Scientist urges teaching of creationism in schools

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by rockape34, Sep 12, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. ... more HERE

    my bold, to highlight a result of the present Gubmint's ejukayshunul (shud itt bee 2 enns?) sisstm in a comment shown below on the article :
  2. Just following the American way. In some States it is illegal to teach the theories of natural selection and evolution. I believe they use many of the posters on this site to prove that neither have taken place.
  3. How interesting!
  4. So true. 8O

    I would have no problem with teaching creationism at school as long as it was done side by side with Darwinism, then the kids can make their own minds up, and somehow I cant see them going to believe too much n creationism after they leave kindergarten.
  5. It should read 'god botherer', was I the only one to notice the dick in question is a Reverend?
  7. Surely creationism should be taught during Religious Studies lessons. I'm all for it, personally, maybe it will help children realise just how bl00dy ridiculous an idea it is.
  8. Sixty

    Sixty LE Moderator Book Reviewer
    1. ARRSE Cyclists and Triathletes

    Pretty succinct and mirrors my own view on the subject. I'd agree with Bat_Crab though, discuss in RE class and then point and laugh.
  9. Couldnt agree more, childeren need a full education and need to see both sides of the argument.

    By censoring creationism we are just as bad as the american schools that are overly religous and censor darwanian evolution... they realy squeeze my torpedo!
  10. Yes in an ideal world you would be ok to do this, but do you not think that enough shiite is taught in school as it is and not enough time is left to teach the three r's. Dont confuse kids more, give them a real education, fook knows they will need it.
  11. Creationism is taught in schools... its called RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.

    If we're going to teach Creationism in Science then are we also going to teach kids that the world is flat and is the center of the universe, and that it's 10K years old? And that earthquakes are caused by sin? etc, etc...

    FFS, get a grip, the proposer of this is also a reverend... hardly biased.

  12. Why is this an either/or argument? Perhaps I had a teacher who got it wrong (though he was a religious minister), perhaps I got it wrong, but, religions among other things teach a way of life. The ‘teaching/lessons are handed down from thousands of years ago. Hence in square one the doctrine was spread by word – story telling/argument/example.

    Innate in mankind appears to be a need/desire to believe in a paternalistic super being or beings. A chunk of rock, a tree, the sun, mystical sprit whatever. In other respects our species has the same essential needs of shelter, food and procreation – else they won’t continue. If they are going to be taught a religion and/or converted from whatever they already have, it needs to be in terms they can understand. Of course this necessitates the teacher understanding what they are trying to get over in the first place.

    So, thousands of years ago would you expect, assuming the teacher knew and understood evolution, the way to teach would be to lecture on the millions of year’s the planet and its inhabitants took to reach where they were today? Much better to express things in terms the listener could understand and relate to. In other words, work with the existing situation, put your complexion on what already is or perceived to be, and weave in the major factors you want to get across.

    Hence, when questioned/advising about creation, the answer needed to be something within the grasp of the teacher and the pupil. Actual technicalities not important, the meaning of the message is.

    For Adam and Eve (whoever), take the advent of cognisant mankind, and Eden, apple, etc as illustrations of living the correct way and the perils of not doing so. The various scriptures are full of examples and directives for conducting your life, which IMHO is the ‘message’. I don’t see the problem being with the ‘message’, rather with those who insist the illustrations are irrefutable historical fact.

    Teach the ‘message’.

  13. No.9... what a load of balls.

    The point is we're not living "thousands of years ago"... going to bring your family up in a cave are you?
  14. Well, well, looks like western's view that "I believe they use many of the posters on this site to prove that neither have taken place." may be valid?

    But it's probably me failing to convey adequately what I meant, being itself a point I attempted to make. 8O

    The 'message' is how to conduct your life, not whether there really was a Mr Adam and a Ms Eve. If it comforts you or you consider it your duty to believe in Mr Adam and Ms Eve, you are totally at liberty to do so. If that stops you killing someone because you feel like it, it's worth while. However, if you want to know more about how the planet and its inhabitants changed throughout millions of years, I suggest referring to science. :wink:

  15. If he wants it taught in science lessons, fine. Teach how little reason or scientific methodology has gone into the creationist argument. Show them the difference between the effects of thinking your way rationally from A to B, testing your hypotheses against experimental observations of objective reality at every step, and revising them in accordance with any new evidence; and looking up at the sky and going "I reckon...". Show them how this former approach has resulted in electricity, synthetic fibres, vaccination, et al.

    Then show them religion. And then demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt ('coz he's talking about science lessons after all) that only religion can result in a code of morality, in ethics, harmony, or a sense of inner peace. Betcha he can't.