E-petition to keep creationism out of UK schools

[Ryan_m_b]

If you're interested in science education you're going to want to sign this
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/1617

Teach evolution, not creationism

Responsible department: Department for Education


Creationism and ‘intelligent design’ are not scientific theories, but they are portrayed as scientific theories by some religious fundamentalists who attempt to have their views promoted in publicly-funded schools. At the same time, an understanding of evolution is central to understanding all aspects of biology. Currently, the study of evolution does not feature explicitly in the National Curriculum until year 10 (ages 14-15). Free Schools and Academies are not obliged to teach the National Curriculum and so are under no obligation to teach about evolution at all.

We petition the Government to make clear that creationism and ‘intelligent design’ are not scientific theories and to prevent them from being taught as such in publicly-funded schools, including in ‘faith’ schools, religious Academies and religious Free Schools. At the same time, we want the Government to make the teaching of evolution in mandatory in all publicly-funded schools, at both primary and secondary level.

 

[Andre]

Unfortunately it told me:

You must be a British citizen or normally live in the UK to create or sign e-petitions.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Unfortunately it told me:

Bugger feel free to pass it on to any Britons you know.

 

[Andre]

http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk/forum/index.php?/topic/92726-teach-evolution-not-creationism/.

 

[rollcast]

Not sure if under-18s can sign petitions but will see what I can do about passing it along.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Is there really a legitimate threat of creationism being taught in public schools?

 

[ThinkToday]

We petition the Government to make clear that creationism and ‘intelligent design’ are not scientific theories and to prevent them from being taught as such in publicly-funded schools, including in ‘faith’ schools, religious Academies and religious Free Schools.

Very dangerous ideas. Personally, I'm not opposed to the teaching of intelligent design, so long as it's not required that a student subscribe to that model AND evolution is taught concurrently. So we're going to tell Catholic schools they can't teach the bible at Catholic schools...? Very dangerous ideas. My children went to a Catholic school and were taught "intelligent design" in religion class, but were also taught evolution in science class. Personally, I’d like to see many religions taught in all public and private schools, and not taught for the purpose of conversion, but for the purpose of educating. I don’t think someone can understand the world around them without understanding the way it got to where it is, and for better and worse religion played a role.

 

[Evo]

Very dangerous ideas. Personally, I'm not opposed to the teaching of intelligent design, so long as it's not required that a student subscribe to that model AND evolution is taught concurrently.

Intelligent Design is religion, not science.

Personally, I’d like to see many religions taught in all public and private schools, and not taught for the purpose of conversion, but for the purpose of educating. I don’t think someone can understand the world around them without understanding the way it got to where it is, and for better and worse religion played a role.

Did you mean "teach about the affect of religion in history"? Surely you can't expect "religions" to be taught in public schools.

 

[Ken Natton]

Not sure I agree with this. I think, generally, British schools get it right – certainly the school my boys go to seem to get it right, from my perspective. It is not that religious views should not be taught, but it is all about context. The problem with what is advocated by creationists in the USA is that they say it should be taught alongside science as an equally valid explanation of the world around us. In British schools, science is taught in science classes and religion is taught in RE, which it is made clear is entirely cultural, and the distinction between the two is also clear. At my boys’ school, which is essentially a Christian school, in RE they are taught about Muslim, and Jewish and Buddhist myths and customs as well as Christian ones. I see nothing inappropriate in that, provided the context is right. The creation myth is just that – a religious myth. As such, it is an important piece of history, and taught appropriately, contributory to a well-rounded education. Intelligent design is a recent invention and not actually part of any religion’s cultural history. I’m not sure that there is a particular need to teach it, but if it is taught with the correct context, there is no particular harm either. I see no need for this petition, I think it just might back fire.

 

[AlephZero]

Surely you can't expect "religions" to be taught in public schools.

Why not? IMO it's perfectly reasonable to give kids access to an accurate set of facts about what other people believe in. Doing that is quite common already in UK schools.

