teach science, not faith

Were I a religious man, I might be tempted to believe one of these "End is nigh" cults that seem to pop up out of the woodwork and hang around until the due date has been and gone. Certainly the world is getting madder by the day and my already pitiful attempts at comprehension are being stretched further.

I am quite happy for people to have religion; many of my friends agree to disagree with me on the subject and we get along fine. Now however, some members of the Royal Society are suggesting that creationism should be taught in science classes. They say that it is counter productive to teach pupils something that dismisses a belief in the literal account of the scriptures.

Well, quite apart from how true it is that children believe anything that doesn't already reflect their parents' thoughts, which itself is debateable; "Creationism" clearly has no part in a science class. I find myself agreeing with the government view on this, and that in itself is enough to make me break out in a cold sweat. Creationism, if it is taught at all, should be included in religious education. Religious education itself should consist of a discussion of the world's religions and a comparative analysis of their beliefs. It should not seek to push one over the other and ideally, would be taught as part of a course on anthropology.

Creationism may, or may not, be a 'legitimate world view' but it's NOT science and should not be treated as such. It is a religious point of view, plain and simple. If a church wishes to preach it and people wish to listen and believe, fine. That's what church is for. That's what Sunday School is for.

If religious dogma is to be taught as hard science, then I want the Tooth Fairy, Father Christmas and the March Hare included.

People are allowed to believe what they want; but everything in its place. Creationism is not science, it is faith.

teach science, not faith

Were I a religious man, I might be tempted to believe one of these "End is nigh" cults that seem to pop up out of the woodwork and hang around until the due date has been and gone. Certainly the world is getting madder by the day and my already pitiful attempts at comprehension are being stretched further.

I am quite happy for people to have religion; many of my friends agree to disagree with me on the subject and we get along fine. Now however, some members of the Royal Society are suggesting that creationism should be taught in science classes. They say that it is counter productive to teach pupils something that dismisses a belief in the literal account of the scriptures.

Well, quite apart from how true it is that children believe anything that doesn't already reflect their parents' thoughts, which itself is debateable; "Creationism" clearly has no part in a science class. I find myself agreeing with the government view on this, and that in itself is enough to make me break out in a cold sweat. Creationism, if it is taught at all, should be included in religious education. Religious education itself should consist of a discussion of the world's religions and a comparative analysis of their beliefs. It should not seek to push one over the other and ideally, would be taught as part of a course on anthropology.

Creationism may, or may not, be a 'legitimate world view' but it's NOT science and should not be treated as such. It is a religious point of view, plain and simple. If a church wishes to preach it and people wish to listen and believe, fine. That's what church is for. That's what Sunday School is for.

If religious dogma is to be taught as hard science, then I want the Tooth Fairy, Father Christmas and the March Hare included.

People are allowed to believe what they want; but everything in its place. Creationism is not science, it is faith.

Happy birthday!

To jfs, unless I'm very much mistaken and his LJ is out of date!

Have a good one, Squire.

Happy birthday!

To jfs, unless I'm very much mistaken and his LJ is out of date!

Have a good one, Squire.

Jiggers!

I have just amazed and appalled myself in equal measure by writing a definition so cynical on such an emotive topic, that I suspect that a significant proportion of my friends list would implode (or explode) if I posted it it up.

I am quite proud of myself, but I don't have the moral fortitude to publish it.

Jiggers!

I have just amazed and appalled myself in equal measure by writing a definition so cynical on such an emotive topic, that I suspect that a significant proportion of my friends list would implode (or explode) if I posted it it up.

I am quite proud of myself, but I don't have the moral fortitude to publish it.