UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and...funded-schools

I think it is funny . Someone said something about dirt not turning into brains. Lol lol lol because I have taken anatomy courses which is a science.. and our bodies are made up if the same elements of dirt. Actually the exact same elements. Almost 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of six elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus. . . These are also the major elements in dirt. What a coincidence.

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

this is stupid man science should be about learning both sides of the story

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

well he's right you know. Some clearly turn from brains into dirt. lol

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

i am ok with creationism being taught in schools as long as they dont skip the chapter: myopic god, deific ineptitude at its finest

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

Kidding aside, science is about finding the most precise theory, based on facts in order to help the future, which the Bible wasn't able to do for, well, about 2000 years.

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

because shoving reality down peoples throats is going to stop them from actively searching out fantasies

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

Sick but yet they can teach evaluation Which has no scientific backing as well. They are both just theory s if you want to look at it from a "scientific" point of veiw.

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

Pseudo Enigma hit the nail on the head with "shoving reality down peoples throats."

It's important that people see why creationism is wrong, not just accept that it is.

Otherwise, they won't actually be understanding anything. They'll have the "correct" views, but they can't say why, so their thought processes will be just as poor as before and they'll be able to seek out equally ridiculous substitutes without applying the principles that would lead you to understand why those substitutes are wrong.

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

creationism isn't banned from being talked about, it's simply banned from being presented as a valid alternative to evolution

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

I was under the impression that you already couldn't really teach it.

I mean, you can't teach something that isn't science in the science classroom? Holy shit mind blown.

I don't know enough about what things are like in the deep south, but my guess would be that this would only be a substantial problem in those areas. Creationism as something that you seriously have to waste time and neurons disproving is so 10 years ago.

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

This

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

I saw this in another chat room and when I got it after like 30 seconds, everyone was whining "that's not math" and praising me as a god. After some discussion about how I'd see it in a book of puzzles, a deeper thought hit me: It's not math. It's something much deeper: Critical thinking. That's how Asians are so far ahead.

The poser if anyone wants to see it:
http://images-cdn.9gag.com/photo/a1A3NeY_700b_v1.jpg

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

How about:

- Hey guys, here is one side of the story
- Hey guys, here is the other side of the story

Think for yourselves and believe what you believe


(Because in all honesty, nobody gives a shit what alignment you take part of at the end of the day)

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

middle ground is always a good idea and will definitely help humanity in the long run

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

Isn't the whole "here's both sides of the argument" thing how we got into this whole mess in the first place? Anti-gay marriage, chemtrails, anti-vaxxers, creationists, etc.

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

the whole "here's both sides of the argument" thing puts a non-science on the same playing field as a science

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

re: "both sides"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

"You say the sky is blue, while I say the sky is red. Therefore, the best solution is to compromise and agree that the sky is purple."

There are correct answers to things. Some "sides" are correct.

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

One word: Censorship

It's not like students can't read about it themselves, but this is still censorship.

edit: @Arch purple would be a pure mixture of the two. What if it were red with patches of blue mixed throughout?

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

except not because there was a debate this year about evolution vs creationism and there are also people who think the creationist's claims were more sound than the scientist's

in what way is this censorship?

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

How is this not censorship? You're not allowed to teach a material. It's simple censorship.

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

"Hey class, a new law just passed saying that we can no longer teach that 1+1=5."
"But they can't do that! That's censorship!"

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

government intervention on what they think is the truth is censorship. The government is literally stopping schools from being able to teach what is in their opinion the "wrong" idea.

I don't approve of theism but this is still not a good way to stop it.

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

It's simply banned as being taught as scientific fact, because - who woulda thunk - it isn't scientific fact.

Onus probandi

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

I really hope you're not going to take this stance.

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

Pretty much this.

They're not saying you can't mention it. Read the article carefully. "In any case prevents the teaching of creationism as evidence based theory"

It says you can't teach it in a specific manner. It does not limit the discussion except that you can't say it's supported by science. (Because science has pretty much theorized with pretty good evidence otherwise.)