Spending public money indoctrinating kids in one religion to the exclusion of the rest is a different matter, of course.

 

[Evo]

Why not? IMO it's perfectly reasonable to give kids access to an accurate set of facts about what other people believe in. Doing that is quite common already in UK schools.

Teaching religion and teaching "about" religion are two different things, IMO, the latter is ok, along with teaching about people that reject religion, if all done without bias. Teaching about current religions in the same way Greek, Roman, etc... mythology is taught is ok. But then, should we also include other supernatural beliefs that have and continue to shape our world?

 

[rootX]

I was in a religious school from gr 1 down to gr 8. They had some religious related activities on the side making it unnecessary to include religion in the actual curriculum. I don't see any need of teaching religions, myth and world religions are ok.

 

[micromass]

Very dangerous ideas. Personally, I'm not opposed to the teaching of intelligent design, so long as it's not required that a student subscribe to that model AND evolution is taught concurrently.

Very well, then we should also start by teaching alchemy and astrology. Some people believe in it, so why not teach it??

I personally find it ok to teach intelligent design as long as they make it clear that it is completely rubbish and unscientific.

Also, intelligent design is not a scientific model.

Personally, I’d like to see many religions taught in all public and private schools, and not taught for the purpose of conversion, but for the purpose of educating. I don’t think someone can understand the world around them without understanding the way it got to where it is, and for better and worse religion played a role.

That is a completely different matter. I'm all for teaching about religions in school. But with that I mean: to teach about all religions. Proclaiming that one religion is true and valid, should not be done. We can teach about the origin of the religions, the values of the religions, the crimes and benefits of religions, etc.

 

[rollcast]

Why not? IMO it's perfectly reasonable to give kids access to an accurate set of facts about what other people believe in. Doing that is quite common already in UK schools.

Spending public money indoctrinating kids in one religion to the exclusion of the rest is a different matter, of course.

But the problem arises when in a physics lesson, they can't talk about the Big Bang theory without a "preable" saying that the BB is only a theory that is believed to by scientists and that other forms of creation are equally valid and true.

In biology we definitely had to learn a bit about intelligent design (although it was 2 years ago and I don't remember the details)

 

[BobG]

So we're going to tell Catholic schools they can't teach the bible at Catholic schools...? Very dangerous ideas. My children went to a Catholic school and were taught "intelligent design" in religion class, but were also taught evolution in science class.

This would be very unusual for a Catholic school unless you're talking intelligent design generically and not the most popular version of Intelligent Design, which is essentially a modified version of Creationism.

Not saying your local Catholic school didn't choose to teach Intelligent Design, but the Catholic religion in general doesn't take a particularly literalist view of the bible (although some orthodox branches, etc, do take a more literal view).

In any event, in the US, parochial schools, including Catholic schools, don't receive public funding and they can teach whatever they want.

In the UK, parochial schools do receive some public funding. They feel that if taxpayer money is going into those schools that taxpayers should have some say in the curriculum and the education. Seems reasonable to me.

Won't make any difference in the US unless voucher programs become popular. Then the public has an interest in the kind of education the public is getting for their money.

 

[Ibix]

Is there really a legitimate threat of creationism being taught in public schools?

I gather that, under the previous government, teaching Creationism was a no-no. Under the current one, it seems to be acceptable to teach it in religion, and I believe that two schools already do so, and at least one more is planned. Cynical minds wonder if this will be exploited as a way to "teach the controversy".

 

[cristo]

So we're going to tell Catholic schools they can't teach the bible at Catholic schools...? Very dangerous ideas. My children went to a Catholic school and were taught "intelligent design" in religion class, but were also taught evolution in science class.

This isn't the issue that's being discussed here. The problem is with intelligent design being taught instead of or alongside evolution in science classes. Clearly this should not be happening! I have no problem with religion being taught in religious education classes.

