Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
this is an interesting, and worrying, development.
some of the comments are grand
'Trying to prove that Man evolved from monkeys because there may be some similarities, is like trying to prove that humming birds evolved from helicopters because they both fly.'
seem entirely ignorant when it comes to education. Dawkins thinks teachers are bending over backwards to protect prejudice. What bollocks. Perhaps they are under extreme pressure and left stranded by Government guidelines.
"Rev Professor Michael Reiss, director of education at the Royal Society, says science teachers ought to be willing to talk about creationism if students bring the subject up." Right then, is the Rev Prof Reiss going to fund the lengthy and expensive training that would be necessary to bring science teachers up to speed with creationist thought? And pay for supply teachers to cover during this training?
Bellends, the pair of them.
I think that any such classroom discussion should be heavily weighed against a discussion that informs children that pretty much the entire scientific community dismisses creationism completely.
When children start to piece together all their knowledge and no longer feel the need to compartmentalise it. you know things are going well for them.
But when it comes to such a controversial topic, I think it is unwise to encourage teachers to engage in a debate on a subject they have no knowledge of. Acknowledge the question and refer the pupil to a source or member of staff better qualified by all means.
you mean 'And on the sixth day God created man'
I think thats as far as it goes.
like the theory of gravity.
now jump off a building you credulous gull, and put both theories to the test.
It's nice to see my favourite creationist argument put to good use more than once here: "I believed in Evolution once, but then I went and actually studied it and as a result of my scientific study, I have been able to conclude that actually there is a god."
"scientific" creationism is the most fun.
you accept that science is based on evidence. on the one hand, your evidence is a self-supporting book written thousands of years ago by people who held all sorts of other beliefs you now discount.
on the other hand, your evidence is the accumulated work of thousands of intelligent people, under constant criticism and review by their peers, with total willingness to learn from that process.
and you can honestly tell me you not only would equate these two, but found the ancient text MORE credible?
verily thou art a true scientist and will be blessed in Heaven.
all women were unavoidably attracted to me, because i am James Bond.
however, the evidence suggests otherwise.
i'm not going to let that stop me.
while i'm at work. if the woman who sits nearest me were to fling herself at me i would be crushed.
she is a serious unit.
there is a god just so that fuck Dawkins is wrong
i hope thats a joke
Fail. Dawkins wouldn't be wrong if it turned out there actually is a God. The central plank of any argument he makes on the matter is that there is no reason to even suppose there is a god because there is no evidence to suggest it.
i get the whole rationalist thing but he has decided that he is king of the atheists and i dont like being associated with someone who is such a prize bellend about letting other people have their own beliefs.
i dont like someone who pretty much stomps anyone who isnt as ridiculously soulless and clinical/rational as he is. Im not a bellend, i believe in pretty much the same things as Dawkins, i just think that you can go about things without being a dick.
being rational isn't a bad thing, it's not the same as being cynical or anything.
he's just *finally* voicing the atheist side of the argument after many many years. I don't think he comes across like a bellend, I think he comes across as a very intelligent forward thinker. People like him are important and represent a very healthy attitude shift.
created by godbothering yahoos of all persuasions. I'd say more but I dissed the godbothers on here a few years back and was called a paedophile amongst other things, tolerance of any ideas other than their own outdated fairytale beliefs not being a strong point of the hopelessly deluded
you degenerate fuckhole
Zapsta exposed you
I find that i dont want her to die. What does this signify i wonder?
Any psychiatrists on here?
it's good to teach kids to question science - science does get it wrong, but it is our most rigorous way of looking at the world.
but science's willingness to admit gaps in knowledge leaves openings for absolutist, creationist-style folk to step in with their "solutions".
there is time in the curriculum for a brief discussion of creationism in the context of teaching evolution - in the same way the lamarckism is taught when discussing darwin. it just doesn't deserve parity as there is not parity of support or evidence in the scientific community.
my point is that a good science teacher could touch on creationism, contextualise it, and show a class why it is not generally held to be true my most scientifically literate thinkers.
this would take 20 minutes and mean creationism had been discussed in a science lesson, rather than dismissing it as a total taboo, backing up creationist claims that the scientific community is in some way afraid of or unable to answer creationist propoganda.
creationism is clearly utterly wrong, so why not show kids that?
I asked him what created god and he got into a fluster and said that I was getting into philosophy and wouldn't answer.
I can see why some folk would want it brought up in science even if just to say how ridiculous it is but for me its so ridiculous that it should never be discussed in science.
If you have to talk about that kind of nonsense then keep it for nonsense classes like RE.
And while i can appreciate why a lot of folk don't like Dawkins I for one am a fan. He may have a manner about him but he rarely discusses or debates without well researched and informed reason and i can see why he gets clearly irritated by the utterly irrational religious types who won't listen or take on board anything and even consider it for a moment.
People feel shit about their financial troubles, job loses etc. and then they turn to religion to make themselves feel better. I hate it when people turn to religion for these reasons.
too little, too late...
just imagine what the credit crunch is going to do for WoW!
is that's it not science. it can be taught as 'theology' or 'religious studies' but if all its evidence amounts to is an old book then let's teach that Robinson Crusoe was the first man on earth what because Daniel Defoe said so or something.
why not show why it's not a credible alternative?
if it wants to be taken seriously, take it seriously for long enough to show why you don't need to take it seriously!
creationism doesn't simply undermine evolution it essentially disregards 99% of all science - it's an alternative to science as a whole. every single lesson would be like, "so that was our lesson on the solar system - the government has informed me that i should at this point say there's also the theory that a big man in the sky plucked them out the fucking air."
it isn't a credible alternative theory. evolution is the battleground that creationists have most prominently chosen, so show how the scientific method took us from the dark ages when creationism was a credible alternative, to modern times, when it isn't.
then cease to discuss it in science lessons.
evolution isn't generally taught at primary school (correct me if i'm wrong) so neither should creationism.
when kids are sophisticated enough to understand the arguments, give them the facts and let them decide.
fancy going to take a piss on a church?
handing out leaflets to the unwary for as long as I can remember. When I was young and unburdened by a sense of responsibilty towards the greater good I went up one night and sprayed "Jesus was a lying hippy" on the wall behind where they stood then went up the next day to see how they looked with their new backdrop. It seemed a good idea at the time
let's go where we're happy and i'll meet you at the cemetery gate.
Keats maybe, Yeats said no.
Sarah Palin is a creationist and as there is a good chance that her and McCain could get into the white house and on top of that that McCain might not make it through 4 years that she could be in charge. And while creationism is taught widely in the states she could use her obvious position to strengthen the creationist cause.