Creationism no longer science in UK schools

Apparently, creationism is no longer allowed to be taught as science in UK schools, which is all well and good, but I hope they still teach about it, so that kids will have the information in order to decide for themselves.

You dont have to teach it as science – because it is not, its theology, but you do have to explain it as one of the major historical metaphysical understandings of how the world began.

Of course, lefties dont really want people reflecting on philosophy, in case they learn what a crock they are being fed.
http://io9.com/teaching-creationism-as-science-now-banned-in-all-uk-pu-1592549647

I live in New Zealand, am an ICT Engineer for Rhema Broadcasting Group (http://rbg.co.nz), and have a Bachelor of Ministries degree from the Bible College of New Zealand (Now called Laidlaw College, http://www.laidlaw.ac.nz) I can be IM'd at geoff at gurutoo dot com.

36 thoughts on “Creationism no longer science in UK schools”

    1. Bad/misguided. However, its a prevalent view, and as such its pro’s (there are some) and its cons (oh, yes, lots of cons) should be taught. How can you know what to choose, if you are not given enough information, or in fact, any… choice.

  1. Creationism is science. Only, much like belief in a geocentric universe and mankind’s creation by a supreme being, it is a product of Bronze Age thinking. Being all answers and no proof, it assumes a creator that which is beyond its capacity to otherwise explain. Creationism is also simple to understand.

    Science is merely a methodology that seeks to acquire knowledge through systematic means. In it pure form, it never assumes itself to be right. All it takes is one exception for generations of thought to be discarded. Because of complexities, science findings are often oversimplified for mass consumption. The Bohr atom is a good example.

    Creationism – indeed monotheistic religion – might likened to a classic pugilist, science is more like a modern boxer. Whereas pugilists stood flatfooted and braced themselves to absorb an opponent’s blows. modern boxers are more inclined to “Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee,” as Muhammad Ali colorfully phrased it. Thus, unlike pugilists, science makes a difficult target. On the other hand, because of its rigidity, creationism makes an inviting foil for science.

    Much like pugilists of yesteryear criticizing boxers, creationists are inclined to claim scientists don’t fight fair. Science has too much bob and weave to suite the creationist’s tastes. As is most certainly the case with evolution, it’s answers are forever changing as new discoveries are quite literally uncovered. Then, as Charlie Brown might put it in a cartoon speech bubble, “Science stands firm in its right to be wishy-washy.”

    Those in search of pat answers tend to prefer creationism. Those more willing to tolerate ambiguities are inclined to favor science. The ongoing conflict between the two can be more easily resolved if neither takes itself too seriously.

  2. Lefties don’t want people reflecting on philosophy?

    Speaking of a crock …

    Virtually everyone I know who spends time with philosophy is, in fact, rather left of center. Most of the righties I know who think that they dabble in philosophy read something by someone with whom they agree, then declare themselves experts on philosophies they’ve never studied.

    There are exceptions, of course. Which really means that making blanket statements like “lefties don’t want people reflecting on philosophy” is pretty bad form.

  3. I have given this some thought and want to respond with what is sure to make me even less popular here than I already am lol. I do not believe that creationism should be taught as science. That is a matter of faith and can not be proven…ever. If you prove faith it can not be faith after all. I do believe that the scientific theories, ideas and experiments contending a younger age of the earth should be presented with the following caveats. First, it should be noted that the science leaning toward a young earth does not currently have a scientific explanation for the origin of the planet, galaxy, etc. Second, it should be noted that this is currently a minority opinion, and is largely dismissed by the majority of scientists. Third, there should be no connection to faith or a lack of faith in any science class save for the history of some our great scientists past as that is a part of their story and discovery. The reason I think this should be presented as outlined above is to demonstrate the scientific differences between the two ideas as well as show some of the holes in both of the theories and problems with both theories. I want to also make clear that by science I do not mean Ken Hamm and his silliness, I do mean genetic experiments, DNA experiments, scale flood plane experiments, radiometric dating and it’s benefits and short comings, etc. I believe this because I think a lot of our children and believe that they can see the data, examine the data and come to conclusions about the data just like our adults should be able to. There will probably be those who read this thinking I am trying to backdoor creationism in to a discussion about science, but that is not the intent.

    1. Actually, I would prefer creationism taught as science. One the more memorable undergraduate courses during my time at a Christian college included a very revealing contrast between creationist rigidity and evolution’s fluidity. Likewise, one of my more memorable high school classes included a comparison of Jonathan Edwards’ Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God and the subsequent writings of Edgar Alan Poe.

