School in clear over teaching creation [Archive]

Janet

09-12-2008, 09:31 AM

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight. So will I get registered for HE if I teach my kids that the Tooth Fairy is real, or that the world was created in 6 days by a very busy bearded bloke? :bang

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/school-in-clear-over-teaching-creation/2008/12/08/1228584743350.html

School in clear over teaching creation

A CHRISTIAN school that teaches a biblical view of creation in science classes has been cleared of breaching state curriculum requirements for the teaching of evolution.

The NSW Board of Studies has found that Pacific Hills Christian School at Dural has met its requirements for teaching the science syllabus, including evolution, to years 7 to 10.

The board said it had not substantiated a complaint about how science was taught at the school. Its investigation involved an assessment by the school's overseeing body, Christian Schools Australia, and its own inspection of curriculum and teaching materials.

The board's curriculum director was given access to the school's intranet to review the school's curriculum documents. The director also observed several science classes and class work on evolution.

The board's science inspector reviewed the school's educational programs for science, including student work samples and assessment tasks. A board spokeswoman said the reports found the school was meeting its science curriculum requirements and this was endorsed by the board's registration committee.

An inquiry by Christian Schools Australia also cleared the school of failing its duty to teach evolution theory appropriately.

The head of Christian Schools Australia, Stephen O'Doherty, said: "It was a very thorough process in which the Board of Studies conducted its own inquiries and came to its own conclusions based on empirical evidence, and it is very pleasing that they confirmed the findings that our registration system made."

The original complaint was made by the former president of the Secondary Principals Council, Chris Bonnor. He raised his concerns after he viewed a sample of how science was taught at Pacific Hills on an SBS television program. He said he was not satisfied with the outcome of the board inquiry.

"Notwithstanding the extent to which that lesson may or may not be typical of science teaching at the school, I remain concerned that the Board of Studies has not commented on the appropriateness of advice given to students by the teacher in that science lesson. I still want to know whether it is appropriate for a science teacher to exhort his or her students to consider what God's revelation through his scripture shows you, so that you can come to some clear understanding about your view of evolution."

The NSW Greens MP John Kaye said the board's ruling set a dangerous precedent that had "opened the floodgates to a religious invasion of the curriculum". The board had failed in its duty to protect the integrity of the science curriculum, he said.

"Every fundamentalist private school in NSW will be emboldened by this decision."

In response, the board said its position on teaching evolution as evidence-based science had not changed and it was satisfied Pacific Hills had complied with its curriculum requirement.

The board spokeswoman said: "Parents are entitled to choose schools for their children that support their own beliefs. However, it has been repeatedly made clear to faith-based and other schools that creationism is not part of the mandatory science curriculum, cannot take the place of any part of the mandatory science curriculum, and will not be assessed in the mandatory School Certificate science test."

Mr O'Doherty said Mr Bonnor had misquoted the Pacific Hills science teacher, and Dr Kaye's comments amounted to vilification.

Ayla

09-12-2008, 01:27 PM

:bumbler

Burra

09-12-2008, 03:52 PM

In their favour, they were teaching it *in addition* to the curriculum, not instead of any parts of it. I have to admit, I don't think I'd like to be restricted to teaching only what was on the curriculum.

creationism is not part of the mandatory science curriculum, cannot take the place of any part of the mandatory science curriculum, and will not be assessed in the mandatory School Certificate science test

Janet

09-12-2008, 04:00 PM

~*heket*~

09-12-2008, 04:42 PM

The board spokeswoman said: "Parents are entitled to choose schools for their children that support their own beliefs. However, it has been repeatedly made clear to faith-based and other schools that creationism is not part of the mandatory science curriculum, cannot take the place of any part of the mandatory science curriculum, and will not be assessed in the mandatory School Certificate science test."

Very VERY ALARMING! So what if a few bits of paper claim to teach evolution, the paper can say whatever they print on it, however class discussion may well be steered in the direction of "creation". The question is not whether or not this will be TESTED in the school cert, but whether or not this can be taught in SCIENCE classes. last time I checked, creation wasn't based in a single scientific principle. Fine, teach it in religious classes, but FFS, leave it the hell out of science labs!

breeze

09-12-2008, 06:05 PM

How they teach the actual science part though is also up for discussion. I too have seen head teachers from that variety of school interviewed and they teach creationism first and foremost, as fact, and teach a little about evolution while constantly undermining it. It's just appalling. What are they going to tell lies about next and be supported by the state so to do?

