Who are the British creationists?

[Guest alex]

On the other side of the coin I once applied for a job at Emmanuelle college many years ago (not as a teacher btw) and they asked for you to put down your church affiliation on the application form.

[Fop 1]

Humourphobe more like.

 

Rampant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's an idea that shouldn't pose a problem taught in religious studies classes. School students don't have the right to be taught alternative views instead of science, but I don't see the problem of it being taught as an idea alongside evolution. Is it because people are worried it will be taught as fact in Christian schools and evolution as a lie?

 

That's how it works, that's the only way it can work.

 

There's nothing to "teach" about creationism other then literal acceptance, the rest is just smoke and mirrors (such as ID).

Unfortunately, atheist teachers will be biased and will teach things as fact. In fact at the school I went to, my headteacher rejected applicants for teaching jobs purely on the basis they were Christian, no matter how bad the teacher they choose instead may be. Having a majority of atheist teachers teaching a majority of atheist students won't favour the Christians.

 

Evolution isn't mutually exclusive to religion, just literal creationism is, as it is to physics, geology etc. (unless the Earth does go around the sun and is at the centre of the universe and is only 6000 years old)

[Guest alex]

How gash does that museum in Portsmouth look btw?

[Papa Lazaru 0]

On the other side of the coin I once applied for a job at Emmanuelle college many years ago (not as a teacher btw) and they asked for you to put down your church affiliation on the application form.

 

A mate of mine went for a job there and all through the time he was there it was made quite clear how important being religious was and also the kind of crap they teach as fact so he quickly left, as he wouldn't want to work in a place like that.

 

Obviously i don't think any relgion at all should be taught manditorally (is that a word!) in any school you don't need it in any way, shape or form, and its of no pratical use whatsoever, but if it is going to be then teach a bit of all of them, point out there is no proof whatsoever for any of them to be classed as fact and stuff creationism in there as that's where it belongs. To have it within any distance of science is moronic.

[Guest alex]

On the other side of the coin I once applied for a job at Emmanuelle college many years ago (not as a teacher btw) and they asked for you to put down your church affiliation on the application form.

 

A mate of mine went for a job there and all through the time he was there it was made quite clear how important being religious was and also the kind of crap they teach as fact so he quickly left, as he wouldn't want to work in a place like that.

 

Obviously i don't think any relgion at all should be taught manditorally (is that a word!) in any school you don't need it in any way, shape or form, and its of no pratical use whatsoever, but if it is going to be then teach a bit of all of them, point out there is no proof whatsoever for any of them to be classed as fact and stuff creationism in there as that's where it belongs. To have it within any distance of science is moronic.

They do get good exam results mind

[NJS 4447]

The thing is that teachers would have to be too tame if it did come up in science. If the age of the earth and common descent is discussed and you got a kid saying "I don't believe that" (as per the Dawkins prog a few weeks ago) they'd have to tread carefully in case they offend.

 

Now obviously someone as militant as me would tend to support an aggressive "this is how stupid you are" approach but I have to accept it would just cause problems for the school - probably legal ones which again ideally I'd vigorously oppose but would prove ultimately fruitless.

 

The problem with keeping it in RE as suggested is the old accident of history/geography problem - to be fair you'd have to include creation myths from all over the world rather than just the Genesis bollocks.

 

I'd be tempted to just show the clip from The Simpsons where Ned asks the museum where their "alternative" is and they show him the collage backed by "What a fool believes".

[Guest alex]

It never ceases to amaze me how many people lap that creationism shit up though. Like that bint running with John McCain. The right-wing press here think she's the bees' knees as well. For holding that view alone she should be written-off as froot loop.

Edited September 15, 2008 by alex

[NJS 4447]

To be fair to Palin I think she just felt the need to support the "teach the controversy" position because she thinks that's what a social conservative should do rather than being a complete creationist fruitloop.

[Guest alex]

To be fair to Palin I think she just felt the need to support the "teach the controversy" position because she thinks that's what a social conservative should do rather than being a complete creationist fruitloop.

I feel better now. Maybe she's just a typical hypocritical politician I heard she was a creationist and it has raised a few eyebrows though. I must admit I haven't been following the election campaign that closely in America however.

