Support NeoGAF

[Parl]

I think this gives people the wrong impression of what's been going on.

Creationism being taught in schools wasn't a problem, but the government has recently introduced a new 'free schools' policy which allows anybody to set up a publicly funded school given they show they have a good plan and is locally approved of (or something like that). These schools have more control over their curriculum, but the legislation for this policy would have allowed non-science to be taught as though it has some level of credibility. And now this has been fixed.

 

[seanoff]

my last physics and chem teacher in a catholic school had doctorates in both and was a catholic brother.

he thought genesis was a lovely story. as the basis for a science he'd probably have failed us for even asking the question

no one i know of in my schools ever thought that genesis should be taken as anything other than a story. that includes nuns, brothers and priests.

in 12 years at Cathloic schools in australia i was never taught anything other than evolution.

 

[CornBurrito]

Atheists get so happy over the weirdest things. Yet another fake danger averted. Phew!

I'd say 90-2000's neither. But its interesting nonetheless that a hard fought battle was supposedly won. Congrats athiests.

So you both believe that evolution is false, and only atheists believe in it?

 

[marrec]

if you have read dawson's books, you would find them very reasonable and rather lack of his usual cloud of militant atheism, which are quite a contrast to his documentaries and youtube videos.

What? I've read a good many of his books and find them tinged with the same type stuff in his docus. Don't get me wrong I would rather have dinner with Dawkins then any religious figure (as long as he didn't invite that quack Bill Maher) I just don't like the guy on a personal level and think his methods are harsh.

 

[ckohler]

 

[cutmeamango]

So you both believe that evolution is false, and only atheists believe in it?

Hahaha oh wow. You must not be serious!...

Spoiler

... are you?

 

[Pandaman]

The headline could easily have read: "Science triumphs over creationism" instead they want to make this an atheism vs. Religion thing. Dawkins would be proud.

Dawkins is not the single champion for science in the UK. He is in fact not someone I would want representing me. His combative atheism is at this point more burdensome than helpful. Any news headline that gives him more credit than he deserves is only going to feed his already massive ego.

arre you sure you've got the right Dawkins in mind?

 

[CornBurrito]

Hahaha oh wow. You must not be serious!...

Spoiler

... are you?

No I'm not.

And hopefully they weren't serious about this being an atheist victory. Because that would be really dumb on their part.

 

[cutmeamango]

No I'm not.

And hopefully they weren't serious about this being an atheist victory. Because that would be really dumb on their part.

They were just replying to the OP, that said "huge win for atheists!" prior editing.

 

[FlyingTeacup]

What? I've read a good many of his books and find them tinged with the same type stuff in his docus. Don't get me wrong I would rather have dinner with Dawkins then any religious figure (as long as he didn't invite that quack Bill Maher) I just don't like the guy on a personal level and think his methods are harsh.

really? A good friend, who shares your views of dawkins, and I thought his books are a departure from his 'a disgrace to the human species' jab.

 

[Korey]

Ok the first part is fine.

What do you mean by the second part? What second half of your religion? I didn't realise religion was half creationism.

Are you suggesting that if you have faith you can't also be completely scientific? I think a lot of scientists would take serious issue with that.

DCKing made a great response so I'll quote him again:

There are a lot of things in the Bible that are contradictory to current knowledge or current morality. Those are often rejected by most religious people. Although this is for the best for everybody, picking only the parts you like about a book pretending to be the end-all book of truth as the basis for what you think is true is often considered hypocritical.

The same goes for most sciences. If you accept knowledge of physics, biology (anything that has to do with biology really, most notably medicine), geology, chemistry in the case of Islam, and possibly even mathematics (Bible does very much seem to claim pi = 3) then you hold truths contradicting those of the Bible. It is therefore that science and religion (technically only religions that dictate scientific facts in scripture, but that's all the major ones) are factually mutually incompatible. The intellectual hypocrisy worsens the more you need to work with that knowledge as a scientist. Moreover, if you reject certain truths found through science because the Bible says otherwise, the intellectually honest thing to do is to reject the scientific method, which makes you unsuitable to be a scientist.

