British Ban Teaching Creationism As S...

British Ban Teaching Creationism As Science, Should The U.S. Do The Same?

There are 164 comments on the Outside the Beltway story from Jun 24, 2014, titled British Ban Teaching Creationism As Science, Should The U.S. Do The Same?. In it, Outside the Beltway reports that:

"The parties acknowledge that clauses 2.43 and 2.44 of the Funding Agreement [which preclude the teaching of pseudoscience and require the teaching of evolution] apply to all academies.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Outside the Beltway.

First Prev
of 9
Next Last

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#1 Jul 16, 2014
This is a GREAT idea! Private schools are still free to teach any drivel they want, as long as they are not accepting taxpayer money to do so. If taxes are paying for it, a school should be required to teach REAL science.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#2 Jul 16, 2014
Liam R wrote:
This is a GREAT idea! Private schools are still free to teach any drivel they want, as long as they are not accepting taxpayer money to do so. If taxes are paying for it, a school should be required to teach REAL science.
Yup, the Brits are finally catching up to us Americans. Who woulda thunk that we would have been leading the British in what is taught in public schools.

Creationism has been banned for quite a few years in the U.S. Of course it was not until 1987 that it was finally totally banned from schools by our Supreme Court:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguil...

Sadly that also led to the birth of Intelligent Design. As we found out in the Dover trial, I.D. is only creationism in a cheap suit.

“No such thing as ABIODARWINISM”

Since: Jan 11

No ABIODARWINISTS either!

#3 Jul 16, 2014
Liam R wrote:
This is a GREAT idea! Private schools are still free to teach any drivel they want, as long as they are not accepting taxpayer money to do so. If taxes are paying for it, a school should be required to teach REAL science.
Very much agree with this.
wondering

Morris, OK

#4 Jul 17, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup, the Brits are finally catching up to us Americans. Who woulda thunk that we would have been leading the British in what is taught in public schools.
Creationism has been banned for quite a few years in the U.S. Of course it was not until 1987 that it was finally totally banned from schools by our Supreme Court:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguil...
Sadly that also led to the birth of Intelligent Design. As we found out in the Dover trial, I.D. is only creationism in a cheap suit.
here is a good example in reference of my error in hitting the "e" and "s" key at the same time when writing in "plane" making it "planes". now you say "Creationism has been banned for quite a few years in the U.S. Of course it was not until 1987 that it was finally totally banned from schools by our Supreme Court:" i call bs shit because it is not banned from schools, it is only banned from publicly funded schools, not schools in general as you claim.. see how the error of a "letter or "wording" can make your claim a bogus claim? pretty simple is it not?

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#5 Jul 17, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
here is a good example in reference of my error in hitting the "e" and "s" key at the same time when writing in "plane" making it "planes". now you say "Creationism has been banned for quite a few years in the U.S. Of course it was not until 1987 that it was finally totally banned from schools by our Supreme Court:" i call bs shit because it is not banned from schools, it is only banned from publicly funded schools, not schools in general as you claim.. see how the error of a "letter or "wording" can make your claim a bogus claim? pretty simple is it not?
Wow!!

What a moron! The discussion already was about public and not private schools.

Try to read the preceding posts idiot.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#7 Jul 17, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
Yup, the Brits are finally catching up to us Americans. Who woulda thunk that we would have been leading the British in what is taught in public schools.
To be fair I think it's the US which has mostly been behind in that regard. Ever since the First Amendment was ratified it's always been illegal to push creationism over all other religions in public schools (but it's fine in private schools). However the fundies have always ignored it since day one. And they constantly get away with it (mostly in the highly religious areas) until somebody finally plucks up the balls to sue them. Yet even then you have lawmakers and politicians pandering to the religious right and doing their darndest to stick some new law in in order to circumvent the First Amendment. And in Louisianna for example, thanks to that bozo Bobby Jindal, they succeeded.

In the UK things are a bit different. Technically speaking it's a Christian country according to the old lawbooks, but in general the attitude of most people is that it's not a big deal. And in the vast majority of public schools they teach evolution as standard in science classes. Despite this though they still have assemblys which preach Christianity, and there's a legal requirement for religious schools (which consists of most schools in the country, secular ones are rare in comparison) to have religious assemblies for whatever religion the school represents, be it Christiantiy, Islam, Hinduism or whatever. But by and large this never affected science class, which always taught science.