It limits a miscommunication is what it does.

I'm not an active "fuck religion" vocally kind of person. I dislike religion because it hinders progress and creates issues that shouldn't even really issues in the first place. (See gay rights for an extreme example.) But this is something we need here as well. I'd love to see this.

I'd also love to see a lot of other things, but this would be a hell of a start.

Edit: "Creationism" does not need to be proven true or false. It only needs to be proved to be extremely likely/unlikely.

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

oops

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

evolution and creationism are two totally incompatible ideas
by evolution being a fact, creationism is effectively rendered false

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

No.

You can't be serious.

You teach science in a science classroom. Creationism is not science. Therefore, you don't teach it. It's really that simple.

By your logic, why don't we teach holocaust denial in history classes and let people choose what they want to believe anyway.

You talking about fact vs fiction here. You don't give something that isn't true a platform in the classroom.

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

he was being sarcastic

what sides of what story

there are an uncountably high number of religious "sides" of "the story" besides a (christian) idea of creationism

SCIENCE classes aren't supposed to bother with any of them because they're there to teach about scientific material in a world where knowledge thereof is a very useful tool, and this is what's funded by the state

you can go to a private school, church, internet or wherever if you want to learn about other "sides", regarding (lol) censorship argument. nothing is being censored.

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

fck ninjad by reach

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

again, assuming this is fiction. There's no proof that it is. Proving it by proving it wrong is one way to do it, but what we have right now are assumptions.

I'm not in favour of creationism but really we can't just say "haha you guys are wrong stop spreading your lies" when we can't even prove the the universe wasn't created by a higher being.

edit: actually never mind I think Reach was saying that it shouldn't be taught in the science room if it's not a fact right? Ignore this.

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

Maybe you didn't understand what Tristan meant by onus probandi so I'll give you a bit more insight as to why this stance is totally flawed.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

I understand Latin asshole. I was ignoring it because I'm not about to prove that creationism is correct.

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

The scientific theories being taught in classrooms have more or less been proven true, like evolution for example.

Creationism has not been proven true. Nobody who has asserted it has proven it true, and the burden of proof is on them to do so. You can't really prove it false because due to its nature it's unfalsifiable, which is one measure of being non-scientific.

One argument can be that if any type of evidence were to be found that proved creationism or any sort of supernatural phenomenon untrue, then there is a supernatural force at work that created false evidence to deceive people.

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

Many forms of creationism are easily disproven. E.g. young earth creationism.

I'm not sure saying god created the universe qualifies as creationism.

I suppose the best shot the umbrella term 'creationism' has for pulling out the 'haha you can't disprove me 8)' card is theistic evolution.

However, the burden of proof is always on the claim itself in science. Theistic evolution is a monumental failure on that end of things, given you can easily just remove the theistic part and all of a sudden you have a real theory.

Additionally, everything I said before that still holds true; it's still not science, therefore it has no place in a science classroom.

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

what

You don't have to prove anything lol, there's nothing to be proven.

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

*sigh* k I'm just gonna stop I'm probably misreading and causing shit for everyone

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

good idea !!

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

It wasn't meant to make you prove anything. It was to make you realize what a stupid argument you made.

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

Well, okay, but you've restated the definition of censorship as an argument that it isn't censorship.

The problem I think is that bans on speech are censorship but this doesn't mean censorship is in itself objectionable, but many people consider censorship objectionable wholesale, so they're reluctant to call it that. Some people believe that censorship only applies to public speech, and there's a weird debate about that, but in a broader sense "censorship" just means "bans on speech", regardless of private or public context.

You are not allowed to commit fraud because deceitful speech on products is banned. This is a kind of censorship I support.