I guess that's why they have christian schools, freedom of speech, religious freedom etc, etc.
Restrictions cant be placed on people and the schools they choose to send their children too if it is inline with the law, just because it isn't common belief/fact

Beatrice

09-12-2008, 08:03 PM

It's fucked up because, by undermining real science education in giving creationism/intelligent design equal weighting, kids are being majorly disadvantaged for later life, through no fault of their own. Once you get out of the ghetto of sectarian education there are no (credible) institutions of higher learning that accept creationism/intelligent design. These kids are being indoctrinated with anti-scientific beliefs which actually prevent them from full intellectual participation in a modern society. I don't think we can write that off as an issue of "free speech".

Izzát

09-12-2008, 08:31 PM

I will have my head bitten off for saying this, but isn't it just your belief that our true nature isn't from spiritual design? So although you may have a logical reasoning to this belief how do you truly know that there is no creation and only evolution, and if you believed in creation wouldn't that be what you taught your children in conjuction with and in balance with science?

ETA i thought about deleting this i dont want to appear that i am debating just adding to the pool of wisdom

Beatrice

09-12-2008, 09:05 PM

Beatrice

09-12-2008, 09:43 PM

Or to put it another way, I can (and do) talk to my kids about my spiritual beliefs, but I can't tell them that my beliefs are facts, because they aren't. They are conclusions which are personally meaningful to me and which I have arrived at as a result of life experiences, which is a different way of "knowing", not one which is subject to empirical testing. But I can (and do) talk to my kids about evolution as a factual account of life's origins, and discuss the evidence to support my contentions, because unlike my beliefs, the evidence *is* subject to empirical testing and challenge. If I tried to use my spiritual beliefs as evidence to support my claims about life's origins, that's where it departs from science, and that is what I object to anyone doing (whatever their beliefs).

Burra

09-12-2008, 10:22 PM

Belief is a very powerful thing. Personally, I am an atheist, despite my mother's best attempts to teach me to the contrary. But don't you all think that she had the right to teach me what she believed to be correct?

Janet

09-12-2008, 10:35 PM

Yes she had the right to offer you, her child, in your home, what she thought was important. That right does not extend beyond our immediate families, as far as I'm concerned.

Burra

10-12-2008, 12:44 AM

But surely parents have a right to choose how their children are educated, even if they don't want to do that educating themselves?

Izzát

10-12-2008, 06:15 AM

It's not just "my belief" which convinces me, it's 150 years of evidence. You can't teach creation "in balance" with science because it is faith-based not evidence-based. If logic and evidence is not admissible as proof then how can one possibly say one can "truly know" anything?

Religion and science both need to go together to balance each other, one without the other is incomplete.

We have advances in science now that can clone, manipultate cells, we can grow bodily organs outside the body - these are marvellous reflections of the intelligence humans have now become. Without religion to balance out how to use these new skills and ideas what disastrious consequences science can do.

We have a balanced education of science and religion in our home. We see the beauty of God's creation everytime we look at a bug, the stars,
the sunset, the minerals in the earth.

I use the nature around us to help give cemented examples of spiritual truths - throwing a pebble in a pond watching the ripple effect to illustrate how one little person can make a difference in the world.

The words religion and God and creation have such heavy conototions and prejudice - And in some cases rightly so, the religions of the past are out of date their practices do not fit in our society anymore, there is inequality because the Bible, Koran etc are now left in the hands of men to interpret and pull a part and put in what ever suits them. There is so much contention within any one religion the purest teachings are no longer visible. Stories re told in light of miracles are ridiculous, too incredible to believe and there interpretations of them only continue to propogate the mistrust most feel. Creation has been taught in conflict with evolution which is so bizarre, i dont even know what to say about that. And i guess i dont need too, you see the incredibulous.

To believe that there is one God (an unknowable unimaginnable essence) does not mean to tear away the proofs of science. Science is the tool we have been given to investigate, explore, test and learn about this world - they go hand in hand.

Religion needs to balanced, and science needs to be in balanced, then we can use them together. I cannot say whether the OP was in a balanced teaching atmosphere i am gathering it wasn't but that is no indication that it can not be.

Beatrice

10-12-2008, 07:13 AM

But. Not. In. Science. Class.