 

[Andre]

http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk/forum/index.php?/topic/92726-teach-evolution-not-creationism/.

Wow, I see a few real hot real debates going on, ignited by a simple straightforward post in some places.

I think I understand it.

 

[Evo]

This would be very unusual for a Catholic school unless you're talking intelligent design generically and not the most popular version of Intelligent Design, which is essentially a modified version of Creationism.

I can't imagine "Intelligent Design" being taught in a Catholic school. Intelligent Design is a protestant invention, it would not be welcomed by Catholics.

 

[f95toli]

Is there really a legitimate threat of creationism being taught in public schools?

I could see it happen in some of the new free schools. The fact that such schools can be set up by groups of parents and organizations means that it is almost inevitable that someone will at least try to start a free school with an evangelical christian "profile".
AFAIK it has never been a problem in the catholic schools.

 

[cobalt124]

Agree with Ken Natton in Post #9. One of my sons managed to come throught the U.K. public education system able to constructively question evolution and see creationism for what it is (and religion for what it was and is), a grab for power. U.K. schools and institiutions are strong enough to counter this, religion does not exercise power here as it does in the U.S, for example. IMO all the petition needs to say is that creationism will not be taught as a science subject, because it isn't one. Anything else is clouding the issue.

 

[AlephZero]

The petition is a bit of a straw man in terms of the whole UK education system. If parents and/or schools want kids to learn creationism, ID, basket weaving, or media studies I don't really have a problem with that - you can't legislate against stupidity. IMO the real question is what is examined as part of the national curriculum for science.

The UK national science curriculum (quite rightly IMO) includes topics like "how science works", "the limitations of current scientific knowledge" and "questions that science cannot answer". If some people are paranoid enough to want to remove those topics because they might let ID in through the back door - well, I already said you can't legislate against stupidity.

 

[ThinkToday]

Did you mean "teach about the affect of religion in history"? Surely you can't expect "religions" to be taught in public schools.

Yes, I do mean religions taught in public school, but, if you read my post you'll see I'm suggesting the teaching from an educational perspective and not a "conversion". Whether its wars, values, cultures, etc., much of history is directly tied to religion, good and bad. I'd like to see a religious history class(es) taught by each of the major faiths to enable students to understand the difference between Sunni and Shea Muslims, why Jewish and Muslim war, what's different about Mormons and why some challenge their beliefs, etc., etc. History needs context and the context can't ignore religion. IMO, there is a lot of lip service paid to “understanding”, “cultural sensitivity”, “cultural differences”, etc. So, how do we understand the sensitivity and differences if we bar the teaching of one of the main reasons for the differences? IMO, it’s like teaching chemistry without mentioning the diversity of atoms or physics without math. So, the Sunni follow Omar and the Shea follow Ali, why is that important if they both point to Allah? There are many questions you could give a “one word answers to”, but one word answers don’t really explain much, IMO. In short, if we truly want to understand other cultures to better get along, then perhaps we need to learn why we are different. Anyway, that’s my opinion.

 

[ThinkToday]

This isn't the issue that's being discussed here. The problem is with intelligent design being taught instead of or alongside evolution in science classes. Clearly this should not be happening! I have no problem with religion being taught in religious education classes.

Read the OP, "prevent them from being taught as such in publicly-funded schools, including in ‘faith’ schools, religious Academies and religious Free Schools" Yes, it was part of the OP.

 

[ThinkToday]

I can't imagine "Intelligent Design" being taught in a Catholic school. Intelligent Design is a protestant invention, it would not be welcomed by Catholics.

Perhaps, I used a wrong term. The whole Genesis, Adam & Eve, etc. "beginning" isn't the same for Catholics?

 

[rollcast]

Teaching a child religion should the decision of his/her parents and should be done at home or church / other place of religious organisation.

Religion should not be taught to everyone as a "blanket rule" as part of the national Curriculum.

 

[cobalt124]

...basket weaving...

Nothing wrong with basket weaving!