On the other hand there are around 50 private religious schools which taught creationism, one of the most notable being the ones in the North East around Newcastle run by Peter Vardy. But as I understand it, if I recall, this new law prevents private schools from teaching creationism too. Not a thing which would be allowed in the US because of separation of church and state (something we do not have). A few years back the question was put to the House of Commons as to whether or not IDC should be "taught" in our schools, and they said they'd go with whatever the science community recommended. Hence IDC was rejected. My guess is that this law is in response to all the hubbub in the US where you got fundies getting away with ruining science education in some areas, plus the fact that promoters of IDC in the UK (who don't have anywhere near the kinda power the US fundies have) have been receiving American backing from the likes of the DI and possibly other fundie organisations.

Personally, though I think the idea of creationist schools is monumentally stupid, I don't think that their freedom to believe in fairy tales should be trampled if it's being done in a private school they're paying for themselves. And there is the possibility that it might create a backlash where the creationists push back harder, creating a situation similar to America where you have communities of creationists in just the right places (eg teachers, headmasters and politicians) working the system to sneak creationism in where they shouldn't. And they'd have a slight justification for that (IMO) whereas they don't in the US due to the First Amendment which protects their religious rights in the first place.
wondering

Morris, OK

#8 Jul 17, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow!!
What a moron! The discussion already was about public and not private schools.
Try to read the preceding posts idiot.
oh you mean like we were talking about circles and not discs? what an idiot jack wagon.
Cordwainer Trout

Lexington, KY

#9 Jul 17, 2014
Hasn't science been trying to CREATE primordial soup and resultant life for at least the last half century? What are they going to teach if they ever have any success, evolution, or creationism?

Marxist creeps do like to think of themselves as gods, sucking the brains out of little babies in the womb for their own convenience, irresponsibility and lust. Apparently, one needs to firmly believe they are nothing but animal to do that.
FREE SERVANT

Fairfax, VA

#10 Jul 17, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
To be fair I think it's the US which has mostly been behind in that regard. Ever since the First Amendment was ratified it's always been illegal to push creationism over all other religions in public schools (but it's fine in private schools). However the fundies have always ignored it since day one. And they constantly get away with it (mostly in the highly religious areas) until somebody finally plucks up the balls to sue them. Yet even then you have lawmakers and politicians pandering to the religious right and doing their darndest to stick some new law in in order to circumvent the First Amendment. And in Louisianna for example, thanks to that bozo Bobby Jindal, they succeeded.
In the UK things are a bit different. Technically speaking it's a Christian country according to the old lawbooks, but in general the attitude of most people is that it's not a big deal. And in the vast majority of public schools they teach evolution as standard in science classes. Despite this though they still have assemblys which preach Christianity, and there's a legal requirement for religious schools (which consists of most schools in the country, secular ones are rare in comparison) to have religious assemblies for whatever religion the school represents, be it Christiantiy, Islam, Hinduism or whatever. But by and large this never affected science class, which always taught science.
On the other hand there are around 50 private religious schools which taught creationism, one of the most notable being the ones in the North East around Newcastle run by Peter Vardy. But as I understand it, if I recall, this new law prevents private schools from teaching creationism too. Not a thing which would be allowed in the US because of separation of church and state (something we do not have). A few years back the question was put to the House of Commons as to whether or not IDC should be "taught" in our schools, and they said they'd go with whatever the science community recommended. Hence IDC was rejected. My guess is that this law is in response to all the hubbub in the US where you got fundies getting away with ruining science education in some areas, plus the fact that promoters of IDC in the UK (who don't have anywhere near the kinda power the US fundies have) have been receiving American backing from the likes of the DI and possibly other fundie organisations.
Personally, though I think the idea of creationist schools is monumentally stupid, I don't think that their freedom to believe in fairy tales should be trampled if it's being done in a private school they're paying for themselves. And there is the possibility that it might create a backlash where the creationists push back harder, creating a situation similar to America where you have communities of creationists in just the right places (eg teachers, headmasters and politicians) working the system to sneak creationism in where they shouldn't. And they'd have a slight justification for that (IMO) whereas they don't in the US due to the First Amendment which protects their religious rights in the first place.
The science community has shown itself not to take care to protect us from deadly substances, why should everyone trust them with a nations well being? Why should people abandon charitable caring institutions such as those of the Christian faith?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#11 Jul 17, 2014
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
Hasn't science been trying to CREATE primordial soup and resultant life for at least the last half century? What are they going to teach if they ever have any success, evolution, or creationism?
Don't worry, the theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. Therefore the theory of evolution will be taught as it has been successful for 150 years. Creationism on the other hand has failed in the scientific arena for thousands.
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
Marxist creeps do like to think of themselves as gods, sucking the brains out of little babies in the womb for their own convenience, irresponsibility and lust.
Creationists are Marxists? That might surprise many.

