UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read

[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

[choof]

Originally Posted by Pseudo Enigma

Implying creationism is provable and has been proved false.

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

[XelNya]

Originally Posted by choof

in what way is this censorship?

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.

[Pseudo Enigma]

Originally Posted by XelNya

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"

oops

[choof]

Originally Posted by XelNya

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

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

[Reach]

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)

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.

[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.

[ilikexd]

fck ninjad by reach

[Pseudo Enigma]

Originally Posted by Reach

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

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.

[choof]

Originally Posted by Pseudo Enigma

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.

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

[Pseudo Enigma]

Originally Posted by choof

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

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

[ilikexd]

Originally Posted by Pseudo Enigma

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.

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.

[Reach]

Originally Posted by Pseudo Enigma

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.

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.

[choof]

Originally Posted by Pseudo Enigma

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

what

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

[Pseudo Enigma]

Originally Posted by choof

what

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

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

[choof]

good idea !!

[Nullifidian]

Originally Posted by Pseudo Enigma

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

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

[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