UK Bans Teaching Creationism in State-Funded Schools Read

[Pseudo Enigma]

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

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]

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

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]

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

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

[ilikexd]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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

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]

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.

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

[choof]

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

good idea !!

[Nullifidian]

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.

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

[Arch0wl]

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.

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

[Izzy]

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.

[lurker]

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

[Izzy]

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.

[Reincarnate]

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

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

[Mollocephalus]

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?