      As with other ideas in human history, both Bronze Age creationism and early 18th century Great Wakening, of which Edwards was apart, need to be understood in the context of their time. It isn’t all the different from having some knowledge of how Neoplatonism’s influenced the development of Christianity theology or how personifications of nature became ancient pantheism’s gods.

      Teaching creationism poses no more threat to evolution than climate change deniers can alter weather trends. In the end, nature is the ultimate arbiter. Humans make fools of themselves by making pronouncements to the contrary.

      Still, as Joseph Goebbels pointed out:

      “. . . in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie . . . . ”

      Big lies arrive in a flurry of propaganda accompanied by very little proof. Quite often, their evidence consists of little more than junk science and speculation. The Northwest [Creationist] Science Museum in Boise, Idaho is a good example. Despite its grand scheme for the future, the museum is already running into complexities similar to those bedeviling geocentrism’s Ptolemaic epicycles. Given time, creationism will be exposed as a classic instance of deductive reasoning running amok.

      The problems associated with creationist fixation are similar to those created when police become prematurely focused on a suspect to the exclusion of all others. In turn, this myopic view causes investigators to ignore evidence not pointing to that suspect’s guilt. This, in turn, results in sometimes thoroughly embarrassing and, as has been the case with the exonerated Central Park 5, expensive wrongful convictions.

      Like good law enforcement, science follows the evidence. At the same time, creationism is useful in pointing out the the flaws in current evolution theory. There is noting new in this. Adam Smith pointed out the problems with mercantilism. Later, Karl Marx exposed the fallacies of the capitalism derived from Smith’s economic philosophy. Of course, the collapse of the Soviet Union proved Marx didn’t exactly get it right either!

      The ultimate weakness of creationism lies in its inability to accept being wrong. After all, if God didn’t created the world in six days, where else did the Bible go astray? Meanwhile, evolution is free to make mistakes – even to pursue dead ends – without fear of being wrong. Evolutionists are less concerned with being right than they are with getting it right!

      Evolutionary theory has much in common with invention of the electric light bulb. That history, too, is filled with multiple investigators and numerous failures before someone got it right. Yet, even today, the light bulb is evolving. For the most part, the only ones complaining have a fortune invested in manufacturing obsolete technology.

      Likewise, the people most likely to object to evolution are either those making money peddling the pulpit pabulum of biblical inerrancy or those sufficiently gullible to swallow it.

      1. Oh the irony.. believe creationism is science (no, they use bad science to try and prove a theological agenda), and that climate change (i’m assuming man made) is real.
        FWIW, yes, the climate is changing… its getting colder. We are more in danger of an ice age than the tropics.

        But anyway, yes, it should be taught in schools, but not in the science classroom, except in a course on “how to use science to push an agenda”

  4. “, yes, the climate is changing… its getting colder. We are more in danger of an ice age than the tropics…
    Funny! But that’s after all the glaciers melt, and the fresh water stops the Gulf Stream, and another Ice Age starts. Guess you hadn’t heard, or seen for yourself, all the glaciers disappearing.

    1. well, apart from these things:
      http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/east-coast-icebergs-almost-close-enough-to-touch-1.1870001
      http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/06/09/wais-outlet-glacier-being-melted-by-magma-not-co2-global-warming-after-all/
      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/06/ice-still-on-lake-superior-in-june/

      So yeah, the “Science” shows 17 years of cooling. More ice than ever before. Legitimate non man-caused explanations for just about everything.. What we have is a bunch of climate change denier-deniers, playing ostrich and ruining the global economy for selfish gain.

      1. This is a classic confusion of weather and climate. Those opposed to facing the realities of climate change tend to either be either major polluters or their marks (victim[s] or prospective victim[s] of a swindle” as defined my Merriam-Webster).

        Merriam-Webster further defines WEATHER as the “state of the atmosphere with respect to heat or cold, wetness or dryness, calm or storm, clearness or cloudiness.” The second definition of CLIMATE in the same dictionary defines climate as the “average course or condition of the weather at a place usually OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation.” (Emphasis added)

        The first three paragraphs of the next URL helps to explain the difference between climate and weather.

        http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html

        Also, http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/weather-vs-climate-15198874/?no-ist points out: “weather conditions don’t tell you anything useful about climate.” The obvious reason, as explained above: weather is a short-term observation while climate is the long-term trend.

        In addition, http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus has a interesting bar graph labeled Northern Hemisphere Land and Ocean Temperatures Anomalies, December-February. Note that, over time, things are getting WARMER! When compared to the comparison graph, 17 years of supposed cooling is tiddlywinks.

