E-petition to keep creationism out of UK schools

[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

 

[chiro]

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

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

This is going to be pointless then. Having a specific outline of the changes, the authority, and the execution of said authority is the credibility capital to be taken seriously.

A discussion is nothing compared to a prepared protocol that also gets specific of how the problems are overcome.

Getting real change requires this and although I think your hearts (and others) are in the right place, it is not going to be effective without doing the above. I would encourage you and the people that want this change to come up with specifics so that you get more credibility and respect from all sides.

This is how real change happens: it's not through petitions but rather about people who come with specific solutions and more importantly for those who implement them.

 

[ThinkToday]

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).

Thanks. Interesting. I wrongly assumed that Intelligent Design was a negative catch all label that referred to God having a hand in anything in evolution.

 

[rollcast]

This is going to be pointless then. Having a specific outline of the changes, the authority, and the execution of said authority is the credibility capital to be taken seriously.

A discussion is nothing compared to a prepared protocol that also gets specific of how the problems are overcome.

Getting real change requires this and although I think your hearts (and others) are in the right place, it is not going to be effective without doing the above. I would encourage you and the people that want this change to come up with specifics so that you get more credibility and respect from all sides.

This is how real change happens: it's not through petitions but rather about people who come with specific solutions and more importantly for those who implement them.

But the idea of this petition is that if successful, the issue raised by the petition will be debated in parliament and then the MPs will decide how to move forward on the issue.

 

[cristo]

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.

The exact quotation from the OP is:

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.

This petition does not ask for intelligent design or religion not to be taught at all in schools. It petitions, specifically, for intelligent design to not be taught as a part of science. That is the point that I made above.

 

[Ken Natton]

The exact quotation from the OP is:This petition does not ask for intelligent design or religion not to be taught at all in schools. It petitions, specifically, for intelligent design to not be taught as a part of science. That is the point that I made above.

And that, as it stands, is a perfectly laudable principle and one that should be supported by anyone who understands the value of dispassionate science. My problem is with the underlying suggestion that there is anything wrong with the way things are. I don’t think there is. I think UK (and yes, I mean UK, not just English) schools, including faith schools, get it right. The distinction between science and culture is drawn very clearly and the teachers understand very well what is appropriate in science classes and what is not appropriate in science classes. I am not aware of any danger of that changing. But mounting a petition like this might just provoke a reaction and change the status quo for the worse. I don’t really think that is very likely, but I do not perceive any genuine need for this petition.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

And that, as it stands, is a perfectly laudable principle and one that should be supported by anyone who understands the value of dispassionate science. My problem is with the underlying suggestion that there is anything wrong with the way things are. I don’t think there is. I think UK (and yes, I mean UK, not just English) schools, including faith schools, get it right. The distinction between science and culture is drawn very clearly and the teachers understand very well what is appropriate in science classes and what is not appropriate in science classes. I am not aware of any danger of that changing. But mounting a petition like this might just provoke a reaction and change the status quo for the worse. I don’t really think that is very likely, but I do not perceive any genuine need for this petition.

For the most part I agree but the problem is that under the new academy system adoption there is more leeway and not enough regulation to ensure a wedge can't get in. In fact there are examples of where it already has. Consider petitions like this a preventative measure designed to ensure that the problem never becomes serious rather than a movement to fix a serious problem. After all wouldn't it be good if we acted in a way that prevented a problem from happening? Isn't that a mature thing to do?

 

[f95toli]

I am not aware of any danger of that changing. But mounting a petition like this might just provoke a reaction and change the status quo for the worse. I don’t really think that is very likely, but I do not perceive any genuine need for this petition.

There is already a danger. Academies already have a quite a lot of freedom, and the new free schools even more so (AFAIK there is no religous free school in England yet, but I am sure we'll see them in a couple of years at most).
This in combination with the fact that the ID movement is very international (see e.g. S Korea) and that many of the organizations/chuches that are in favour of ID in the US have branches in the UK means that one can be pretty sure that some one will at least try to set up a free school where ID can be thought as part of the science curriculum.

 

[Evo]

Also, it's easier to stop something before it starts. Religious beliefs should never be taught as science.

 

[Kholdstare]

Also, it's easier to stop something before it starts. Religious beliefs should never be taught as science.

+1