Opening the doors to creationism in British Schools?

I don't know if history is taught substantially differently in Canada, but when I was studying history in school it was very much about methodology, with the proportion of methodology increasing the longer you continued with the subject. If you stuck with the subject past the age of 14, it became all about sources and how to interpret them - the specific historical subjects you stuck with were treated as kind of a case study in the historical method.

You think that these two statements used to be able to produce viable offspring but can no longer do so?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

I understand your opinion, but your opinion might be wrong. So I'm asking you, who do you think should decide what gets to be taught in science class? The problem with deferring all education decisions to 'the people' (as you seemed to be suggesting earlier) is that it is 'the people' we are trying to educate. If they decide what is to be taught alone, then there is no way to correct common misconceptions.You seem to be suggesting that no origins should be discussed in biology for example, but earlier you also wanted creationism in the classroom? Is there something untrue being taught in British classrooms about origins? Could you specify what that is?

It seems you don't understand what science is about so I'll try to explain to you in simpler terms what the difference between science and creationism. Science is about a methodology that actually works and produce tangible results (cars, computers, Internet, etc...) whereas creationism is about a methodology that has failed to wield significant results for thousands of years. That's why they don't belong in the same class.Of course, you could disagree, but then your objective shouldn't be about integrating creationism into science (since you seem to think your method is better), but create this "creation science" with the fundings from churches and get better results than the current science. Since you believe your method to be superior to those of the actual scientific community, you will get better results and be able to finance yourself after the start.

Fine.
Nevertheless if the great conclusions of origins are taught from a evolutionary point then thats the issue.
Creationism demands to give its view because it does no less then the others in investigation.
It is here that the great conclusions are what science class talks about.

In origin issues there is a prohibition of creationism.
the people, if they choose, must have the right to demand creationism as a option for origins.Indeed i would say origin issues are not scientific ones as a high standard of investigation, like in others, can't be done.
Biology is fine but not biological ideas on former biology .

Science is not just a word for inventions.
I don't accept there is a different species of investigation called science.
Everything is just people thinking.
however they try to say science is a higher standard of investigation and so a higher confidence in its conclusions.
thats how most people see it.Origin issues are not open to a high standard of investigation because they are about unobservable or repeatable events and processes.
ideas can be floated but thats it.So when they TEACH conclusions about origins and call it SCIENCE and so a proven thing as most understand it because of high standards then we cry foul.
We do as much as them and both don't do much as evidence is scanty.
Equal time or nobody in SCIENCE class.

It's the scientific community that decides what goes into science class, not the church. The reason science is taught at all is because it wields results, if it was just "thinking" like usual, then how come the church (that is supposed to know the "truth") didn't make those kind of progresses all those centuries when their dogma was taught at school?If you think the scientific community is wrong, there's an easy way to prove it, set up your own scientific community with your church and get better results, then you will be able to replace science class with your brand of "science". It's obvious that your idea of science is different from that of the scientific community.It's amazing that when creationists are asked to do the work, the only thing they seem able to do is whining and find excuses why don't want to actually do the work scientists have when they want to be recognized. If Einstein, Lemaitre, Bohr and the like had reacted this way when their theories were first rejected, they wouldn't have gone far. They didn't go to court and tried to convince an ignorant public through churches, they just kept on working and that's the difference between actual scientists and creationists.

Okay Robert. Let's imagine for one minute that creationism has been allowed into science lessons. Many of my science lessons have a starter, where we look at past work, then a main section that usually involves looking at evidence for that topic. I have four fifty minute lessons to teach the evidence for creationism. Tell me briefly a format for these lessons that involves looking at evidence, not lessons that refute biological evolution, but lessons that show evidence for creationism.Oh and please, answer my previous question with a yes or no ? Would you advocate teaching flat earth theory in Geography lessons, just yes or no ?

They do have the right to demand it. But the question is, if our goal is educate the people - who do we turn to decide what to teach them?If I want to educate the people to speak German, to whom do I turn to for help for structuring how to do that and the contents of a course and competence targets etc? I suggest I turn to an expert in learning German, not to the general populace who don't speak German all that well. What you would say shouldn't really impact the educational decisions made in British Schools though. Are there some specific shortcomings of the British system? It teaches that Creationism was once the consensus view of scientists and general populace, that over time scientists shifted their view towards evolution, followed by a lesson over what evolution is.It takes up very little time, and only very broad strokes are given at the compulsory education level in Britain. Should we deliberately not teach students scientific concepts they will need if they wish to take their science education further? Should we do this on the basis that you think the level of investigation is not high when the numerous experts in the field say otherwise? This isn't some fringe idea, after all. The expert educators say that not enough evolution is taught, making their job much more difficult at higher education levels - why is your view to be trusted over theirs?I suspect you came into this thread merely to complain that you don't like evolution and so you don't want it taught. I'd like to know what your problem is with the British Curriculum.Here it is, in part:

quote:

---

1. Pupils should be taught:
a how scientific data can be collected and analysed
b how interpretation of data, using creative thought, provides evidence to
test ideas and develop theories
c how explanations of many phenomena can be developed using scientific
theories, models and ideas
d that there are some questions that science cannot currently answer, and
some that science cannot address.

