Gove shows the door to creationism as science

[anotherbob]

It is unclear if this covers existing academies such as those funded by used car salesman Peter Vardy. Mr Vardy has found himself in hot water over creationism in the past.

See the following article from The Oldham Chronicle where one of Mr. Vardy's establishment is to be led by a particularly controversial figure....

http://www.oldham-chronicle.co.uk/news-features/8/news/60480/principals

The comments which follow the article suggest the good folk of Oldham are not impressed.

[scottycelt]

Well, I was brought up in Catholic schools and I don't remember religion ever entering into science classes and connected discussions. Unfortunately the term 'creationist' has been hi-jacked by militant and intolerant atheists to mean a term of abuse for all believers.

Many scientists, who think it is hardly 'rational' (or particularly scientific) to think something evolved from nothing, are believers, along with billions of 'ordinary' folk throughout the world, but that doesn't mean they are all extreme right-wing, gun-totin' curiosities like, say, Sarah Palin, and believe some of the nonsense she does.

I would no more want my child indoctrinated in equally 'unproven' atheism than the more aggressive forms of evangelism, so there must be a balance.

As teamsaint suggests there may well be other dodgy things Gove could be looking at as well when it comes to what might be being taught in some of our schools ...

[amateur51]

Well, I was brought up in Catholic schools and I don't remember religion ever entering into science classes and connected discussions. Unfortunately the term 'creationist' has been hi-jacked by militant and intolerant atheists to mean a term of abuse for all believers.

Many scientists, who think it is hardly 'rational' (or particularly scientific) to think something evolved from nothing, are believers, along with billions of 'ordinary' folk throughout the world, but that doesn't mean they are all extreme right-wing, gun-totin' curiosities like, say, Sarah Palin, and believe some of the nonsense she does.

I would no more want my child indoctrinated in equally 'unproven' atheism than the more aggressive forms of evangelism, so there must be a balance.

As teamsaint suggests there may well be other dodgy things Gove could be looking at as well when it comes to what might be being taught in some of our schools ...

Oh you do come up with some coal sometimes, scotty

[scottycelt]

Oh you do come up with some coal sometimes, scotty

Any chance of any sort of rational/scientific response, Ams ... ?

[Serial_Apologist]

I would no more want my child indoctrinated in equally 'unproven' atheism than the more aggressive forms of evangelism, so there must be a balance.

I am sure it is not a question of proving or disproving atheism, any more than of the beleifs of believers - as I'm sure your fellow believers would agree, scotty. It would not be the basis for useful exchange were I to claim there are fairies at the bottom of my garden, and that if you choose to disbelieve me, you must provide proof.

[teamsaint]

I would be very happy for my kids to have been taught about all sorts of ideas that may not be "proveable" scientifically, historically, or any other way....as long as they are taught about as ideas, and not "facts".

people like governments controlling agendas, what is taught in school etc is calamitous in my view.

I mean seriously, would you like gove (or blunkett or whoever) to actually choose what your kids learn at school? I wouldn't.

[Serial_Apologist]

I would be very happy for my kids to have been taught about all sorts of ideas that may not be "proveable" scientifically, historically, or any other way....as long as they are taught about as ideas, and not "facts".

people like governments controlling agendas, what is taught in school etc is calamitous in my view.

I mean seriously, would you like gove (or blunkett or whoever) to actually choose what your kids learn at school? I wouldn't.

I seem to remember Gove recommending the reintroduction of Latin teaching in schools

[amateur51]

Any chance of any sort of rational/scientific response, Ams ... ?

In the face of your first message, that was the best I could manage, scotty

[Flosshilde]

Well, I was brought up in Catholic schools and I don't remember religion ever entering into science classes and connected discussions. Unfortunately the term 'creationist' has been hi-jacked by militant and intolerant atheists to mean a term of abuse for all believers.

Many scientists, who think it is hardly 'rational' (or particularly scientific) to think something evolved from nothing, are believers, along with billions of 'ordinary' folk throughout the world, but that doesn't mean they are all extreme right-wing, gun-totin' curiosities like, say, Sarah Palin, and believe some of the nonsense she does.

Oh deary deary me, Scotty.

For the Catholic view of science, & evolution in particular, see http://www.catholiceducation.org/dir...jects/Science/. It looks like a sort of 'creationism-lite' to me.

Another example of scientific rigor from the Catholic Church is the pronouncement of some of its officials (from the Pope downwards) on the eficacy of condoms in helping prevent the spread of AIDS -

'It was Cardinal Alfonso López Trujillo of Colombia who most famously claimed that the HIV virus can pass through tiny holes in the rubber of condoms. Again, he was not alone. "The condom is a cork," said Bishop Demetrio Fernandez of Spain, "and not always effective."

In 2005 Bishop Elio Sgreccia, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, explained that scientific research has never proven that condoms "immunise against infection".' (Ben Goldacre - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...pe-anti-condom)


"The Gospel of Christ and his very person are, therefore, to inspire and guide the Catholic school in its every dimension: its philosophy of education, its curriculum, ... " (Archbishop J. Michael Miller, see below)

I would no more want my child indoctrinated in equally 'unproven' atheism than the more aggressive forms of evangelism, so there must be a balance.