        Finally, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/01/06/the-polar-vortex-in-no-way-disproves-climate-change/ points points out: “cold shouldn’t come as a shock, nor should it have anyone second-guessing the reality of climate warming.”

        1. So, what you are saying is, even though the CLIMATE (which is to what I refer…) is getting colder, and has done for nearly 20 years now, we should ignore it.. lol.
          FWIW, I believe the climate is changing. It gets hotter and colder. I dont believe that globally, C02 has any effect (in fact, demonstrably, it does not)

          1. You’re talking 20 years while the NASA and the Washington Post graphed over 100 years – five time as long.

            Meanwhile, you can believe anything you want; I don’t much care. The climate will be the final arbitrator. I’m just along for the ride and having fun along the way.

            P.S. The Land and Ocean Temperatures Anomalies graph appeared in the Washington Post link rather than on the NASA webpage.

          2. 100 years isnt much. In england they can show nearly a million years of cooling and heating, and they can show many 1000’s of ppm C02 when its cold, and when its hot. C02 has very little to do with the cooling and warming cycles.

            We dont deny climate changes, we deny C02 is the cause of it.

          3. Single causalities are rare. Thus, it is highly unlikely that CO2 alone causes climate change. Still, as http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html notes:

            “Greenhouse gases (GHGs) like water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), and methane (CH4) absorb energy, slowing or preventing the loss of heat to space. In this way, GHGs act like a blanket, making Earth warmer than it would otherwise be. This process is commonly known as the ‘greenhouse effect’.”

            In other words, greenhouse gases are primary composed of carbon and hydrogen either together or with other elements. In the case of methane, the gas is a hydrocarbon (composed entirely of carbon and hydrogen, and nothing else).

            The same epa.gov article goes on to point out:

            “Estimates of the Earth’s changing carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration (top) and Antarctic temperature (bottom), based on analysis of ice core data extending back 800,000 years. Until the past century, natural factors caused atmospheric CO2 concentrations to vary within a range of about 180 to 300 parts per million by volume (ppmv). WARMER PERIODS COINCIDE WITH PERIODS OF RELATIVELY HIGH CO2 CONCENTRATIONS.” (Emphasis added.)

            In statistics, phrases such as “coincide[s] with” usually translates into correlation – more formally known as correlation coefficient. Having a high correlation (a fraction usually expressed as a decimal approaches the numeral one) simply means two random variables tend to change together. For example, rain has a higher correlation with cloudy days than it does with sunny days. That’s why people in Seattle, Washington are more likely to carry umbrellas during the month of March than are folks in Phoenix, Arizona.

            The above illustration is NOT the same as saying clouds cause rain. Instead, it merely means that it’s more likely to rain when there are clouds in the sky. Likewise, people carrying umbrellas don’t cause rain!

            Knowing the public is largely innumerate (mathematically illiterate), it is not uncommon for those pushing an agenda play semantics with causation and correlation. For example, some propagandists imply correlation equates to causation. Others, as is often the case with climate change deniers, will deny causation without mentioning correlation.

            Although correlation is not the same as causation, if a statistical correlation is high enough (closer to a value of one), a statistical cause and effect relationship may exist between the two variables. Notwithstanding, even lower than causal relationships may bear further exploration. This can be especially true if a significant correlation lasts over time.

            High correlation over time explains how smoking became labeled as causing cancer. About 80 percent of woman and 90 percent of men with lung cancer smoked tobacco products. Yet, for decades, tobacco companies systematically set about confusing the American public about the ink between tobacco use and cancer.

            As with climate change denial magnates, the sole motive of the tobacco companies was making money for stockholders regardless of human cost.

  5. Back to my original point, glaciers effectively show the integrated effect over long periods of time, not the instantaneous fluctuations. Glaciers are shrinking! Fact. I’ve been to Alaska and seen plenty of them. Long time ago (via pictures), big. Recently, tiny. Gee, even a caveman can deduce what is happening (thank you Gieco, for the learning moment).

    1. The World Glacier Monitoring Service (WGMS) compiled a Glacier Mass Balance Bulletin in 2011 revealing that, while some glaciers are growing, the vast majority of 136 glaciers are shrinking. The ratio is approximately nine to one!

      Of course, this is nothing new. Glaciers have been getting smaller since the end of the 300-year long Little Ice Age in the mid-19th century. What has changed over the past several decades is the rate of decrease in mass. This is worrisome.

