. But to mandate that everyone is required to teach a fundamental, indisputable fact of our reality, to me makes sense, in the same way that teaching mathematics as defined by mathematicians (ie: NOT 2+2=67) makes sense.
I see it as an attempt to nip a potentially massive source of bullshit and future headaches in the bud.
Re: (Score:3)
Let's do something with your words, and see if you agree with your own premise afterwards...
You may teach your children as you like, but to never teach them about eugenics is abuse.
Suddenly your point is now open for debate, isn't it?
Re:good (Score:4, Insightful)
Why?
Eugenics should be taught in a history class. To be unaware of something that shaped so much 20th century history would be insane.
Re:good (Score:4)
Eugenics was not a fact, it was a practice. An applied science, essentially animal husbandry applied to humans.
I am not talking about something popular with the scientific community I am speaking of something rather basic like the shape of the earth.
I am not suggesting proper anything, merely a standard for curriculum.
Re:good (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. You may teach your children as you like, but to never teach them about evolution is abuse.
I'm a biology teacher at a Christian school. I do teach evolution - with far more rigour than I ever taught it in public school - because I think that it's important for anyone who wants to hold a dissenting view on something considered to be this foundational to be really, really well informed about what they're disagreeing with. That said, I also work with students who have actually been abused by their parents - real abuse... emotional, physical, sexual, etc. Dogmatically stating "never teaching a child about evolution is abuse" just seems silly and insulting to anyone who has actually encountered abuse. Let's not throw the term "abuse" around so lightly.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Setting children up for failure to appease your own mythology is abuse. I cannot come up with another term for it. While it is milder in many ways that other forms it has just as lasting an impact. Others might go even further and claim that teaching children myths as reality is abuse.
I believe depriving children of an education is abuse. If you disagree that is fine, but it is an odd position for a teacher to hold.
Re:good (Score:4, Insightful)
Why should a parent that is home schooling their children be required to teach evolution?
Maybe the child is very interested in Music. You don't need to know about evolution to learn about music. Maybe the child is interested in sculpting or painting. You don't need evolution to learn those things. Hell, perhaps the child is very interested in motion and kinetics. Even learning a hard science like physics does not require you to learn about evolution.
I understand the value of a classical liberal (in the old sense of the word) education. But everyone doesn't need that kind of education. What if the kid wants to be a plumber or an electrician like his mom or dad? Still don't need to learn evolution (I also think we've lost something by no longer really supporting apprenticeship styles of learning too).
What if the child wants to be a farmer like his mom or dad? Trick question, evolution might be helpful here. Farmers can directly utilize knowledge about hybridization of plants, which would require learning about evolution ;-).
At the end of it all. I do not believe teaching of evolution should be mandated by the state.
Re:good (Score:5, Insightful)
To protect the child?
Those parents should also be required to teach him to read, write, do math even if they think algebra is the work of evil mooslims.
Re:good (Score:5, Interesting)
do math even if they think algebra is the work of evil mooslims.
Algebra was in fact largely invented by Muslim scholars, particularly Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi [wikipedia.org], which is why its name is derived from Arabic (as is "algorithm"). Smart guys from the Muslim world were key to maintaining knowledge and learning in the world while Christian Europeans were busy killing each other and dying of the plague from about 600 CE to 1400 CE.
Re:good (Score:4, Insightful)
Slashdot is falling down on the job today. This should have already been done, and before you were modded up.
*whooooosh*
That is all.
Re:good (Score:5, Insightful)
Schools, just like our legal system, should be based on logic and fact. We should teach the most likely explanation (or that we simply don't know) given experiment, research and evidence. That is the only sane way to proceed.
Of course people should be allowed to believe whatever they want - but that does not belong in the classroom or law, as it's not based on logic and reason. (Naturally, subjects like RE are fine as they are about the fact that many people do believe in religion, and the culture around it. Unfortunately, my experience of RE was a teacher peddling logically unsound stuff (pascal's wager, paley's watch, etc - pseudo-logic that is damaging to children as it will set bad precedent for their reasoning skills.)
Re:good (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree with evolution completely, and yet it's plain that is a very, very nasty slippery slope that anyone who cares about human rights should fear greatly.
Actually, I strongly suspect that you do not in fact agree at all with evolution, and are using the bogus human rights argument in an attempt to muddy the waters and pretend you're arguing against requiring state funded schools to teach reality for reasons other than defending your religiously predetermined ignorance.