Religion should not be taught to everyone as a "blanket rule" as part of the national Curriculum.

I disagree. Like it or not religion is a major part of the lives of billions of people. It is important it is taught in schools - for what it is - religion.

 

[Travis_King]

I'd like to see a religious history class(es) taught by each of the major faiths to enable students to understand the difference between Sunni and Shea Muslims, why Jewish and Muslim war, what's different about Mormons and why some challenge their beliefs, etc.,

How do you propose this would be done? I don't see why they'd have to be taught by the respective faiths. I could see high-level basic understanding lectures on the various major faiths being taught, but these "why's" should not be taught by each faith, or at all. Muslims will have a different reason behind why some of the people in their faith fight the Jews than the Jewish folks do.

Why not minor faiths? Do Zoroastrians not get a block of this education?

I disagree. Like it or not religion is a major part of the lives of billions of people. It is important it is taught in schools - for what it is - religion

No, religions should be taught in schools, but only in the context of history and their basic principals and beliefs. I don't see that religion, which is to say the various religious philosophies, should be taught in schools.

Taught by whom? What each religion means, stands for, and ultimately seeks differs from person to person. Do you have a christian teach kids about Islam? An athiest teach kids about Judaism? Do you have, as ThinkToday might have suggested, religious practictioners or preachers come to schools (or, I shudder to think of it EMPLOYED by the public schools) and teach kids about each of their faiths. Where is the line drawn, then, between what is considered education and what is considered recruiting?

Religious education is best left to religious institutions. As far as I'm concerned, public schools should not delve into religious philosophy, and should teach about religions only in the context of their impact on history in the various regions and eras.

 

[ThinkToday]

How do you propose this would be done? I don't see why they'd have to be taught by the respective faiths. I could see high-level basic understanding lectures on the various major faiths being taught, but these "why's" should not be taught by each faith, or at all. Muslims will have a different reason behind why some of the people in their faith fight the Jews than the Jewish folks do.

Why not minor faiths? Do Zoroastrians not get a block of this education?



No, religions should be taught in schools, but only in the context of history and their basic principals and beliefs. I don't see that religion, which is to say the various religious philosophies, should be taught in schools.

Taught by whom? What each religion means, stands for, and ultimately seeks differs from person to person. Do you have a christian teach kids about Islam? An athiest teach kids about Judaism? Do you have, as ThinkToday might have suggested, religious practictioners or preachers come to schools (or, I shudder to think of it EMPLOYED by the public schools) and teach kids about each of their faiths. Where is the line drawn, then, between what is considered education and what is considered recruiting?

Religious education is best left to religious institutions. As far as I'm concerned, public schools should not delve into religious philosophy, and should teach about religions only in the context of their impact on history in the various regions and eras.

Actually, I have a Persian friend that's Zoroastrian. Interesting system. It’s been many years ago, but I think he told it basically requires him to “think good”, “be good”, and “do good”.

I think you answered your own question of the "who" teaches. That being the one most knowledgeable that can credibly teach it; someone that has educational prominence in the area. Perhaps even an online or televised presentation, such as one may see on the History Channel with a group discussion lead by an appropriate cleric. As a practical matter, some schools have ethnic and cultural studies, and IMO, religion is an extension of those, so I don’t see it as much of a stretch. I would envision it much like any history class. The evolution of the religion to its present state from an historical perspective, issues relevant in the world today, things understood and misunderstood, etc. Spend a couple of weeks on each, at the most, and conclude it with an online or televised roundtable discussion among experts. In the end, we wouldn’t want to push “conversions”, but conversations, understanding, tolerance, points of view, etc. may achieve some level of mutual respect. Every election cycle it seems we hear nonsense about one religion or another influence. Wouldn’t it be nice to know enough to say that’s BS or not?

Just my two cents. We can never have enough real knowledge or understanding.