      The United Nations’ concern is glaciers will disappear entirely by the end of the 21st century. The great fear is that would lead to a great deal of suffering and unrest in the world.

      One seminal question in the climate change debate is: What portion of global warming is attributable to humankind? An ancillary question is whether, when combined with natural phenomenon, human activity will push the environment beyond the threshold of some tipping point that threatens life as we know it.

      It’s the equivalent of a point known as V1 in aircraft takeoffs. Before reaching V1 it is possible to abort takeoff. Past V1 is either takeoff (VR) or crash and burn. The problem is, having never been down this path before in recorded history, no one knows exactly where the V1 of climate change is located. Only with climate change, the only option past V1 is crash and burn!

      By the way, remembering that GEICO originally stood for Government Employees Insurance COmpany helps in remembering how to spell the name.

  6. A June 2014 report on climate change found at:

    http://riskybusiness.org/uploads/files/RiskyBusiness_PrintedReport_FINAL_WEB_OPTIMIZED.pdf

    points out that, if current trends continue, there will be:

    Large-scale losses of coastal property and infrastructure
    Extreme heat across the nation — especially in the Southwest, Southeast, and Upper Midwest — threatening labor productivity, human health, and energy systems

    and

    Shifting agricultural patterns and crop yields, with likely gains for Northern farmers offset by losses in the Midwest and South

    A news media summery of the report may be found by going to:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/24/climatechange-economy-regions-idUSL2N0P414F20140624

    Another version may also be found at:

    http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118326/report-details-economic-impacts-climate-change

      1. I had previously concluded URLs invited moderation.

        Is there anything that can be do about bullet listings? Originally, there where three points. Each was preceded by an asterisk. None appeared in the post.

        Thanks.

          1. Neither produced a bullet! The first try merely consisted of the list and unlist commands. The second contained the full HTML formatting structure.

    1. All i am seeing is blah blah blah.

      All you really need to know is that the human contribution via C02 to global warming is about the same as a drop of water in a 10,000 gallon tank (its 0.002% of 0.04% of the atmosphere). Even IF that 1 drop could remain warm, it would take an eternity to have any effect on the global climate. What’s more important is deforestation, land rights for gay whales and health food shops for tall dwarves.
      There are non C02 related explanations for just about everything. Also, 20 years of cooling IS considered a trend.. except by those scientists and politicians who make a living from saying that it isnt. Which pretty much negates everyone who claims C02 is at fault.

      ANYWAY… this discussion isnt about tin hatters and their belief in man made global warming, its about whether creationism (that is, YEC) is science or not. Its not.

      1. A Forbes magazine article dated April 30, 2014 begins: “Winter temperatures throughout the United States are in a 20-year cooling trend . . . . ”

        It is interesting to note that the Forbes article makes no mention of summer trends – a primary concern of the Risky Business report. Nor, by the way, does the Forbes article mention spring, summer, or fall. It’s as if these seasons don’t exist. Nor does the article mention the rest of the world. It’s as if that doesn’t exist either!

        The locus of the cooling prophesy in the United States seems to be centered at Washington State University. There is also some confirmation coming from Russia.

        At the same time, European researchers examining about 2,000 years of tree rings concluded that the earth may not be warming as fast as other sources have suggested.

        Meanwhile, a German scientist suggest the 20-year cooling cycle could be a product of a North Atlantic oscillation that might cool temperatures for a few decades. Once the oscillation moves on, temperatures may very well resume an upward trend.

        It is worth noting that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, most likely responsible for Alaska’s recent cooling, follows a similar multi-decade pattern as it’s North Atlantic counterpart. On the other hand, the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, with which Americans are more familiar, has shorter cycles.

        Researches from various universities released a National Science Foundation report showing that, after a period of cooling, Arctic temperatures reversed direction and broke a 2,000-year-old heat record. This was despite the fact that the earth is moving further from the sun each year!

        Similarly, other university researchers found the record contained in polar ice cores revealed the earth’s climate is warmer than it’s been in the past 11,300 years. The finding was made more startling because the turn of the 20th century was the coldest period since the Little Ice Age.

        As noted in one of my previous posts, CO2 isn’t the only greenhouse gas. The EPA article pointed out: greenhouse gases are a combination of water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), and methane (CH4). By one estimate, there are 3,094 CUBIC MILES of water in the earth’s atmosphere at any given time. Water vapor is the third most abundant gas in the atmosphere.

        More importantly, the question isn’t how miniscule the volume of each gas. Instead it is what is the cumulative effect these greenhouse gases have on the atmosphere.

