Gove shows the door to creationism as science

[amateur51]

That in basically says it all in a nutshell, I suspect ... nothing much to do here about teaching 'creationism' in science class.

Even Flossie reluctantly concedes, in his demonising, Romophobic manner, that Catholic belief is quite different from what is erroneously known as 'creationism', ie naive, right-wing fundamentalism.

What the heck, who cares? ... let's ban all religion from schools and teach our kids atheism instead. That'll wipe out the silly religion thing forever and we can all believe that our little hearts miraculously happen to beat away because .. er, we haven't a clue why, really .., even the towering brains of Professor Dawkins and Sir David Attenborough admit it's all a bit of a mystery... maybe it's the Good Fairy instead of God ... fantastic, we can simply call it 'proven science' instead, you see!

Trouble is, all this banning of religious conviction and belief has already been tried in Soviet Russia and Communist China and failed miserably, and 'the people' led by the Catholic Church, (not Reagan or Thatcher) saw off secular fascism in the form of Communism in Poland.

Good luck, guys ...

Who mentioned banning religion, scotty?

As far as I'm concerned you can be as religious as you like in your own home, just don't force it on children in schoools - simples. Morality and 'right and wrong' does not require there to be a God of any sort. I'm as moral as the next bloke - hello! - but I don't believe in a loving but punitive God who enforces the rules.

They lost me with the loaves & fishes story aged 5 - even my mum couldn't do that one.

[scottycelt]

Hoyle and WIckfamasinghe's sgeady state theory may have been 'wrong', but they were hardly "barking".

My point simply was that the universe was (still is) 'created' ... the argument is about how such creation occurred. Therefore, any soul who does not even accept the actual 'creation' is rather 'barking' would you not agree? In that sense, every 'non-barker' is a 'creationist'?

[Pabmusic]

That in basically says it all in a nutshell, I suspect ... nothing much to do here about teaching 'creationism' in science class.

Even Flossie reluctantly concedes, in his demonising, Romophobic manner, that Catholic belief is quite different from what is erroneously known as 'creationism', ie naive, right-wing fundamentalism.

What the heck, who cares? ... let's ban all religion from schools and teach our kids atheism instead. That'll wipe out the silly religion thing forever and we can all believe that our little hearts miraculously happen to beat away because .. er, we haven't a clue why, really .., even the towering brains of Professor Dawkins and Sir David Attenborough admit it's all a bit of a mystery... maybe it's the Good Fairy instead of God ... fantastic, we can simply call it 'proven science' instead, you see!

Trouble is, all this banning of religious conviction and belief has already been tried in Soviet Russia and Communist China and failed miserably, and 'the people' led by the Catholic Church, (not Reagan or Thatcher) saw off secular fascism in the form of Communism in Poland.

Good luck, guys ...

I do seem to have touched a nerve. I am not suggesting banning religion, or anything like it, and I would be very much against that. I am supporting (wholeheartedly) any move to prevent religion being taught as if it were science, or even as an 'alternative view' to mainstream science. That is what I believe this thread is about.

[amateur51]

I do seem to have touched a nerve. I am not suggesting banning religion, or anything like it, and I would be very much against that. I am supporting (wholeheartedly) any move to prevent religion being taught as if it were science, or even as an 'alternative view' to mainstream science. That is what I believe this thread is about.

You're right Pab - but scotty likes any chance to take a pop at atheists and science generally

We're pals really

[amateur51]

My point simply was that the universe was (still is) 'created' ... the argument is about how such creation occurred. Therefore, any soul who does not even accept the actual 'creation' is rather 'barking' would you not agree? In that sense, every 'non-barker' is a 'creationist'?

Who has said that the Universe was not created, scotty?

Take a look at this scotty - shows you how scientists are gradually testing their current theories on the process of creation of the universe and how they'll gladly give up the current one if it proves not to stand up to rigorous testing. That's what scientists do, rather than making up any old story

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b019h7t0

[Pabmusic]

You're right Pab - but scotty likes any chance to take a pop at atheists and science generally

We're pals really

I've never been good at picking up on such subtleties. There should be a smiley with a puzzled and slightly naif look. Still, this will do

[scottycelt]

I do seem to have touched a nerve. I am not suggesting banning religion, or anything like it, and I would be very much against that. I am supporting (wholeheartedly) any move to prevent religion being taught as if it were science, or even as an 'alternative view' to mainstream science. That is what I believe this thread is about.

Well, that's a bit rich! ... see #28.

Once again it was not I who introduced the subject of Catholicism into any debate here, but on this occasion it innocently happened to be valued member, Flosshilde, eagerly supported by yourself in #54 ...

For the record, I do not support teaching what is now referred to as 'creationism' in science class at school any more than I would Catholicism or Atheism.

However, if others like your goodself wish to extend the debate, they can hardly be surprised if they receive an associated response ... ?

[scottycelt]

You're right Pab - but scotty likes any chance to take a pop at atheists and science generally

We're pals really

Forgive me for the very suggestion, Amsy, old pal, but wasn't it you that actually started this thread .... ?

[amateur51]

Forgive me for the very suggestion, Amsy, old pal, but wasn't it you that actually started this thread .... ?

It was, scotty my old mucker, and knowing your sensitivities in this area I very carefully targetted it at the teaching of creationism as science, as Pab has pointed out to you.

Sadly my irenic approach seems to have failed

[scottycelt]

It was, scotty my old mucker, and knowing your sensitivities in this area I very carefully targetted it at the teaching of creationism as science, as Pab has pointed out to you.

Sadly my irenic approach seems to have failed

Irenic ... ?

What on earth was the point of Pab pointing something out to me that I, myself, had already stated way back in #28 ? .... concentrate, Ams!

[amateur51]

Irenic ... ?

What on earth was the point of Pab pointing something out to me that I, myself, had already stated way back in #28 ? .... concentrate, Ams!

Turn the other cheek, isn't that the answer scotty?

[scottycelt]

Turn the other cheek, isn't that the answer scotty?

Nah, that's my ugly side ... I prefer my bare-faced one, Ams ..

[ahinton]

Gove showing the door to creationism is a good first step.

Now can we show the door to Gove?

What, "Gove forth upon thy journey, Christian soul", as in? (Mr Pee - and possibly others, might appreciate this one...)

[John Skelton]

harmful nonsense? ... we are in pretty dangerous territory when we start deciding what is harmful nonsense, and what isn't.

Do you know Paul Feyerabend's Against Method, teamsaint? If you don't I think you'd enjoy it.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Against-Method-Paul-K-Feyerabend/dp/1844674428/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1326721232&sr=1-1

[teamsaint]

Do you know Paul Feyerabend's Against Method, teamsaint? If you don't I think you'd enjoy it.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Against-Meth...6721232&sr=1-1

Looks interesting... I will give it a go. Thanks.

Certainties are pretty thin on the ground in this old world..........