 

[leroyjenkens]

I had a world history textbook that spoke a lot about religion in the context of what people believed, allowing the student to understand their motivation for doing what they did. War is important in history, and religion played (and plays) a big role in war.

What needs to be taught is "this is what people believed or believe, and that's why they did what they did, or are doing what they are doing."

Never "this is what they believed and it's true." There's no justification for that and it makes completely zero sense to do that. That's why it's illegal and should stay that way.

 

[BobG]

Perhaps, I used a wrong term. The whole Genesis, Adam & Eve, etc. "beginning" isn't the same for Catholics?

It doesn't have the same significance or importance as in some Protestant religions. Only the original sin part is important and the story really isn't one to take literally - as is most of the Bible and especially the Old Testament.

Catholic tradition developed before the invention of the printing press. Clergy read the Bible, interpreted its meaning, and taught it based on their interpretation (the consensus opinion of the clergy, as a whole; not the individual priest's interpretation). The congregation reading the Bible is a good thing, but not all that necessary since clergy can tell them what it means.

The Protestant religion developed after the invention of the printing press and the feeling is that people can see for themselves what the Bible says and don't need a hierarchial clergy system to tell them what it says. In fact, most Prostestant churches pick their own ministers/pastors as opposed to the Catholic church where the priests are assigned to churches by the Bishops/Cardinals, etc.

Protestant churches are both more democratic (the congregation gets more of a say) and more literal (since the written word is hard to deny, even if it's even harder to interpret). But, since Protestant churches are more democratic, how literal of an interpretation to take is up to the individual church. As a result, you can have liberal Lutheran churches (don't take the Bible so literally) to some very fundamentalist Protestant sects (an extremely literal intepretation of the Bible). Most Evangelical churches and a significant percentage of Baptist churches fall towards the more literal interpretations, even if not taking an extreme fundamentalist view.

The Catholic church believes in theistic evolution; not Intelligent Design. Theistic evolution is more a statement that it doesn't matter how evolution occurred - it's God that caused it to happen that way. The details of the process are irrelevant and there's no conflict between evolution and church philosophy.

Intelligent Design is a specific theory that's practically a "scientific" rephrasing of creationism. Unless you've actually read the details of Intelligent Design, it's easy for a person with a Catholic background to think theistic evolution and Intelligent Design mean the same thing (at least that's what I initially thought).

But Intelligent Design is intended to be a "scientific" theory that can be taught in science class. The science part is lacking. And Intelligent Design is denounced by the Vatican (hence the idea of Intelligent Design being taught in a Catholic school being almost unimaginable, unless you're talking about Eastern Orthodox Catholics which I know little about except they take a more literal view than the Vatican).

 

[TheMadMonk]

Education is a devolved matter in the UK, there isn't a single UK education system. Do people forget the UK isn't just England or do they just not know?

 

[Storm Angel]

Secularism is always the best answer, in my opinion. :)

Everyone should have at least a basic understanding of science as a compulsory through secondary schools, regardless of background or doctrinal influences. Learning of religions and other spiritual teachings / concepts / philosophies are important to understand too, however, they should never be presented in a forceful or manipulative fashion on to another, people need to walk their own paths and make their own choices as to which truly resonates with them.

Science provides us with a great advantage into helping an individual reach one's own conclusions and theorize based around that of which we have come to understand.
To think outside the box is greatly encouraged, however, one should also avoid dogmatism, to think for yourself. :)

Religion claims to know all the answers without providing objective evidence or confirmations to support it.

Science aims to eliminate confusion and discover evidence to support theory and facts for confirmation, however, it never claims to know all the answers.
Science is not a dogma, it only concludes to that of which it currently understands. Anything beyond confirmation is simply theoretical or personal opinion.

It is equally important to embrace both left and right-brained concepts, the balance within the chaos. :)

 

[Number Nine]

Perhaps, I used a wrong term. The whole Genesis, Adam & Eve, etc. "beginning" isn't the same for Catholics?

