12 ms·

Teaching creationism as scientifically valid now banned in all UK public schools

130 points by personjerry 12y ago

return0 12y ago
I wonder if that was even an issue in the UK (or really everywhere except some parts of the US).
- makomk 12y ago
  Yes, it was an issue in the UK. Our previous Government intentionally gave control of some state-funded schools to Christian fundamentalists with limited oversight and their schools have been teaching kids that the world is 6000 years old in science classes, complete with bogus scientific evidence for it. The current Government has been expanding this program.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - Silhouette 12y ago
    That is a rather one-sided presentation of how this happened. Neither Academies in general (the invention of the previous administration) nor Free Schools (one development of that idea by the current administration) are necessarily anything to do with religion. Moreover, we have had successful religious schools since long before that without the problems we're talking about here. Whatever your politics and whatever think of either the Academies concept or allowing schools to be run by organisations with religious motivations, singling out a few cases where things have obviously gone wrong with insufficient oversight as if that is what either government intended to happen with the changes in recent years is hardly constructive.
    - makomk 12y ago
      The successful religious schools were, for the most part, run by some of the older and slightly calmer institutional religions like the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church. With academies, the Government deliberately let random Christian fundamentalist businessmen with interesting religious views run them on the basis that their religion and business skills would make them suitable owners. They didn't actually expect them using this opportunity to teach kids creationism but it was fairly inevitable under the circumstances.
  - PPLwynSPFJ5p 12y ago
    Just one of the scientific discoveries pointing to a young earth (which you describe as being 'bogus', and without evidence) was found recently by Dr. Mary Schweitzer, an evolutionist, not a creationist, and can be found here along with photographs. http://creation.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue http://creation.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue How would you explain this, makomk?
paddlepop 12y ago
This is very encouraging to see. While it would be nice to live in a world where this kind of policy wasn't necessary it is good to see UK taking this kind of thing seriously. My sister is a English teacher and she shared with me how some of her senior students where not even being taught basic evolution in their science classes owing to the fact that much of the Science faculty were deeply religious.
- Liesmith 12y ago
  We do live in a world where this policy isn't necessary. the UK doesn't really have a ton of people who take creationism seriously like the US does. As the article mentions, the state mandates the teaching of evolution in schools, and bans the teaching of pseudoscience. That latter is actually pretty funny since UK educations are crammed with pseudoscience, but aside from a few high-profile cases creationism isn't really a problem there.
  - paddlepop 12y ago
    I don't live in the US
  - PPLwynSPFJ5p 12y ago
    I suppose you would advocate the teaching in schools of man-made global warming as well, despite the fact that it has been adequately exposed over and over again as a complete and utter fraud, with data fiddled by mainstream 'scientists' to purposely deceive the public for political and other reasons - see the many books exposing the global warming fraud including this one: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Watermelons-Environmentalists-Destroying-Stealing-Childrens-ebook/dp/B00766I0QW/ref=dp_kinw_strp_1 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Watermelons-Environmentalists-Destro...). Pseudoscience is any science subject that presented to the public AS FACT in the face of solid contradictory evidence or even with no evidence at all. Darwinian evolution (along with its many deceptions, e.g., the alleged 'evolution' of the horse, recapitulation theory, the peppered moth, and outright frauds such as Piltdown man) falls into the category of pseudoscience. Creation science is operational science carried out by PhD scientists who have contributed much to our understanding. Without them we would still be laboring under the mistaken belief that radiometric dating (along with its "millions" of years of supposed earth history) was exact science. Nothing could be further from the truth. Google, for example, RATE research (radio activity and the age of the earth), or this: http://creation.com/radioactive-decay-rate-depends-on-chemical-environment http://creation.com/radioactive-decay-rate-depends-on-chemic... If, as you say, pseudoscience is "banned" then why is evolution still being taught in schools? Why are students not allowed to question it or even be made aware of the many difficulties associated with it? Why can students not be told of any physical evidence, arguments, or other data that contradicts this bankrupt theory? All of this smacks of cover-up so that students cannot not see the desperately threadbare state of Darwin's knickers. (note to self: make 'Darwin's Knickers' the title of my next book. Or maybe call it 'Knickers to Darwin'. Hmm . . .)