Edited September 15, 2008 by alex

[Papa Lazaru 0]

The thing is that teachers would have to be too tame if it did come up in science. If the age of the earth and common descent is discussed and you got a kid saying "I don't believe that" (as per the Dawkins prog a few weeks ago) they'd have to tread carefully in case they offend.

 

Now obviously someone as militant as me would tend to support an aggressive "this is how stupid you are" approach but I have to accept it would just cause problems for the school - probably legal ones which again ideally I'd vigorously oppose but would prove ultimately fruitless.

 

The problem with keeping it in RE as suggested is the old accident of history/geography problem - to be fair you'd have to include creation myths from all over the world rather than just the Genesis bollocks.

 

I'd be tempted to just show the clip from The Simpsons where Ned asks the museum where their "alternative" is and they show him the collage backed by "What a fool believes".

 

And then show the clip with Flanders talkign to god saying "But i did everything it says in the bible, even the stuff that contradicts all the other stuff!"

 

Or the episode of family guy where Peter is classed as being retarded and they show a diagram of decreasing intellignece levels:

 

Normal

 

Retarded

 

Creationists

[Papa Lazaru 0]

On the other side of the coin I once applied for a job at Emmanuelle college many years ago (not as a teacher btw) and they asked for you to put down your church affiliation on the application form.

 

A mate of mine went for a job there and all through the time he was there it was made quite clear how important being religious was and also the kind of crap they teach as fact so he quickly left, as he wouldn't want to work in a place like that.

 

Obviously i don't think any relgion at all should be taught manditorally (is that a word!) in any school you don't need it in any way, shape or form, and its of no pratical use whatsoever, but if it is going to be then teach a bit of all of them, point out there is no proof whatsoever for any of them to be classed as fact and stuff creationism in there as that's where it belongs. To have it within any distance of science is moronic.

They do get good exam results mind

 

 

They do indeed! But once you take out the insane religious nonsense from these schools they are incredibly well run and function so well because they have plenty of discipline and the like and don't stand for any shit from the kids. Just a shame its combined with teaching lies basically!

[Fop 1]

I love that the church of England is apologising to Darwin though.

[Guest alex]

I love that the church of England is apologising to Darwin though.

They evolve, they don't revolve.

[Park Life 71]

Your thoughts Fop?

Pay attention the are already there.

Ah right. So your name is actually Pallab Ghosh then?

 

Could be, could be.

 

 

If I were I'd probably be working on new story "Ouch - fact or fiction and it's relation to schrodinger's cat".

 

For a cat that doesn't exist it doesn't half take a lot of stick.

[TheInspiration 1]

Humourphobe more like.

 

Rampant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's an idea that shouldn't pose a problem taught in religious studies classes. School students don't have the right to be taught alternative views instead of science, but I don't see the problem of it being taught as an idea alongside evolution. Is it because people are worried it will be taught as fact in Christian schools and evolution as a lie?

 

That's how it works, that's the only way it can work.

 

There's nothing to "teach" about creationism other then literal acceptance, the rest is just smoke and mirrors (such as ID).

Unfortunately, atheist teachers will be biased and will teach things as fact. In fact at the school I went to, my headteacher rejected applicants for teaching jobs purely on the basis they were Christian, no matter how bad the teacher they choose instead may be. Having a majority of atheist teachers teaching a majority of atheist students won't favour the Christians.

 

Evolution isn't mutually exclusive to religion, just literal creationism is, as it is to physics, geology etc. (unless the Earth does go around the sun and is at the centre of the universe and is only 6000 years old)

Aye, but I'm incoluding other subjects like philosophy and religious studies. The philosophy of religion teachers as a rule have to be atheists and it's pretty clear the headmaster wouldn't appoint Christian teachers otherwise. This is discrimination and the atheist teachers happen to be biased.

[TheInspiration 1]

The thing is that teachers would have to be too tame if it did come up in science. If the age of the earth and common descent is discussed and you got a kid saying "I don't believe that" (as per the Dawkins prog a few weeks ago) they'd have to tread carefully in case they offend.

 

Now obviously someone as militant as me would tend to support an aggressive "this is how stupid you are" approach but I have to accept it would just cause problems for the school - probably legal ones which again ideally I'd vigorously oppose but would prove ultimately fruitless.

 

The problem with keeping it in RE as suggested is the old accident of history/geography problem - to be fair you'd have to include creation myths from all over the world rather than just the Genesis bollocks.