        Here’s an example how relative size doesn’t matter. It takes less than 0.0088185 ounce of potassium cyanide placed on a the tongue to kill a human in less than five seconds. Airlines calculate the weight of an average passenger at 195 pounds. That equals to 3,120 ounces. Thus, just 0.000002.8 of the human’s weight in cyanide could kill him or her in in less time than it may have taken you to read this paragraph.

        Likewise, the real issue isn’t whether humankind is the sole cause for climate change. We’re not. Rather it is how much is human activity is exacerbating the natural swings to the detriment of life on earth? That question is largely unanswered at this point. However, by the time natural consequences resolves the matter, it may be too late for humans to do anything about it.

        As for the intended subject of this thread, it might be worth noting that less than three percent of my original contribution touched on climate change. It was intended as an example of minimal threat posed by treating creationism as Bronze Age science. Nonetheless, you devoted half of an entire post to refute that three percent!

        1. Obviously your chosen non-de-plume is ironic.

          Anyway. We dont disagree, climate is changing. Humans C02 is not solely responsible (in fact, its contribution is so minute as to be discounted). Deforestation and other issues are far worse.

          YEC is not science, it’s the use of pseudo-science to prove a theological ideal.

          1. Much like spontaneous generation, young earth creationism was once considered to be science. Yet the Aristotelian theory of life arising from inanimate objects is covered in science texts to explain the importance of Pasteur’s 19th century experiments. Likewise, creationism offers an insight into how divinity was, and still can be, used to explain phenomenon that humans cannot comprehend by any other means.

            Discussing the fallacy of literal creationism gives students insights into how human knowledge evolved and is, in fact, still changing in order to accommodate recent discoveries. This is not unlike using Bohr’s atomic model to explain how quantum theory developed in physics.

            In the social sciences, implications derived from divine creationism can help students understand how America arrived at the rather idiotic idea of using prison cells as a panacea for societal problems. (They were originally a Quaker idea.)

            Accompanying notions of divine judgement are useful in explaining why America’s current criminal justice system is such an unmitigated disaster. Along with egregious costs, the perpetual cycle of judgment and punishment serves as a breeding ground for the very detriments it was intended to mitigate!

            All of the above, and more, helps humans come to grips with how they perceive the world around them. As the ancient Delphic aphorism advised: Know Thyself.

          2. When it comes to man-make emissions such as CO2, the real question isn’t whether their the sole causality for climate change. It’s whether, when coupled with natural phenomenon, these gases will become the proverbial straw that breaks the climate camel’s back!

  7. It’s not just British schools that are dumping junk science. Perhaps taking a cue from astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson’s quip about CNN needing to stop giving “equal time to the flat-earthers,” the folks at British Broadcasting have been advised to stop giving equal time to science cranks, such as climate change deniers, merely for the sake of appearing to be unbiased in their science coverage.

    Changes in BBC broadcast policy may have profound effects because, unlike American-based commercial broadcasters, more intent on peddling products to consumers than in covering issues, the government-financed BBC World Service has a truly worldwide audience. The BBC broadcasts in 43 languages to more than 200 countries around the globe!

    For more on the BBC advice, follow the following link.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10944629/BBC-staff-told-to-stop-inviting-cranks-on-to-science-programmes.html

  8. This one is priceless. A Kentucky Republican state representative and coal mine owner recently claimed:

    “…we all agree that THE TEMPERATURE ON MARS IS EXACTLY AS IT IS HERE. Nobody will dispute that. Yet there are no coal mines on Mars. There’s no factories on Mars….” (Emphasis added.)

    Somewhere in space, a planet missing an escaped idiot. I sure wish they’d come collect him because the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky is obviously not an earthling!

    For more on this insanity, including the full quote excerpted above, follow the link below.

    http://wfpl.org/post/kentucky-lawmakers-attack-climate-change-science-discussion-carbon-regulations

  9. Now, it seems, oceans are warming faster than anyone suspected. Access to the original research may be found here for a price:

    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2389.html

    Correspondingly, if one doesn’t wish spend the money to purchase the article, a news item regarding that article may be found at:

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/oceans-heating-up-faster-than-we-thought-study-20141005-10qgfn.html

    By the way, I got a good laugh out of following the link that I found below the article. It was probably indirectly purchased by the infamously pollution-prone Koch Brothers using the always useful Rush Limbaugh as their mouthpiece. Having more money than is good for either them or the country, the deep pockets behind climate change denial are still trying to confuse the public by using short-term weather instead of focusing on long-term climate.

Leave a Reply, Please!