Creationism, as it is understood today (the Earth was poofed into existence 6000 years ago, beginning with Adan and Eve, and history then proceeded precisely as Genesis describes it) is a much newer invention than you might think (largely the product of American Protestant Christianity). "Literal" interpretations of Genesis have existed for quite a while, but Christians historically (and today, outside of American and a few parts of Europe) have never really believed anything quite so dogmatic.

Actually, the entire notion of inerrancy and "biblical literalism" is relatively recent; Christian scholars have debated, say, the two contradictory creation stories in Genesis (Genesis 1 and Genesis 2), or the conflicting accounts of Jesus' life in the four Gospels for over a thousand year; it wasn't until around the 19th century that the more populist branches of Protestant Christianity (again, largely American) threw up their hands in dismissal of "fancy-schmancy intellectual Christianity" and declared the Bible to be 100% literal and inerrant, and that there are no inconsistencies at all (which would get you laughed out of any seminary).

 

[zoobyshoe]

The Catholic church believes in theistic evolution; not Intelligent Design. Theistic evolution is more a statement that it doesn't matter how evolution occurred - it's God that caused it to happen that way. The details of the process are irrelevant and there's no conflict between evolution and church philosophy.

Yes, the nuns taught us man evolved from apes. God, though, put the process of evolution in gear, and when the time was right, he picked a particular homo sapiens and did something to him that made him spiritually a man rather than a beast, gave him a soul perhaps, and named him "Adam".

A day for God, it was explained, was about a billion years in human terms, so we also had no problem with a seven-day creation period.

 

[AlephZero]

The Protestant religion developed after the invention of the printing press and the feeling is that people can see for themselves what the Bible says and don't need a hierarchial clergy system to tell them what it says.

There is a huge irony in that, since many of the "literalists" only read translations, not the original. There's a particular irony over the King James Version (where some people interpret the word "Authorized" on the title page as "Authorized by God", not "Authorized by James I"), whcih was a blatantly political project intended to demonstrate that James I was indeed the right guy to be on the throne. The translation committee were given very strict instructions about what they were not allowed to write, to head off any problems if readers actually "saw for themselves" that stories like Moses leading a rebellion against the established government might not be entirely consistent with the Divine Right of Kings, for example.

 

[cobalt124]

...No, religions should be taught in schools, but only in the context of history and their basic principals and beliefs...

That is all I am saying. I probably came across wrong.

 

[chiro]

The best solution IMO is always to offer a choice: the one thing that is certain is that there is uncertainty, or at least a gap between what we really know and what is out there.

Anyone with a basic understanding of statistics should realize this, and naturally the best way mentally to operate under uncertainty is to understand the limits of uncertainty.

Learning about many different approaches no matter how ludicrous you think they are or even how much you think you know better, is the right of every being that is inquisitive enough to have the curiosity to learn: taking away that right is of the utmost violation of that curiosity and should not be tolerated in any shape or form.

Students should sample as they wish and come to their own conclusions as long as they don't come to the genuine detriment of others: if someone thinks that the sky is red, it is their choice and as painful as this may be for other people who continue to watch this person think this, it is still their right to be that way.

The best one can do is to give everyone a choice and a variety of viewpoints and ideas and let the ones who wish to enlighten themselves with the majority ideas, do so.

As the saying goes: "When the student is ready, the teacher appears". When students are ready, they will be able to search out for the things that they wish to experience.

Let the students choose and let them experience the consequences of their choices, but do what you can only to offer advice: whether they take it, ignore it, or make use of it is their decision to make, not yours.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Chiro the "let them make their own choice" argument is not only incredibly impractical it's a wedge strategy for pseudo-science. Teach about religion in RE, teach about science in science.

 

[dimension10]

Very well, then we should also start by teaching alchemy and astrology. Some people believe in it, so why not teach it??

I personally find it ok to teach intelligent design as long as they make it clear that it is completely rubbish and unscientific.

Totally agree!

