Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Teaching creationism as scientifically valid now banned in all UK public schools

upi.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 123 posts

Re: Teaching creationism as scientifically valid now banned in all UK public schools

#111

Post by tehwalrus »

PPLwynSPFJ5p wrote: post #106
tehwalrus wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was also at a Catholic school, same experience. I would point out that this stuff has only become a problem after Academies and Free Schools were: firstly, allowed to be sponsored/funded by random people and organisations who were allowed to set the "ethos"; and secondly were given license to choose whether or not to teach the National Curriculum[1]. This second point was supposed to be so that English teachers cou…

The reason why wives are to submit themselves to their husbands is because the Bible actually SAYS SO - or didn't you read the Bible when you were at Catholic school? (It stems from the fact that Adam was created first, and Eve second.) The fact remains that, if more people actually read their Bible, and used it as their moral compass, our world would not be in the mess it is in today. However, I do agree with you th…

I'm from the UK. Hardly anyone here questions the scientific explanations of the origins of the universe, or evolution, because we understand how science works. Darwin is on the £10 note for a reason, the universe is 13.9 Billion years old according to the cosmic microwave background radiation, you lost this argument some time ago, get over it.

(on a side note, I am completing a PhD in a geology department, and the guy who sat behind me for two years was studying how those giant woodlouse things evolved for his whole PhD, using fossils. In addition to that inadmissible anecdata, I can assert that the scientific consensus on Evolution is much more emphatic that you claim.)

Secondly, yes, like many young people I was brought up in a (UK version of a) religious house and attended a faith school. I am now a Secular Humanist (you seems to call that an Atheist, although it would be more accurate to say that I don't believe anything about deities, than to say I actively refute their supposed existence,) and this transition is entirely common here.

Frankly, I think there are much more important things to do in the world than debate unprovable things about gods. For example: persuading people that gun ownership is bad; state-funded healthcare is good; and that religous extremism/violence (including Christian violence that occurred in Europe centuries ago) would be silly if it weren't so damn serious.

(also, I'm sad that your comment is a direct child of mine, and thus I am prohibited from downvoting it.)

Re: Teaching creationism as scientifically valid now banned in all UK public schools

#112

Post by PPLwynSPFJ5p »

tehwalrus wrote: post #111
PPLwynSPFJ5p wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason why wives are to submit themselves to their husbands is because the Bible actually SAYS SO - or didn't you read the Bible when you were at Catholic school? (It stems from the fact that Adam was created first, and Eve second.) The fact remains that, if more people actually read their Bible, and used it as their moral compass, our world would not be in the mess it is in today. However, I do agree with you th…

I'm from the UK. Hardly anyone here questions the scientific explanations of the origins of the universe, or evolution, because we understand how science works. Darwin is on the £10 note for a reason, the universe is 13.9 Billion years old according to the cosmic microwave background radiation, you lost this argument some time ago, get over it. (on a side note, I am completing a PhD in a geology department, and the g…

Ah, a Humanist, that explains a lot. Woodlice first appear in the fossil record 50 million years ago, and remain unchanged to this day, i.e STASIS, not evolution (as in every other case in the fossil record). If you have a picture of a woodlouse changing into anything else then please post it here. Or did you mean a trilobite by any chance? If so, I would expect a PhD geology student to know the difference between a woodlouse and a trilobite (and trilobites didn't evolve into anything else either - they just became extinct).

The cosmic microwave background (CMB) actually poses problems for Big Bang. Obviously you are unfamiliar with the most recent findings from 2001, so I suggest you start learning about it here:

http://creation.com/recent-cosmic-microwave-background-data-....

Furthermore, the CMB merely PRESUPPOSES a big bang in the first place (and big bang is by no means certain - as many astrophysicists will tell you), so there are many assumptions involved in drawing inferences from it. The CMB is also very smooth - contrary to big bang predictions - and the observed mass density does not agree with big bang predictions either. There is no evidence, observational or otherwise, to prove that a big bang actually occurred (which is why many scientist disbelieve in it) nor is there any definitive evidence that the universe is billions of years old (I think that old chestnut arose from uniformitarian geologists' misguided counting of strata, mistakenly believing each layer to have been laid down over 'millions of years', even though recent laboratory experiments as well as direct field observation, have proved it can happen in hours or days).

Like any typical atheist (even though you describe yourself here as a Secular Humanist)you refer to "Christian violence that occurred in Europe centuries ago", forgetting of course that the most appalling violence, including mass genocide, took place in modern history at the hands of exclusively atheistic regimes, all of whose despotic leaders followed Darwinian theories completely (e.g. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mau Tse Tung, etc).

As it happens, I am from the UK too (and I'm an astrophysics major). You are free to refute the "supposed existence" of God in your own home, but please do not try to impose your own secular values on me, or on other people of faith in the UK, and especially not on my child's chance of benefiting from a decent indoctrination-free education. That's something I WILL defend, vigorously.