 

I'd be tempted to just show the clip from The Simpsons where Ned asks the museum where their "alternative" is and they show him the collage backed by "What a fool believes".

Each to his own and all that, but firstly teenagers aren't going to know better, and secondly why so angry? It's like militant atheists seem so threatened by creationist beliefs - I'd have thought if you were so sure it's nonsense you'd just laugh it off no? Edited September 16, 2008 by TheInspiration

[Guest alex]

The thing is that teachers would have to be too tame if it did come up in science. If the age of the earth and common descent is discussed and you got a kid saying "I don't believe that" (as per the Dawkins prog a few weeks ago) they'd have to tread carefully in case they offend.

 

Now obviously someone as militant as me would tend to support an aggressive "this is how stupid you are" approach but I have to accept it would just cause problems for the school - probably legal ones which again ideally I'd vigorously oppose but would prove ultimately fruitless.

 

The problem with keeping it in RE as suggested is the old accident of history/geography problem - to be fair you'd have to include creation myths from all over the world rather than just the Genesis bollocks.

 

I'd be tempted to just show the clip from The Simpsons where Ned asks the museum where their "alternative" is and they show him the collage backed by "What a fool believes".

While I accept your approach, firstly teenagers aren't going to know better, and secondly why so angry? It's like militant atheists seem so threatened by creationist beliefs - I'd have thought if you were so sure it's nonsense you'd just laugh it off no?

I find that amusing. You haven't crossed swords with Haswell on N-O by any chance have you?

[TheInspiration 1]

The thing is that teachers would have to be too tame if it did come up in science. If the age of the earth and common descent is discussed and you got a kid saying "I don't believe that" (as per the Dawkins prog a few weeks ago) they'd have to tread carefully in case they offend.

 

Now obviously someone as militant as me would tend to support an aggressive "this is how stupid you are" approach but I have to accept it would just cause problems for the school - probably legal ones which again ideally I'd vigorously oppose but would prove ultimately fruitless.

 

The problem with keeping it in RE as suggested is the old accident of history/geography problem - to be fair you'd have to include creation myths from all over the world rather than just the Genesis bollocks.

 

I'd be tempted to just show the clip from The Simpsons where Ned asks the museum where their "alternative" is and they show him the collage backed by "What a fool believes".

While I accept your approach, firstly teenagers aren't going to know better, and secondly why so angry? It's like militant atheists seem so threatened by creationist beliefs - I'd have thought if you were so sure it's nonsense you'd just laugh it off no?

I find that amusing. You haven't crossed swords with Haswell on N-O by any chance have you?

Never met the guy. What am I missing out on then?

[NJS 4447]

Each to his own and all that, but firstly teenagers aren't going to know better, and secondly why so angry? It's like militant atheists seem so threatened by creationist beliefs - I'd have thought if you were so sure it's nonsense you'd just laugh it off no?

 

Firstly you underestimate teenagers - theres nothing stopping someone by the age of 13 or 14 having read up and researched for themselves anything of interest - of course that may mean a rejection of parental dogma but natural rebellion should provide impetus.

 

The reason I care about the teaching of nonsense is a regard for the truth. I don't see any difference between teaching Young Earth Creationism and holocaust denial. If people want to fit personal beliefs around the truth then fair enough but flat out denial is wrong imo.

 

On your other point that religion and evolution aren't exclusive, you're right up to a point but that gives rise to more questions. Christianity is fundamentally based on the concept of a soul and the "fall" of man when sin started. In that light I'd ask when the first homonid was ensouled by the Christian God - was it Homo Erectus? did the dead ends who dies out like the Neanderthals have souls? If God decided to kick off the soul thing in the middle east as per the bible did humans before that all go to heaven as they were without sin? or did they all go to hell as they were soulless?

 

The bible "makes sense" if the account in Genesis is true, the fact that we know its bollocks raises a lot of questions which I'm afraid theologians can't answer as they have no evidence to back up any conclusions.

[The Fish 11090]

Each to his own and all that, but firstly teenagers aren't going to know better, and secondly why so angry? It's like militant atheists seem so threatened by creationist beliefs - I'd have thought if you were so sure it's nonsense you'd just laugh it off no?

