Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

David Attenborough joins the campaign against creationism in schools.

428 replies

Peanutbuttertuesday · 20/09/2011 17:27

I've posted before about the issue of religion being taught as fact in schools before. I'd be interested to hear what everyone has to say about this.
Discuss!
www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8769353/David-Attenborough-joins-campaign-against-creationism-in-schools.html

OP posts:
Cocoflower · 22/09/2011 15:48

So on one hand it was never a theory now it is a theory that has been disproved?

GrimmaTheNome · 22/09/2011 15:49

Do people not realsie how many theories we have been utterly convinced are correct yet something comes along to disprove it?Disproving a theory hardly equates to "lapsing". Infact the opposite; the theory becomes something new.

Of course (eg wave theory of light -> particle theory of light-> wave-particle duality)
But we don't laugh at these earlier theories, because they were soundly based in proper science. Similarly, if evolution is superceded by a better scientific theory there will be no reason to laugh at where we've got to now.

Cocoflower · 22/09/2011 15:51

Onagar

  1. It not ME thinks because one theory is disproven we laspe onto a new one
  2. Yet you are utterly convinced evolution is correct, no? You go into some sort of rage if challenged on this
  3. Erm, bollocks. Often theories are proven wrong after that person is dead for a start.
Whatmeworry · 22/09/2011 15:52

So on one hand it was never a theory now it is a theory that has been disproved

Lets do this another way. CocFlower, do you believe that Creationsm explains how the world came about? If so, can you point to the evidence supporting it? If not, then the Creationism hypothesis has no grounds for existence in science.

kat2504 · 22/09/2011 15:53

Honestly I give up. If you don't understand what the word "theory" actually means in terms of science then you probably never will.
Creation as in the Genesis story was not a scientific theory any more than say an Aboriginal Dreamtime story. This is because there was never any evidence for it.
The sun/earth thing was based on what people could observe with their own eyes and the belief (not theory) that the Earth was the centre of the universe. Since that was what they could observe, they had some "scientific" basis to believe this. Later, with the development of technology and the advancement of science, this was proven to be wrong.

Cocoflower · 22/09/2011 15:55

worry are yoy reading what was said? It was kat who said it was a theory not me

Again kat you said it was a disproven theory- not me. Preach to yourself.

onagar · 22/09/2011 15:58

Give it up cocoflower. You have made it clear that you feel strongly about creationism being taught in schools. You want it to sound like you are neutral but open minded, but it's not hard to see what is close to your heart.

You want the teachers to say that your god is the true god and that god made the world in 7 days. That he makes the sun rise and the grass grow.

It's not going to happen. We're wise to this now and while we have tolerated assemblies and so on we will never go back to the way it was before with the church in control.

kat2504 · 22/09/2011 15:58

Actually I have been referring to it as a myth all along. My post about disproven theories was in response to something you said and I deliberately illustrated my point with something else that is actually a disproven theory as opposed to a story. After that post, I have even explained the difference.

Whatmeworry · 22/09/2011 15:59

CoCFlower I don't care what you think Kat said - answer my question about whether you think Creationsm explains things, and point to the facts to support your belief.

GrimmaTheNome · 22/09/2011 16:00

. It not ME thinks because one theory is disproven we laspe onto a new one

No one thought that ... worry's point was that if anyone laughs at the theory of evolution we'll have lapsed back into believing in myth rather than developing valid theories.

Cocoflower · 22/09/2011 16:04

Onagar you are possibly the most paranoid and weird poster on MN. You fail misreably to grasp what people saying and make some right crap up in your head.

Whatmeworry I will not be spoken to like that. If you read what has been written you will realise how stupid your question is.

Whatmeworry · 22/09/2011 16:04

we'll have lapsed back into believing in myth rather than developing valid theories

Worse - there will be some sort of religious authority trying to dissuade people from fact based enquiry again.

Whatmeworry · 22/09/2011 16:09

Whatmeworry I will not be spoken to like that. If you read what has been written you will realise how stupid your question is

The only reason you won't be spoken to like that is that you can't answer my question, as that will show the weakness of Creationism.

ThePosieParker · 22/09/2011 16:09

Cocoflower.....gosh we are a flower aren't we? You get offended by the slightest thing.

Creationism is no more believable than Father Christmas. Tell us all about the dinosaurs....please.

Cocoflower · 22/09/2011 16:09

Grimma

Atcually ...

^WhatmeworryThu 22-Sep-11 15:29:35

You know one day, just one day people might even laugh at those who beleived in evolution

It'll be a very scary day if they do, it will mean we've lapsed back into another Dark Ages..... or Kansas rules the world^

S/he seems to think if one theory is wrong we go back to another theory before that that was also proven wrong... Confused Unbelivable isn't it?!

Cocoflower · 22/09/2011 16:10

posie you a bit thick

I never said I beleived in creationsim

Hope that helps

Cocoflower · 22/09/2011 16:12

Ok how is it other posters until now can grasp the fact I DO NOT BELIEVE IN CREATIONSIM

and again for the really stupid ones

I DO NOT BELIEVE IN CREATIONSIM
I DO NOT BELIEVE IN CREATIONSIM
I DO NOT BELIEVE IN CREATIONSIM

kat2504 · 22/09/2011 16:13

If you don't believe in it either then why are you so bothered that it be included in science lessons then? What exactly is your agenda here?

NormanTebbit · 22/09/2011 16:14

"children have different learning styles"

Well that's another myth. We all learn in the same way. There is no evidence for 'learning styles' despite teachers apparent enthusiasm for them.

But I guess varying 'styles' makes a lesson more interesting and therefore more memorable.

Cocoflower · 22/09/2011 16:16

I have explained over, and over and over and over again why.

Because I beleive no child should be left ignorant

I beliueve in arming children with all the viewpoints and letting them have a debate or at least being aware.

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EDUCATION AND INDOCTARTION

TheVermiciousKnid · 22/09/2011 16:16

No need to be rude, Cocoflower. Hmm

So what are you actually arguing for? That creationism should be included in science lessons?

Cocoflower · 22/09/2011 16:16

No Norman wrong there is a huge amounts of evidence

Get a book out.

ThePosieParker · 22/09/2011 16:17

Oh the irony.

What is your point Coco? Alternative mystical shite should be included in science? Should we teach doctors about faith healing too? (you know as an alternative pile of shit theory)

You a bit thick too? (gr)

Theory is for science, belief is for religion.

GrimmaTheNome · 22/09/2011 16:18

No - the implication of people laughing at those who 'believe' in evolution is that they have abandoned respect for the scientific method. It implies a retreat from reason - a Dark Age indeed. There was no particular inference as to the specifics of what these people believed instead that I could detect.

kat2504 · 22/09/2011 16:19

But we must not present a "viewpoint" as a "scientific theory".
Children have plenty of opportunities to become aware of the Bible. RE lessons, church, parents etc. It isn't science though. By all means, educate people about religion in schools, but don't mislead the children into thinking that it is in any way based in science because it isn't.