codeulike 12y ago
I very much doubt there were any UK schools teaching it anyway, hence this news is not really news this side of the pond. (Context for those in the US)
- codeulike 12y ago
  Also, this is just a clarification of an existing rule that already applied to most state schools, they are just re-stating it for some of the funding edge cases like acadamies and free schools. ref: http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2014/06/18/secular-triumph-as-government-bans-creationism-from-free-sch http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2014/06/18/secular-triumph-as...
  - MarcScott 12y ago
    Academies are no longer edge cases. Most Secondary Schools (11-18) are now Academies, and hence no longer have to teach the National Curriculum. I feel this is a very important clarification, especially considering the number of Academies and Free Schools that are sponsored by religious groups.
    - grkvlt 12y ago
      Although the majority of secondary schools are academies, which I had not realised, they all still have to follow the core national curriculum for maths, english and science subjects.
- louthy 12y ago
  There are ACE schools in the UK teaching creationism as science: http://www.christian-education.org/christian-education/curriculum/ace-curriculum/ http://www.christian-education.org/christian-education/curri... http://www.christian-education.org/schools/choosing-a-school/uk-schools/ http://www.christian-education.org/schools/choosing-a-school...
  - codeulike 12y ago
    Well OK it seems there are a handful, e.g http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/nov/30/free-schools-creationism http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/nov/30/... ... but I just wanted to highlight that the situation in the UK is generally very different to the USA.
tptacek 12y ago
Politics. Religion. Valence issue. Why is this on the front page of HN? It shouldn't be; I flagged it.
- l0gicpath 12y ago
  I see no reason for your comment, specially when the guidelines are clear about these types of contributions. From http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html 4th paragraph from the bottom > Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is > inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, > flag it by going to its page and clicking on > the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) > If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    I disagree with that section of the guidelines.
    - groovy2shoes 12y ago
      I disagree with drug laws, but that doesn't mean I can possess drugs without penalty.
      - frou_dh 12y ago
        You know that doesn't work since you had to tack on "without penalty". I doubt tptacek expects to be shielded from disagreement and/or downvotes.
    - lotsofmangos 12y ago
      I disagree with you completely about this article not being suitable for HN, but on the other hand, I have to respect this approach to people quoting guidelines.
- matthewmacleod 12y ago
philcoders 12y ago
I posted this link as a new thread, but i think it is worth posting this also here, http://www.elisoriano.com/blog/new-truths-belie-evolution-even-more/ http://www.elisoriano.com/blog/new-truths-belie-evolution-ev... Would love to hear what the HN community thought on the arguments.
- rbanffy 12y ago
  "Ludicrous"?
  - philcoders 12y ago
    Did you read it? Which one did you find ludicrous?
    - arethuza 12y ago
      "Elements and minerals found in our body is exactly what are stated in the Bible that we came from the dust (crust) of the earth." The two pie charts for the Earth's crust look pretty different to me - although the fact that the same colour is used for different elements in the two charts is obviously trying to hide this (the only consistently coloured one is oxygen).
      - grkvlt 12y ago
        Yeah, I kept looking at that chart, trying to work out the point he was trying to make. It was a very confused essay, in general.
- ryanjshaw 12y ago
  Speaking for myself, I don't understand understand how people can choose a book of questionable origin and authenticity as their authority on matters concerning life and death. Whatever that page is trying to say has most likely already been addressed here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
gpvos 12y ago
One might hope so. How about private/religious schools?
arethuza 12y ago
I wonder how accurate it is to say this is for "all UK schools" as education is pretty heavily devolved in the UK - Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales all have their own counterparts to the Department of Education: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_for_Education#Devolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_for_Education#Devolu... NB As an aside, from a UK perspective the title is a bit confusing as "public schools" are private schools here. "State schools" would probably be more accurate - even if there are 4 "states" involved.... :-)
- Liesmith 12y ago
  If you read the article it applies to all the schools that take government money.
  - arethuza 12y ago
    Which government though - we have three parts of the UK with different levels of devolution: - The Northern Ireland Executive - Welsh Government - Scottish Government [NB I was careful to get the name of the institutions correct - the Welsh and Scottish bodies are styled "governments"] Edit: Mind you - I rather wish it did apply here in Scotland!