(my emphasis)

Some interesting comments from an address by Archbishop J. Michael Miller, C.S.B., on 'The Holy See’s Teaching On Catholic Schools'. (http://catholiceducation.org/article...on/ed0269.html)

Section II, 'The Church, Evangelization and Education' is especially interesting, emphasising as it does that "Catholic schools participate in the Church's evangelizing mission"

It's all ver well Gove banning creationism, but that still allows an awful lot of scope for religion to influence or affect what is taught.

[scottycelt]

I am sure it is not a question of proving or disproving atheism, any more than of the beleifs of believers - as I'm sure your fellow believers would agree, scotty. It would not be the basis for useful exchange were I to claim there are fairies at the bottom of my garden, and that if you choose to disbelieve me, you must provide proof.

Ah, S_A, that would be just fine if atheists applied the same principles to their own dogmatic beliefs. It is a total cop-out to say one doesn't have to prove a belief (just as positive as any other religion) because it is somehow claimed to be 'negative''... so, hey, that's just wonderful, we don't have to 'scientifically prove' it one way or the other like the other lot must ...

An agnostic at least as logic and fairness on his side ... he has no real idea of how the Universe was created, and in that at least he has everything in common with both the atheist and believer!

In other words, why are atheists so positively dogmatic when there is absolutely no 'scientific evidence' to support their theory ... ?

[Flosshilde]

Ah, S_A, that would be just fine if atheists applied the same principles to their own dogmatic beliefs. It is a total cop-out to say one doesn't have to prove a belief (just as positive as any other religion) because it is somehow claimed to be 'negative''... so, hey, that's just wonderful, we don't have to 'scientifically prove' it one way or the other like the other lot must ...

An agnostic at least as logic and fairness on his side ... he has no real idea of how the Universe was created, and in that at least he has everything in common with both the atheist and believer!

In other words, why are atheists so positively dogmatic when there is absolutely no 'scientific evidence' to support their theory ... ?

So, Scotty, what proof do you have that god exists, or even, assuming that it does, that it created the Earth & all the life on it (not to mention the entire universe)?

[Serial_Apologist]

So, Scotty, what proof do you have that god exists, or even, assuming that it does, that it created the Earth & all the life on it (not to mention the entire universe)?

I was going to ask scotty this myself; and also how it is possible to prove or disprove a negative; but it didn't seem fair on him somehow - probably due in my case to having received a Christian upbringing...

[scottycelt]

Oh deary deary me, Scotty.

For the Catholic view of science, & evolution in particular, see http://www.catholiceducation.org/dir...jects/Science/. It looks like a sort of 'creationism-lite' to me.

Another example of scientific rigor from the Catholic Church is the pronouncement of some of its officials (from the Pope downwards) on the eficacy of condoms in helping prevent the spread of AIDS -

'It was Cardinal Alfonso López Trujillo of Colombia who most famously claimed that the HIV virus can pass through tiny holes in the rubber of condoms. Again, he was not alone. "The condom is a cork," said Bishop Demetrio Fernandez of Spain, "and not always effective."

In 2005 Bishop Elio Sgreccia, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, explained that scientific research has never proven that condoms "immunise against infection".' (Ben Goldacre - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...pe-anti-condom)


"The Gospel of Christ and his very person are, therefore, to inspire and guide the Catholic school in its every dimension: its philosophy of education, its curriculum, ... " (Archbishop J. Michael Miller, see below)

(my emphasis)

Some interesting comments from an address by Archbishop J. Michael Miller, C.S.B., on 'The Holy See’s Teaching On Catholic Schools'. (http://catholiceducation.org/article...on/ed0269.html)

Section II, 'The Church, Evangelization and Education' is especially interesting, emphasising as it does that "Catholic schools participate in the Church's evangelizing mission"

It's all ver well Gove banning creationism, but that still allows an awful lot of scope for religion to influence or affect what is taught.

Yes, but we're supposed to be talking about what is taught as science, not the 'ethos' of the school, Floss. Do you deny the right of any parent to bring up his/her child up as they see fit?

You, and others, think all religion is clap-trap ... fair enough ... but there are millions of others who feel exactly the same way about atheism!

It's really a question of freedom of conscience and belief ... no Christian parent would wish atheism rammed down the throat of his/her child ... it works (or should work) both ways!

[scottycelt]

I was going to ask scotty this myself; and also how it is possible to prove or disprove a negative; but it didn't seem fair on him somehow - probably due in my case to having received a Christian upbringing...

There you both go again ... I simply ask of you what you demand of me ... I cannot even 'prove' to you that I had porridge for breakfast this morning ... but I weighed up all the evidence and decided, on balance, that I did.

Therefore, I might think it is just as fair and appropriate for me, in turn, to ask for proof what you and Floss had for breakfast this morning, even if you didn't have any at all ...

[MrGongGong]

All this nonsense of proving or not the existence of your imaginary friends is by the by
The key thing is that we need to stop nonsense being presented as Science
it's not a question of "balance" more that these people shouldn't be let anywhere near children (nor should Gove for that matter )