

Creationism Banned from Science Classes by Scottish Government - mirceasoaica
http://www.iflscience.com/environment/creationism-banned-science-classes-scottish-government

======
kbart
I find it funny and sad that in 21st century we still have to explicitly
prohibit such thing. Up next -- "Tooth faery theory banned from dental
schools".

~~~
itsybitsy
If you're comparing creationism to the tooth fairy, it's fair to point out
that the alternate scientific theory is that we magically appeared out of
nothing, like Dr. Who's telephone box. I'm not arguing for either theory, and
certainly not arguing for the teaching of creationism in schools.

~~~
mikeash
I assume that when you say "I'm not arguing for either theory" that you're
attempting to come across as balanced in some way. Which is sad, because not
arguing for the theory with a massive weight of evidence behind it is
completely ridiculous.

I'm not sure whether you're referring to the Big Bang or abiogenesis when you
say "magically appeared out of nothing," but either way, there's a great deal
of evidence that these events did actually happen, even if the exact mechanism
for how it happened is not known. In contrast, creationism is outright
fiction, like Star Wars or Harry Potter.

There really is not any middle ground here.

------
kendallpark
It's fine to teach creationism... just not in a science class.

What the majority of the creation supporters don't get is that creationism
isn't a science, it's a philosophy. There's nothing constructive or tangible
about the theory. You can't test it in a lab, you can't observe it in nature--
unless you think irreducible complexity (aka "we don't understand how this
could come about, therefore it must be divinely created") is a sound
scientific theory. (BTW most of Behe's original examples of "irreducibly
complex" biological phenomena have since been reduced.)

I went to a very Christian liberal arts college and creationism was only
taught in particular classes like Theories of Origins or theology courses.
Biology classes only taught evolution. There might be one day that included a
broader survey of creation theories, but that was it.

That being said, both the biology and theology departments were majority
evolutionist. Go figure.

~~~
mikeash
In my experience (of which I unfortunately have far too much), creationists
fundamentally don't understand what science is, which is why they think their
ideas qualify. They simply don't grasp the depth or the quantitative nature
that underlies statements like "the universe is 13 billion years old" or
"humans evolved from single-celled organisms."

It's basically cargo-culting popular science articles. They see something like
"continental drift is demonstrated by how the coastlines of Africa and the
Americas fit so neatly together." They then come up with something that sounds
similar, like, "the Grand Canyon could have been carved by a huge and sudden
deluge, demonstrating Noah's Flood." The fact that the Africa/Americas thing
is just a brief summary of mountains (sometimes literally so) of data is
completely lost.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Its worse than that. They're deliberately hijacking the catchphrases of
science to appear legitimate, so they can insert their religious message into
classrooms. Its as cynical as can be. No need to impute goodwill or mistaken
good intentions; they have an agenda.

~~~
mikeash
They truly believe that their opposition is doing the exact same thing.
They're being underhanded because they believe that evil scientists (no doubt
guided by Satan) make up clever-sounding non-God theories of the world to
appear legitimate and thus push their non-religious message into classrooms.

