Royal Society, Pillar of Society smashed to bits

[BrilloPad]

Of course even the church does not believe in creationism.

Genesis gives why the universe was created - how is up to science. The church sees it as a sort of fairy tale story.

[NickFitz]

Of course even the church does not believe in creationism.

Genesis gives why the universe was created - how is up to science. The church sees it as a sort of fairy tale story.

Some churches do. A friend of mine is an evangelical Christian, and all her mob believe in the literal truth of the creation myths in Genesis, and reject evolution. They also have people spontaneously speaking in tongues at their services... this is in a large city, not some rural backwater, and these people are middle-class professionals.

The majority of the people in this country who bring their children up to believe in creationism are Christians of this ilk.

[PM-Junkie]

Some churches do. A friend of mine is an evangelical Christian, and all her mob believe in the literal truth of the creation myths in Genesis, and reject evolution. They also have people spontaneously speaking in tongues at their services... this is in a large city, not some rural backwater, and these people are middle-class professionals.

The majority of the people in this country who bring their children up to believe in creationism are Christians of this ilk.

idiots

[NotAllThere]

idiots

Rather like the pillocks who can't actually make it halfway through the article:

"Some of my comments about the teaching of creationism have been misinterpreted as suggesting that creationism should be taught in science classes. Creationism has no scientific basis.

"However, when young people ask questions about creationism in science classes, teachers need to be able to explain to them why evolution and the Big Bang are scientific theories but they should also take the time to explain how science works and why creationism has no scientific basis. "

What's the problem with that? He's saying that in science classes, pupils should be taught that creationism has no scientific basis, and the big bang and evolution do.

i.e. the extremely important point that they are NOT alternative, equally valid theories.

[NickFitz]

Rather like the pillocks who can't actually make it halfway through the article

WHS

For balance, they could explain why Dawkins theories on religion are based on nebulous intellectual bases, in RE.

Indeed. Dawkins never seems to have grasped what Wittgenstein was driving at when he wrote "Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent."

[PM-Junkie]

Rather like the pillocks who can't actually make it halfway through the article:



What's the problem with that? He's saying that in science classes, pupils should be taught that creationism has no scientific basis, and the big bang and evolution do.

i.e. the extremely important point that they are NOT alternative, equally valid theories.

er, why quote my post? I made no reference to the original article - merely that people who bring their kids up to believe in creationism are idiots. Where did I say that it was wrong to discuss it?

[Alf W]

Surely there's already a slot where creationism can be covered off and that's in the slot reserved for Religious Studies.

[TimberWolf]

I find it impossible to work out how you managed to come up with that interpretation of his statement. There is absolutely nothing in his statement to suggest that he believes in creationism as a valid explanation of anything. The only thing one can deduce about his beliefs is that he believes that there are children who are being brought up to believe in creationism, and in this he is absolutely correct. Visit your local evangelical church if you don't believe it.

It would help if you did read it:

I have referred to science teachers discussing creationism as a worldview

All he has done in defence of his original remarks are to state the obvious, and that is that creationism is not a science. He hasn't said that he does not believe in creationism. He has said it should be taught in school.

Facts in easy bite sized morsels:
1) He has said teachers should discuss creationism as a worldview
2) He has provided a strawman in the form of saying cretinism is not science.
3) He has not said cretinism is not a valid worldview, or his.

Ergo, I refer you back to my original post.

[NickFitz]

It would help if you did read it:



All he has done in defence of his original remarks are to state the obvious, and that is that creationism is not a science. He hasn't said that he does not believe in creationism. He has said it should be taught in school.

Facts in easy bite sized morsels:
1) He has said teachers should discuss creationism as a worldview
2) He has provided a strawman in the form of saying cretinism is not science.
3) He has not said cretinism is not a valid worldview, or his.

Ergo, I refer you back to my original post.

Do you know anything about science? It is not the purpose of science to dictate people's opinions. If you say you believe in fairies then a scientist is entitled to point out that there is no scientific justification for your belief. However this does not entitle them to forbid you from holding that belief. Your belief in fairies would be part of your worldview to which you are entitled. Acknowledging the entitlement to hold a belief does not imply that the belief itself is in any sense correct.

Stating that creationism has no scientific validity is hardly a strawman argument; it is in fact the limit of what can scientifically be said about it.

Forbidding people from holding unscientific beliefs is the responsibility of totalitarians, not scientists. Ignoring unscientific beliefs in the vague hope that they will go away is irresponsible in an educational context.

He has stated that educators who find their students questioning the validity of established scientific theories on the basis of an unscientific belief should explain to them the difference between science and non-science, rather than pretending that such unscientific beliefs don't exist, or attempting to dismiss them without explaining why they have no relevance. Sounds sensible to me.

[TimberWolf]

Do you know anything about science? It is not the purpose of science to dictate people's opinions. If you say you believe in fairies then a scientist is entitled to point out that there is no scientific justification for your belief. However this does not entitle them to forbid you from holding that belief. Your belief in fairies would be part of your worldview to which you are entitled. Acknowledging the entitlement to hold a belief does not imply that the belief itself is in any sense correct.

Stating that creationism has no scientific validity is hardly a strawman argument; it is in fact the limit of what can scientifically be said about it.

Forbidding people from holding unscientific beliefs is the responsibility of totalitarians, not scientists. Ignoring unscientific beliefs in the vague hope that they will go away is irresponsible in an educational context.

He has stated that educators who find their students questioning the validity of established scientific theories on the basis of an unscientific belief should explain to them the difference between science and non-science, rather than pretending that such unscientific beliefs don't exist, or attempting to dismiss them without explaining why they have no relevance. Sounds sensible to me.

I never said any of the above. If you want my opinion on whether cretinism should be taught in school, I gave that earlier: I don't believe most kids world view is greatly altered by what is taught in schools anyway, or at least as I qualified then, not if kids are like we were. I'm only defending an alternate interpretation of what he said in his defence, not stating that he is definitely a creationist, this is unknown, but from that you presume to know what I think.

Stating that creationism has no scientific validity is hardly a strawman argument; it is in fact the limit of what can scientifically be said about it.

It is a stawman since I don't believe anyone said that creationism did have a scientific credibility. It may appear from that what he is saying is that he does not believe in creationism 'because it is not science', but there is another interpretation and that is that he sidestepping the issue by stating something obviously acceptable. I don't think you are going to get this. Please note, again, I am not saying he is a creationist We don't know, the remarks were open to interpretation, if you is clever.