Re: Teaching creationism as scientifically valid now banned in all UK public schools

#113

Post by PPLwynSPFJ5p »

daemonk wrote: post #18
philcoders wrote: post #12

I posted this link as a new thread, but i think it is worth posting this also here, http://www.elisoriano.com/blog/new-truths-belie-evolution-ev... Would love to hear what the HN community thought on the arguments.

I am a bioinformatician with a background in genetics. The argument against evolution in the article, mainly the piltdown man hoax and new sequencing data on neanderthal is extremely weak. I don't think a single example of scientific fraud is enough to discredit the entire community. I actually think the fact that the fraud was found out as a hoax shows that evidence is constantly being scrutinized and re-examined; w…

I sympathize with your problem. But the problem is, you have confused creationists with theistic evolutionists! They are the ones that say that evolution occurred, but God guided it. He didn't. He created EX NIHILO, from scratch, in the beginning (that's pure creationist thinking; theistic evolution is merely a compromise position by those who have departed from their Bible). For a view of what creationist biology might actually look like, I suggest you start here. I believe you will find it quite interesting:

http://creation.com/what-biology-textbooks-never-told-you-ab...

God bless.

Re: Teaching creationism as scientifically valid now banned in all UK public schools

#114

Post by PPLwynSPFJ5p »

HillOBeans wrote: post #81
ryanjshaw wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 'arguments' you refer to are meant to support the idea that the theory of evolution is "senseless" (the author's own choice of words). Given that evolution is pretty much a scientific fact, the author clearly believes that the Bible contradicts science. Now I'm going to be blunt: neither you nor the author have a sufficient understanding of the philosophy of science to be drawing any conclusions regarding science…

I've been trying to sit this one out, but I've got to be blunt with YOU: how can anyone with a "sufficient understanding of the philosophy of science" draw the conclusion that evolution works?! Simply put, the scientific process is supposed to be: observe -> hypothesize -> test -> revise. If life is supposed to have arisen by purely natural processes, then the information-building, error-checking and correcting code…

Well said, HillObeans. I would like to ask permission to quote you in my forthcoming book, Darwin's Knickers (or maybe I'll call it, Knickers to Darwin - I haven't really decided yet [see one of my earlier posts on this deliberation]). I could really learn from you. I have a lot of respect for ID people, as well as for creationists. At least they have taken the trouble to learn and understand the science they're commenting on. Unlike most others.

Re: Teaching creationism as scientifically valid now banned in all UK public schools

#115

Post by PPLwynSPFJ5p »

harshreality wrote: post #85
HillOBeans wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been trying to sit this one out, but I've got to be blunt with YOU: how can anyone with a "sufficient understanding of the philosophy of science" draw the conclusion that evolution works?! Simply put, the scientific process is supposed to be: observe -> hypothesize -> test -> revise. If life is supposed to have arisen by purely natural processes, then the information-building, error-checking and correcting code…

Indirect evidence, at least beyond the step of abiogensis, is overwhelming. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ There are probably no documented examples of macroevolution that would satisfy you because what you're looking for are systemic functional changes in non-microscopic species, in the wild, which then forms a stable population as a separate species. Such changes are the accumulation of minor changes (whi…

If the earth were as old as lots of people seem to believe, there would be adequate evidence for macroevolution in the fossil record which COULD then be observed. But the fact remains that all of the predicted transitional fossils are notably MISSING. The vast majority of fossils show no change at all when compared to their modern counterparts. I do not see how this can equate to a "mountain of evidence" for macroevolution. And that's assuming you have already got past the problem (which you have already graciously acknowledged) of abiogenesis. Doesn't all of this tell you something?

Re: Teaching creationism as scientifically valid now banned in all UK public schools

#116

Post by PPLwynSPFJ5p »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #103
DanBC wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you allow for the possibility of a god, you're not doing science. No, that's nonsense. It is perfectly possible to do rigorous science but to believe in a God. There is nothing in science that rules out a god. Sadly the vocal majority of people who believe in a god also believe weird stupid obviously wrong things about science. I'm not talking about those people.

I think it's worth repeating a point from earlier. Yes, there are many people doing science and avowing belief in a god. However, none of them are involving any god in the science that they do . Their gods are tightly restricted to areas of the universe that they don't practice in. This isn't a coincidence -- as I said in the quote you object to, allowing the possibility of a god means you're not doing science. But t…

I don't think Newton thought of it that way.

Re: Teaching creationism as scientifically valid now banned in all UK public schools

#117

Post by PPLwynSPFJ5p »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #102
DanBC wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you allow for the possibility of a god, you're not doing science. No, that's nonsense. It is perfectly possible to do rigorous science but to believe in a God. There is nothing in science that rules out a god. Sadly the vocal majority of people who believe in a god also believe weird stupid obviously wrong things about science. I'm not talking about those people.

Science proceeds on the assumption that effects can be replicated. Its stated goal is to discover the principles that govern any phenomenon. If principles govern a phenomenon, god can't. The only god allowed by science is a god with no power to affect anything in the world, or at least no more power to affect the world than a human or any other mundane creature has. The question then is why you want to apply the word…

Macroevolution cannot be replicated, nor can Big Bang, so we seem to have a problem with 'science' here, according to your own definition given in para 1.