We see this as people pushing fairy tales over truth. They see their actions
as a small battle in a great war between God and the Devil.

~~~
kendallpark
Yes, yes, all of these observations are true.

The best remedy to this that I've found is simply more education. The majority
of the freshman class were creationists in my college, but the majority of the
senior class ended up evolutionists. It just takes thinking and exposure,
especially from other Christians. Someone might grow up in a small world where
to be Christian is to be creationist. Then he meets thoughtful, well-educated
devoted Christians that aren't creationists and it opens his mind to other
possibilities.

You really can't argue with creationists. I've gotten to the point where I
don't argue with anyone that doesn't have a sufficient scientific background
and shift the discussion toward whether they're knowledgeable enough to have
such opinions. Then I challenge them to take some basic biology 101 coursework
so we can actually have a real discussion.

------
fractallyte
I'm currently teaching computing at a independent fundamentalist Christian
'young Earth' creationist school - in London, UK.

It's surreal at times. The kids (~20 altogether!) are wonderful: well
mannered, eager to learn. So my frustration is extreme when I see the material
they're being force-fed. The school follows the ACE ('Accelerated Christian
Education') curriculum. It's imported from the USA, and teaches that the Earth
is 6000 years old, that there was a Great Flood, and that evolution is evil.
The textbooks are seething with pseudoscience - from illustrations of humans
coexisting with dinosaurs, to articles connecting snakes to the serpent from
the Garden of Eden, and so much more...

The real problem is that Ofsted - the UK government's regulator for standards
in education - has consistently given the school a 'good' rating. (WTF???)
Worse yet, the accreditation offered by the school - the ICCE (International
Certificate of Christian Education) - is actually considered by UK NARIC (the
'designated National Agency responsible for providing information, advice and
expert opinion on qualifications worldwide') to be "comparable to the overall
Cambridge International O and A Level standard respectively." (Again, WTF???)

Since the government has utterly failed these student victims, I figured that
perhaps an appeal to rationality might get somewhere. So, a few weeks back I
had a 9 hour(!) meeting with the school principal and her husband. It failed,
and perhaps I came close to being asked to leave. But I'm diplomatic (and
valuable), so I'm still there.

Since then I've devoted many hours to Bible study, and research into the
arguments of Creationists. (Remember: one can't engage with these people using
reason or rationality. _Know your opponent._ ) I strongly feel it's possible
to convey to them the vitality of Science - that it's one of the holiest of
human endeavors, to be blessed rather than reviled. And it's backed by solid
_religious_ arguments, supported completely by Scripture, and by Christian
luminaries from Augustine of Hippo to John Calvin. I'm preparing a
presentation to the school management (and, hopefully, parents)...

~~~
fractallyte
Incidentally, the article is wrong on one important point: _" The teaching of
creationism as a scientific fact and evidence-based theory is prohibited in
schools in England and Wales."_

This only applies to government-funded schools. Independent schools can get
away with _anything_.

------
m-i-l
There was a case last year in England where a religious school removed
questions on evolution from exam papers: "The examinations body, OCR, says it
was satisfied that the girls did not have an unfair advantage. It now plans to
allow the practice" [0].

[0] "Jewish school redacts exam to remove evolution questions"
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-
london-26437882](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-26437882)

------
s_dev
Most of the UK and Ireland are arguably secular (but not technically) with
most people holding reasonable scientifically literate beliefs.

Northern Ireland however is the last bastion of open religious bigotry and
nonsense in the UK. Classic example. Republic of Ireland passed a Gay Marriage
referendum last week while at the same time in NI a confectionary baker
"Ashers" in Northern Ireland refused to serve a gay man who requested a cake
that had support for gay marriage iced on the cake. The controversy showed
that many in NI are at worst openly hostile or at best completely indifferent
to gay people. This kind of attitude is carried in to classrooms in NI as
well.

I support this move by Scotland but Northern Ireland has some crazy
creationists nonsense still happening and these kind of measures are need much
more in NI than the rest of the UK.

~~~
mattmanser
I didn't d/v you, but I think if you dig into a few more of your friends views
you'd find a lot more religion than you realise.

~~~
s_dev
Actually no, not in the younger generation but absolutely in the older
generations. Ireland is one of the most rapidly secularising/atheist countries
in the world at the moment with the UK close behind.

~~~
mattmanser
Again, if you dig a bit more, you'd be surprised. Or you've surrounded
yourself with a niche of people.

------
JoeAltmaier
The real irony is, the Creationist are so sure science can't be the right
explanation. Why? The clear implication is, God was not smart enough to create
a Universe that would evolve us. No, he had to cheat and Bang! here we are.
Their God is as dumb as they are.

------
dataker
Although I'm an atheist, I find this to be somewhat disturbing.

Creationism, regardless of its mythological background, still is part of
Humanity and any conclusions about it should be drawn by the individual, not
the State or teachers.

They'd be better off spending more time with Critical Thinking, Scientific
Method and Logic, powerful tools to genuinely understand Religion and not just
take "facts" for granted.

~~~
mikeash
Would you say this about other subjects, or just the origins of life and the
universe?

Would you say that schools should not exclusively teach that 2+2=4, but give
the students tools and allow them to draw their own conclusions? Should
schools allow students to reach their own conclusions as to whether the Earth
is flat, or whether the Sun is pulled across the sky by chariots?