If you don't like what your kids are being taught, you can always pull them out of the state funded free school, and pay for them to be educated elsewhere. Just remember that if your kids are educated in what amounts to a sham of a school that doesn't prepare them to face the real world, their job prospects are going to be minimal, and their education will be worthless. The government in the meantime, has not only the "right" to determine the curriculum at the schools they fund, they also have a responsibility to do so. There's nothing slippery about this, nor is there anything sloped, and it has nothing to do with human rights - the only reason to claim otherwise is if you're pushing a hidden agenda to remove content you don't agree with, despite the unfortunate truth of the matter.
Re:good (Score:4, Informative)
Parents can teach their children whatever they want to teach them. Nobody is disputing that or making any laws contrary to it. Hell, even schools can teach their students whatever they want. But a school that receives public money is held to a higher set of standards. That's what is going on here. If the school wants public money, then they need to be responsible in what they teach. That includes teaching facts as facts.
Re:good (Score:4, Insightful)
The European Convention on Human Rights states that education is a human right. Therefore not allowing your children to learn to read and write is a violation of their rights and the government will step in to stop you.
So the question is does the denial of education about evolution, taught as fact according to the curriculum in science classes, count as a breech of the child's human rights in the same way?
Note that parents have no right to teach their children whatever they like without limit. For example they are not allowed to teach them things which would result in psychological harm, even if they really believe that the child is possessed by the devil and doomed to spend eternity being tortured in hell (we have had that in the UK). Children are treated differently because unlike adults they cannot deal with such accusations without being injured. That does not have any impact on freedom of speech - you are free to shout "fire!", just not in a crowded theatre where people will be injured as a result.
Re: (Score:3)
If freedom means anything at all, it means the ability to teach your children that the Government is wrong - even when it goes against science.
Nonsense. The child has rights of his/her own and is not the parents property. If for example someone was teaching neo-nazism to their children, then a civilised society should intervene to stop that.
Re:good (Score:5, Insightful)
Telling your children that if they misbehave God will throw them in a furnace: Not Abuse?
Re:good (Score:4, Insightful)
The government has a duty to step in when parents abuse their children. This is not up for debate, we do it all the time when we remove children from dangerous households.
The only question is if this meets that bar or not.
You are on a very slippery slope. What other forms of "abuse" do you wish to prevent? Teaching bigotry? Ethnic or racial prejudice? How about teaching them that females shouldn't be educated? Simply telling ethnic jokes? How about teaching your children that homosexuality is wrong? Teaching them that individual responsibility is "good" and reliance on government programs is "bad"? Teaching them not to trust politicians/the government? Teaching them to question authority? Teaching them that vacines are bad/a plot?
Pretty soon you end up with a "1984" world where children can simply report their parents for teaching some sort of socially unacceptable idea and the parents are off to a re-education camp and the children get raised by state (and obviously are only taught things the state wants them to learn).
Unfortunately, freedom means being free to be stupid. Sadly, this stupidity sometimes gets inflicted on children. It also means that some children don't grow up to be politically correct sheeple.
Cheers,
Dave
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:good (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:good (Score:5, Informative)
Re:good (Score:5, Insightful)
There are no supernatural theories. They cannot exist as they are not testable and therefore not theories.
If you want to say myth or guess, just say so.
Re:good (Score:5, Informative)
Secondly, yes, absolutely, if something we teach in schools is shown to be wrong then we should change it, and there is no shame in this. Physics education does this a lot - age 15 you get Newton's Laws, then at 16 the teacher explains that this isn't really what's going on and it's just a limiting case, then you get Relativity. Darwin's original theory is viewed in much the same way as Newton's Laws anyway, it's a few-hundred-year-old theory which doesn't stand up to very deep scrutiny, but DOES have a modern descendant which has had a few of the wrinkles ironed out.
Backing down and admitting you're wrong when faced with evidence isn't bad for science, it IS science.
Aside: for any non-UK Slashdotters wondering about UK politics and religion, we tend to keep the two separate. You'll sometimes hear a politician refer to god (as Blair somewhat infamously did over Iraq), and there is a lot of "god" in our legal and political oaths etc, but the electorate (even the religious ones) don't much care for "I'm voting like this because god says so", we prefer our leaders to keep their faith in a place of worship and their politics in the House of Commons.