If you're trying to teach creation in science class, you're saying "This is the scientific method, it is a powerful tool for exploring the world and how it works, although you don't have to pay any attention to it in biology because, well, we have this 2000 year old book..."

Izzát

10-12-2008, 08:50 AM

If you're trying to teach creation in science class, you're saying "This is the scientific method, it is a powerful tool for exploring the world and how it works, although you don't have to pay any attention to it in biology because, well, we have this 2000 year old book..."

I don't understand what that meant.

Evolution is a theory. A theory. It has come about from the visiable and measurable tangible physcial reality. There is not debate about its existenc. Evolution of species, humanity, our bodies, our thoughts, our scientific and technological advances are here, we can see them we cannot deny them they are real part of our life and existence.

To beleive in creation does not in any way disregard the tangible proofs of our physicality being (as in a unique indiviudal) our existence (as in the individual collective) or the earth (as in our nature and discoveries of the world around)

My understanding is creation and evolution would be taught in the one unit study therefore it is a part of science. Of course if your ideas is that religion is a philosophical ideal rather than anything that is proven or that God exist, then i think i understand now why creation then would not be a part of science - because science is the study of measurable facts.

Is that what you meant?

If so, if your reasoning and logic and the proofs of science conclude to you that creation is not based on measurable proof, can you accept that others have a measurable proof that creation is a conclusion within their understanding and reasoning and logic?

And you may not understand why - we tend to try and understand spiritual ideals or concept through our physical sences, we need to see it, feel it touch it taste it proove it test it measure it... thats just a way we interpret the world around us. The thing is sprituality can not be measured you can not see it or taste it you experience it.

We can not test a woman and mothers intuition, we can not see it or measure i can not show you mine and you cant show me yours. Yet it exists and we experience it, we feel it, we sence it, we can see the results when we put faith in it. No one else can understand our experience and faith in our intuition unless they too experience it within themselves. The existence of God is very much like that.

Beatrice

10-12-2008, 08:59 AM

Yes, precisely. Religion is not using the same basis for understanding the world, therefore if it is going to be taught it should be completely separate from science. The fundamental basis for religion (faith) and science (evidence) are totally incompatible. If people want to teach the Christian creation story (or any other) then fine, but it should not be taught on the same basis as evolution because there is no evidence for creation, you can only take it on faith, and faith is not science.

Izzát

10-12-2008, 09:14 AM

I agree. Faith is not science.

jikki

10-12-2008, 09:40 AM

I thought that was some some evidence that supported creationism as a valid possibility? There's a magazine dedicated to that, I believe.

I studied the scientific method at uni - hypothesis, experimentation and emperical evidence, and I've seen for myself how easy it is to make the evidence say what you want it to say, and to leave out of your study the little bits that contradicted your results.

That explains to me why there is so much conflicting evidence in our society today, in all arenas. Just look at the field of health and nutrition! Evidence changes from day to day, and so much of it conflicts itself.

I guess then that what I'm trying to say, is that I don't have a problem with people choosing which they believe, or even which they want to learn. Each side has its own evidence to present. The very nature of science is to start with a hypothesis and then set about to prove or disprove it - naturally each side is trying to prove their own! We often discussed whether that stance was beneficial to science, or whether it should be more 'blank slate' and go where the evidence leads.

By the way, I was bought up on creationism (quite strictly), and I don't see myself as disadvantaged in any way! I managed to get a degree in psychology, and was more than capable in my studies of humanism, buddhism, hinduism, self-knowledge etc, and I certainly didn't keel over and faint during our heated arguments on faith!

I don't think learning creationism is going to do anyone any harm...it's certainly not disadvantaging them!

I thought homeschoolers, if anyone, would support a person's right to choose their own learning format and content!! And what a bonus for schoolers to be able to make some limited choices in that regard too.

Janet

10-12-2008, 12:54 PM

I don't support the teaching of myths as fact. How would xtians like it if other worldviews were being taught as fact? Whose creation myth should we choose? There are some really groovy ones out there from every society in the world, from every period in history. Why privilege a xtian worldview over all those and say that it somehow measures up to science?

Science is not mythical. Faith is a choice.

Beatrice

10-12-2008, 01:16 PM

I thought that was some some evidence that supported creationism as a valid possibility? There's a magazine dedicated to that, I believe.

