Creationism to be taught on GCSE science syllabus (you can't keep a good idea down)

The Times of London ^ | 10 March 2006 | Tony Halpin

[Greg o the Navy]

AN EXAMINATIONS board is including references to “creationism” in a new GCSE science course for schools.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Nobody is saying *creationism* IS science but most people simply do not see anything wrong with it being addressed when discussing the ORIGIN of life."

Whose version of the origin of life?

Is the science teacher now going to lead the students in a theological debate?

What are that teacher's qualifications on the subject?

Will we now expect the State to set up religion as a job requirement for Science teachers?

Will the debate and the curriculum be structured for him by the State?

Will the teacher not be allowed to interject his personal ideas and beliefs on Creation into the discussion?

How is this going to work exactly?

When tests are handed out, will the Hindu kids in the classroom fail when they answer that Brahma came from the Egg, and that the Adam guy is an impostor?

What the Hell are these science teachers going to say in the classroom?

"That was an explanation of the theory of evolution, of course, religious beliefs differ with science on the subject."

WELL....DUH!

Science belongs in the science classroom, Creation belongs in Sunday school and Church.

I can pick my preacher, but I can't pick my kid's science teacher's religious beliefs, the State cannot create a curriculum which addresses Creation as believed by one religion at the expense of another.

Why the hell can't people simply respect everyone's ability to decide on their children's religious education.

I want my kids to learn about evolution from a science teacher, and about Creation from the minister of my choice.

You have a choice to rear your child according to whatever you believe in, and if you believe in Biblical Creation, you have a wide array of schools and Churches that the can attend...you even have the choice of sending them to no school, and teaching them yourself.

Other people have the equal choice of raising their children to believe in what they want them to believe...why can't they send them some place where religious creationism is not discussed?

Why will you not afford them the same rights you are afforded?

[Coyoteman]

Evolution and creation are both religious in nature, because both accept premises based on supernatural means. Both use science to back up their beliefs.

You are absolutely wrong from the start. Science can change theories and discard data if either are shown to be wrong. Creationists (and here I include the young earth creationists and global flood believers) cannot change. They HAVE TO alter facts and theories to fit their beliefs. They cannot entertain the slightest notion that their beliefs are wrong. Sorry, one is science and the other is religion.

A lot of scientists believe in the evolutionary model, which is based on the idea that we got here through random chance processes. These use science to back up their claim, but we must be careful not to assume that, because evolutionists are scientists, that evolution is science. It is not the case.

As an adherent of a particular religious belief, your opinions on science are not trustworthy. You will not accept anything which contradicts your belief. This is the antithesis of science. For a scientist, if the data dictates, the theory must change. Again, one view is science and the other is religion.

If authority matters, there are scientists who are creationist as well. Some make it an argument of "my scientist can beat up your scientist." What should be done is to examine (and debate) the evidence, not the names behind it.

"My scientist can beat up your scientist." A street fight? Is that what we are reduced to?

Cute. Lets put it to the test. How many scientists believe in the literal interpretation of the bible (including the global flood) and how many are on the "science" side? I would guess the numbers are on the order of 100 to 1?

I wouldn't go starting any street fights with those odds.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"This is an increasingly powerful movement."

So was Communism.

[Coyoteman]

Yes. What is it they say? "==>Placemarker<=="?

No, its ===> Placemarker <===

[Luis Gonzalez]

You hang out with all the best people.

[Coyoteman]

You hang out with all the best people.

I'm a scientist. Don't try this at home.

Well, maybe if you stay at a Holiday Inn Express...

[Coyoteman]

Gentlemen, please. Refrain from the cheap shots.

I intend no cheap shots, and if I have committed any I apologize.

[LiteKeeper]

Go study creationism before you make stupid remarks about it.

[metmom]

Insisting that there is a supernatural explanation starts scientific inquiry with a presumption also. This also biases their views and conclusions. Either way is biased. Assuming a non-supernatural, or *naturalistic* point of view is not a neutral position.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Jeez..I'm relegated to the role of straight man again.

LOL.

[From many - one.]

If it isn't science, it shouldn't be taught in science class.

If it has to do with the origin of life, it shoudn't be taought in evolution lessons.

Scientists do not say there is no possibility of a supernatural explanation of phemonena, it's just not what they study.

Offhand I can think of a dozen easier ways of getting a football from one end of a stadium to another than having large men run at each other carrying it, but (for instance) loading it on a tractor doesn't quite square with the game.