Re:good (Score:5, Informative)
No, bad.
Just because it is the supported theory, and all the archeological evidence does support it, and we of the scientific community hold that it is the 99% best supported explanation, it is not a fact.
If it was truly a fact, then no more resources would be spent studying evolution. And, it is way too soon to close that checkbook.
I really think it is bad when politicians and fools get involved with science.
and that's why you at least read the summary, instead of the terribly written title:
"...all free schools in England must teach evolution as a 'comprehensive and coherent scientific theory.'"
They aren't required to teach it as fact, they are simply required to actually teach it (no hand waving or "the evil overlords that oppose us require us to tell you about their lies").
Re: (Score:3)
I realize that many slashdotters take it as an article of faith that everything can and will be addressed by science, but whether or not science can explain everything isn't something we can test.
Science appears to explain most thin
Re:good (Score:4, Informative)
Unfortunately most people don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "theory". Gravity is a theory, but for most intents and purposes it can be considered a fact. This lack of understanding makes it very hard to debate with people who are convinced that anything which is a theory must just be guesswork.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because it is the supported theory, and all the archeological evidence does support it, and we of the scientific community hold that it is the 99% best supported explanation, it is not a fact.
If it was truly a fact, then no more resources would be spent studying evolution. And, it is way too soon to close that checkbook.
Wrong. Evolution is a fact. The particular details of evolution is still discussed, and refined from time to time. In the same manner, Albert Einstein refined the laws of Newton, with regards to high speeds. Newton was not wrong in any way, he was just not as right as Einstein.
It is a bit like saying that Newton claimed 2+2 equals 2.999, whilst Einstein said it's 4. However, creationists basically say zeebra + 2 = god - which does not even make sense.
Re:good (Score:4, Informative)
Wrong.
Evolution is a Theory AND a Fact. It's a fact because it's an observed natural phenomenon. It exists and is therefore fact. There is absolutely no debate in the scientific community over the existence, only the method. The existence or "fact" portion of the debate was settled before Darwin died.
The mechanism of evolution is the theory portion. We know with absolute certainty that evolution exists, what we don't understand fully is the method or methods by which is operates. The operation and rules that guide that operation are the theory. Natural Selection was Darwins theory of operation, punctuated equilibrium is another.
The Ironic part is those that deny the fact and accept the theory. I've met plenty of creationists that accept natural selection implicitly yet deny evolution. Therefore they accept Darwin's theory of evolution but then deny the fact of it's existence. But that's the irony of denying scientific fact.
You shouldn't have to mandate this (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You shouldn't have to mandate this (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, when you have to pass a law to ensure fairy tales aren't taught as facts in school, something is horribly wrong with society.
There is a precedent - outlawing Holocaust denialism. Ordinarily, being an idiot isn't a crime, but when it starts posing danger to others, you generally make it one (ditto for safety code violations when someone else than the idiot gets hurt etc.). It's not very systematic, I'll give you that, but I don't think anyone in the world has come up with a better idea to this day.
Oh, cripes, not THIS again. (Score:5, Informative)
BTW, as to the Communist states under Stalin and Mao - they also explicitly rejected neo-Darwinian evolution and embraced (and enforced) Lysenkoism [wikipedia.org] instead. The resulting crop failures when reality failed to match up to "worker's science" killed a huge fraction - possibly the majority - of the millions who died under those regimes.
Ironically, the people under Hitler, Stalin, and Mao would have been better off if their leaders had accepted neo-Darwinian evolution.
Re:Oh, cripes, not THIS again. (Score:5, Insightful)
And even if Hitler took the Theory of Evolution and twisted it to his own devices (which, as you pointed out, he didn't), that doesn't mean you toss out the Theory of Evolution. You just ditch his twisted and distorted mis-usage of the theory. Hitler also took rocket science and used that to kill a lot of people, but that doesn't mean we don't use rockets to go into space.
Re:You shouldn't have to mandate this (Score:5, Interesting)
"On The Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin was banned and probably burnt in Germany on orders from the Nazi leadership by being included in the category of "All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk." http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm#guidelines [arizona.edu]
Re:You shouldn't have to mandate this (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, it means you have politicians doing things they shouldn't be.