​

2. Pupils should be taught to:
a plan to test a scientific idea, answer a scientific question, or solve a
scientific problem
b collect data from primary or secondary sources, including using ICT
sources and tools
c work accurately and safely, individually and with others, when collecting
first-hand data
d evaluate methods of collection of data and consider their validity and
reliability as evidence.

​

4. Pupils should be taught to:
a recall, analyse, interpret, apply and question scientific information or ideas
b use both qualitative and quantitative approaches
c present information, develop an argument and draw a conclusion, using
scientific, technical and mathematical language, conventions and symbols
and ICT tools

​

5 In their study of science, the following should be covered:
a organisms are interdependent and adapted to their environments
b variation within species can lead to evolutionary changes and similarities
and differences between species can be measured and classified
c the ways in which organisms function are related to the genes in
their cells
d chemical and electrical signals enable body systems to respond to internal
and external changes, in order to maintain the body in an optimal state
e human health is affected by a range of environmental and inherited
factors, by the use and misuse of drugs and by medical treatments.

​

6 In their study of science, the following should be covered:
a chemical change takes place by the rearrangement of atoms in
substances
b there are patterns in the chemical reactions between substances
c new materials are made from natural resources by chemical reactions
d the properties of a material determine its uses.

​

7 In their study of science, the following should be covered:
a energy transfers can be measured and their efficiency calculated, which is
important in considering the economic costs and environmental effects of
energy use
b electrical power is readily transferred and controlled, and can be used in a
range of different situations
c radiations, including ionising radiations, can transfer energy
d radiations in the form of waves can be used for communication.

​

8 In their study of science, the following should be covered:
a the effects of human activity on the environment can be assessed using
living and non-living indicators
b the surface and the atmosphere of the Earth have changed since the
Earth’s origin and are changing at present
c the solar system is part of the universe, which has changed since its
origin and continues to show long-term changes.

---

You can do your own research into any particulars, but is there some problem here you object to?

I answered about your geography thing.
Its up to the people to decide. if they think its a flat earth then they can demand it be taught also.
Yet the people wouldn't do this because the evidence to them is persuasive it ain't flat.
Creationism is persuasive to enough or they think its close enough to be a viable alternative.It depends on the subject your teaching.
If a subject is needing conclusions about origins then creationism is ready for it.
We start from the bible but then bring in investigation of nature to compliment it.
You must also make a decision on the bible and you reject it. then start from basic data and draw conclusions.
in all this however is the point that creationism can do equal investigation with anyone.
Again i don't see 'science' being done in origin subjects. its a special case to investigate past and gone events and processes.
its not like rockets.

Much problems here.
First you keep saying that kids are to study science. Whats a science. ? in fact science is the mechanism for study or investigation!
You should say instead you want kids to study the methodology and the details that led to agreed conclusions.You throw in a number of evolutionary presumptions.You exclude revealed religion as if its been proven wrong and its settled.
Yet this the truth and historic truth. So it must be a option for investigation.Its all fine about the list of how to have a high standard of investigation byt in fact origin issues are not open to these methods. Yet great conclusions are taught as if this methodology was employed.creationism is a different presumption to start from and has assertions and criticisms of evolution etc.
Censoring creationism is censoring investigation into the truths in nature.

A science is a body of knowledge surrounding some category of the natural world derived through some investigation of a certain standard. Why does that need to be 'instead'? Such as? No, I don't. I do suggest that revealed religion has not proven its case to a scientific standard and therefore shouldn't be taught alongside things that have in a class dedicated to things that have. Revealed Religion can be (and is) taught in Religious Education class. It is open to investigation. Meanwhile we only teach teenagers what has met the standards to date. The relevant experts in the field disagree with you. I suggest we listen to them. Why should we prefer your view? I assume since you haven't answered that question last time I asked that you will continue to ignore it and reply back to me with a re-assertion of your original position as if I had somehow forgotten it. But British schools do teach creationism. They correctly teach that scientists abandoned it in the late 19th and early 20th century. They teach that some people still believe in creationism.What else is there to teach about creationism?Who should determine if a criticism of evolution is worthy of mention to students and when it is nonsense spread by someone with an ideology? For instance, should we teach the Nazi worldview of life, or is that nonsense spread by ideologues?

Where is the testable evidence? To be a viable alternative, there would have to be some viable evidence to which there has never been any found. 2000 to 4000 year old myths are not viable evidence.

---

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

Well you keep saying that this or that has been decided.
Yet it hasn't.
creationism is a critic of evolution etc. you can't just dismiss your critic.
thats my whole point.
creationism dOES have the right to criticize and make its own conclusions and teach it to the kids.if these folks are teaching creationism was proved wrong back in the day well rebuttal is our right.
You seem to think that freedom of a nation or freedom of enquiry is to be controlled by some boss.it simply is a fact that creationism is a historic and present common conclusion on many matters in the nations.
Censoring it is immoral and illegal and just poor form where truth is the desired goal.
if you think your side proved creationism wrong then let the kids weigh the evidence themselves.
What's your fear?