Opening the doors to creationism in British Schools?

Its not up to me to decide what is taught.
its the people through the legislature.
Thats a free country. otherwise a dictator decides.
You pick a unreasonable conclusion to show how the people should not decide.
yet they would not teach a flat earth thing because the evidence is that it is not. nO one says it is.
however in origin issues the evidence and criticism of evidence is popular on all sides.
the truth can not be the motive if one side is censorsed.
unless its official policy that one side is wrong.
so who decides that?

Huh?
Its about conclusions and ideas being put forward in these school subjects.
Creationists attack the conclusions by the same investigative abilities as those who propose evolutionary conclusions.
Science class is not about science. its about the great conclusions from the special investigative process called science.
science is not a thing on a shelf.
Organized creationism has the right to take on and put in doubt in these classes certain issues of origins.
I find many people try to say the conclusions from scientific methodology are themselves pieces of science.
science is at best, if that, a methodology.
Science class is not really methodology class but about conclusions that mattered to mankind.
they invoke the method to give a certitude to the conclusions.

The confidence of north america is that the people can decide their own laws and ways. Its democracy.
the people would not vote for murder..
Dictators have shown they would.
fighting the peoples wisdom and morality will not help your cause.
you need better answers.
In fact by your reasoning today the people could vote for murder and only the courts stop them.
then just pick the right judges.
This is not reality however in any option.
Truth first and peoples right to govern themselves and creationism is sure to prevail.

Ok let the people decide on matters like: is the earth flat, are stars lights on the dome above the earth, is sicness caused by sin .... and after that lets stopp all travel by plain and sea because the earth is flat you wouldent weant to fall off the edge would you, and stop all space project bring our satelites down no mobile phones no satelit tv....., and then lets stop all modern medicine if sin is the cause of desiese then modern medicine is useless lets all just pray and make the sicnes go away.Fact canoot be voted upon facts are facts, they hold true no mater your opinion religion or belief and ignoring facts in science leads to the dark ages.

Right, which is why I brought up the ideas being put forward in these school subjects in British Schools. How did that manage to confuse you? I agree that science isn't a noun. But then neither is history, German, art, music, mathematics, geography or any other school subject.Just like history class should be about history.
Art class should be about art.
Science class should be about science. Yes they do, but those criticisms need to meet the standards of the subject. If creationists wish to introduce criticism of a scientific theory, then they need to produce scientific standards of critique. Don't you agree? My first lesson in high school science was 'Read the instructions fully before starting.' I remember it well. At primary school I was taught to record anything that I learned, not just the results of the experiment as expected by teachers. I don't know where you went to school, but the methodology is as important as the conclusions derived from it here in British schools.

You mean the test that virtually everybody fails their first time around goes something like this:Read the instructions fully before starting
then 30 tasks of pure bullshit like poking holes in the test and stuff
Then the last task ignore all of the above tasks and just sign your name.

If there is truth first, the creationism would not prevail, since there is no truth in creationism,. Myths are not truth. Creationism is a myth.
Just a bronze aged story, first told by people who knew no truth.What morality? War, hate, prejudice? Yes better answers, that is what science is for, to get better answers than human superstition, and imaginary occurrences, and evidenceless belief. Just, because a majority of people believe in something doesn't make it true. And worse, when evidence shows their beliefs to be wrong, they throw out the evidence, rather than changing their dogmatic nonsense.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

​

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

​

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

That's the one. Ours had us write seemingly random letters on a piece of folded paper, the penultimate task was to stand up and unfold the paper. The letters then spelt out "I am a donkey".

Fine if you want 'science" class to be about methodology.
In fact however science class is about the great conclusions discovered by science. One could almost say most science classes are history classes and only a little bit of repeating methods takes place.
Even the latter is no different then cooking class.
in reality investigations into nature have nothing to do with kids.Creationism does the same quality of investigation as anyone in these origin issues which by the way creationists say are not easily open to the scientific method and are not.
Science class in fact has no right to talk about biological or geological conclusions. they are about past and gone events.

Forensics has no right to talk about who killed who and with what because the murder was a past event.The center for epidemics or whatever you call it has no right to point out the source of the epidemic because everyone was infected in a past event (even 5 minutes ago)Smoking and cancer are not linked because every smoker that has cancer was smoging in a past event......

I want it to be about science, the methodology and the conclusions of science. Just like I want history to discuss how historical conclusions are made as well as what those conclusions are. Not in any science class I've attended. There is a fair amount of the history of science, of course, but there is also practical experiments and methodology making up a large part of it . That's the way it is, not just the way I want it to be. Who do you suppose should be in charge of determining whether something is of sufficient quality of investigation to make it into a science class? You do not explain why science teachers have 'no right' to talk about scientific conclusions relating to the past. Could you do that for me?

You appear to be contradicting yourself within the same post.

I agree it isn’t very telling to simply say that ‘free schools’ may perform better. Presumably parents removing kids from public school and placing them in private schools (US terms) can be said on average to not include the group of parents which don’t prioritize education. It would be surprising if such students didn’t perform on average better than less well supported students.This doesn’t even include other factors like selective enrollment, different teaching mechanisms, difference class sizes, different cultures, different disciplinary procedures, and other possible factors.

History class is mostly about conclusions from history and very little about methodology.
Science class likewise is mostly about conclusions. Just some more methodology.
Science class therefore is not about science largely. Fine but conclusions , for origins, are the problem here. creationists say the conclusions are not any more scientific then creationisms and they are wrong.
So equal time in conclusion class..Origin issues are not science ones to use the word science as a high standard of investigation.
origin issues being about past and gone events are not flexible for investigation of a high standard with boundarys.

Nope. both statements were the same species.