This is a horrible precedent. Evolution is likely the correct explanation for life on earth, but what happens when science is wrong? (it often is, that's how we learn) Do we then just say "oops, sorry, we didn't mean to legislate teaching you what wasn't known for certain yet."
Politicians should not be involving themselves in science, lest they quickly become little better than a monarchy.
Re: (Score:3)
Science is never wrong.
When science adjusts or overthrows previously held beliefs based on empirical experimentation or new evidence, it becomes more right.
Re:You shouldn't have to mandate this (Score:5, Insightful)
Find me one piece of credible, scientific evidence for creationism. Go ahead, I'll wait.
So far, people have put forth theories to try to shore up their belief in creationism, but there's precisely zero evidence for it. The best attempt I've ever seen is "this is so complex it couldn't have happened through natural processes, therefore it must have been magic".
We have observed evolution and speciation. We haven't observed any creation occurring, nor is there any evidence for it.
So when people try to teach creationism in school, it largely amounts to a religious point of view, and is presented as if it's an equally valid "theory" -- because they abuse the scientific definition of "theory" to say "well, that's just what you think". (If Newton had proposed the law of Gravity in the last 100 years or so, it would stil be a theory.)
They're not dictating the outcomes of scientific endeavors, they're saying that since there is no credible scientific evidence for creationism -- you can't teach it alongside science as an equally valid view, because there is precisely zero science involved in it.
If the public is paying for people to be educated, it expects people to come out of that system understanding what is real and what isn't. Creationism isn't objective reality, it's trying to make the universe adhere to your religious beliefs.
So, if you want to teach your children that 2+2=58 million, that water is made up gumdrops and moonbeams, and that some creator god whipped up the world in 7 literal days ... well, you can bloody well pay for it yourself, and expect them to be mocked relentlessly when they get out into the world.
But all those people saying that fossils were there to test their faith, and that the world is only 6000 years old -- well, we can't exactly accept that their version of reality is equally valid so we don't hurt their feelings, especially when it contradicts real physical measurements.
If there is a creator god, he/she/it is vastly more complex and unknowable in light of everything we know about the universe. it would have to encompass everything we know about physical reality. And if people can't include reality in their religious beliefs, it's not the states job to pay for funding their version of it.
I've known professors of computational astrophysics who are still quite religious. They have no problem with the duality of it -- because if God did create the universe, he's so far outside of any of the bits we can ever directly see and measure, that you have to take those parts on faith.
Science and religion deal with different areas of human endeavour. But you can't twist science to match what your religion tells you.
Creationism is not a scientific theory by any meaningful definition. It isn't testable, falsifiable, or evidence based. It's based on thousands of years of beliefs, most of which were borrowed from civilizations which came before the religions who now say that their bible tells them that the world was created in 7 days (the creation myth was borrowed from the Sumerians or Babylonians almost verbatim).
You should be free to believe whatever you think god has told you about morality and the like -- but it really can't be placed along side of science as a plausible alternate answer to these questions.
Re:You shouldn't have to mandate this (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole point of teaching science is to hope that people will find that things are wrong with it and improve on it. But without a solid understanding on the scientific method, what we observe now, how we interpret that evidence and why the current body of knowledge is accepted, people cannot possibly understand WHY the science is wrong (when it's wrong) and how to fix it.
No, wrong. The whole point of teaching science is teaching kids the proper way to think and approach problems. The appropriate way to think does not include clinging to one particular viewpoint because it's fashionable, whatever that viewpoint may be.
Re:You shouldn't have to mandate this (Score:5, Funny)
Well, it's all the brits fault to begin with.
You *had* to have your stupid tea tax didn't you? See how silly that sounds now?
Yeah, now look at you. McDonalds on every corner, getting fat and fundamentalist.
Look at what you have wrought.
I could have been a nice, loyal, queen-loving, crooked-teeth-having, meat-pie eating subject, but noooooo you had to be a tough guy.
Thanks England!
Re:You shouldn't have to mandate this (Score:4, Insightful)
If you mean "origin evolution", then yeah. If you mean "evolution" as a widely accepted thing that actually happens all the time and is a major basis of all biology, then that's of pretty obvious value.
Re: (Score:3)
This what always gets on my nerves about the "evolution" debate. I don't know that all life on this planet is descended from some micro organisms, for that I believe in divine creation. Neither side can prove they are right on this debate.