Schools should absolutely teach creationism, in the same classes where they
teach Greek mythology, Hindu gods, Native American creation stories, etc. And
that is exactly what happens here. To quote the article, "...creationism can
be taught in religious and moral education...."

~~~
dataker
Going back to the Greeks(e.g Essentialism) all the way to Modern Evolution
would foster a much stronger intellectual background and avoid most future
indoctrination. Understanding fallacies in theories is better than just taking
them for granted.

But why be so picky on this matter? Unlike other concepts,
Religion/Indoctrination can have a serious impact on one's life and true
critical thinking is the only weapon against it.

~~~
mikeash
I'm not sure I understand what you're proposing here or what your problem is
with what's currently being done.

Are you saying there should be a single class that teaches both Essentialism
and evolution? It seems reasonable for the same _school_ to teach both, but
they belong in different classes. The former would be in a philosophy class,
while the latter would be in a science class. Are you saying that facts
shouldn't be taught at all, merely the history of thought? Or, again, is it
just evolution?

You say that religion is of particular importance here, but the whole point of
this is that _evolution is not religion_. It's just science, like any other
science, and belongs in school just as much as Newton's Laws or Maxwell's
Equations. What's disturbing about a governing body saying that school science
classes should only teach science and not religion?

------
noir-york
Now we just need the rest of the world to follow suit.

~~~
goodJobWalrus
Is that really a thing in the rest of the world? I thought it was mostly the
US, and even there mostly the homeschooling thing.

~~~
earlyriser
That's also my perspective. I grew up in Mexico, a very Catholic country and I
went to a private Catholic school and we had religious classes and science
classes. The content of both wasn't mixed, we had "brothers" giving the
religious ones, and real scientists (Chemists, Biologists) giving the science
ones. Even priests conceded that the Genesis story was a metaphor.

~~~
gyim
I had similar experiences in Hungary: I grew up in a very religious community
(mostly Catholic) and went to a Catholic high school. Many of our teachers
(including biology, geology and physics) were Catholic priests, yet I never
heard anybody arguing against evolution.

I was 17 years old when I first met a young-earth creationist: he was an
American missionary... I am still Christian and I know lots of people in
various religious groups, but 14 years later I have only met one person who
believes in Intelligent Design, and I know about 2 other people from mailing
lists / blogs who are creationists.

The sad part is, young-earth creationists are such a vocal group that whenever
somebody learns that I am a Christian, I am usually asked how I can believe in
such nonsense as a 6000-year old Earth :)

------
ticksoft
I'm divided on these sorts of things (I didn't used to be). Sure science
classes shouldn't be teaching religion, but having governments decide what's
an approved view for its population is bothersome. People should be allowed to
make mistakes and when the parents realise that their kids are at a
disadvantage then the parents should learn to gather together and fix it
themselves. Encourage people to be active in their community rather than
sitting back and expecting someone from the top to take the initiative.

~~~
janvidar
Why is it bothersome that the goverment decides that it is illegal for schools
to teach a lie?

Schools are a social(ist) institution put in place by the goverment to ensure
people have an equal access to knowledge - a foundation. Schools also have to
follow a certain curriculum which would give this foundation. A school cannot
simply choose to not teach reading or writing, or teach that the earth is flat
because they beleive this is the right thing to do.

This has come up previously with different topics over the years. In many
countries it is explicitly illegal for schools to teach that the Holocaust
ever happened, or use text books that alledge this.

And, this is probably a good thing.

~~~
13years
Because banning gives a government the power to hide the truth. Who gets to
decide something is a lie? The majority may all be in favor this time, but
what gets banned next?

There is no issue with schools deciding it is not in their interest to teach a
subject; however, not being allowed to discus a subject is same as book
burning.

How about letting schools teach the subject along with skills on how to do
proper investigation and scientific research and logical reasoning. In other
words, how about teaching the kids how to logically reason through fact or
fiction so they are prepared to analyze other subjects appropriately.