The thing is, people are generally not troubled by contradictory beliefs and it is therefore that a huge amount of people still think that. I don't in general have a problem with people having some sort of faith, as long as they have the clarity of thought to realize that it's contradictory and people should not take them seriously for it.

Adding to that, my edit from the previous post:

So the Catholic Church being like "oh we're so modern now! We believe in evolution!" is completely superficial and reeks more of being a PR thing where they want to stay relevant in the midst of a time and society where even religious people are going "hey, wait a minute....that sounds really dumb."

I'm gonna use the Catholic Church as an example but this also pertains to Protestants who also "play both sides" on the evolution issue.

The fact that the Church has to "update" its morals, beliefs, and "canon" every hundred years should automatically raise huge red flags to its believers. I mean, it's supposed to be the "word of God." Why was x ok back then but not ok now, and vice versa? Why are we throwing Genesis out but believing the rest of it? Was Noah's ark just a metaphor? Why is that a metaphor but this isn't? Contraceptives are a sin today but maybe not in fifty years? Why is all of this decided by a committee of three old guys in Vatican City?

If you look at it from an outside point of view, it makes perfect sense. The Church needs to stay relevant by constantly changing itself so that it matches reality, or it risks losing its influence and power. Why doesn't this alarm its members more? Well, in my opinion, a large part of being a believer especially today is constantly trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Bend reality to fit your religion. So it makes sense that many believers buy into it.

I actually take it back. I fully embrace the fact that many believers support evolution now, because it's the first step to becoming an atheist. Eventually you'll start to question, "hey, WHY am I spending all this freaking time and effort trying to fit all of these square pegs into these round holes?" and that's when religion starts to crumble and science becomes your truth. I know this because that's exactly what happened to me, and many, many other atheists.

 

[bengraven]

Evolution = theory.
Creation = fact because you can't explain how everything was created




At least according to the 6'5" and Gregor the Mountain 6'11' Jehovah's Witnesses that arrive at my door every two weeks.

I'm not arguing with them. They're eyes bug out, their jaw sets, and they say "why they gotta have hundreds of books of this theory on evolution when it only took our God ONE BOOK to prove Creationism? That's a fact" and I whimper and go "yes sir, fuck Dawkins".

 

[Jocchan]

There is nothing wrong or hypocritical in dogmas written by men according to the knowledge of the era they lived in being proven wrong over time, and stances changing accordingly.

If anything, insisting in promoting what was written in a book two thousand* years ago as 100% pure fact even though it makes no sense would be idiotic and hypocritical.

This without even taking into account the stance of the Catholic Church on the stories from the Bible being allegorical and symbolic, more than facts. The Bible is not a history book.

 

[Korey]

There is nothing wrong or hypocritical in dogmas written by men according to the knowledge of the era they lived in being proved wrong over time, and stances changing accordingly.

If anything, insisting in promoting what was written in a book two thousand* years ago as 100% pure fact even though it makes no sense would be idiotic and hypocritical.

This without even taking into account the stance of the Catholic Church on the stories from the Bible being allegorical and symbolic, more than facts. The Bible is not a history book.

We have a term for that. They're called fables.

 

[Emwitus]

Where I'm originally from its taught alongside evolution in high-school...and professors are free to give their views in college. It's funny how they term creationists as fundamentalist, but, honestly speaking, all Abrahamic religion followers are supposed to be fundamentalist.

 

[phisheep]

Baptist and Pentecostals aren't big in the UK. 150,000 Baptists,1m Pentecostals (out of 70m).
Certainly wouldn't be many schools either.

From what I recall, nearly all of them must be in South Wales. Couldn't move without bumping into one.

 

[bengraven]

You know, I'm an athiest and I adore Dawkins, but this is basically a violation of free speech. While it should be banned, WITH THE HAMMER OF THE GODS, in public schools private schools should be allowed to teach what they want.

I mean, yes, the world would be much better without private organizations brain washing our kids, but take it away and you're not only violating their freedom of speech, but also their freedom of religion.

 

[Orayn]

No non-science in science classes? Sounds rad. Good work, UK!

 

[phisheep]

You know, I'm an athiest and I adore Dawkins, but this is basically a violation of free speech. While it should be banned, WITH THE HAMMER OF THE GODS, in public schools private schools should be allowed to teach what they want.

