3 ms·

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 t

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 . . .)
PPLwynSPFJ5p 12y ago
Glad to see that some of them are taking their religious convictions (as well as their science) seriously, and are not bowing down to the sacred cow of Darwinism. The students you refer to don't know how lucky they are to have such principled teachers. Although those teachers may not hold to the consensus view, they are no doubt aware that the history of science has frequently shown the 'consensus view' to have previously been completely wrong (think hand-washing and germs, for example). Scientist are already reaching a similar conclusion with respect to Darwinian evolution, which is why secular activists, and atheists, have had to campaign vigorously to have their pet theory enforced in the classroom by BY LAW (rather than because the theory has any scientific merit, let alone evidence). If more people invested some time in examining the most up-to-date scientific evidence we would not be having these debates. There is no agency known to mankind whereby a simple cell - let alone an entire universe - can arise out of nothing and without a first cause. NONE. It has never been demonstrated in any laboratory on earth and it never will be. We should confine our teaching to operational (i.e. observable and repeatable) science in the science classroom, and not resort to teaching our children science fictions. Questions about the origin of life should be confined to history, R.E., or philosophy lessons, but even then, BOTH sides of the argument must be explored. We must teach our children HOW to think, not WHAT to think.

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 . . .)

PPLwynSPFJ5p 12y ago

Glad to see that some of them are taking their religious convictions (as well as their science) seriously, and are not bowing down to the sacred cow of Darwinism. The students you refer to don't know how lucky they are to have such principled teachers. Although those teachers may not hold to the consensus view, they are no doubt aware that the history of science has frequently shown the 'consensus view' to have previously been completely wrong (think hand-washing and germs, for example). Scientist are already reaching a similar conclusion with respect to Darwinian evolution, which is why secular activists, and atheists, have had to campaign vigorously to have their pet theory enforced in the classroom by BY LAW (rather than because the theory has any scientific merit, let alone evidence). If more people invested some time in examining the most up-to-date scientific evidence we would not be having these debates. There is no agency known to mankind whereby a simple cell - let alone an entire universe - can arise out of nothing and without a first cause. NONE. It has never been demonstrated in any laboratory on earth and it never will be. We should confine our teaching to operational (i.e. observable and repeatable) science in the science classroom, and not resort to teaching our children science fictions. Questions about the origin of life should be confined to history, R.E., or philosophy lessons, but even then, BOTH sides of the argument must be explored. We must teach our children HOW to think, not WHAT to think.