Dunno what alternative economic systems to capitalism have to do with biology, though.(shrug)
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
Apparently, one needs to firmly believe they are nothing but animal to do that.
Nah, all you need is to think that God Himself gives a fig what you think.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#12 Jul 17, 2014
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
<quoted text>Hasn't science been trying to CREATE primordial soup and resultant life for at least the last half century? What are they going to teach if they ever have any success, evolution, or creationism?
No it hasn't.
Evolution is one of the most successful scientific theory ever, in any relevant respect assessed.
Creationism has scientifically spoken achieved nothing.
I mean: LITERALLY NOTHING.
Cordwainer Trout wrote:
<quoted text>
Marxist creeps do like to think of themselves as gods, sucking the brains out of little babies in the womb for their own convenience, irresponsibility and lust. Apparently, one needs to firmly believe they are nothing but animal to do that.
Irrelevant tattle.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#13 Jul 17, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>The science community has shown itself not to take care to protect us from deadly substances, why should everyone trust them with a nations well being?
So we should get rid of all medicines, vaccines, healthcare (private or otherwise) and hospitals because the average human lifespan hasn't increased over the past few centuries?

Wow, Mikey, that was one dumb statement.
FREE SERVANT wrote:
Why should people abandon charitable caring institutions such as those of the Christian faith?
You mean like those good, sweet innocent Christian preachers who protect abusers or go on missions to third world coutries like in Africa where they go around telling everybody that condoms cause AIDS?

Anyway, you're not in the UK so you don't have to worry about any of this. All you need to do is carry on ruining science education in America, along with the rest of the fundies.
TurkanaBoy

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#14 Jul 17, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>The science community has shown itself not to take care to protect us from deadly substances, why should everyone trust them with a nations well being? Why should people abandon charitable caring institutions such as those of the Christian faith?
It is not the task of science to protect us from deadly substances.
The task of science is to gather valid knowledge.
Don't blame the inventor of the knife it is also used to stab persons to death.

People are not to abandon charitable caring institutions such as those of the Christian faith.
The only thing discussed here is that on schools only science should be taught.
Religion is the responsibility of parents and to be taught in the church or at home.
The class rooms are not the proper place to teach religion. It is not their task.

If the old mythology books religion uses conflict the scientific knowledge, pity for the old mythology book. If doctrine conflicts the observed and scientifically established facts, OFF goes doctrine.

If science would not have pursued this principle in the last 3,4 centuries, we were still living in the middle ages. That is: short lives, scourged by diseases, hunger and misery.
FREE SERVANT

Fairfax, VA

#15 Jul 17, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
So we should get rid of all medicines, vaccines, healthcare (private or otherwise) and hospitals because the average human lifespan hasn't increased over the past few centuries?
Wow, Mikey, that was one dumb statement.
<quoted text>
You mean like those good, sweet innocent Christian preachers who protect abusers or go on missions to third world coutries like in Africa where they go around telling everybody that condoms cause AIDS?
Anyway, you're not in the UK so you don't have to worry about any of this. All you need to do is carry on ruining science education in America, along with the rest of the fundies.
I don't care if it sounds dumb, it seems that the things that are being gotten rid of are the very things that are good. Why focus on a few bad examples to throw out the whole bunch?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#16 Jul 17, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>I don't care if it sounds dumb, it seems that the things that are being gotten rid of are the very things that are good. Why focus on a few bad examples to throw out the whole bunch?
Christianity isn't being thrown out. And you'd have just as hard a time getting it thrown out of Britain as you would the States.