I mean, yes, the world would be much better without private organizations brain washing our kids, but take it away and you're not only violating their freedom of speech, but also their freedom of religion.

Yeah, but here we're talking about 'independent/free' schools (as in independent/free of the National Curriculum/most government interference and so on) that are using public money. This decision is about the criteria for provision of public funds, not about restricting freedom in schools that don't want any public funds.

Seems fair enough to me.

 

[Y2Kev]

Despite some remnant boneheadedness, the Catholic Church is surprisingly science friendly in this area. It has a rich history of trying to marry dogma with scientific evidence, most notably beginning (I'm going to get heat for the "beginning" part) with Teilhard de Chardin and continuing on to the modern papacy.

Catholics get a whole lot wrong, but not here.

 

[bengraven]

Yeah, but here we're talking about 'independent/free' schools (as in independent/free of the National Curriculum/most government interference and so on) that are using public money. This decision is about the criteria for provision of public funds, not about restricting freedom in schools that don't want any public funds.

Seems fair enough to me.

If "public money" is donations, then go for it. If it's "government aid" then I'm like "whoa, look..."

Despite some remnant boneheadedness, the Catholic Church is surprisingly science friendly in this area. It has a rich history of trying to marry dogma with scientific evidence, most notably beginning (I'm going to get heat for the "beginning" part) with Teilhard de Chardin and continuing on to the modern papacy.

Catholics get a whole lot wrong, but not here.

Every couple of months I see an article about the Catholic church attempting to modernize itself. While we can't be sure it's not just a media show or not, it's better than many, if not all, of the churches in my area that are becoming more and more traditional.

For example, the church two miles down the street from my old work.

Then again, for every two articles I see about the Catholic church's progressivism, I see something ridiculous and evil.

 

[Korey]

You know, I'm an athiest and I adore Dawkins, but this is basically a violation of free speech. While it should be banned, WITH THE HAMMER OF THE GODS, in public schools private schools should be allowed to teach what they want.

I mean, yes, the world would be much better without private organizations brain washing our kids, but take it away and you're not only violating their freedom of speech, but also their freedom of religion.

It doesn't violate freedom of religion or speech, this is purely about standards of education. You obviously can't allow anyone to teach anything they want in private schools (for example, babies come from storks). They're still free to teach what they want at church, just not in the science classroom

 

[phisheep]

If "public money" is donations, then go for it. If it's "government aid" then I'm like "whoa, look..."

It is specifically about the criteria for giving government grants to such schools. That OK?

 

[JGS]

So you both believe that evolution is false, and only atheists believe in it?

What the heck are you talking about?

This isn't an evolution debate (How life started isn't evolution to begin with), it's a hyped over nothing debate so you seem to be confusing the issue.

The cute part is how atheists view this as significant when normal schools haven't taught creationism for a minimum of several decades. So treating it as a major victory over something that was already won is kinda silly (Especially when the ones who caused the swift victory ages ago were mostly religious people so you're welcome!)

 

[zomgbbqftw]

You know, I'm an athiest and I adore Dawkins, but this is basically a violation of free speech. While it should be banned, WITH THE HAMMER OF THE GODS, in public schools private schools should be allowed to teach what they want.

I mean, yes, the world would be much better without private organizations brain washing our kids, but take it away and you're not only violating their freedom of speech, but also their freedom of religion.

"Free schools" are state funded. They are run by private organisations but with money provided by the state.

 

[phisheep]

The fact that the Church has to "update" its morals, beliefs, and "canon" every hundred years should automatically raise huge red flags to its believers. I mean, it's supposed to be the "word of God." Why was x ok back then but not ok now, and vice versa? Why are we throwing Genesis out but believing the rest of it? Was Noah's ark just a metaphor? Why is that a metaphor but this isn't?

That seems to me a really bad argument, because it invites the riposte that 'science' has had to update its beliefs etc also every hundred years or so, and maybe even more often. After all if science has all these great claims to be evidence-based and objective how come it changes its mind so often, huh?

Nothing wrong with a religion taking the same approach and updating things in the light of evidence. After all, if there were to be a sensible religion that's what you'd want it to do, surely.