Curricula indirectly ban a lot of other things from being taught anyway by mandating what must be taught, so I don't think excluding creationism would cause any harm. My only concern would be what would happen if the precedent were reworked to ban information for more political reasons, e.g.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...ce_controversy

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

I don't have any issues with teaching about something. That is completely different from teaching it as fact. Unfortunately religion is a thing people do so if someone wanted to teach about the fact that people have religious beliefs then so be it.

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

if you don't believe that creationism is a viable argument you're way too ignorant to be posting on an internet message board

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

Not a very useful argument and in the history of never has creationism been taught as the more simple concept of the universe being created by intelligence without all of the religion stuff added on.

There is nothing to prove or disprove so you would still have to teach about it rather than teach it as a potential fact.

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

But if we came from monkeys why do we still have monkeys

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

I wouldn't think this would spawn so much controversy when creationism is clearly bullshit and has no right to be taught as a scientific fact.

Let's make another example: would you think it's wrong to ban holocaust negationist history books from being used in public schools and presented as actual facts?

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

another small point I should add:

even if the creationism argument that neither evolution nor creationism can be proven to be true or false, that still doesn't qualify creationism to be taught in classrooms (and if that was the case evolution shouldn't be taught either)

the point of science is to make demonstrable claims about reality. if you make any kind of statement that is not provable or demonstrable, it can never be discussed meaningfully in science

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

nothing of the external world is provable because nothing in the external world can ever be proof
it's like none of you have ever heard of descartes or something

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

bro do you even hume

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

i got yo missing shade of blue
right
here

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

Flying Spaghetti Monster
is a terrible argument

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

but will it blend?????

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

Reuben: elaborate?

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

oh yea? well explain the grand canyon!

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

I think you misinterpreted my sentence because it can still be taught in the appropriate religious studies classes. It's not banned from ever being mentioned, just (as I said) banned from being taught as scientific fact. Failing to meet the standards of science in order for something to be taught in science classes isn't censorship. If it is, then not teaching about unicorns or leprechauns (or any other unsubstantiated unfalsifiable concept you can think of) in science classes is also censorship.

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

Simple as that: creationism isn't science. Thus it has no place in the science classroom.

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

shouldnt that have been obvious from the op

like why is this thread even 3 pages

what

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

Because FFR. Threads like this should probably be locked on sight.

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

It's not actually being *banned* here though...

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

i dont believe in creationism but this thread was doomed from the start

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

How is this even a discussion in 2014? Can't people read? I wanted to post about this, but figured it was completely pointless because "eh", but now... Ah, fuck w/e.

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

funny how this was pretty much my reaction in the ct board, except I added that implications of the belief should be discussed

here in chit chat I think this thread is totally fine to talk about because we're not being InTeLlEcTuAlS and ironically more people are now saying that

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

thanks for making it 4 pages

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

Just a few remarks:
-gonna let FSM = flying spaghetti monster since it's a long phrase
-I'm going to define creationism as the involvement of a higher deity in the creation of the universe and/or the contents within it
-none of this post should be read with respect to any particular religion, especially Christianity.

The FSM monster argument is essentially an argument by analogy. The claim is that believing in the existence of a greater deity is, for the same reasons, as ridiculous as believing in the existence of a FSM. Now, why is believing in the existence of a FSM ridiculous? Well, it's ridiculous because it's a completely arbitrary explanation with no logical force behind it. However, creationism, in the most general and abstract sense possible, is not an arbitrary explanation.

Sure if you take any particular religion, then a lot of the details do say rather arbitrary. And I especially challenge one to question any of their religious rules or customs if they seem arbitrary. However, this post is not about any particular religion and their arbitrary explanations for things or their arbitrary rules.

The main motivation in considering creationism is that we observe that usually a lot of complex systems are the cause of an intelligent being. For example, buildings are caused by humans, beehives are caused by bees, dams are caused by beavers, etc. Considering that we ourselves our complex beings, it is not too unreasonable to make the inference that we ourselves have some intelligent designer. Thus, the reasoning for believing in creationism is not some arbitrary, but based off a somewhat reasonable inference.

