Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry if this sounds trite but creationism in the US is a great source of mockery in the UK. Nobody believes in a literal interpretation there.
With the possible exception of Northern Ireland which is currently part of the UK. There creationism is getting a foothold... there have been attacks physical and legal on museum exhibits there which claim the world is very old indeed... and there have been attempts to get Creationist Dogma taught in schools just like this thread is about. All with the political support of the DUP.
And the Republic just to their south where I am from (but do not live) have a modernized blasphemy law to boot. Something which certainly does not make me proud to be Irish.
But yes, generally around Europe the idea of creationism and the mockery it makes of the USA is a source of both mirth and despair. The former being used to alleviate the latter where possible. We have already seen in the east what happens when Religion hampers the progress of Science. If america want to follow the same route then so be it. We will gladly take their jobs and money and, hopefully, will not be so keen to crap all over them and give throw them away.
Creationism should not be taught alongside evolution. We should teach what we know, not what we might know. We have evidence of evolution, none of God (or god/gods). This doesn't mean we should teach an absence of God in science class, we just need not waste time on teaching ideas with no back up. If people want to think God guided evolution, that's fine. I have no objection, but there's no need to TEACH that. People can infer it if they must, but we can't teach it in science if there's no evidence behind it.
Agreed. While it is fully acceptable to us atheists for a Comparative Religions Class to be taught "down the hall", such concepts certainly do not EVER belong in some Comparative Scientific Theories and Philosophies element in a true Science class.
Scientific methodology is in a well-defined class of its own, being nothing but a process from which honest questions, data sets and resulting conclusions are generated.
Then scientists use this process to ask and get answers on their various hypotheses. It has literally nothing to claim on it's own but it's highly defensible processes.
To honestly compare most or all the world's religions is a very worthwhile educational effort, but in general the Christian Coalition on Education does NOT want any such honest and open comparo, since they would not necessarily win!
Rather, they would prefer to be there in those high-school science classes when naturally occurring processes are studied and proven, but to out-yell the ideas that step hard on the magic-based but supernatural and fear-based causes that Christianity pushes to maintain their fear-mongered clientele.
The more conflicting beliefs that are taught at school, the more likely it is that students will develop a capacity for critical thought. And this is something that clearly neither modern Christians nor modern Atheists want.
The more conflicting beliefs that are taught at school, the more likely it is that students will develop a capacity for critical thought. And this is something that clearly neither modern Christians nor modern Atheists want.
The thing is unlike creation, evolution is NOT based on beliefs, but evidence. I would say teach creation based on the evidence for it...Too bad there is not even a scrap.
The more conflicting beliefs that are taught at school, the more likely it is that students will develop a capacity for critical thought. And this is something that clearly neither modern Christians nor modern Atheists want.
That was a ridiculous post from one end to the other. Especially the bit that makes you sound like this. The vast majority of atheists very much do want to develop capacity for critical thought. Hark the old atheist mantra of "We want to tell people how to think not what to think".
Further simply pumping conflicting ideas into schools is not going to develop capacity for critical thought. that is the biggest nonsense in your post. If this were true we should follow every chemistry class with an alchemy one. Every astronomy class with an astrology one. Maybe after the science period we could have a witchcraft period? After geography lessons we can teach some flat earth theory and geocentric-ism?
Come off it. Pumping nonsense into a school curriculum in an effort to increase critical thought is like pumping botox into your knees to improve your running ability. Stultifying nonsense will stultify and little more.
The more conflicting beliefs that are taught at school, the more likely it is that students will develop a capacity for critical thought. And this is something that clearly neither modern Christians nor modern Atheists want.
Clearly, critical thinking is part and parcel of understanding evolution but not religion. How do we know this?
Consider a degreed biologist. I don't have to tell you from where said biologist comes or where said degree was issued - such biologists almost invariably accept evolution from the evidence.
Said biologist might come from New York or New Delhi, Toronto or Tokyo, Boston or Buenos Aires, Sydney or Shanghai, Chicago or Cairo, Dublin or Dakar. The understanding of evolutionary biology between any two of said biologists will be almost universal, quibbling not over substance but over the minor details that all scientists in all fields debate as part of the rigorous process of peer review.
Now consider a pious and faithful believer. First, I have to tell you from where they hail. Only then can you guess with any accuracy at what they believe. And you will find vast chasms of belief separating one from the other.
Why? Because science is universal. It presents information available to anyone applying the scientific method. Religion is cultural, dependent entirely on baseless tales drilled into ones memory by cultural guardians.
A biology question:
Why does genetic drift occur? We have, literally, tons of documented analysis on how, when, and why it occurs. No mere claims that it does occur, but documentation showing the occurrence playing out and demonstrating all the details of how it does so.
A religious question:
Why should we eat pork? Because a book from roughly the 5th century BC says God told Moses so. No, because a 7th century book says Allah told Mohammed so. No, wait, it's all right because Jesus said so. That's all. Nothing more.
If non-indigenous Australians had left that continent forever isolated to develop on its own, thousands of years in the future the inhabitants of that island would have eventually discovered evolution, and subsequently, genetic drift. But they never would have 'discovered' some ancient carpenter in a far-off desert land telling people it's all right to eat pork. Because the former is a phenomenon waiting to be observed, while the latter is just folklore with no more basis than leprechauns or goblins.
And that's the difference between scientific knowledge and religious claims.
Last edited by Unsettomati; 09-30-2013 at 09:12 AM..
Clearly, critical thinking is part and parcel of understanding evolution but not religion.
Wrong. Critical thinking is needed to understand ANYTHING. If you want to understand the hair on your head, you need critical thinking. The religious fundamentalist is no different from the atheist fundamentalist, neither understand anything. Why can we eat pork? The Bible says not to eat pork because it is unclean. Pork is no longer unclean. See how easy that was, with a little critical thought?
Wrong. Critical thinking is needed to understand ANYTHING. If you want to understand the hair on your head, you need critical thinking. The religious fundamentalist is no different from the atheist fundamentalist, neither understand anything. Why can we eat pork? The Bible says not to eat pork because it is unclean. Pork is no longer unclean. See how easy that was, with a little critical thought?
At least you were kind enough to underscore for us all that you haven't the foggiest notion of what constitutes 'critical thinking'.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