I've got an awful feeling here that I'm suggesting a merger between Catholics and Scientists versus the rest.

 

[Korey]

That seems to me a really bad argument, because it invites the riposte that 'science' has had to update its beliefs etc also every hundred years or so, and maybe even more often. After all if science has all these great claims to be evidence-based and objective how come it changes its mind so often, huh?

Nothing wrong with a religion taking the same approach and updating things in the light of evidence. After all, if there were to be a sensible religion that's what you'd want it to do, surely.

I've got an awful feeling here that I'm suggesting a merger between Catholics and Scientists versus the rest.

Science isn't a belief system so that doesn't apply, and updating based on evidence is what science is built upon.

But if whether you go to heaven or hell, or if like Jesus was or real or not, changes every hundred years, it's not much of a religion is it? The point is that it should seem sketchy to anyone who's a believer, that's all.

I really need to go to bed but hopefully others will continue answering questions!

 

[F#A#Oo]

"Free schools" are state funded. They are run by private organisations but with money provided by the state.

I thought they were only partly funded by the state? Thus why they could choose the curriculum to a certain extent or something. Also no ofsted inspections too right?

 

[DCKing]

There is nothing wrong or hypocritical in dogmas written by men according to the knowledge of the era they lived in being proven wrong over time, and stances changing accordingly.

I'm not saying the dogmas are hypocritical (they are, but that's a completely different discussion). What's hypocritical is the act of cherry picking the dogmas you like and accepting them as truth from a contradictory book. A book of which its contradiction is apparent from merely reading the book itself, let alone the comparison of its claims to the real world.

If anything, insisting in promoting what was written in a book two thousand* years ago as 100% pure fact even though it makes no sense would be idiotic and hypocritical.

No this is wrong. Once you attribute the authority of truth to a book that claims to be the absolute truth, you cannot have your cake and eat it too and call yourself intellectually honest after that. Either the Bible is right and it has all the authority and the real world doesn't, or it is not, the Bible's claim as the absolute and only truth is wrong, and it has no authority to tell you what's true or not.

That seems to me a really bad argument, because it invites the riposte that 'science' has had to update its beliefs etc also every hundred years or so, and maybe even more often. After all if science has all these great claims to be evidence-based and objective how come it changes its mind so often, huh?

Nothing wrong with a religion taking the same approach and updating things in the light of evidence. After all, if there were to be a sensible religion that's what you'd want it to do, surely.

I've got an awful feeling here that I'm suggesting a merger between Catholics and Scientists versus the rest.

The difference between religion and science is that religion declares truth where science (more correctly empiricism) describes truth.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

I thought they were only partly funded by the state? Thus why they could choose the curriculum to a certain extent or something. Also no ofsted inspections too right?

Nope. Fully state funded, but outside of the national curriculum. Schools are not allowed to charge any kind of top-up fees as that would unfairly advantage the middle classes who have more disposable income than working classes. Schools can make sponsorship deals, but they have to be centrally approved and so far none have been because of conflict of interest.

 

[JGS]

I thought they were only partly funded by the state? Thus why they could choose the curriculum to a certain extent or something. Also no ofsted inspections too right?

If it's based on religious belief, they shouldn't change their teaching nor should they accept funding. Simple solution since they should have never been getting funding in the first place.

Otherwise, I agree that the government should leave them alone and let them teach what they want otherwise. I don't know UK's free speech rules though. Are they as liberal as the USA's?

 

[Monocle]

Good news. Scientific theories and religious myths should be presented as such in every classroom.

 

[Walshicus]

Michael Gove, fuck yeah!

Trust you to actually support Michael Gove. Heh...

 

[Joel Was Right]

What about public funding for faith schools? I don't understand the Guardians characterisation of it as a major victory. I can't imagine many schools teach creationism in their science classes.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

I don't know UK's free speech rules though. Are they as liberal as the USA's?

 

[JGS]

What about public funding for faith schools?

Should not happen.

It's a bad idea because it leaves faith beholden to government (Which is never more important) when those funds become indispensable which they always do. It's better to not have the school at all and set up programs to teach the religion like churches and parents do everywhere.