I could publish a magazine devoted to proving that the universe was the work of the invisible purple unicorn or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and if I were choosing to publish it myself so I could avoid the peer review process it would have as much scientific validity...

I thought homeschoolers, if anyone, would support a person's right to choose their own learning format and content!! And what a bonus for schoolers to be able to make some limited choices in that regard too.

The position I have arrived at is that, however much I disagree with them, the freedom I have to pursue my own homeschooling philosophy rests on the same foundation as the freedom that fundies have to bring their kids up as young earth creationists. I'm sure there are plenty of people who think that unschooling is as educationally irresponsible as teaching creationism. But when a school is taking public money then it should be held up to the same standards as non-sectarian schools when it comes to such an absolutely fundamental part of scientific knowledge.

jikki

10-12-2008, 05:29 PM

I was under the impression that the schools are held up to the same standard - to "teach the science syllabus, including evolution". The finding as far as I can read is that the school fulfilled that obligation, and evolutionary theory was in fact presented to students as required, along with the school's favoured alternative theory of creation.

Isn't it an advantage to encourage children to explore alternative theories freely, debate them, and come to their own thought out conclusions? Certainly we don't lead them up the garden path with ridiculous false-hoods, but creationism is certainly not something that some looney under a bridge dreamed up and started his own little self-published conspiracy newsletter about (apologies to bridge-dwellers, I have shamelessly indulged in stereotyping). It is accepted by many, many people around the world. A Gallup pole of US citizens in 1997 showed that 5% of scientists believed in creation, 40% in theistic evolution (evolution guided by God) and 55% in naturalistic evolution (no deity involvement). So nearly half of the scientists questioned felt there was grounds for a God in there somewhere! The figures for members of the general public were 44%, 39% & 10% respectively. And a 2006 CBS poll showed results for the general public of 55%, 27% and 13% for the same categories (geez, I love google!! :lol)

I'm not presenting these figures to convince anyone of creationism's validity (ha :blueroll), merely to point out that creationism has quite a stong following, and therefore I don't find it ridiculous that it should be allowed to be presented in a school if that school so chooses.

That's my bit, and I'm out....peace to all! :grouphug

Beatrice

10-12-2008, 06:01 PM

If there is an alternative scientific theory, sure. My point (all along) is that creationism is not scientific and has no place in a science class. Whether it is explored elsewhere is not the issue.

For some light relief, this is what my husband had to say on the subject of equal time for competing theories, BTW:

In fairness, evolution and creationism deserve equal time in science classes.

This is, in fact, true. Estimates show that creationism has been taught in European schools, monasteries and communities for approximately one thousand, eight hundred and fifty of the last two thousand years, which is why Evolutionists are now demanding that no further Creationist classes be taught until Thursday, 15 July 3642 AD, after which a strict "equal time" requirement will be imposed.

jikki

10-12-2008, 06:28 PM

:rofl

~*heket*~

10-12-2008, 07:01 PM

We have advances in science now that can clone, manipultate cells, we can grow bodily organs outside the body - these are marvellous reflections of the intelligence humans have now become. Without religion to balance out how to use these new skills and ideas what disastrious consequences science can do.

That's why we have ethics and ethicists ;) Religion isn't really helpful in this type of debate.

I don't think learning creationism is going to do anyone any harm...it's certainly not disadvantaging them!

Where is THE SCIENCE that supports creationism???? There is NOTHING other than some fundy xtians to support it. FINE teach this as a threoy - as evolution is taught to be! - but since the support for this idea is IN THE BIBLE, teach it in RELIGIOUS CLASSES, NOT SCIENCE CLASSES. When will the bible be introduced as a mathematics tool, or in social studies classes or as a FACTUAL instruction on history ... as in to proove that nothing happened before the year 0? The bible is a religious text, not an all encompassing educational tool. The Koran is used like that, it's certainly not doing much good in the communities with Madrassa's.

Janet

10-12-2008, 07:37 PM

Creationism is the creation myth of one society. Teach it in religious class, philosophy, comparative religion, ancient history, whatever. Tain't science. :lol

Burra

10-12-2008, 10:14 PM

How would christians like it if other worldviews were being taught as fact?

Well, if it was taught at a christian school, then they would have serious cause for complaint. If you choose to send your child to such a school, they they would be failing in their duty if they did not teach creation. If however creation was taught as fact in a secular school, then that needs stamping out.