If one pours water into a cup and turns the cup upside down, they will notice the water will spill out of the cup. If one pours water into a bowl and flips it upside down, they will observe that the water will spill out. What if I pour water into a pot? It would be reasonable for one to infer from the first two experiences, that turning the pot upside down will cause the water to spill out of it. Of course one would need to actually run experiments by flipping pots upside down filled with water to gather a strong amount of evidence but the point is that making inferences based off of similar observations is not an unreasonable thing to do. (However, I will say claiming that one's inferences are objectively true is an unreasonable thing to do.)

Thus, the FSM argument fails because the underlying assumption that creationism is an arbitrary explanation simply isn't true. Now, one might claim that the explanation for creationism is dumb considering the amount of evidence we have for alternative explanations but that's not the point of the FSM argument.

PS This post is not intended to persuade or dissuade anyone to/from creationism, it is simply a post intended to analyze the FSM argument.

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

i always thought the fsm argument was bad because it's related to reddit in some shape or form

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

Why does it fail? Why is the FSM any more unlikely than the Christian god? You just made a couple of inferences about creators and then without reasoning just concluded that FSM is a less likely alternative than the Christian god.

What you're arguing -is not- the point of the FSM argument. The point of the FSM argument is to show that you can replace the Christian god with anything you wish and it'll still make just as much sense (that is, none).
Who is to say that our creator -isn't- an all powerful flying spaghetti monster? Without proof it's just as likely and you simply can't make an assumption regarding a creator of the universe. We know that bees create beehives because we observe them create beehives. We don't know that for the creation of the universe.

edit: why do I even seriously reply to this thread..
edit2: The words you're looking for is "caused by", not the "the cause of". Buildings being "the cause of" humans would suggest buildings created humans.

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

Anyone who is mad about this needs to get a grip on reality

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

I fixed the grammar issues, I obviously didn't proofread my post. However, I don't even want to respond to your arguments because you seem insistent on bringing Christianity into an argument where it isn't needed.

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

For once I am actually too lazy to reply to that argument



:(

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

Replace it with Zeus or Ra or Allah, I don't care, the point stays the same. You're dodging the argument.

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

What if I don't want to replace it with anything? What if I want to leave it open as a general generalization? What if I leave open the possibility that the FSM may actually exist?

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

oh god

reuben please don't make me, I'm doing so well right now

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

What the fuck is your point? You're dodging the argument.....

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

but what is reality, and how did it begin riddle me that FOOL

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

You're right, there probably isn't a teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars. But perhaps there is something. :o :o :o

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

Ok?.. but that wasn't what was being asked now was it? Why does the FSM argument fail? What makes creationism not an arbitrary story?

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

stop... I... can't...

I have to go, or else I'm going to get sucked in

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

is this the point where i just start posting gay porn in the thread and get banned for a week

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

Is this you right now?

Re: UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read
 

A story for creationism is only arbitrary if you choose an arbitrary story. Consider all the possible stories one could possibly come up with. Each one probably has an extremely low probability of holding true especially if it's filled with arbitrarily chosen details (e.g. like our creator is a pink fluffy unicorn who stuffs its face with candy and poops out rainbows). But I'm not considering any one particular story. I'm considering the set of all possible stories for creationism because I don't care about the details.

Here is a terrible example: Suppose I ask you to think of a prime number and for you not to tell me. And I ask you, "is it odd?" Now did I choose to ask if it was odd arbitrarily? No, I chose that because I know that all but one of the prime numbers are odd. Now consider each prime number that is also odd. If I had asked you, "Is it 17?" or "Is it 23" those would seem like arbitrary choices but considering all the odd numbers as a whole is not. However, it may actually be the case that the number chosen was in fact 17 or 23.

Similarly, the story of the FSM is pretty arbitrary. However, the set of all possible stories for creationism isn't trivially arbitrary.

PS I'm done...I don't want to waste more of my day stuck in this thread.