But I know that animals, plants and people will make minor changes that will result in a "new" species. I see German Shepherds that are obviously related to Coyotes. There should be no debate on teaching evolution, there should be a debate on teaching the "origin evolu
Re:You shouldn't have to mandate this (Score:5, Informative)
Your kidding right? Evolution as a process, like most scientific theories it has predictive and explanatory power. We see that evolution happens, take drug resistant bacteria. We see how with selective breeding in just a few thousand years we can have widely divergent dog breeds and types of plants. In our world of computers, Genetic algorithms can solve difficult problems by just following those parts of genetics that combine parts of solutions and introduces mutations and a survival rule that culls the herd. It works, I have done that. I have come up with 'intelligent' answers to problems that the only driving principle was survival, not some unseen intelligent force. So we know that the process of Evolution is a fact and practical. The teaching of creationism on the other hand is a cop out. They claim the world is 6000 years old, they claim dinosaurs co-existed with man (and woman), that man (and woman) suddenly appeared full sized and full figured in God's image (he must have been a Black Man then). That the scientists have it all wrong about radioactive decay and tree rings and layers of sediment to show when things happened. They are much like some segments of the political parties that have no problem of making up facts to fit their theories. And also we know they think that Rape is part of God's design.
I'm sorry but there is no equivalence here. None. It is the same equivalence that is being drawn by those in politics that say that both political parties are the same. A little rational thought is in order.
Re:20-50-100 years from now (Score:5, Insightful)
What will the Government decide must be taught in schools?
In my country, it already does. It's called "the national curriculum".
I had a teacher split the class into 2 sides, those who believe in God and those who believe in evolution. There was me and a very nervous oriental student on the evolution side. I didn't win the debate, but I put up a good fight.
You don't believe in evolution - you accept it, just as you accept the map of the Solar system and the periodic table. There's no place for believing.
Re:20-50-100 years from now (Score:5, Insightful)
That is a great summary of the basic issue.
Science is the process by which we expand and refine our knowledge. It is not a system of belief. The debate has been framed in such a way that you have two sets of beliefs--science and religion--and they are in conflict, but on equal ground. Applied more broadly, this is an illustration of "my opinions are just as good as your facts." It comes from people who fundamentally misunderstand what science is and how it works.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:20-50-100 years from now (Score:5, Insightful)
If you believe science leads to facts or to truth - the real truth if you will - then you are making assumptions for which you have no proof.
That is not the purpose of science. The purpose of science is to improve our understanding of the universe and how it works. The ultimate truth about how everything works is likely to be unknowable, always limited by the tools available to us and our ability to mentally grasp and understand them. However, it does produce a clearer and clearer picture over time. Sometimes it is wrong, and we later learn better. It is not perfect, but it is the best method we have for exploring and understanding our universe.
First, you assume that there is no intelligent guiding hand who happens to choose to make things behave in a mathematically coherent way most of the time (but who may change things a bit when a point needs to be made).
Science does not assume this, it simply fails to a) find evidence of such an "intelligent guiding hand" and b) has encountered no situations which require an "intelligent guiding hand" to explain them.
You're assuming that your brain is functioning properly and that you're sense of logic is correct - that If a implies b and b implies c, that a does imply c.
Which is why science is not advanced by the conclusions of any one scientist, but of many who work independently and review each other's work. It is a group effort, never relying solely on the research or conclusions of any one individual, who may have taken a flawed approach.
Perhaps it does, or perhaps you believe it so fervently that anytime something contradicts it you refuse to see it and come up with some other excuse. Perhaps the logic of the universe is incredibly simple and the only reason we keep having to invent new smaller particles and weird forms of matter is that our brains have a fundamental flaw that doesn't let us see the logic. Of course, none of these other ideas can be proven, but neither can your idea that science reveals the real truth.
There is no evidence that this is the case. You are essentially implying that your "intelligent guiding hand" deliberately plays tricks on all of us. If it does, it does so in a completely consistent manner, which means the science is still valid. But such an agent is not required in our explanation.
Instead we find that science seems to work for us so we use it, and it has been very reliable. That's good enough to make it part of our curriculum. That's good enough for us to trust our lives to it when we get surgery or fly through the sky at Mach 1. But we go too far if we declare that science is therefor the only truth. Looking at it logically, we just can't be sure. So people who try to push science are fine, but people who try to push science to the exclusion of everything else are indeed promoting a religious belief.
