Alice Roberts says no to teaching creationism in our schools!

[BAJR]

Another reason to say 'respect' to Dr Alice Roberts

Teaching creationism.. is no better than teaching the earth is flat. Way to go Dr Roberts!

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/...18230.html

Teaching pupils about creationism in science lessons is "indoctrination", according to the new president of the Association for Science Education.
Professor Alice Roberts has called for new laws banning all schools, including those in the private sector, from teaching the topic alongside evolution.
The new national curriculum for primary schools, due to be introduced this September, contains a clear requirement for pupils to be taught about evolution.

But the curriculum only applies to state schools, not private schools. Academies and free schools can choose not to follow the national curriculum, although most funding agreements between the Government and these schools say they must teach evolution as "a comprehensive, coherent and extensively evidenced theory".
In an interview with the Times Educational Supplement (TES), Prof Roberts, who has presented a number of BBC programmes including The Incredible Human Journey and Origins of Us, said: "There should be regulation that prevents all schools, not just state schools, from teaching creationism because it is indoctrination, it is planting ideas into children's heads.
"We should be teaching children to be much more open-minded.
"People who believe in creationism say that by teaching evolution you are indoctrinating them with science, but I just don't agree with that.
"Science is about questioning things. It's about teaching people to say, 'I don't believe it until we have very strong evidence'."
But critics have hit back saying "only countries like North Korea ban the teaching of religion in schools."

[Dinosaur]

Another reason to say 'respect' to Dr Alice Roberts

Seconded! :face-approve:

[P Prentice]

it is almost impossible to argue against intransigent recidivist unreconstructed fundamentalism because they will not hear rational debate. once they have a platform they will claim parity of reason and what starts off as a right to teach belief becomes a justifiable and equally valid opinion no worse and no better than a scientific stance. creationists have proffered sham scientistist and brainwashed millions of ill-educated unfortunates who can now have little chance of enjoying the universe open to the rest of us. if we tacitly condone this scientific perversion by not making a stance we will have learnt nothing from history. say no to faith schools not just creationist twaddle - our children deserve better

[Jack]

children should be taught how to think for themselves, and how to decide...........not indoctrinated in any way, or to believe anything on faith.
Unfortunately humans learn by imitation of those around themselves.

[John Wells]

Creationism should be told in schools, as there are many creation myths to tell!
It should never be taught out of context and never in relation to science.
Primary schools are the best place for stories and no one story should be given precedence, except for possibly Snow White and the Seven Small People ;o)

'Teaching creationism.. is no better than teaching the earth is flat.'
My experience is that whenever archaeologists find a site, they do their utmost to make the earth flat and expect it to speak to them....now there's a belief system ;o)

[Jack]

Creationism should be told in schools, as there are many creation myths to tell!
It should never be taught out of context and never in relation to science.
Primary schools are the best place for stories and no one story should be given precedence, except for possibly Snow White and the Seven Small People ;o)

'Teaching creationism.. is no better than teaching the earth is flat.'
My experience is that whenever archaeologists find a site, they do their utmost to make the earth flat and expect it to speak to them....now there's a belief system ;o)

Grin. Though religion/creationism should be reserved for English lessons alongside creative writing, or drama for all those weird pieces of theatre in my opinion

[GnomeKing]

bleh ...Proffesor Roberts has never done it for me - i find her approach trivial, pandering, and focused on rateings.

I think this self important and philosphicaly weak 'campaign' is a bit pathetic, but mostly totally irrelevent:

like this: http://www.theguardian.com/women-in-lead...should-ban
and this : http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/philip-m...90659.html

yes: i know you all love the twater-feeds and the face-punches > fankly these kinds of mass-media-insta-iculture-crapitudes are a greater 'threat' to society than, for example, the ridicuoulsly small number of classes in which creationism might be taught as a 'doctrine'

what exactly is 'Creationism' anyway?
as portrayed by Roberts, it seems all about whether God interveened to physically create modern humans - or even straight denial of evolutionary processes, or at least as applied to humans. Biblical Literalism is strictly speaking another matter entirley - probably very many self-identifying creationist are explicity stating that they are not biblical literalists.....
But does even Lieralism really matter? - Some people believe that money is the root of all social productivity - i know which concerns me more....

If whether humans are descended from apes or not is all we are talking about then also 'teach' about other Humans beliefs in Aliens, Niburu/Nephilim, von danikien etc - dont try to push science by restricting choice, open up all possibilities, and the evidence WILL speak for itself (have faith Prof!)