    - midhir 12y ago
      I doubt this will extend to the North of Ireland. We have a disproportionately large evangelical Christian contingent that extends to the (current) largest party in the Executive, which would aim to block it. The education ministry is held by Sinn Féin, though, who would pass it.
  - matthewmacleod 12y ago
    It does say that, but news organisations are notoriously poor at articulating the constitutional situation in the UK. In this case, for example, the move has no effect on Scotland - the education system there is totally devolved, and AFAIK there's no concept of the "free school" or academy model which has been introduced in England and Wales. I'm not sure about the situation in Northern Ireland. The Scottish Secular Society has been campaigning for a similar ban in Scotland - this will probably happen at some point, although my experience suggests that there's not as much of a problem there anyway.
jscheel 12y ago
Scientists tend to exclude God, and creationists tend to exclude science. It would benefit all of us for each side to recognize that they can live in harmony. Science can provide insight into how God's creation works, but it can never exclude God. If religious interpretation of scripture flies in the face of provable, observable science, then perhaps our interpretation of that scripture is wrong. I'm tired of this ridiculous standoff between the two side.
- jasonkolb 12y ago
  One of the problems is the connotations tied up in the word "God". Because there's so much history, baggage, and tradition tied up in that word it makes it difficult to do any sort of real experiments based on it, nevermind using that word in any defined sense in the first place. But that said, I'm with you. It saddens me to see most scientists completely close their mind to an idea. It flies in the face of the idea of experimentation and discovery. Especially bad when you see people dismissing very valid interpretations of experiments simply because the downstream ramifications make them uncomfortable (the Copenhagen interpretation comes to mind).
- icebraining 12y ago
  creationists tend to exclude science No, that's exactly the problem - many creationists try to pass off their theological scriptures as science. Which is why rules like this have to be imposed. Thankfully, they are an exception among religious people as a whole, at least here in Europe.
  - jscheel 12y ago
    If they prove something scientifically, then great. It's when they ignore the overwhelming body of science around certain things, such as the age of the Earth. That's just crazy.
- w1ntermute 12y ago
  > Science can provide insight into how God's creation works, but it can never exclude God. Of course it can exclude "God," seeing as "God" is nothing more than a fictional construct created by humans because they couldn't fully understand the world around them. Anyone who cannot recognize and accept this is either deluding themselves or lying.
err4nt 12y ago
I never understood why people get so worked up over this issue. Is the job of education to only ever let a child hear the one thing we believe to be most factual and never hear anything else? How boring would life be? I grew up in a place that valued multiculturalism. We heard about creation, AND evolution, and Indian creation myths, and Egyptian creation myths, and more. Pthe idea was that we had these people around us with this rich history and tradition and us learning it made us understand others better, and feel closer to them. We knew where they were coming from! So why not teach creationism in schools, as long as at least one group of people are telling their kids, then that's something we should tell all of our kids so they all understand. I don't see the harm. What if learning origins stories was an exploration of history or anthropology, instead of being framed as 'science'.
- arethuza 12y ago
  "What if learning origins stories was an exploration of history or anthropology" That's pretty much how it is taught in schools here (at least in Scotland) - kids are taught about religions as cultural phenomena. Meanwhile, in science classes they are taught about we think the world was actually created.
- mercurial 12y ago
  I don't think anybody is opposing teaching religious creation myths in a religion class. Saying that "creationism is a valid scientific theory", on the other hand, is the same thing as claiming that there is a controversy in the scientific world about the existence of Greek titans. Teaching that the world is a varied place is valuable, but it doesn't mean telling kids that myths and science have the same factual value.
- joesmo 12y ago
  It'd be a waste of children's time and energy. I understand that, at least in the US, the purpose of schools is not education but babysitting, but if you're going to spend time teaching anyway, perhaps teaching children real science instead of pseudoscience might be a better option not only for them but for society as a whole. Societies that believe school's primary purpose is education don't even have the excuse above for the miseducation you refer to. It's not about teaching children what we believe to be most factual, it's about not teaching them what we know is false.