None of us has the right to dictate how other people should educate their children, or what information should be given what label.

bella

10-12-2008, 11:09 PM

Izzát

10-12-2008, 11:27 PM

Bella - from what i have understood from our hairyy loving feminists, is not the debate that creation was taught but that it was taught in science.

We may see it differently, understand it differently, have a different expectation on where the knowledge of science comes from, and have a better relationship and connection to what creation is all about.

In the spirit of unity, it is always better to find the common ground in each others view points rather than push our own view point across...

Everyone is pretty much saying the same thing just from a different standpoint

I do enjoy exploring others ideas and reasoning though...

Janet

11-12-2008, 08:02 AM

Janet

11-12-2008, 08:06 AM

I see your point, Janet, but it's a Christian school. If I sent my kids to a Christian school I'd fully expect that they'd be learning creation over evolution. If I didn't agree with that, I'd teach alternatives at home.

Then you don't really see the point being made in this thread. Just because you have a particular bias of faith doesn't mean you get to lie to children and deny them the right to access knowledge. You also don't get to take government money and not teach the curriculum which is, thankfully, secular rather than based around myth. Let's teach Santa is true, hey? How about the Tooth Fairy? Let's call it Science.

Sarasvati

11-12-2008, 08:28 AM

If I sent my child to a christian school, paying good money (over my dead body, but I digress) I would assume they were being taught SCIENCE in science classes, not religion. Evolution is able to be scientifically proved, creationism not.

I saw that Insight episode and it's clear that creationism is taught as the superior belief, with evolution an amusing aside. "We evolved from APES? How insulting and laughable". How sad it is that humans need to constantly justify their superiority over the natural world. We're part of it, we evolved from it. Holding ourselves as higher is what has caused the mess we find ourselves in now.

Quickening

11-12-2008, 08:37 AM

Science - The investigation of natural phenomena through observation, theoretical explanation, and experimentation, or the knowledge produced by such investigation. Science makes use of the scientific method, which includes the careful observation of natural phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis, the conducting of one or more experiments to test the hypothesis, and the drawing of a conclusion that confirms or modifies the hypothesis.

Science deals with proving facts, and factual knowledge - with certainities.

Belief - The acceptance of a fact, opinion, or assertion as real or true, without immediate personal knowledge; reliance upon word or testimony; partial or full assurance without positive knowledge or absolute certainty; persuasion; conviction; confidence; as, belief of a witness; the belief of our senses.

Religious knowledge and theory aren't facts, they're beliefs. And they belong in religious study, not science class. Education should be strictly secular as religion is a personal thing to do with personal beliefs. If a family is religious, it can be taught at home or in religious study within religious schools.

I look at history where our education, government and law were heavily enmeshed with Christian religious beliefs and it disgusts me to see how many were tortured and slaughtered (most were women!). Even today some facets of Christian religious beliefs are still enmeshed with certain laws in our society. I bet you anything every single Christian would be incensed to be forced to abide by laws that were enmeshed with "heathen" religious beliefs, and just as disgusted to be tortured and killed on the basis of those beliefs. I bet you anything they'd be kicking up a bloody big fuss if schools started teaching those religious beliefs as science and fact.

Btw God didn't create us or Earth. It was alien mice who put in an order for Earth to be made as a science experiment to find the ANSWER. They even have a planetwide loudspeaker - behold the great voice of the heavens! :rofl

Beatrice

11-12-2008, 08:56 AM

Actually, I'm not wearing my "hairy feminist" hat today, this is my "Godless evilutionist" one.

Sarasvati

11-12-2008, 09:01 AM

I just wanted to address the "science can be manipulated" argument...

Yes it can. In new fields science can be highly problematic. Experiments can be tweaked and researchers can usually find what they want (not all do though, but researchers are only human). In fields as old as evolution though, the experiments have been done over and over, the instruments used for determining age are more and more precise. The arguments between scientists are about chronology, and which humanoid came where, not that evolution is right. The majority of scientists believe in evolution. And remember there are different strands of sciences, but I would assume most biologists, archaeologists, zoologists etc believe in evolution. There's not debate amongst those fields over evolution vs creation, it's debate about whether the latest archaeological finding is 30000 years old or 40000 years old. That sort of thing. Science is not perfect, but in the older areas it's hard to argue with the gross evidence.

