Posted on 07/26/2009 12:39:59 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
A new document entitled “How can we answer questions about creation and origins?” recommends teaching both creationism and atheism as part of Religious Education in state schools. There are some benefits to this controversial new document, but there are also some concerns.
The UK government has released a controversial new document on the teaching of Religious Education (RE) in state schools.[1] The document is entitled “How can we answer questions about creation and origins?”
If schools follow these guidelines, it will be the first time that both creationism and atheism have been specifically recommended for teaching in any subject in England. While some aspects of the guidelines are welcome, the following should cause concern:...
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
Everyone’s gotta start somewhere. I would prefer a complete separation of Darwinist religion and state, but in the meantime, if they are going to teach evolution, they should also teach the main alternative i.e. Creation/ID.
If this RE law is successful, UK students will soon be discussing the “divine foot in the door” of creation in their *compulsory* religious education classes. To be sure, initially this instruction will be strongly biased in favor of evolution, but this will give students the green light to pursue the subject further on their own, and it’s only a matter of time before Creationists and IDers begin making headway in their quest for equal time. And you can bet, when this happens the Evos will push to either scrap Religious Education, or scrap Creation/Intelligent Design being taught, if they are not doing so already.
Can you imagine what the impact this will have on the public’s perception of Darwin’s fanciful creation myth? Religious Education will, after all, be a compulsory subject. There’s no way the evos let this happen. They will have no choice but to defeat the teaching of Creation/ID/Evolution in Relious Education, or die trying.
Creationism isn’t science, it’s religion. It should not be taught as science.
The article is pretty inaccurate in regards to its describing the curriculum. For example: The suggested resources include works by atheist Richard Dawkins but do not include any creationist works or websites.
If one looks at the paper, it cites several young earth creationist sources from both Christian and Islamic viewpoints including both the recommendation of the Bible and Quran.
There's your problem. Statism corrupts all.
Creationism is a theory.
Evolution is a theory.
Both should be taught in a science class.
That’s where they are going to teach it, in religion class. Darwin’s atheist creation myth will also be taught in religious class, where it belongs. All that is left is to purge the Temple of Darwin from science class, and everything will be right in the science world.
I agree. However, on the scales of statism, this is a positive development within statism. The very notion that there is a Creator God who judges both the rulers and the ruled alike is the last thing in the world that the statists of Europe want their subjects thinking about. It’s a lose-lose situation for the statists, whereas the worst we can hope for on our side is that nothing gets better.
There are no YEC sources listed, other than the Bible, the Qu’ran, a Muslim creation site, and a slideshow of an artist’s interpretation of the days of creation. All the rest are either hardcore evo websites and books, or they take a sociological approach. Not a single ID or Biblical Creation Science website or book is listed anywhere in their resources section. Did you see ICR listed? No! Did you see the Discovery Institute listed? No! Did you see AiG listed? No! Did you see the Biologic Institute listed? No!
Either you are blind, or the ommission of Creation/ID websites and textbooks meets with your full approval.
Starting on page 5 there are at least 10 sources that reference some sort of creation or ID variant (be it Christian or Islam). They may not all meet up to your level of orthodoxy (I’m sure you don’t care for TE’s like Michael Poole), but they are creation texts of some sort. There are only 6 sources from atheists or science only subjects (combined as you like to lump the two together). Sure, it may not contain the websites de’jour that happen to be your favorite, but it is very balanced on both sides in regards to the reading list and doesn’t portray the victimness that the article above makes it appear.
Actually, I’ll settle for getting Darwin’s unscientific evo-religious creation myth out of science class, and into a class on religion where it belongs.
Amen!
What are you talking about, there wasn’t a single YEC or ID book or website listed. And yet, these are precisely the main contenders against Darwin’s evo-religious creation myth. The fact that you can’t see this suggests willful blindness, or worse.
Evolution is a theory.
Creationism is faith.
Faith and science coexist peacefully.
Science should be taught in school.
Faith should not be taught as science.
Evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible.
That about covers it...
You don't consider the Bible a YEC book? RE Today, also a listed source is a proponent of Young Earth theories. (http://www.retoday.org.uk/index.php), Picturing creation is a six day visual representation of YEC.
..and those are just the direct Young Earth resources listed. As you know, there are many variants of creationism including ID, Theistic Evolution, etc, that are also represented in that list.
For example, there are several sources listed that are ID or TE supported sources including A guide to science and belief – by M Poole, God talk, science talk: teacher’s guide to science and belief – by M Poole, ‘Testing God’ – created by BecauseYouThink.tv, and Origins.
In addition to those, there are also the several Islamic sources which are the same as the YEC argument.
As I said earlier, they may not all fall in line with your personal beliefs, but it isn't about you, it is about the wide range of beliefs of creation and Young Earth isn't the only one. On balance, there is a pretty wide representation there, including YEC and it seems to give fair percent to all of the main arguments in this.
“A day that will no doubt be marked in history as a wondrous day. Darwinists will be forced to move their religion from science to religion where it belongs, and allow science to purge evolution and try to recover from the years of abuse these monsters berated her with. I hope it comes quickly.”
—I don’t think it would be such a “wondrous day” if it’s decided that what’s taught in science class isn’t to come from scientists. A primary reason for the advancement of science in the western world for the past few centuries has come from the fact that scientists have had a major say as to what is taught in science class. Check with the poorer Islamic nations to see what the state of science is like with the alternative. I’d rather not copy their example.
==I don’t think it would be such a “wondrous day” if it’s decided that what’s taught in science class isn’t to come from scientists
Oh good, then I let’s let the Creation and ID scientists decide, shall we? I don’t see how that would be any different than the Temple of Darwin fanatics who have turned science into a vehicle to promote their evo-religion.
==Check with the poorer Islamic nations to see what the state of science is like with the alternative. I’d rather not copy their example.
Most Muslim countries teach evolution in the classroom. So I quite agree, the science relating to origins and diversity must really suck over there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.