"Knowledge" and "truth" are not the same thing, nor did I equate them. That was all you.
As I like to say, science tells us the "how," but does not care about the "why." The "why" is left for philosophy and religion. Where the latter overstep their bounds is in saying science is wrong because it contradicts them.
Re:20-50-100 years from now (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:20-50-100 years from now (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't have to just accept it. Challenge it, test it, prove it invalid if you can. That is called science.
And the theory of evolution has been placed in that crucible and come out the other side intact, even if it is shaped a bit differently than it started.
Re: (Score:3)
In my country, it already does. It's called "the national curriculum".
That doesn't mean it's a good idea. A government that controls what you learn is perfectly capable of controlling how you think. If you don't believe me, explain North Korea.
You don't believe in evolution - you accept it, just as you accept the map of the Solar system and the periodic table. There's no place for believing.
There's no place for belief in any scientific endeavor, nor is it appropriate to simply tell kids to "accept this, it is fact." You either have evidence that supports an idea, or you don't. Ideas that have evidence supporting them should not require the preaching you're giving us. No teacher that tells kids "this is fact, accept it" is
Re:20-50-100 years from now (Score:5, Insightful)
1. We Britons have decided we want to purchase education through collective taxation as a society. If we're going to buy education, it makes sense for our legislature to have some say over the content of what we buy, just as other purchasers would. Blah blah slippery slope doesn't really cut it, ya know. Not when you don't acknowledge that there are downsides to the *non*involvement of government in education, including lack of access, no standards guarantor, costs going through the roof, the private biases of proprietors affecting the content of what is taught, etc etc.
2. Science teachers don't merely teach pupils to accept evolution as fact. They explain how it's been tested and why it stands. That said, you wouldn't be able to do very much science teaching (or science) if you have to explain the tests applied to absolutely every aspect of science.
Re:20-50-100 years from now (Score:4, Insightful)
Ideas that have evidence supporting them should not require the preaching you're giving us.
You can say that again. There is an overwhelming mountain of evidence for evolution, not to mention basic common sense about how the world works. It's definitely a mystery why so many people simply refuse to look at the evidence and accept the conclusions. It really shouldn't require all of this preaching, but for some reason it does. I wonder if society was this fragmented 150 years after the heliocentric model of the solar system was demonstrated.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You keep using that word, but I do not think you know what it means.
Belief: "An acceptance that a statement is true ..."
Re:20-50-100 years from now (Score:5, Insightful)
What the fuck? You can't believe in God and also believe in evolution now? What was your teacher trying to prove?
Re:20-50-100 years from now (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
It isn't precisely the same thing but it is a variant of an accusation sometimes leveled against people professing faith: that because they believe in something without a rational explanation, they cannot be relied upon to think rationally about anything. On more than one occasion, I have had somebody tell me that because I profess a belief in God that I shouldn't be trusted to work as an engineer.
Re:20-50-100 years from now (Score:5, Insightful)
A great example of the problem.
You lost a debate that was unloseable.
How could they have won? They have 0 evidence.
Re:You shouldn't have to mandate this (Score:5, Interesting)
No it is not. As a former fundamentalist biblical literalist, I can say firmly that you have to discount the idea that science is valid in order to hold onto those ideals. I am extremely happy that I woke up and saved myself from the sickness of faith.
Cool (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Cool (Score:5, Insightful)
I likely don't have a problem with this, because I don't claim to know how God created everything. From a faith-based point of view, I have some problems with Evolution
It is not about how science fits in to your religion's book of stories. Science is observable whereas religion is believed only because the believer wants to, or, more likely, is afraid of the punishment their religion promises for deviating from the church. It is amazing how people dismiss science to believe their religious teachings, quite often centered around an all-loving, all-forgiving deity that will send them to eternal suffering for failing to believe properly.
we may not understand everything yet, but if we don't endeavor to learn everything we can through Science, we will only block our own growth.
The most sensible statement I have ever seen by someone self-identifying as a creationist. Congratulations, but saying such sensible things might get you thrown out of the creationist club!
Re:Cool (Score:4, Interesting)
It is amazing how people dismiss science to believe their religious teachings, quite often centered around an all-loving, all-forgiving deity that will send them to eternal suffering for failing to believe properly.
