to think creationism has no part in education in 2010?

[SantasMooningArse]

OK so I know I will be shot down under the 'don;t send your kids to a faith school' rule but to clarify:

A) I am a Christian; just of the friends variant rather than mainstream. I have a religion degree, I am far from anti- faith, just anti extreme.

B) It's the only scholl in walking distance and when we moved here we didn;t have a car I could use; it was also the only school with a space as we moved mid year. It i 3 minutes away.

C) I would dearly love my others to go to a different school but can't co-ordinate the pick ups due to being aprt dependent on SN transport for another child.

D) It's technically not a Church school but a VA one.

Anyway just received Governor's report which comes with a report each year from the local Diocese which is linked to their funding from a will. The report states (quote) '
The 6/7 creation myth seemed to rear it's head agin and I do wonder whether teaching as fact something we know to ne myth is the right thing?'

Later on under things to consider it says 'Crreation?'

I have no issues with it being taught as part of a wider 'some Christians believe...' thing but when ds2 was an infant his teacher told hom Mummy and Daddy were wrong about evolution; I had thought it was one long retired extreme though not general schooling.

I would much prefer ds4 to attendf the under subscribed school a few miles away (DS£ attends the attached SNU so know it well) but can't work out transport. I do find creationism a step too far though.

''if you are a Christian it should be unnecessary for you to see Creationism as scientific, or requiring proof, because the Bible says that you should have faith and not seek to prove everything''.

My my how very convenient!

Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear

written by Thomas Jefferson

They are all mad as fuck

"LookToWindward - scared of you? Ha ha ha! "

Well you could actually try to address the point I raised instead of some condescending bullshit?.

I'm happy to repost if you care to address it? Or as I say are we running scared?

There's no shame in not being able to argue a point you know. I won't think you're too stupid.

Buttonmoon,

Here is how science works.

Evolution is, technically, a theory. This is because it has not been irrefutably proved to be true. However, it has also not been proved to be false.

The same applies to creationism, since we haven't yet been able to prove the existence of God.

So we are at present left with the decision as to which theory has the most evidence to support it. Sorry, evolution wins. Look up what happened to moths after the industrial revolution and the air pollution which followed it - clear evidence of a benevolent mutation surviving as the fittest under changing circumstances. There are many more, both at bacterial level and at the level of macro-organisms.

Evidence for Creationism? Er... The Bible says so. Or alternatively, if you support Intelligen Design 'The world is so complex, we can't explain it, therefore God must have done it.'. This is not science.

You are entitled to atke a faith based position and more power to you. You are not entitled to present this position as equivalent to science backed up by research evidence. Darwin wasn't perfect, but broadly speaking he was right.

Faith is faith and science is science and enver the twain shall meet - instead they shall coexist peacefully side by side, in their separate spheres, as detailed by BoffinMum.

Going to bed now, no energy for a faith vs science debate.

SGB there is no need to get personally offensive.

LookToWindward - actually, adaption has been proved, irreversible genetic mutation has not been proved.

Look at the amount of dna we share with our nearest relation in the animal world. Research how many differences there are and the time window these changes took to happen according to evolution.

It works out to one major change every 18 months for a period.

How many irreversible, major changes has the human race gone through in the last few millenia?

There have been many mutations. When the spaceship first brought us here we could hardly breathe, and now we can dance.

I can fly and so can some others but we are top secret.

Pointythings - sorry, x post.

The moths in the industrial revolution changed back once the air got cleaner. That's not genetic mutation. It's adaption. And is not used as proof by evolutionist scientists.

Actually, there's a lot of proof for an intelligent creator. So much of what we see (and take for granted every day) cannot have happened by chance.

FWIW, I think it takes more faith than I have to believe that all these miraculous things happened by chance.

ID has been around since the Enlightenment when it was all about the watch found in the forset. Bollocks then, and bollocks now. Even the Jehovahs are embarrassed to use it round our way

Jesus loves you all

Actually, there's a lot of proof for an intelligent creator. So much of what we see (and take for granted every day) cannot have happened by chance.

People used to say that about thunder. Don't be stupid.

"irreversible genetic mutation has not been proved."

Ignoring that outside of mathematics there is no such thing as "proofs", what on earth are you talking about?

If I understand what you're saying and now "adaption" and "irreversible genetic mutation" are the new cuddly terms for the old creationist chestbut of "macro" and "micro" evolution - they're the same thing. There is no difference.

The mechanics of evolution postulate that genetic mutation creates heritable traits. That is both "adaption" and a "irreversible genetic mutation".

And what kind of idiocy is "It works out to one major change every 18 months for a period."? Define difference for one thing.

Apologies in advance if this makes no sense (fuzzy head, full of cold) but out of curiosity what do you all mean by 'creationism'?
Because 'creationism' isn't 'God created the world'. It's 'God created the world exactly as the book of Genesis describes', and, in the case of Young Earth Creationists, 'the earth is 4000 years old and dinosaurs coexisted with humans', which isn't a tenet of any major faith (certainly not RC, which I am, or C of E). I'm not trying to pick a fight here at all, just genuinely curious. It just seems weird to me that a faith school would be teaching stuff that isn't, well, part of that faith. For example, Catholics believe that God created the world, but they also recognise evolution. So to me, it seems odd that the two can't comfortably coexist, along the lines of 'God created the world', or 'Christians believe God created the world', in RE, and the rest in science lessons.

straight answer to the OP question, no it has no place in science education

Has anyone actually said YANBU or YABU on here to the OP? Or is it turning into the usual Christianity bunfight

Where's the OP got to?

" And is not used as proof by evolutionist scientists."

And there you go confusing "proof" with "evidence".

Tell us - do you have any - scientific or not - related qualifications? I think that information is relevant.

There are no new species. There are new sub-species but there have been no new species since we began looking at things like that.

Why do you have a problem with dinosaurs? I don't. If the earth changed then it's reasonable to assume that some species died out.

After all, isn't that what's happening on a daily basis now?

''Actually, there's a lot of proof for an intelligent creator. So much of what we see (and take for granted every day) cannot have happened by chance''.

You not understanding things does not equate to proof.

To be fair, the timescale since we started "looking at things like that" has been pretty small in evolutionary terms...

"There are no new species."

Seeing as there is still a great deal of debate as to the exact definition of species in biological taxonomy I'm sceptical that some wingnut on the internet is able to tell us - but please do try.

OP has probably been scared off by the bunfight!

No, I don't have any scientific qualifications, but as part of my faith I have read extensively on all sorts of topics. Why, do you?

Ok, so I used prrof and evidence interchangeably. It's not evidence either.

Oh, and hullygully, please don't call me stupid. I'm not picking a fight with anyone, just trying to talk reasonably without resorting to personal insults.

Re the dna, I'll dredge up the info shortly...

kitten30
You can laugh as much as you like, As your probably have relised I believe God created the world,
Okay perhaps it shouldn't be taught in science as it is not actually science,
I just think that chikdren should have acess to both views and then decide for themselves what they believe.

Creationism can't count as a valid theory as there's no way it could be disproved. For something to be science, it has to be (at least hypothetically) able to be disproved.

Would you prefer deluded? Wilful or otherwise?