But (in a Legal sense) there really is no single thing called Creationism - no church of Creationism - no box to tick on HR and census forms...etc

at the most pc-liberal-educated end it is surley a belief that 'something' beyond human understanding was implicated in the fundemental origins of existence (as we experinece it anyway...)
For many educated scientists self-identifying as creationist, it seems to be more about semantics, and a frustration with other scientists who are too smug in their Post-Enlightenment Moral Objectivity.
For example, "yes, God personally interveened to create modern human beings (because God is personal to everything and in all creation)"

This is not nessescarily all Flat-Earth territory, -rather an attempt (by Christians) to intergrate thier rather outdated 'creation myths' with current areas of knowledge (and, of course, uncertainty).
Islam (for example) copes better with this particular philosphical issue - Allah is by definition beyond human understanding or perception... (although some Muslims do seem to struggle with the actual scientists, particualrly in relatrion to the study of pre-Islamic history....)
Much older verses that have come to us via ancient Sanskrit really do seem to cope rather well with quantum physics, cosmology, and scientific indeterminacey. More importantly they speak very clearly about the limits of knowledge, and how a human can still function in such a vast and unknowable universe.

I dont care if somebody else believes in man-monkeys, monkey-men, or angles - only what they do in life.
If we are to suggest that a 'belief' in any of these forms of creationism (or other forms of 'ignoring science facts') has a materailly negative impact on an individual or a society, then we are damned if we dont very carefuly consider whether 'science facts' do in fact have any lasting authority, and, in reality whether objectivity actually does-what-it-says-on-the-tin.

If evidence to support evolution is ignored, perhapes it has not been well enough argued - or are we to suspect the corruption of young minds with sinster 'creationist - cells'? If so, shall we drive them deeper underground?
Is this really a matter for the Law?

The whole thing is awfully 2faced-Blairite-OpusDiei, don't you think? (ie says one - does the other)
Who benifits?
Banning 'creationism' might just be more about cementing a 'mainstream' christian' view than at first appears...
It certainly softly-shouts that 'Scientists Are Right&Moral', and we should Believe them...........

:face-thinks:hmmm...i dont think it takes very long to realise that applied 'science', technology, and its Masters have wreaked far greater havoc on humanity and the world, than ever the individuals belief in a divine spark of creation, or that they were not realted to apes, or even teaching about creationism in modern schools, could...

It really is not the creation myths of people who call themselves (for example) Christians that disturbs me, but rather what they choose and permit in those particular lives.
Such choices are informed by philospical outlook, and are (today) ransacked and subverted by innumerable vested interests, money-grabbers etc > all pumped straight into our i-eyes and our i-magination <

Shall we ban everything that does not worship the Often-false God of Institutional Science?
i dont think so...

I think the solution is far easier:

ban all teaching of ALL science, anthropology(inc. religion) and literature ; make all classes Applied Philosphy (via human discourse), and, only until its basics are mastered, can the student progress to deal with more trivial epistomological and ontological details of the existence and the world.....

For example, the exact correct terminology and the absolute precise names to describe something as mind-bogglingly abstract (and, for the scientist, so instramentaly number-dependent) as the Creation of Existence Itself.
.



[ @Prof R- get a Proper Job !, or at least do the decent thing, and stick to areas that you might actually have academic credentials in! ]

ps [one word to a Physical Anthropologist : Repatriation...if you know your subject, i think you'll get my drift]

[BAJR]

Lovely long post, that I feel almost inadequate to respond to.... though respond I will, using the medium of social media ( that's the good old fashioned internet forum)

In the greater BAJRsphere, where we are in contact with the greater world population, the dangers of what creationism represents are far clearer... ( apart from the laughable 6004 year old earth) and the belief that humans ( mainly white ) are made in the image of god... who therefore must be white. it is the attendant views that cluster around this belief. and here is the rub. for all sciences pomposity and posturing, I am able to challange lay down evidence and alter the methodologies or collect new data.... on the side of creationism, the insidious nature ( hidden in the pretty little package of intelligent design) is belief. absolute, unflinching, unchanging... unquestioning.

If it came to a choice between your concept of education and Dr Roberts... I think I know where i would go.

I will let Richard Dawkins have the last word.

[video=youtube;0OtFSDKrq88]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OtFSDKrq88[/video]


ps.. well actually I will have the last word. To beleive or have faith is fine by me. I have my own , but don't tend to bother people with them, and don't warp or ignore data to fit.

[P Prentice]

it is not neccessary, expedient, helpful or even worthy to consider all ideas equally valid, to do so is foolish, counterproductive, debilitating and destructive - saints preserve us!

[Jack]

Right on PP.
If all ideas were equally valid we would still be living up in the trees.

The ability to reason what is the more likely cause of say, heart disease...........is it magic faery curses or bad diet and bad lifestyle............has enabled the saving of millions of lives.

Whereas praying for heart disease to just go away, or sprinkling of salt around to keep the faeries away hasn't saved a single one

Creationist ideas along with other made up nonsense has no value in finding out how things work.

But, they (and other nutjobs) have, and should have, the right to state/believe whatever they want.

But, But, what we teach our children is another matter. Ask yourself, who do you want looking after you and your country in your old age? Religious nutters or cultists who think waving reprints of old texts at you will cure your ills or doctors backed up by years of scientific evidence?

However, I would say the two branches of thought are both needed in a society.............I hark back to that great work of philosophy by Rush, Hemispheres...........

'....with the heart and mind united in a solid....perfect....sphere.'