Road rules0 min ago
Creationism ... American Loonies
80 Answers
Creationism thing on BBC Three at the mo ...
Americans are such a bunch of scary loonies.
Americans are such a bunch of scary loonies.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by joggerjayne. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I strongly suspect you're simply being argumentative, Octavius.
That one can pass an examination does not mean that one would be terribly likely to proceed to a career in something one believed was going to consign them to hell.
More fundamentally than that, it is lying to children, something more people regard as pretty reprehensible. I realise, of course, that those teaching these lies believe them to be true, but that does not make them so. If the children's families wish to inculcate these lies, then there is little that can be done, but I see no good reason why we should allow them to be spread by schools, paid for out of the public purse.
That one can pass an examination does not mean that one would be terribly likely to proceed to a career in something one believed was going to consign them to hell.
More fundamentally than that, it is lying to children, something more people regard as pretty reprehensible. I realise, of course, that those teaching these lies believe them to be true, but that does not make them so. If the children's families wish to inculcate these lies, then there is little that can be done, but I see no good reason why we should allow them to be spread by schools, paid for out of the public purse.
@Octavius.
Imparting a disbelief in some of the fundamental building blocks of science is hardly the best way to encourage youngsters to take up science. For those that do wish to follow a career in science, such foundational education imposes a lifelong handicap on the scientific development of those youngsters from those schools who attempt to retain their faith- imparted beliefs and follow a scientific career.
You are obviously relaxed about it. I am not. It is ridiculous that in this day and age we still allow the teaching of such nonsense.
Schools should be secular, with religion confined to RE only. Selection based upon faith is socially divisive, and teaching fable as science does the children no favours.
Imparting a disbelief in some of the fundamental building blocks of science is hardly the best way to encourage youngsters to take up science. For those that do wish to follow a career in science, such foundational education imposes a lifelong handicap on the scientific development of those youngsters from those schools who attempt to retain their faith- imparted beliefs and follow a scientific career.
You are obviously relaxed about it. I am not. It is ridiculous that in this day and age we still allow the teaching of such nonsense.
Schools should be secular, with religion confined to RE only. Selection based upon faith is socially divisive, and teaching fable as science does the children no favours.
Perhaps I am, but I have no strong persuasion to defend the creationists.
If they (schools) teach creationism in RE, and evolution in science then where is the issue? Are you suggesting a ban on RE, a ban on teaching about creationism, or a ban on specific teachers who peddle the sentiment in your previous post?
The point of paying for these schools through the public purse, means that they have agreed standards to achieve, a standardised way to achieve them, and are monitored along the way to ensure they stick to the rules. At least that is the general idea I suppose. I have greater issues with Free Schools, that are beyond the realms of RE lessons.
If they (schools) teach creationism in RE, and evolution in science then where is the issue? Are you suggesting a ban on RE, a ban on teaching about creationism, or a ban on specific teachers who peddle the sentiment in your previous post?
The point of paying for these schools through the public purse, means that they have agreed standards to achieve, a standardised way to achieve them, and are monitored along the way to ensure they stick to the rules. At least that is the general idea I suppose. I have greater issues with Free Schools, that are beyond the realms of RE lessons.
@Octavius
Faith based schools should not be funded by the taxpayer, in my opinion.Such schools appoint Heads, Teachers and staff based upon their enthusiastic adherence to a particular set of beliefs - ones they are expected to teach to the children of that school. Parents with such beliefs will send their kids to such schools, further reinforcing the religious indoctrination, and incidentally reinforces faith based social division.
In such an environment, regardless of what such schools say about adhering to the National Curriculum, I think it impossible to compartmentalise the teaching of Creationism in RE and the teaching of science. It seems inevitable to me that kids being taught in such a system will be handicapped should they wish to persue a career in science.
Taxpayer funded schools should be secular. Religion should be confined to RE, and science should be taught without fear of upsetting entrenched religious beliefs.
Faith based schools should not be funded by the taxpayer, in my opinion.Such schools appoint Heads, Teachers and staff based upon their enthusiastic adherence to a particular set of beliefs - ones they are expected to teach to the children of that school. Parents with such beliefs will send their kids to such schools, further reinforcing the religious indoctrination, and incidentally reinforces faith based social division.
In such an environment, regardless of what such schools say about adhering to the National Curriculum, I think it impossible to compartmentalise the teaching of Creationism in RE and the teaching of science. It seems inevitable to me that kids being taught in such a system will be handicapped should they wish to persue a career in science.
Taxpayer funded schools should be secular. Religion should be confined to RE, and science should be taught without fear of upsetting entrenched religious beliefs.
