UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read

[choof]

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.

[lurker]

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

[noname219]

Originally Posted by lurker

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

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.

[Xiz]

Originally Posted by lurker

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

This

[ilikexd]

Originally Posted by Xiz

This

he was being sarcastic

Originally Posted by Xiz

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)

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.

[Pseudo Enigma]

Originally Posted by choof

Someone said something about dirt not turning into brains.

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

[MinaciousGrace]

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

[Pseudo Enigma]

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

[Nullifidian]

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.

[qqwref]

Originally Posted by _.Spitfire._

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.

I hope everyone who posts stuff like this is joking because

wow

[Arch0wl]

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.

[choof]

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

[Reach]

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.

[choof]

Originally Posted by Reach

Creationism as something that you seriously have to waste time and neurons disproving is so 10 years ago.

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

Originally Posted by Pseudo Enigma

One word: Censorship

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

in what way is this censorship?

[Pseudo Enigma]

Originally Posted by choof

in what way is this censorship?

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

Originally Posted by Wiki

Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet or other controlling body.

[choof]

Originally Posted by Pseudo Enigma

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

"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!"

[Pseudo Enigma]

Originally Posted by choof

Implying creationism is provable and has been proved false.

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.

[Nullifidian]

Originally Posted by Pseudo Enigma

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

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

Originally Posted by Pseudo Enigma

Implying creationism is provable and has been proved false.

Onus probandi

[Arch0wl]

Originally Posted by _.Spitfire._

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

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

[loop123456]

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