It's not amazing at all. I begin with some prior probability distribution that describes my set of beliefs about the origins of the universe. I then encounter some data that purports to support the idea that the universe is almost 14 billion years old. What happens to my beliefs?
The naive answer (that they shift in the direction of believing the universe is 14 billion years old) is wrong. In reality, each of us applies a small probability that the data is just wrong (last year, OPERA claimed 6-sigma evidence for superluminal neutrinos. Everybody thought this was a mistake - we didn't all start doubting relativity a bit.) Now, if my prior probability for the universe being 14 billion years old is of any reasonable size, the data does what you expect - it increases my belief in a 14 billion year old universe. If, on the other hand, my prior beliefs are that there is scarcely any or no chance that the universe is old, after getting the new data I think it's far more likely that the universe is young, the data is wrong, and probably that there's evidence of a conspiracy to hide the truth. This is why it's hard to convince a young-earth type of the age of the universe by showing him the data - his prior probabilities are distributed such that the extra data just hardens his position.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I have some desire to change their beliefs. Not because I like dictating what people believe, but because there's a lot of value in actually understanding how the world really works. Is that unfair?
Re: (Score:3)
You don't need to use evolution is disprove God, because there has never been anything even approaching reasonable proof for a God. Take anything else in the world, try and apply the 'logic' people use to say that there is a chance a God exists, and you will not believe it.
Why say 'I believe God created the heavens and the earth' when you can just say 'well, we have proof of a big explosion that caused a lot of matter to form, but what caused that? We don't really know.' (Feel free to shorten to the last fo
U.S. christians and muslims and jews -not issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Most educated christians and muslims and Jews have no problem with evolution, despite the stereotypes thrown about on slashdot by people obsessed with a certain minority. While establishing his theory of evolution, and for many years after Charles Darwni himself continued to be a practicing Christian
Re:U.S. christians and muslims and jews -not issue (Score:5, Interesting)
Most educated christians and muslims and Jews have no problem with evolution, despite the stereotypes thrown about on slashdot by people obsessed with a certain minority. While establishing his theory of evolution, and for many years after Charles Darwni himself continued to be a practicing Christian
As an "educated" Christian myself who believes in Evolution led by God, I used to think exactly what the parent says here. Unfortunately, that statement is just not true. 46% of adult Americans believe that humans were created by God in their present form, less than 10,000 years ago. I was very troubled when I saw that. As for those who hold my belief, 32%. http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx [gallup.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Most educated christians and muslims and Jews have no problem with evolution, despite the stereotypes thrown about on slashdot by people obsessed with a certain minority. While establishing his theory of evolution, and for many years after Charles Darwni himself continued to be a practicing Christian
As an "educated" Christian myself who believes in Evolution led by God,
Unfortunately they are fundamentally incompatible. You cannot have evolution led by anything, because then it becomes not evolution, but very gradual incremental design.
free, or free... (Score:4, Informative)
So, it seems these are not such "free" schools after all. They are not forced to follow the national curriculum, so the government makes an additional set of curriculum rules to tell them what to teach.
Pay more attention to the summary--they are "free" as in beer, not speech. They are government funded, and so should expect the government to impose reasonable criteria on the use of those taxpayer funds. Apparently the purpose was to allow broad discretion in the curricula, but now the government is deciding that teaching creationism as "science" is out of bounds for use of public funds.
Re:free, or free... (Score:4, Informative)
Pay more attention to the summary--they are "free" as in beer, not speech. They are government funded, and so should expect the government to impose reasonable criteria on the use of those taxpayer funds. Apparently the purpose was to allow broad discretion in the curricula, but now the government is deciding that teaching creationism as "science" is out of bounds for use of public funds.
No, "free schools" are a special type of state school and "free" means that they are free from a number of the diktats usually imposed upon the rest of our state-funded schools, including the requirement to adhere to the national (government-mandated) curriculum. They are a new thing in the past year or two. The idea was to get rid of some of the bureaucracy involved in founding a school so that groups of parents and other people could more easily open their own new schools to create more competition in the state-funded sector which in turn would drive up standards across the board.
Re:free, or free... (Score:4, Interesting)
With all money comes control. If the religious nutters want to fund a school they will demand it teaches to their liking.