The Person who initially created the principles that subsequently govern phenomena is the same Person most of us call God. Principles have never been observed to create themselves out of nothing. From where, then, did the numerous principles governing observable phenomena first arise, and how? All roads seem to bring us back to God, no matter how much some people seem to dislike the idea.

Re: Teaching creationism as scientifically valid now banned in all UK public schools

#118

Post by mixmastamyk »

PPLwynSPFJ5p wrote: post #112
tehwalrus wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm from the UK. Hardly anyone here questions the scientific explanations of the origins of the universe, or evolution, because we understand how science works. Darwin is on the £10 note for a reason, the universe is 13.9 Billion years old according to the cosmic microwave background radiation, you lost this argument some time ago, get over it. (on a side note, I am completing a PhD in a geology department, and the g…

Ah, a Humanist, that explains a lot. Woodlice first appear in the fossil record 50 million years ago, and remain unchanged to this day, i.e STASIS, not evolution (as in every other case in the fossil record). If you have a picture of a woodlouse changing into anything else then please post it here. Or did you mean a trilobite by any chance? If so, I would expect a PhD geology student to know the difference between a…

> If you have a picture of a woodlouse changing into anything else then please post it here.

With that statement (and others) it is quite clear you have no idea what you're writing about. Please take your misinformation campaign elsewhere.

Re: Teaching creationism as scientifically valid now banned in all UK public schools

#119

Post by PPLwynSPFJ5p »

quasque wrote: post #99
HillOBeans wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The changes you refer to are examples of the equivocation I was speaking of. One cannot simply point to "changes" in an organism, micro- or not, call that evolution, and then say it must be true. And just because there are similarities evident in different types of organisms, it does not necessarily follow that they are of common descent. If they were designed by the same designer, would you not expect to find some f…

The problem with 'intelligent design' is that it's such an infantile way of trying to understand the world. Stating "God did it", rather than using one's brain to figure out the mechanisms of how the world works, is just lazy, regressive thinking that doesn't advance our knowledge and understanding in any way whatsoever.

If I got up one morning and found that someone had scrawled all over my living room walls I would be right to conclude that someone "did it." It would be truly "infantile" to ignore this as a possibility, and assume, instead, that somehow the living room "did it" all by itself while I wasn't watching. That attitude would be truly "lazy" and would not advance my "knowledge and understanding" of who the real culprit might be. It would furthermore be grossly unscientific. If I were to habitually think in such a way (rather than "using [my] brain to figure out the mechanism") it might actually harm my future job prospects.

Re: Teaching creationism as scientifically valid now banned in all UK public schools

#120

Post by PPLwynSPFJ5p »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #118
PPLwynSPFJ5p wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, a Humanist, that explains a lot. Woodlice first appear in the fossil record 50 million years ago, and remain unchanged to this day, i.e STASIS, not evolution (as in every other case in the fossil record). If you have a picture of a woodlouse changing into anything else then please post it here. Or did you mean a trilobite by any chance? If so, I would expect a PhD geology student to know the difference between a…

> If you have a picture of a woodlouse changing into anything else then please post it here. With that statement (and others) it is quite clear you have no idea what you're writing about. Please take your misinformation campaign elsewhere.

So I guess there are no pictures of woodlouse fossils changing into anything else then (nor of any other animal, for that matter) which is why many PROFESSIONAL SCIENTISTS are opposed to this kind of unsupported nonsense being forcibly taught in our UK schools. For example, most textbooks state that dinosaurs 'evolved' into birds, yet we now know that dinosaurs actually ATE them (because birds lived at the same time, already fully formed). See here, for example:

Thornhill, T., First proof of bird-eating dinosaur has scientists in a flap, www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2064952/Microraptor-First-proof-bird-eating-dinosaur-scientists-flap.html, 23 November 2011.

You are entitled to your opinion, namely that, "it is quite clear that you have no idea what you are writing about" but I have to disagree with your assessment. I know EXACTLY what I am writing about and I have the experience and scientific qualifications to back it up. If you regard my comments, or links, as "misinformation" then you are slighting those PhD scientists who produced the research in the first place - not all of whom are 'Creationists' as you would label them. Science simply follows the evidence wherever it may lead. If you happen to disagree with that evidence (because of your rigid, blinkered, evolutionary/Humanist mindset) that is your prerogative, but please do not insist on our UK schools infecting innocent children's minds with this kind of diabolical nonsense. One thing that is coming out of this tiresome dialogue with you is that all you have going for you is a typical atheistic 'Ya-boo-hiss' invective, while at the same time producing NO scientific evidence WHATSOEVER to support your many bald assertions or to inform other intelligent readers in this debate. I'm sorry, but Darwin's knickers are completely threadbare, and each time you write another a vacuous post, you are simply lifting his skirt higher for all the world to see.

Post reply on HN