 

Firstly you underestimate teenagers - theres nothing stopping someone by the age of 13 or 14 having read up and researched for themselves anything of interest - of course that may mean a rejection of parental dogma but natural rebellion should provide impetus.

 

The reason I care about the teaching of nonsense is a regard for the truth. I don't see any difference between teaching Young Earth Creationism and holocaust denial. If people want to fit personal beliefs around the truth then fair enough but flat out denial is wrong imo.

 

On your other point that religion and evolution aren't exclusive, you're right up to a point but that gives rise to more questions. Christianity is fundamentally based on the concept of a soul and the "fall" of man when sin started. In that light I'd ask when the first homonid was ensouled by the Christian God - was it Homo Erectus? did the dead ends who dies out like the Neanderthals have souls? If God decided to kick off the soul thing in the middle east as per the bible did humans before that all go to heaven as they were without sin? or did they all go to hell as they were soulless?

 

The bible "makes sense" if the account in Genesis is true, the fact that we know its bollocks raises a lot of questions which I'm afraid theologians can't answer as they have no evidence to back up any conclusions.

 

 

erm, I think you're forgetting that Magic man did it.

[Guest alex]

The thing is that teachers would have to be too tame if it did come up in science. If the age of the earth and common descent is discussed and you got a kid saying "I don't believe that" (as per the Dawkins prog a few weeks ago) they'd have to tread carefully in case they offend.

 

Now obviously someone as militant as me would tend to support an aggressive "this is how stupid you are" approach but I have to accept it would just cause problems for the school - probably legal ones which again ideally I'd vigorously oppose but would prove ultimately fruitless.

 

The problem with keeping it in RE as suggested is the old accident of history/geography problem - to be fair you'd have to include creation myths from all over the world rather than just the Genesis bollocks.

 

I'd be tempted to just show the clip from The Simpsons where Ned asks the museum where their "alternative" is and they show him the collage backed by "What a fool believes".

While I accept your approach, firstly teenagers aren't going to know better, and secondly why so angry? It's like militant atheists seem so threatened by creationist beliefs - I'd have thought if you were so sure it's nonsense you'd just laugh it off no?

I find that amusing. You haven't crossed swords with Haswell on N-O by any chance have you?

Never met the guy. What am I missing out on then?

He's vehemently against even the possibility that there's anything out there science can't explain either now or in the future.

[Fop 1]

He's vehemently against even the possibility that there's anything (except Gemmill) out there science can't explain either now or in the future.

 

He's right in the end. Well to within 95% certainty.

[Guest alex]

He's vehemently against even the possibility that there's anything (except Gemmill) out there science can't explain either now or in the future.

 

He's right in the end. Well to within 95% certainty.

I think it's pretty arrogant to assume we'll ever have all the answers. I also think there's the possibility of a higher, perhaps inexplicable, force or being or whatever you want to call it. Who knows? I don't think organised religions really have any of the answers though (to this at least). I find their versions of events completely ridiculous when you look at them in any detail. I find the subject fascinating though.

[NJS 4447]

He's vehemently against even the possibility that there's anything (except Gemmill) out there science can't explain either now or in the future.

 

He's right in the end. Well to within 95% certainty.

I think it's pretty arrogant to assume we'll ever have all the answers. I also think there's the possibility of a higher, perhaps inexplicable, force or being or whatever you want to call it. Who knows? I don't think organised religions really have any of the answers though (to this at least). I find their versions of events completely ridiculous when you look at them in any detail. I find the subject fascinating though.

 

I have an open mind on what you mention as well - my stance has always been that its the man-made bollocks used to enslave and control people that I object to.

 

However I do think its only trough science that we will discover the truth - however strange that truth is.

[Fop 1]

He's vehemently against even the possibility that there's anything (except Gemmill) out there science can't explain either now or in the future.

 

He's right in the end. Well to within 95% certainty.

I think it's pretty arrogant to assume we'll ever have all the answers. I also think there's the possibility of a higher, perhaps inexplicable, force or being or whatever you want to call it. Who knows? I don't think organised religions really have any of the answers though (to this at least). I find their versions of events completely ridiculous when you look at them in any detail. I find the subject fascinating though.

 

Forever is a long time. The Flying Spaghetti Monster might have the upper hand at the moment but its time to be dissected will come. Darwin foretold it after talking to a flaming sambuca.