I don't understand the Guardians characterisation of it as a major victory. I can't imagine many schools teach creationism in their science classes.

Again, not knowing UK, it may be a major coup. In the States, however, this is insignificant except to ones who think about it way too much.

 

[The Technomancer]

Good. If people want it in schools it can be in the History and Cultural Studies classroom, along with every other belief system.

 

[F#A#Oo]

Nope. Fully state funded, but outside of the national curriculum. Schools are not allowed to charge any kind of top-up fees as that would unfairly advantage the middle classes who have more disposable income than working classes. Schools can make sponsorship deals, but they have to be centrally approved and so far none have been because of conflict of interest.

Interesting...so really it's just a shift of responsibilities...all things summed up.

If it's based on religious belief, they shouldn't change their teaching nor should they accept funding. Simple solution since they should have never been getting funding in the first place.

Otherwise, I agree that the government should leave them alone and let them teach what they want otherwise. I don't know UK's free speech rules though. Are they as liberal as the USA's?

I don't know of any school that has changed it's curriculum based on religion.

I have noticed a difference in curriculm in terms of the bias for core subjects; maths, english and science...iirc science is no longer considered a core subject in some schools...

 

[teh_pwn]

So it's "evidenced scientific theories". How long until the word "evidence" is misused and it requires Dawkins to use even more redundancies to emphasize scientific theory?

 

[killer_clank]

yeah cos having cctv on public transport = no free speech.

crappy ad though.

 

[The Technomancer]

http://www.abload.de/img/watchful-eyes5lbrt.jpg[img][/QUOTE]

Doesn't most US transportation have similar systems?

 

[Pollux]

Current Catholic dogma is in opposition to Young Earth Creationism, with the Papacy acknowledging the current scientific models for the development of the universe (Big Bang Cosmology, Evolutionary Theory etc) as valid, God being the grand architect that set the ball in motion.

Well a Catholic priest thought of the Big Bang Theory

 

[Monocle]

http://www.abload.de/img/watchful-eyes5lbrt.jpg

Creepy.

 

[Gregorn]

I remember being taught it in RE and my teacher just being like "eh, this is just a story believe it if you like" and no one did.

You don't have to worry about fixing the UK Dawkins, we've already got your back.

 

[kswiston]

Atheists, why are you attacking religious people who agree with you (regarding evolution)? Calling people idiots or hypocrites is not a good way to stop the spread of religious dogma. It makes atheists as a group look like assholes, making things more difficult for the majority of sensible non-militant atheists. Take your sense of moral and intellectual superiority elsewhere, and stick to having a civil discussion.

Having actually worked as a behavioural ecologist (and therefore using evolutionary principles on a daily basis), this is good news. I hope that in the future, general knowledge of evolution at the high school level improves, because it is currently taught in a very subpar manner. Why is it that we spend so much time teaching high school students the metabolic processes of a cell (glycolysis, citric-acid cycle), information most students will never use in real life even if they go on in biology, yet we rush over the theory of evolution? Evolution is the unifying theory of biology and deserves more of a focus in biology classrooms.

 

[JGS]

Doesn't most US transportation have similar systems?

I thought that was a joke poster. US does have surveillance everywhere (Which technically doesn't block free speech), but the poster is 1984 level creepy.

EDIT: Beaten

 

[gerg]

Apparently that poster's quite old now - according to the internets it was made in 2002.

I imagine the designer probably channeled the imagery of Nineteen Eighty-Four on purpose (or at least I would hope that the similarity of iconography didn't go unnoticed). I'd love to know more about it.

 

[StealthGoblin]

I thought that was a joke poster. US does have surveillance everywhere (Which technically doesn't block free speech), but the poster is 1984 level creepy.

EDIT: Beaten

Its meant to be creepy. To put of the criminals.

 

[gkryhewy]

At no point in my education did anyone claim God made anything. Maybe Catholic schools do?

This is a uniquely evangelical protestant phenomenon. Catholicism has become pretty progressive.

 

[The Technomancer]

Its meant to be creepy. To put of the criminals.

It would also put off me if I was riding opposite of it, in a bad way. In the US there are just signs at the front of the bus saying something like "remember: this bus is recorded" in red letters on a white background.