Crazy Brits! What next? (Score:4, Funny)
What about... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I disagree. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I disagree. (Score:5, Interesting)
People should be taught both and then left alone to decide which one makes more sense.
Should they be taught all the other creation myths around the world also?
There is one hell of a difference between creationism and evolution. Evolution is a proven scientific fact, observed and documented independently many times. Teaching about the bibles view in religious education (which British school has as far as I know)? Yes, it is part of the religious education.
But it is NOT part of science education, as little as turning water into wine by magic is in a brewers course.
Re:I disagree. (Score:4, Interesting)
People should be taught both and then left alone to decide which one makes more sense.
Should they be taught all the other creation myths around the world also?
Yes, but instead of it being taught in science class, it should be done in a history/world culture class. So that way the context of what is being taught is correct. Creationism == Old tradition and cultural history. Evolution == science. I figure if you make this separation and teach it in the appropriate PLACE, the confusion would be set aside and we'd understand this old concept just like we understand ancient history.
Re:I disagree. (Score:5, Insightful)
Last time I checked, the educational process does not involve the presentation of scientific falsehoods as if they were truth, then expecting students to determine for themselves which is which. That would be fundamentally intellectually dishonest. "Teach the controversy/debate/both sides" is nothing more than a naked attempt at putting creationism on equal footing with science.
Re:I disagree. (Score:5, Insightful)
Which form of creationism would you like them to teach?
Young-Earth creationism
Old Earth creationism
Gap creationism
Day-Age creationism
Progressive creationism
Neo-Creationism
Intelligent design
Creation science
Theistic evolution (evolutionary creation)
Omphalos hypothesis
Re:I disagree. (Score:5, Insightful)
People should be taught both and then left alone to decide which one makes more sense.
That's frankly, the stupidest solution possible.
If this reasoning were applied:
1. Physics classes would teach "the 4 elements", and all the other crap the Greeks believe just because Aristotle said it.
2. Chemistry would teach the "grand arcana" and how you can live longer by drinking mercury.
3. Astronomy would teach the "crystal spheres" theory, the "circular orbits with epicycles" theory, and the "the gods just move things around at their discretion" theory.
4. Any student could derail any class at will by making some shit up and demanding that the class dedicate time to teaching it and letting everyone make up their mind.
The truth is that Creationism is not a valid theory (it's a story from a book that was probably fiction when it was written*), and if you want it to be taken seriously as a competitor to evolution by natural selection the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that it 1) explains observed behavior at least as well as evolution and 2) makes falsifiable predictions which conflict with evolution that are verified by experimentation.
*No historical evidence exists to corroborate the events aside from the text who's authenticity is in question, and many of the events are believed to by physically impossible. Occam's Razor indicates it's more likely those events never actually happened, than that there is an as yet not understood mechanism that allows them to be true.
Re: (Score:3)
No. There is no scientific rational for biblical creation. It should not be taught outside a comparative religion class that also mentions elephants standing on turtles, the aboriginal dream time, and the incestuous bestiality that is the ancient greek/roman religion.
Okay, Let's see the Cr side (Score:3)
Okay, but what is the scientific evidence that life was created by an intelligent being? "It looks too complex to me" is not very scientific.
And, pointing out gaps and ambiguous areas in the fossil record is one thing, but that doesn't necessarily mean Creationism is the only alternative. That's almost like saying, "Since we don't know why Saturn has rings, we'll theorize a magic man did it." A mystery is a mystery, not
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Both?
There are probably thousands of creation myths and I can make up thousands more in a couple weeks. All are as equally invalid.
If you want to have a class on creation myths go for it, but none of them belong in a science classroom.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, you can prevent creationism and lose the "free" part, or allow it and lose the "school" part.
Re: (Score:3)
that view makes God a liar, deceiver and prankster. Especially the bit where light from stars that never existed have light waves from their explosions hitting earth right now.
Re:What if.... (Score:5, Funny)
that view makes God a liar, deceiver and prankster..
Oh, so you have read the old testament.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually there are scientific facts. A really simple example would be in measuring gravity. If you drop a ball off a tower, the fact that it fell and the time it took to reach the ground are facts. The formula describing how it falls and the values of the various constants in it would be a theory, and how well the formula fits the observed facts is a measure of how good the theory is, but the facts still stand on their own independent of any theory.
Similarly with evolution. We can take critters with very sh