 

[chiro]

Chiro the "let them make their own choice" argument is not only incredibly impractical it's a wedge strategy for pseudo-science. Teach about religion in RE, teach about science in science.

This whole idea of having to be an authority on knowledge regardless of the field is absolutely ridiculous. Giving students both the choices to make their decisions and the experience needed to come to their own conclusions is the best way for someone to learn.

The real problem is that it's always some-one that thinks they know what's right for other people and ironically this is the very thing you are trying to argue against: that you know what's right for other people. The other people with the creationist mindsight are thinking that they know what's right as well!

If people want to do real science, they will become scientists in one form or another. If people want to believe whatever the hell they want, they have that right and it's not your job or crusade to try and correct them.

The best principle for education is to get students to question what they think and challenge what they think regardless of who is teaching and regardless of what is being taught, and quite frankly this is something that absent not only in non-science classes but also for science-based ones especially at a high-school level.

Science and the method itself is supposed to be based on the premise that there is no single authority that dictates the validity of a claim: the whole point of science is that someone can do the claim and come to their own conclusions.

If people really want to be true scientists, they have to accept this. True science removes authority of knowledge of any kind science the whole point is to remove this authority by making everything transparent where it can be replicated by the individual that comes to their own conclusions, in which they can then decide that the conclusions were correct or decide to challenge them: In short it is the decentralization of knowledge discovery and the removal of any central authority for knowledge, be it in verification, publishing or otherwise.

If you want to be a real scientist, then it is something that goes with the territory.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

This whole idea of having to be an authority on knowledge regardless of the field is absolutely ridiculous.

I have no idea how you've worked teaching as authority into this as it wasn't bought up but I'll address it. No one is advocating that children should be taught what to believe on the basis of authority; they should be presented with the facts that have been determined by the scientific method and taught how the scientific method works in their science lessons. Until creationism, ID, homeopathy or any other pseudoscientific ideology shows some published evidence then it has no place in a science classroom (with the one exception of modules that deal with science in society).

If people want to believe whatever the hell they want, they have that right and it's not your job or crusade to try and correct them.

Actually it is when the actions they take on the basis of their beliefs harm others.

 

[chiro]

The argument on authority has been 'worked in' as a consequence of what you are trying to argue against: the authorities involved in your issue of deciding to put creationism into the curriculum are something you have a problem with.

Interestingly enough, you feel that you have more of an authority or at the very least, that their authority is out of order.

This is the whole point of your petition isn't it? The whole idea is that you guys know better and that the authority to teach something that you disagree with is misplaced?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

The argument on authority has been 'worked in' as a consequence of what you are trying to argue against: the authorities involved in your issue of deciding to put creationism into the curriculum are something you have a problem with.

Interestingly enough, you feel that you have more of an authority or at the very least, that their authority is out of order.

This is the whole point of your petition isn't it? The whole idea is that you guys know better and that the authority to teach something that you disagree with is misplaced?

Yes the petition is to make the government step in and prevent the teaching of creationism as part of school curriculums in an inappropriate manner (I.e. teaching it as anything but another religious belief in RE). This is because it will have a damaging effect on our society by proliferating ideology that is contradicted by scientific evidence. It's not a matter of "he believes" "she believes", if one party wants their beliefs to be taught as fact then they must demonstrate them to be so.

I don't know what you mean by "you guys" because I don't represent any particular group.

 

[chiro]

When you say "you guys" I mean the supporters of the petition.

This kind of example is one of the reasons why the current architecture of education (at least for high school) is one that is destined to fail.

You are saying for specific reasons, but I am saying for far more general ones. Whenever you centralize the authority like this, you will always get these kinds of situations.

This is what happens when you get centralization: in this case the centralization of educational policy and decisions for curriculums regardless of subject area create a situation that will eventually be abused.

The idea of requiring an education system that was designed for the start of the industrial revolution (where a large part of education was teaching people enough to go on assembly lines and into factories) is something that should be eradicated to the waste-bin of history of gone by and I wonder why we are even still using this system many many years later.