Ceres

11-12-2008, 10:01 AM

Everything I wanted to say has already been said so I'll just my voice to the choir and say that christian schools should feel free to teach creationism in religion classes, but it has no place in science at all.

Ayla

11-12-2008, 10:24 AM

Adding my voice to the chorus too. And I'm not shamed by the comment "hairy loving feminist" either, in case that was meant to be an insult N.

Izzát

11-12-2008, 02:22 PM

I beg your pardon? "Hairy loving feminists"? What's that supposed to mean?

How is that finding common ground to label in a derogatory way the members with whose viewpoint you do not concur?

How about you stick to trying to prove that creationism is Science and lay off insulting other members?

All that is so far off the mark. I will apologies it was not meant to insult i was saying it in a tongue and cheek manner, forgive me if that wss insulting to you.

I dont understand how me wanting seeking to understand someones point of view and then being able to see where we agreed on, how is that derogatory? In the dialogue that i had with Beatrice i understood where she was coming from, ummm how is that derogatory?

We dont need to proove to you or anyone that creation exists. You will never be satisfied with anyones explanation or reasoning as to how we whole hearteedly trust that God exist. Because that is what the arguement is all about it is not about creation v's evulotion.
Creation = God, Evolution = science.

The core is, you want us to proove that God exist. No one can proove that to you or anyone esle, if you want your own proof then that is your journey to or not to seek that out.

Ayla

11-12-2008, 02:31 PM

N, Janet was saying that it's derogatory to call the women here "hairy loving feminists" not that disagreeing with Beatrice was. You say you didn't mean it as derogatory, I'll accept that because I know you and it did sound out of character, though I was a bit surprised, I'm not sure how you meant it?

We're not wanting you to prove that god exists, we're saying that belief in the supernatural is not science. As you said, "Creation = God, Evolution = science" ergo creationsim/ID shouldn't be taught in science class. This is the stance that Janet, Beatrice, Anastasia, myself, et al have maintained all along.

Beatrice

11-12-2008, 02:55 PM

We dont need to proove to you or anyone that creation exists. You will never be satisfied with anyones explanation or reasoning as to how we whole hearteedly trust that God exist. Because that is what the arguement is all about it is not about creation v's evulotion.
Creation = God, Evolution = science.

Well actually, the argument I'm trying to have is about whether or not creation should be taught in science class, as per the original article. If you can't prove to me that something exists then it has no place in science, it's metaphysics and should be debated as such. I personally hold some beliefs about the universe that I can't prove, and I'm quite happy to hold them based on my personal experience, but I'm not trying to convince anyone else, even my children, that they are "true". It seems feasible to me that there are things about the universe that we don't have the capacity to measure, but that's not science. If you admit that you cannot provide proof of something, it is not science. Whether you personally believe it to be true is not at issue. What this thread was about was a school science class including unscientific material into the curriculum and using it to degrade and dismiss the actual science.

The core is, you want us to proove that God exist. No one can proove that to you or anyone esle, if you want your own proof then that is your journey to or not to seek that out.

Nope, I don't want anyone to "prove" God exists. I just want people to stop thinking that it is acceptable to include something which cannot be proven in a discipline which is based on proof.

Ayla

11-12-2008, 03:02 PM

Yep, IAW Beatrice. I too have personal beliefs, but I have no proof, and ergo is not something I would ever convey as fact. It's my personal experience and my child(ren) will have a choice to believe or not based on their own personal experiences/beliefs.

Izzát

11-12-2008, 04:36 PM

Of course if your ideas is that religion is a philosophical ideal rather than anything that is proven or that God exist, then i think i understand now why creation then would not be a part of science - because science is the study of measurable facts.

Is that what you meant?

I know what you are saying. I have not argued the point since.

The idea of sharing ideas is to put forth ideas without fear or attachment. I can understand and reflect back to you your view point, and i can agree and understand your reasoning without having to beleive it myself.

Am i understood?

Izzát

11-12-2008, 05:02 PM

And thinking that J thought my comment was deragotory, i do apoligise, coming from JB an knowing that that smililar expression is used i didn't think twice about it if i used it.

Sarasvati

11-12-2008, 05:52 PM

It was the way you used it. The term itself isn't insulting, it is the way it gets used to put feminists down. It came across quite badly, which, like Ayla, surprised me coming from you.