130 points by personjerry 12y ago

return0 12y ago

I wonder if that was even an issue in the UK (or really everywhere except some parts of the US).

makomk 12y ago
Yes, it was an issue in the UK. Our previous Government intentionally gave control of some state-funded schools to Christian fundamentalists with limited oversight and their schools have been teaching kids that the world is 6000 years old in science classes, complete with bogus scientific evidence for it. The current Government has been expanding this program.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- Silhouette 12y ago
  That is a rather one-sided presentation of how this happened. Neither Academies in general (the invention of the previous administration) nor Free Schools (one development of that idea by the current administration) are necessarily anything to do with religion. Moreover, we have had successful religious schools since long before that without the problems we're talking about here. Whatever your politics and whatever think of either the Academies concept or allowing schools to be run by organisations with religious motivations, singling out a few cases where things have obviously gone wrong with insufficient oversight as if that is what either government intended to happen with the changes in recent years is hardly constructive.
  - makomk 12y ago
    The successful religious schools were, for the most part, run by some of the older and slightly calmer institutional religions like the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church. With academies, the Government deliberately let random Christian fundamentalist businessmen with interesting religious views run them on the basis that their religion and business skills would make them suitable owners. They didn't actually expect them using this opportunity to teach kids creationism but it was fairly inevitable under the circumstances.
- PPLwynSPFJ5p 12y ago
  Just one of the scientific discoveries pointing to a young earth (which you describe as being 'bogus', and without evidence) was found recently by Dr. Mary Schweitzer, an evolutionist, not a creationist, and can be found here along with photographs. http://creation.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue http://creation.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue How would you explain this, makomk?

paddlepop 12y ago

This is very encouraging to see. While it would be nice to live in a world where this kind of policy wasn't necessary it is good to see UK taking this kind of thing seriously. My sister is a English teacher and she shared with me how some of her senior students where not even being taught basic evolution in their science classes owing to the fact that much of the Science faculty were deeply religious.

Liesmith 12y ago
We do live in a world where this policy isn't necessary. the UK doesn't really have a ton of people who take creationism seriously like the US does. As the article mentions, the state mandates the teaching of evolution in schools, and bans the teaching of pseudoscience. That latter is actually pretty funny since UK educations are crammed with pseudoscience, but aside from a few high-profile cases creationism isn't really a problem there.
- paddlepop 12y ago
  I don't live in the US
- PPLwynSPFJ5p 12y ago
  I suppose you would advocate the teaching in schools of man-made global warming as well, despite the fact that it has been adequately exposed over and over again as a complete and utter fraud, with data fiddled by mainstream 'scientists' to purposely deceive the public for political and other reasons - see the many books exposing the global warming fraud including this one: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Watermelons-Environmentalists-Destroying-Stealing-Childrens-ebook/dp/B00766I0QW/ref=dp_kinw_strp_1 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Watermelons-Environmentalists-Destro...). Pseudoscience is any science subject that presented to the public AS FACT in the face of solid contradictory evidence or even with no evidence at all. Darwinian evolution (along with its many deceptions, e.g., the alleged 'evolution' of the horse, recapitulation theory, the peppered moth, and outright frauds such as Piltdown man) falls into the category of pseudoscience. Creation science is operational science carried out by PhD scientists who have contributed much to our understanding. Without them we would still be laboring under the mistaken belief that radiometric dating (along with its "millions" of years of supposed earth history) was exact science. Nothing could be further from the truth. Google, for example, RATE research (radio activity and the age of the earth), or this: http://creation.com/radioactive-decay-rate-depends-on-chemical-environment http://creation.com/radioactive-decay-rate-depends-on-chemic... If, as you say, pseudoscience is "banned" then why is evolution still being taught in schools? Why are students not allowed to question it or even be made aware of the many difficulties associated with it? Why can students not be told of any physical evidence, arguments, or other data that contradicts this bankrupt theory? All of this smacks of cover-up so that students cannot not see the desperately threadbare state of Darwin's knickers. (note to self: make 'Darwin's Knickers' the title of my next book. Or maybe call it 'Knickers to Darwin'. Hmm . . .)