~~~
olavk
By that line of reasoning schools should no teach anything at all. 2+2=5 is
just as valid math as 2+2=4, anything else would be allowing the government to
hide the truth!

~~~
13years
That is not what I stated. Banning is saying that we can't discuss why 2+2 is
not 5, because that subject is banned.

If a lot of people come often come to a wrong conclusion, you should be able
to teach and discuss why that happens. Banning subjects is running away from
debate and discussion. It fails to teach logical analysis and investigation.

~~~
mikeash
If any of my math classes had wasted a bunch of time on, "While we know that
2+2=4, there are a bunch of people who believe that 2+2=5, here's why they're
wrong," I would have been rather annoyed.

The space of things that are wrong is too vast to explore thoroughly. Stick to
what's right.

~~~
13years
I didn't expect anyone to take the example as a literal. The example was only
a concept in response to the original poster who used it as a concept prop for
their argument.

"Stick to what's right" lol, that's the point. Who decides what is right? The
government? The teachers? Education should be more about how to learn and how
to discover truth, not about force feeding what some bureaucrat thinks is
right or wrong or important. The greatest period of geniuses per capita in
history were during time of when the socratic method was used for teaching.

~~~
pvaldes
> Who decides what is right?

The scientific method. This is what we call it 'science' and not just
'opinion' or 'novel'.

~~~
13years
Sure, and the method by which government makes decisions certainly is not the
scientific method and should not weigh in on such matters.

But still, even if you constrain yourself to such a definition of what is
right, in reality you still may be wrong.

For example: [https://www.sciencenews.org/article/odds-are-its-
wrong](https://www.sciencenews.org/article/odds-are-its-wrong) and
[https://plus.google.com/+ChrisReeveOnlineScientificDiscourse...](https://plus.google.com/+ChrisReeveOnlineScientificDiscourseIsBroken/posts/FAxVc3coJVJ?pid=6096228074938200130&oid=108466508041843226480)
and [http://www.vox.com/2015/5/13/8591837/how-science-is-
broken](http://www.vox.com/2015/5/13/8591837/how-science-is-broken)

~~~
pvaldes
Hilarious links.

I'm pretty sure that neither "Tatties last trendings: tasty scran or cancerous
shite? nor "10 things that doctors don't want you to know about wrinkles" are
or will be in the curriculum of the scottish students, never, ever... You can
trust me with this.

~~~
13years
huh? Hilarious response. Was that even suppose to be a reply to this thread?

------
morpheous
Makes one proud to be a Brit - or more specifically, a Scott!

------
jcmoscon
We all lucky that nothing exploded and created everything 1000000000000000
years ago in a galaxy far far away, right?

------
Oletros
As it should be, in Science class it is only allowed scientific material

It would be a good thing to argument why creationism is an scientific material
and should be allowed in an Science class after voting

------
merpnderp
Only two states in the US that explicitly bans creationism have above average
NAEP scores. Nearly every state with above average NAEP scores allows some
form of creationism in the science room. Sure kids should learn evolution, and
creationism belongs in the religion class, but there are many other things to
fix in education before this.

------
gizi
Creationism has obviously no foundation in science but neither has
evolutionism. Where are the repeatable experiments required in order to be
able to look for counterexamples for evolutionism? Has anybody ever "evolved"
a species from another? If yes, how can we repeat that experiment? It is clear
that evolutionism has no scientific status either.

~~~
tomp
You don't understand what evolution is. It really a name, and needs no proof.

Basically, there are a few known facts: (1) organisms die, (2) organisms
reproduce, (3) the offspring are different from each other and from the
parents, (4) the differences are more or less random, (5) dying is not random
but a consequence of external forces, and (6) external forces are relatively
constant. From these facts, it logically follows that over generations (or
ofganisms reproducing ans dying), the living organisms will become more and
more adapted to the environment. To avoid this long and detailed explanation,
we just call this process evolution.

It's completely the same as e.g. the word "evaporate" \- instead of saying
that kinetic energy causes H2O molecules to become more and more excited, and
slowly breaks the H bonds between molecules, so that they can move freely
inspace (gas), we just say "water evaporates".

~~~
gizi
If it needs no proof, it is not science either, and that was exactly the point
I was making.

~~~
Oletros
You don't know much about evolution, it seems

~~~
knodi123
Go look up what kind of people use the word "evolutionism" and you might not
be surprised.