Izzát

11-12-2008, 06:44 PM

I did say it to make a distinction between different party of opinion but as i support feminism there is no chance it was to put any one down. And like you both said you know me. You know thats not how i communicate to anyone.

bella

11-12-2008, 11:00 PM

Hmmm, I posted again last night to say that I had missed a couple of pages of posts (hence my simple statement in my 1st post) but the 2nd post vanished.

Asrathiel

12-12-2008, 07:32 PM

Btw God didn't create us or Earth. It was alien mice who put in an order for Earth to be made as a science experiment to find the ANSWER. They even have a planetwide loudspeaker - behold the great voice of the heavens! :rofl

No, no, it was created to find the QUESTION! They already had the answer- 42 :)
La la la...

Burra

12-12-2008, 11:09 PM

But when a school is taking public money then it should be held up to the same standards as non-sectarian schools when it comes to such an absolutely fundamental part of scientific knowledge.

Ah - I didn't know about that! I really don't think that schools who want to teach creation as science should be publicly funded. If the parents want to fund such things, that's up to them.

And as for hairy loving feminists, I'm not sure what they are but I think I might want to be one if anyone cares to explain. I didn't realise I was pagan until I read a definition, either. Shame really, it took so long to figure out what I believed in, would have been easier if I realised there were so many others who thought the same. I was 42 before I figuired it out...

Janet

13-12-2008, 09:05 AM

It would seem a good reason to take away public funding and tax exempt status. Unfortunately the privilege according to xtianity in our society makes that unlikely to occur. Religious schools are also exempt from anti-discrimination law thus allowed to discriminate against gay and lesbian teachers or teachers/staff who don't believe in the same stuff as them. Ugly all round, really.

Ayla

13-12-2008, 12:23 PM

Religious schools are also exempt from anti-discrimination law

Are you fucking serious? What, so you can proclaim to have a religion that does [insert feral disgusting ILLEGAL thing] and be above the law? That's bullshit :mad

Janet

13-12-2008, 05:34 PM

Churches are exempt too. Not that religious institutions are favoured in this supposedly secular state, or anything. :coffee

Burra

13-12-2008, 09:26 PM

There seems to be huge misconception on the nature of science here.

Science is not 'based on proof'. It's based on the best current hypotheses. An idea is put forward and tested. No theory is ever (well, almost ever) proved right - it isn't really possible. They can only be proved wrong in some way. Finding out how they are wrong leads to another theory being put forward, hopefully a step close in the right direction, but often just a step in another direction completely. Evolution is still only a theory, though in my opinion a very very strong one. The big bang isn't the only theory concerning the origin of the universe, it might just be a big hypersphere dropping through our limited dimensions like ball dropping through the surface of a lake, starting as a pinpoint, expanding to a maximum and then shrinking again. String theory and quantum mechanics are certainly not proven, iin fact they are not much more than just ideas. If a better idea comes along or someone can disprove one of the old ones, things move on.

Science is based on disproof, not proof, and creation has not been disproved, no matter what you believe in.

Beatrice

13-12-2008, 10:04 PM

The problem is that creationism doesn't offer any explanation which *can* be disproved. Saying "God did it" is not a testable hypothesis :lol

Sarasvati

14-12-2008, 07:35 AM

Exactly, you can't recreate creation. You can't outline xyz methodology. And yes some things are able to be proven, through science.

Beatrice

14-12-2008, 07:51 AM

The comparison with string theory is a good example to look at. Whoever came up with the idea wasn't sitting in his office contemplating a bowl of spaghetti and meatballs and suddenly shouting, "Eureka! I've got it! The world was obviously created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the fundamental level of matter is like strings of spaghetti!" (although you'd have to say that the idea is at least suggestive ;)). The hypothesis is a mathematical construct which is available for other physicists to look at and try to rip to shreds. Evolution is a hypothesis which has been out there for 150 years and in that time nobody has been able to demonstrate that it's false. Which isn't to say that a theory is set in stone, of course - Newtonian gravitation had been around a fair bit longer than evolution by natural selection when Einstein expanded and clarified it, and Darwin's original hypothesis has also been refined over the years - but Newtonian gravitation is testable. "God made the planet sticky so we wouldn't fall off" is not :)

You can't argue that something is real based solely on a lack of disproof. Try refuting the existence of the invisible pink unicorn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn) ;)