Scientifically speaking using a supernatural explanation as a default option is a trivial solution and blocks the "game" of science.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Materialist darwinists have created a backlash as a result of their insufferable arrogance and hair-trigger quickness to use the power of the state to crush honest and fair-minded critics of evolution theory."

Can you show me one instance of a movement whose stated goal is to force the discussion of the theory of evolution on our Churches and parochial schools?

The obvious answer to that is no, you can't.

For you to make the statement you just made, on a thread celebrating Creationists using the power of government to inject religion into the science classroom, is one of the most hypocritical things I've ever read in this forum.

And I've read some humdingers in my tenure here.

[Coyoteman]

Insisting that there is a supernatural explanation starts scientific inquiry with a presumption also. This also biases their views and conclusions. Either way is biased. Assuming a non-supernatural, or *naturalistic* point of view is not a neutral position.

Science starts with the natural world, and says, "Lets figure this out."

Religions--some thousands to perhaps tens of thousands of different beliefs--each starts with divine revelation or some other starting point and says, "We're right and everyone else is wrong."

I choose to follow science. At least the assumptions are right there for all to see, and to evaluate against the data at hand.

Speaking of religious beliefs, how do you feel about Old Man Coyote? Many good people believe that there is wisdom there.

[AndrewC]

They obviously have not heard of the Dover decision over there in DarwinDawkinsland.

[DocRock]

Peer reviewed for your reading (watching and listening) pleasure.

Scientists recover T. rex soft tissue
70-million-year-old fossil yields preserved blood vessels
(Click Pic to read MSNBC.COM story)

(Click Pic Below to download 11.4 MB
High Quality .asf Format Video of
Interview with Professor Mary H. Schweitzer)

If you are on Dial-up,
Click HERE to watch 2.1 MB .wmv
Low Quality Interview

Excerpts from Interview with
Professor Mary H. Schweitzer
North Carolina State University
(timed to videos above)

1:25 It flies in the face of everything that we understand about how tissues and cells degrade. It’s not something that anyone of us could ever predict or hope for.

2:49 It is the first appearance of t-rex so therefore its... geologically its the oldest t-rex on record.

4:45 Like I said, a lot of our science doesn't allow for this. All of the chemistry and all of the molecular breakdown experiments that we've done don't allow for this. So if this material turns out to be actual remnants of the dinosaur then yes, I think we will have to do some, umm, certainly re-thinking of some of the basics of the model of fossilization.

5:16 It just doesn't seem possible. But yes, you can actually take the vessels and they do have internal components and so you can take a probe and kind of squeeze those things out into solution and the vessels are fine. It’s just... I can't explain it to be honest. I just can't.

Reference: Science, Vol 307, Issue 5717, 1952-1955 , 25 March 2005

[Ready2go]

"So, what? Should we all just give up in the meantime? Give up and go back to the caves?"

Golly...I sure wish all the evols could get rid of that "caveman" mentality they have.

Genesis 4

17Then Cain's wife became pregnant and gave birth to a son, and they named him Enoch. When Cain founded a city, he named it Enoch after his son.

18 Enoch was the father of[g] Irad. Irad was the father of Mehujael. Mehujael was the father of Methushael. Methushael was the father of Lamech.

19Lamech married two women--Adah and Zillah.

20Adah gave birth to a baby named Jabal. He became the first of the herdsmen who live in tents.

21His brother's name was Jubal, the first musician--the inventor of the harp and flute.

22To Lamech's other wife, Zillah, was born Tubal-cain. He was the first to work with metal, forging instruments of bronze and iron. Tubal-cain had a sister named Naamah.

[Sola Veritas]

But James Williams, science course leader at Sussex University’s school of education, said: “This opens a legitimate gate for the inclusion of creationism or intelligent design in science classes as if they were legitimate theories on a par with evolution fact and theory.

“I’m happy for religious theories to be considered in religious education, but not in science where consideration could lead to a false verification of their status as being equal to scientific theories.”



You know, I don't understand what they are so concerned about. The man says "false verification." If his ideas are so superior, won't they come out on top every time? I see a dual arrogance here: (1) They think they have all the answers (2) Students are too stupid to figure things out by themselves.

I will be curious to see how this plays out in England. Frankly, I'm surprised to see this. Never would I have thought that a balanced approach would be taken by the English.

[Ichneumon]

Insisting that there is no supernatural explanation, starts scientific inquiry with a presumption.

That's why science doesn't do that. Happy now?

[Luis Gonzalez]

"I'm not a creationist...""What are you then? "

He believes this guy Created everything.