codeulike 12y ago

I very much doubt there were any UK schools teaching it anyway, hence this news is not really news this side of the pond. (Context for those in the US)

codeulike 12y ago
Also, this is just a clarification of an existing rule that already applied to most state schools, they are just re-stating it for some of the funding edge cases like acadamies and free schools. ref: http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2014/06/18/secular-triumph-as-government-bans-creationism-from-free-sch http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2014/06/18/secular-triumph-as...
- MarcScott 12y ago
  Academies are no longer edge cases. Most Secondary Schools (11-18) are now Academies, and hence no longer have to teach the National Curriculum. I feel this is a very important clarification, especially considering the number of Academies and Free Schools that are sponsored by religious groups.
  - grkvlt 12y ago
    Although the majority of secondary schools are academies, which I had not realised, they all still have to follow the core national curriculum for maths, english and science subjects.
louthy 12y ago
There are ACE schools in the UK teaching creationism as science: http://www.christian-education.org/christian-education/curriculum/ace-curriculum/ http://www.christian-education.org/christian-education/curri... http://www.christian-education.org/schools/choosing-a-school/uk-schools/ http://www.christian-education.org/schools/choosing-a-school...
- codeulike 12y ago
  Well OK it seems there are a handful, e.g http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/nov/30/free-schools-creationism http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/nov/30/... ... but I just wanted to highlight that the situation in the UK is generally very different to the USA.

tptacek 12y ago

Politics. Religion. Valence issue. Why is this on the front page of HN? It shouldn't be; I flagged it.

l0gicpath 12y ago
I see no reason for your comment, specially when the guidelines are clear about these types of contributions. From http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html 4th paragraph from the bottom > Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is > inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, > flag it by going to its page and clicking on > the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) > If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did.
- tptacek 12y ago
  I disagree with that section of the guidelines.
  - groovy2shoes 12y ago
    I disagree with drug laws, but that doesn't mean I can possess drugs without penalty.
    - frou_dh 12y ago
      You know that doesn't work since you had to tack on "without penalty". I doubt tptacek expects to be shielded from disagreement and/or downvotes.
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    I disagree with you completely about this article not being suitable for HN, but on the other hand, I have to respect this approach to people quoting guidelines.
matthewmacleod 12y ago

philcoders 12y ago

I posted this link as a new thread, but i think it is worth posting this also here, http://www.elisoriano.com/blog/new-truths-belie-evolution-even-more/ http://www.elisoriano.com/blog/new-truths-belie-evolution-ev... Would love to hear what the HN community thought on the arguments.

rbanffy 12y ago
"Ludicrous"?
- philcoders 12y ago
  Did you read it? Which one did you find ludicrous?
  - arethuza 12y ago
    "Elements and minerals found in our body is exactly what are stated in the Bible that we came from the dust (crust) of the earth." The two pie charts for the Earth's crust look pretty different to me - although the fact that the same colour is used for different elements in the two charts is obviously trying to hide this (the only consistently coloured one is oxygen).
    - grkvlt 12y ago
      Yeah, I kept looking at that chart, trying to work out the point he was trying to make. It was a very confused essay, in general.
ryanjshaw 12y ago
Speaking for myself, I don't understand understand how people can choose a book of questionable origin and authenticity as their authority on matters concerning life and death. Whatever that page is trying to say has most likely already been addressed here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

gpvos 12y ago

One might hope so. How about private/religious schools?

arethuza 12y ago

I wonder how accurate it is to say this is for "all UK schools" as education is pretty heavily devolved in the UK - Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales all have their own counterparts to the Department of Education: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_for_Education#Devolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_for_Education#Devolu... NB As an aside, from a UK perspective the title is a bit confusing as "public schools" are private schools here. "State schools" would probably be more accurate - even if there are 4 "states" involved.... :-)

