Reply to: Royal Society, Pillar of Society smashed to bits

[Diver]

Well I'm in favour of evolutionism being taught in RE lessons. As long as the teacher makes it clear that it's just an alternative theory and has no basis in scripture whatsoever.

Burn him!!!!

Listen, when our ancestors walked and lived amongst the dinosaurs 6000 years ago............................................... ...........

PS. It's not called creationism. it is called Creation Science

[thunderlizard]

Well I'm in favour of evolutionism being taught in RE lessons. As long as the teacher makes it clear that it's just an alternative theory and has no basis in scripture whatsoever.

[TykeMerc]

It's about time creationism was taught in science classes. I have always campaigned for this to happen.

now maybe I can move on to my other crusade of getting snooker taught in music class

just because so called musicians never play snooker at concerts, does that mean our children should be denied the right to go to a snooker concert and make their own mind up as to what constitutes a nice tune?

anyway, must dash. i've left a cake on the lathe

Classic.

[NotAllThere]

I like this from the Newscientist discussion of the subject (though he's not quite understood that he's proposing teaching in science classes is that creationism isn't science ).

It's about time creationism was taught in science classes. I have always campaigned for this to happen.

now maybe I can move on to my other crusade of getting snooker taught in music class

just because so called musicians never play snooker at concerts, does that mean our children should be denied the right to go to a snooker concert and make their own mind up as to what constitutes a nice tune?

anyway, must dash. i've left a cake on the lathe

[TimberWolf]

Or indeed a fossilised "Ban the Bomb" placard. Or a Marks and Spencers towel in a lava flow.

I think with string theory, no-one has an idea of a falsifiability or a predictive experiment. Which makes it something that may be true... but isn't science.

Kind of fun though.

I tend to think of theories such as those as science even if the theories don't meet the ideals of the philosophy of science. I suspect that's the more common view. Philosophy be darned.

[NotAllThere]

I don't think so since it would only take a dinosaur bone to be unearthed in young rock or a human skeleton to be found in rock millions of years old to falsify evolution. Or at least require a major rethink. ...

Or indeed a fossilised "Ban the Bomb" placard. Or a Marks and Spencers towel in a lava flow.

I think with string theory, no-one has an idea of a falsifiability or a predictive experiment. Which makes it something that may be true... but isn't science.

Kind of fun though.

[TimberWolf]

... funny though, I do recall, however, reading something somewhere - not written by a christian as far as I know - that called evolution into question as a science, given that it, apparently, fails the test of falsibility. Could be wrong though.

I don't think so since it would only take a dinosaur bone to be unearthed in young rock or a human skeleton to be found in rock millions of years old to falsify evolution. Or at least require a major rethink.

But I do get a bit uneasy when people say what science must be and quote the philosophy of science. Philosophy has quite a poor historic record in science and I don't think all current theories are falsifiable. String theory and M theory come to mind. And of course scientists working at the forefront of physics often work on ideas that can't be falsified at first (e.g. quantum gravity) and I'm sure the philosophy of science wouldn't be uppermost in their minds until they are well into later stages.

[NotAllThere]

www.despair.com

[OwlHoot]

There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots.

Where did you hear that?

[NotAllThere]

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?

Sorry - it was a general response - not to you in particular - that there was a knee-jerk response from quite a few who hadn't made it past the headline.

btw, most muslims I know - whether nominal or devout - really do believe in special creation as taught by the Koran. I think there's more of a threat to science from Islam than the minority of Christians who believe that Genesis is a literal account (whatever is meant by that - as far as I can tell, it simply says that God created the universe and the earth and stuff on it, and that man was created specially - but doesn't say how God went about it. Again, not subject to science, as not falsifiable, doesn't have much in the way of predictive power - true or not! ).

[NotAllThere]

Why's it always "evolution" and "creationism"?
Why's it never "evolutionism" and "creation"?

Evolutionism would be a world-view based on evolution - like what Dawkins holds. It's not to do with the science of evolution. Talking about "Creation" would be taking about the science of creation - which well be referring to the big bang. ( Or the steady gait theory ).

... funny though, I do recall, however, reading something somewhere - not written by a christian as far as I know - that called evolution into question as a science, given that it, apparently, fails the test of falsibility. Could be wrong though.

[OwlHoot]

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.

Isn't that how things are taught now? I'm sure it was when I was at school, and I remember even in junior school we all used to laugh at the scripture teacher behind her back because she appeared to believe the literal truth of the Genesis Creation story (or one of them - there are two )

That's what I assumed anyway, and if so I still think the guy has highly dubious motives for stating the obvious, most likely trying to get his name in the public eye and write a bestseller like Dawkins.

However, I'd concede that it's slightly different if things are changing, and creationists gaining ground in the UK. But even then I maintain that in practice, correct though he is, he'd have done better for the cause of science to keep his big gob shut and not given creationism the "oxygen of publicity" to use a corny but apt phrase.

If you start scratching a non-existent or minor sore, it only makes it worse.

[Diver]

Care to say anything substantive?

I made no judgement. In fact, the point of my giving an alternate interpretation of Reiss' and the Royal Societies remarks is that alternate interpretations of their defensive remarks exist, other than the obvious. Please provide the reasoning behind your perception that my 'judgement' is seriously flawed.

lack of humour


Trolling

[TimberWolf]

TW. Grow up! Your judgement is seriously flawed!

Care to say anything substantive?

I made no judgement. In fact, the point of my giving an alternate interpretation of Reiss' and the Royal Societies remarks is that alternate interpretations of their defensive remarks exist, other than the obvious. Please provide the reasoning behind your perception that my 'judgement' is seriously flawed.

[sasguru]

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.



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.

TW. Grow up! Your judgement is seriously flawed!