One thing struck me as barmy from the Noahs Ark scientist and the creationists. They argued about where the whale would go in the ark.
They didn't need too, the world was flooded so the whale and all marine animals would have lived anyway.
Had they asked how 6 people could feed and water thousands of animals every day and cleaned up their faeces for 10 months that would have been more relevant.
They didn't need too, the world was flooded so the whale and all marine animals would have lived anyway.
Had they asked how 6 people could feed and water thousands of animals every day and cleaned up their faeces for 10 months that would have been more relevant.
Actually, the mixing of fresh and saltwater would have rendered the water uninhabitable for all but the hardiest of creatures, so all the whales do have to be accounted for.
Another significant problem is that for the volume of water to have fallen as described (a vaour canapy), the required pressure would have boiled the water and raised oxygen and nitrogen levels to a toxic degree.
The more you investigate what would have to happen for the flood to be true, the most obviously nonsensical the story becomes.
Another significant problem is that for the volume of water to have fallen as described (a vaour canapy), the required pressure would have boiled the water and raised oxygen and nitrogen levels to a toxic degree.
The more you investigate what would have to happen for the flood to be true, the most obviously nonsensical the story becomes.
WaldoMcFroog
Actually, the mixing of fresh and saltwater would have rendered the water uninhabitable for all but the hardiest of creatures, so all the whales do have to be accounted for.
Another significant problem is that for the volume of water to have fallen as described (a vaour canapy), the required pressure would have boiled the water and raised oxygen and nitrogen levels to a toxic degree.
The more you investigate what would have to happen for the flood to be true, the most obviously nonsensical the story becomes.
16:41 Tue 09th Oct 2012
But then why did He invent the rainbow? :o/
Actually, the mixing of fresh and saltwater would have rendered the water uninhabitable for all but the hardiest of creatures, so all the whales do have to be accounted for.
Another significant problem is that for the volume of water to have fallen as described (a vaour canapy), the required pressure would have boiled the water and raised oxygen and nitrogen levels to a toxic degree.
The more you investigate what would have to happen for the flood to be true, the most obviously nonsensical the story becomes.
16:41 Tue 09th Oct 2012
But then why did He invent the rainbow? :o/
The final point is that when all the animals were released what did they live on ,being as all living things , plants and animals were long dead .
Apart from that olive tree from which the dove had picked a leaf and had been growing at a depth of several miles of ocean.
Hi Waldo. Science questions ? Why would the water boil ? Surely the greater the pressure the more likely it would remain a liquid. Are you referring to the increase in atmospheric pressure ? If the water came as rain where would the nitrogen come from ? Thanks
Apart from that olive tree from which the dove had picked a leaf and had been growing at a depth of several miles of ocean.
Hi Waldo. Science questions ? Why would the water boil ? Surely the greater the pressure the more likely it would remain a liquid. Are you referring to the increase in atmospheric pressure ? If the water came as rain where would the nitrogen come from ? Thanks
@info - thanks for the update - finally caught the show tonight. What was striking was the total rejection of anything that did not fit with their preconceived notion of the truth, as determined by a literalist interpretation of the bible.
The paranoia of the guy from NI was striking, as was his determination to reject anything that challenged his worldview. More worryingly was some of the commentary from americans they met - that they could not vote for an atheist because they had no morals!
It did not surprise me that the most refractory and obstinate creationist was a product of Northern Ireland, judging by his accent - I know that creationism is pretty rife there.....
The paranoia of the guy from NI was striking, as was his determination to reject anything that challenged his worldview. More worryingly was some of the commentary from americans they met - that they could not vote for an atheist because they had no morals!
It did not surprise me that the most refractory and obstinate creationist was a product of Northern Ireland, judging by his accent - I know that creationism is pretty rife there.....
Naomi ...
1. Because of Phil ... several sandwiches short of a picnic.
2. Because there are so many people in the US who share Phil's sort of outlandish faith ... like presidential candidate Mitt Romney ... like former prospective presidential candidate Sarah Palin, etc etc ...
In the US, people like that get elected to high office.
In the UK, we forbid them from going near sharp objects.
1. Because of Phil ... several sandwiches short of a picnic.
2. Because there are so many people in the US who share Phil's sort of outlandish faith ... like presidential candidate Mitt Romney ... like former prospective presidential candidate Sarah Palin, etc etc ...
In the US, people like that get elected to high office.
In the UK, we forbid them from going near sharp objects.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Crosswords3 mins ago
Good Morning Christmas Eve Birds!
ChatterBank7 mins ago
Crosswords8 mins ago
Crosswords9 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.