This brings me to my next question: if you think the authority has been misplaced with deciding major curriculum structures, then who should have it?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

This brings me to my next question: if you think the authority has been misplaced with deciding major curriculum structures, then who should have it?

Perhaps you should read the petition and then read up on the issue because it seems to me that you have a misunderstanding of what is the issue here. Teaching pseudoscience in science lessons is already banned under the national curriculum, however the recent uptake in the academy scheme means that schools have far more leeway to determine what is taught there. Because of this it is entirely possible for pseudoscience to work it's way back into the classroom as whatever local group is running the school can use currently legitimate ways to bring it in. This petition and others like it stem from a desire by people to close any loopholes.

 

[chiro]

Perhaps you should read the petition and then read up on the issue because it seems to me that you have a misunderstanding of what is the issue here. Teaching pseudoscience in science lessons is already banned under the national curriculum, however the recent uptake in the academy scheme means that schools have far more leeway to determine what is taught there. Because of this it is entirely possible for pseudoscience to work it's way back into the classroom as whatever local group is running the school can use currently legitimate ways to bring it in. This petition and others like it stem from a desire by people to close any loopholes.

Again, the question remains: who's authority do you wish to have?

Are you saying that the authority to make these decisions should not change and that they should just follow your (and others) recommendations? That's kind of a paradox when it comes to authority.

It's a very simple question: someone has the authority for making a decision. From the link you are implying that schools now have a far wider scope of authority to make these decisions and it seems you and your cohorts are saying this should not happen.

The authority question is probably the most important one, because it will dictate the solutions you are proposing in both a direct and indirect manner.

Do you wish to remove or at the minimum 'amend' the authority that schools have or do you wish to create or transfer the authority for these decisions to another party?

Signing a petition is not enough: the above questions are the most critical to know if you want real change to happen.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I'm not sure if you're trolling or not chiro. I've stated categorically that it's not a matter of authority i.e. "do what I say because I say it" but you don't seem to have taken that on board. I'd advocate regulation of the curriculum by an accountable government that makes it's decisions based on a rational consideration of the evidence in conjunction with academics in the relevant fields. Is that clear enough?

 

[chiro]

It's not trolling: it's a very simple question and its surprising you don't get this.

You advocate regulation: this then would be the authority. It wasn't a trick question, it was a question to find out what your solution was in terms of specifics because without a designation of authority the petition is pointless.

Again though, the solution is not specific enough: you want regulation, but what are the criteria? Do you have a point of reference for a system currently in circulation?

This is basic stuff: if you want to change something you need to be specific in how you change it and if this is not the case, no-one will take you seriously.

The authority is the decision maker and the protocol is the execution and if this is vague then the whole endeavor is pointless and a waste of time.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

It's not trolling: it's a very simple question and its surprising you don't get this.

I apologise if you asking the same question over and over which I have answered is suprising to you.

You advocate regulation: this then would be the authority. It wasn't a trick question, it was a question to find out what your solution was in terms of specifics because without a designation of authority the petition is pointless.

Again though, the solution is not specific enough: you want regulation, but what are the criteria? Do you have a point of reference for a system currently in circulation?

This is basic stuff: if you want to change something you need to be specific in how you change it and if this is not the case, no-one will take you seriously.

The authority is the decision maker and the protocol is the execution and if this is vague then the whole endeavor is pointless and a waste of time.

Whilst I don't have a fully written plan of how I would like legislation to be worded (though a clear and accurate description of what I would like was included in my last post) that isn't the point of this petition anyway. These petitions get the matter discussed in parliament if they reach a set amount of signatures. At this point it becomes a political issue within which ideas can be discussed and consultations conduted.

If you want to learn more from a group that is committed to this then I suggest you take a look at this http://www.humanism.org.uk/campaigns/religion-and-schools/countering-creationism