Liesmith 12y ago
If you read the article it applies to all the schools that take government money.
- arethuza 12y ago
  Which government though - we have three parts of the UK with different levels of devolution: - The Northern Ireland Executive - Welsh Government - Scottish Government [NB I was careful to get the name of the institutions correct - the Welsh and Scottish bodies are styled "governments"] Edit: Mind you - I rather wish it did apply here in Scotland!
  - midhir 12y ago
    I doubt this will extend to the North of Ireland. We have a disproportionately large evangelical Christian contingent that extends to the (current) largest party in the Executive, which would aim to block it. The education ministry is held by Sinn Féin, though, who would pass it.
- matthewmacleod 12y ago
  It does say that, but news organisations are notoriously poor at articulating the constitutional situation in the UK. In this case, for example, the move has no effect on Scotland - the education system there is totally devolved, and AFAIK there's no concept of the "free school" or academy model which has been introduced in England and Wales. I'm not sure about the situation in Northern Ireland. The Scottish Secular Society has been campaigning for a similar ban in Scotland - this will probably happen at some point, although my experience suggests that there's not as much of a problem there anyway.

jscheel 12y ago

Scientists tend to exclude God, and creationists tend to exclude science. It would benefit all of us for each side to recognize that they can live in harmony. Science can provide insight into how God's creation works, but it can never exclude God. If religious interpretation of scripture flies in the face of provable, observable science, then perhaps our interpretation of that scripture is wrong. I'm tired of this ridiculous standoff between the two side.

jasonkolb 12y ago
One of the problems is the connotations tied up in the word "God". Because there's so much history, baggage, and tradition tied up in that word it makes it difficult to do any sort of real experiments based on it, nevermind using that word in any defined sense in the first place. But that said, I'm with you. It saddens me to see most scientists completely close their mind to an idea. It flies in the face of the idea of experimentation and discovery. Especially bad when you see people dismissing very valid interpretations of experiments simply because the downstream ramifications make them uncomfortable (the Copenhagen interpretation comes to mind).
icebraining 12y ago
creationists tend to exclude science No, that's exactly the problem - many creationists try to pass off their theological scriptures as science. Which is why rules like this have to be imposed. Thankfully, they are an exception among religious people as a whole, at least here in Europe.
- jscheel 12y ago
  If they prove something scientifically, then great. It's when they ignore the overwhelming body of science around certain things, such as the age of the Earth. That's just crazy.
w1ntermute 12y ago
> Science can provide insight into how God's creation works, but it can never exclude God. Of course it can exclude "God," seeing as "God" is nothing more than a fictional construct created by humans because they couldn't fully understand the world around them. Anyone who cannot recognize and accept this is either deluding themselves or lying.

err4nt 12y ago

I never understood why people get so worked up over this issue. Is the job of education to only ever let a child hear the one thing we believe to be most factual and never hear anything else? How boring would life be? I grew up in a place that valued multiculturalism. We heard about creation, AND evolution, and Indian creation myths, and Egyptian creation myths, and more. Pthe idea was that we had these people around us with this rich history and tradition and us learning it made us understand others better, and feel closer to them. We knew where they were coming from! So why not teach creationism in schools, as long as at least one group of people are telling their kids, then that's something we should tell all of our kids so they all understand. I don't see the harm. What if learning origins stories was an exploration of history or anthropology, instead of being framed as 'science'.

arethuza 12y ago
"What if learning origins stories was an exploration of history or anthropology" That's pretty much how it is taught in schools here (at least in Scotland) - kids are taught about religions as cultural phenomena. Meanwhile, in science classes they are taught about we think the world was actually created.
mercurial 12y ago
I don't think anybody is opposing teaching religious creation myths in a religion class. Saying that "creationism is a valid scientific theory", on the other hand, is the same thing as claiming that there is a controversy in the scientific world about the existence of Greek titans. Teaching that the world is a varied place is valuable, but it doesn't mean telling kids that myths and science have the same factual value.
joesmo 12y ago
It'd be a waste of children's time and energy. I understand that, at least in the US, the purpose of schools is not education but babysitting, but if you're going to spend time teaching anyway, perhaps teaching children real science instead of pseudoscience might be a better option not only for them but for society as a whole. Societies that believe school's primary purpose is education don't even have the excuse above for the miseducation you refer to. It's not about teaching children what we believe to be most factual, it's about not teaching them what we know is false.