"Nobel laureates: ban creationism in Scottish schools"

[Ada Lovelace]

"Sir Harold Kroto, Sir Richard Roberts and Sir John Sulston have signed a petition lodged at the Scottish Parliament calling for guidance to be introduced for teachers.

The Scottish Secular Society wants a ban in publicly funded Scottish schools of the "presentation of separate creation and Young Earth doctrines as viable alternatives to the established science of evolution, common descent and deep time".

This is the link to the article: Nobel laureates: ban creationism in Scottish schools | Herald Scotland

As explained in the article, in England and Wales, the teaching of creationism, intelligent design and similar ideas as scientific theories is prohibited in schools.

What are your thoughts on the proposed ban?

 

[RichardT]

Of course this is a good idea because Creationism is not science and is demonstrably false. For instance, if one were curious to look at some graphs about C14 dating methods correlating with calendar years, it should prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the earth is at least older than 6000 years. Once one then understands how different raido-metric dating methods work and how they correlate with each other, one can understand for themselves that the earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old.

 

[Ophiolite]

I am Scottish. I live in Scotland.

I have no objection to creationism and Young Earth concepts being taught, but not as part of a science curriculum where they are introduced as viable alternatives. If they were introduced within a science curriculum they would have to be treated in the same way we treat discussions of alchemy, astrology, or phlogiston.

If they are taught as part of religious studies, that's fine.

 

[troodon]

I am Scottish. I live in Scotland.

I have no objection to creationism and Young Earth concepts being taught, but not as part of a science curriculum where they are introduced as viable alternatives. If they were introduced within a science curriculum they would have to be treated in the same way we treat discussions of alchemy, astrology, or phlogiston.

If they are taught as part of religious studies, that's fine.

IMO, young earth creationism has a role in a science class room, and it's providing students with a proper understanding of the history of science. It should be portrayed as the old paradigm through which geology (and other sciences) used to be interpreted before an overwhelming amount of contradictory evidence was amassed and it was gradually supplanted.

 

[RichardT]

IMO, young earth creationism has a role in a science class room, and it's providing students with a proper understanding of the history of science. It should be portrayed as the old paradigm through which geology (and other sciences) used to be interpreted before an overwhelming amount of contradictory evidence was amassed and it was gradually supplanted.

I agree with you. I don't think that that was what the article was talking about though. If Creationism is taught as fact in publicly funded schools then there is definitely a problem in my mind.

 

[Strathos]

Might as well "teach the controversy" of the moon landing hoax too if you want to teach creationism in science class

 

[Simmeh]

IMO, young earth creationism has a role in a science class room, and it's providing students with a proper understanding of the history of science. It should be portrayed as the old paradigm through which geology (and other sciences) used to be interpreted before an overwhelming amount of contradictory evidence was amassed and it was gradually supplanted.

I agree here. Just like teaching about phlogiston in thermodynamics, you spend one of the first days of the class discussing how human understanding of a subject progressed, and along the way point out when, where, and how the old theories were falsified and replaced.

 

[Ophiolite]

IMO, young earth creationism has a role in a science class room, and it's providing students with a proper understanding of the history of science. It should be portrayed as the old paradigm through which geology (and other sciences) used to be interpreted before an overwhelming amount of contradictory evidence was amassed and it was gradually supplanted.

I am in agreement with that, which is why I qualified my statement "I have no objection to creationism and Young Earth concepts being taught, but not as part of a science curriculum where they are introduced as viable alternatives"

There is a danger that a creationist minded teacher, or a teacher unaware of the attraction creationism has for some, could play down the historical import of the concept and deliberately, or accidentally (respectively) promote it. It is a danger easily dealt with, but only if it is recognised.

 

[twinc]

IMO, young earth creationism has a role in a science class room, and it's providing students with a proper understanding of the history of science. It should be portrayed as the old paradigm through which geology (and other sciences) used to be interpreted before an overwhelming amount of contradictory evidence was amassed and it was gradually supplanted.

micro evolution as adaptation or variation is a fact and should be accepted as such whereas Macro or 'Origins' evolution cannot and did not happen and should not be accepted or taught anywhere especially so in real science classes - twinc

 

[Armoured]

micro evolution as adaptation or variation is a fact and should be accepted as such whereas Macro or 'Origins' evolution cannot and did not happen and should not be accepted or taught anywhere especially so in real science classes - twinc

Because walking across the room is a fact and should be accepted as such whereas walking across the country cannot and did not happen and should not be accepted or taught anywhere.

 

[twinc]

Of course this is a good idea because Creationism is not science and is demonstrably false. For instance, if one were curious to look at some graphs about C14 dating methods correlating with calendar years, it should prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the earth is at least older than 6000 years. Once one then understands how different raido-metric dating methods work and how they correlate with each other, one can understand for themselves that the earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old.

if only but definately not so - via google see [Origins/TV - RATE research] - twinc

 

[twinc]

Because walking across the room is a fact and should be accepted as such whereas walking across the country cannot and did not happen and should not be accepted or taught anywhere.

sure - if it did not or could not happen it must not and should not be accepted as if it did or could - so what's wrong with that - pseudo and phony science and nonsense must not and should not be preferred to Creationism nor taught especially in science classses - twinc

 

[twinc]

Because walking across the room is a fact and should be accepted as such whereas walking across the country cannot and did not happen and should not be accepted or taught anywhere.

exactly the same but different but the difference makes all the difference - twinc

 

[Armoured]

sure - if it did not or could not happen it must not and should not be accepted as if it did or could - so what's wrong with that - pseudo and phony science and nonsense must not and should not be preferred to Creationism nor taught especially in science classses - twinc

Kinda missing the point of the analogy there, Twinc.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is the link to the article: Nobel laureates: ban creationism in Scottish schools | Herald Scotland

As explained in the article, in England and Wales, the teaching of creationism, intelligent design and similar ideas as scientific theories is prohibited in schools.

What are your thoughts on the proposed ban?

Which is it?

Scottish schools or Scottish school science classes?

The thread title says one thing, but the OP says another.

I'm confused.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course this is a good idea because Creationism is not science ...

Neither is history.

Should history be banned from Scottish schools as well?

 

[AV1611VET]

If Creationism is taught as fact in publicly funded schools then there is definitely a problem in my mind.

If you can teach it as "fact" that Pluto is our 9th planet, you can teach it as fact that God created the earth in six days, albeit in history class, not science.

 

[AV1611VET]

Might as well "teach the controversy" of the moon landing hoax too if you want to teach creationism in science class

No argument there.

My pastor points out that evolutionists don't want the Bible taught anywhere in our schools, because the Bible contradicts it.

Darwin rules from the grave.

 

[Armoured]

I'm confused.

 

[Targaryen]

Most true thing I've ever seen AV say.