Creationism is being thrown out, and for a very good reason - it's NOT good. It's bull.
FREE SERVANT

Fairfax, VA

#17 Jul 17, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Christianity isn't being thrown out. And you'd have just as hard a time getting it thrown out of Britain as you would the States.
Creationism is being thrown out, and for a very good reason - it's NOT good. It's bull.
You are saying there is no creator. That is assumption and NOT good.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#18 Jul 17, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
oh you mean like we were talking about circles and not discs? what an idiot jack wagon.
You were the one that wanted to change it to the mathematical definition of circle. You act like a typical fundy and refuse to use words as they were first used in the Bible. Of course you are only more evidence that the Bible should not be used as a source for science.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#19 Jul 17, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>You are saying there is no creator. That is assumption and NOT good.
No, only the God of Genesis has been shown to be wrong. You are making the mistake of assuming that if your God is proven wrong all gods have been proven wrong. No one has claimed that.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#20 Jul 17, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>You are saying there is no creator. That is assumption and NOT good.
Actually I did not say that. However if I did offer that opinion, it is only your opinion that it is not good.

However in my opinion anything that is factually inaccurate is not good. And it is a fact that pseudo-scientific literalistic creationism is factually inaccurate.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#21 Jul 17, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
To be fair I think it's the US which has mostly been behind in that regard. Ever since the First Amendment was ratified it's always been illegal to push creationism over all other religions in public schools (but it's fine in private schools). However the fundies have always ignored it since day one. And they constantly get away with it (mostly in the highly religious areas) until somebody finally plucks up the balls to sue them. Yet even then you have lawmakers and politicians pandering to the religious right and doing their darndest to stick some new law in in order to circumvent the First Amendment. And in Louisianna for example, thanks to that bozo Bobby Jindal, they succeeded.
In the UK things are a bit different. Technically speaking it's a Christian country according to the old lawbooks, but in general the attitude of most people is that it's not a big deal. And in the vast majority of public schools they teach evolution as standard in science classes. Despite this though they still have assemblys which preach Christianity, and there's a legal requirement for religious schools (which consists of most schools in the country, secular ones are rare in comparison) to have religious assemblies for whatever religion the school represents, be it Christiantiy, Islam, Hinduism or whatever. But by and large this never affected science class, which always taught science.
<snip>.
Yes, I do admit that teaching of creationism is still a problem in U.S. schools and Louisiana's success of partially circumventing the law of the land is rather galling to say the least. In many states teachers who believe creationism are the ones teaching science and the last thing they will do is to teach evolution correctly. The only problem I have with the teaching of creationism in private schools is that it could be considered a type of child abuse.

The education system is still far from perfect in this country. Poor areas still have the worst of teachers. One possible improvement for that may be coming out of California. Getting rid of bad teachers has always been a problem here. Once a teacher gets his foot in the door it is very hard to fire them, once they get tenure they almost have to break the law to get rid of them. Someone noticed that these bad teachers tend to end up in schools in low income areas. And since we are a litigious society a lawsuit was started and won:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/13/us/teacher-tenu...

If we can start firing some of the incompetent teachers I have a feeling that all teachers will try harder.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 9
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Conservative Political News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Wife Of High School Football Coach Charged For ... 2 hr Wabash Cannonball 4
News ISIS Executes German Kickboxing Champ After He ... 5 hr Three Days 1
News London Set To Elect Muslim Mayor With Ties To E... 8 hr Ronnie Pickering 7
News West Virginia Mayor: The Clintons Are 'Simply N... 10 hr Rabbit 1
News Public School Parents In Georgia Furious About ... (Sep '15) 11 hr Bombardier 16
News MoveOn, Media Matters Team Up To Blame Trump Fo... 16 hr spud 2
News Todd To Cruz: GOP Voters Are 'Rejecting You, Th... Sun It Seems 5
More from around the web