The elephant in the room.

All are welcome to this forum, which is for debating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. This forum can be boisterous, and you should not participate if easily offended.

Moderator: Moderators

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby cathy » Thu Dec 01, 2011 3:04 pm

I can't help but suspect that in some cases it may be grandstanding for politico-cultural reasons rather strait up religious conviction - Islamic fundamentalist ideological chic if you will. Though clearly there is healthy dose of the creationist 'evolution is random' strawman.

I can't help thinking that as well. I'm suspicious about how religious some radical Islam is and how political and I can't help thinking the latter. Particularly when you see previously non burha wearing groups suddenly opting for it. Given muslim students have never really had any issues previously as far as I'm aware. Oldest childs biology teacher is a muslim and is very hot on evolution.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby Roger Stanyard » Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:04 pm

Robert Byers wrote:
hey. Your just making accusations against me.
I didn't say anything racist .
Your saying opinions will be censored under the power to accuse of racism.
I feel I said the truth and spot on.
I think its up to you to demonstrate what was morally or intellectually wrong or against form.
It is common knowledge the left wing wants and needs to censor criticisms.
Case in point here.

i am a foreigner, Canadian, but its the right of all men to speak the truth including on issues of identity.
i wasn't attacking the muslims but was supporting their offended opinions.
Yes ethnic peoples who Muslim have a power in Great Britain that in this case gives them more protection from criticism about acting on their faith.
if Christians had done what they did it would not be so respected even while opposed.
Your doing me wrong with your accusation. i know your bosses but better analysis can be asked.
Controlling or censoring opinions is a trait of evolutionists as many threads here indicate.
Most people do not agree with censorship of ideas and conclusions.
North America is historically more free but Britain is free a great deal also.
Articulate what was racist or borderline!!!
It seems like your saying anything in anyway a negative reflection on a people is not legal.
In a free nation it is.
Sincere opinions always must be allowed if one is presenting to the public freedom of thought/speech.
Posters here seem free to accuse my motives and character.
Its a two way street.
And again I didn't say anything wrong unless its racist to oppose any or all immigration of foreigners.
Immigration is a gift of the people and not a right.
Anyways my point is freedom of speech is what most people find reasonable.
Everyone knows when malicious words have been said.
I didn't .
End od my defence.



You really are a pilloch Byers.

You do not have the right to say what you want in this forum because you don't own it. It's owned by the BCSE and we decide what can or can't be posted here.

Any who holds a British passport or is married to someone who is a British citizen or is a citizen of one of the 26 other European Union nation states has the right to come to the UK and live here. Just as I have such rights with other nation states.

None of this has anything to do with "left wing" views or politics. Some here are conservative, some are not. Shrug.

Your problem is that you are a famous world class numpty who thinks that his opinions are just as good or valid as everyone else's. They are not: because you never listen, never learn and never understand. Because you can't.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby Luke Tyler » Thu Dec 01, 2011 9:23 pm

Robert Byers wrote:First biology has nothing to do with evolution. its just invoked . One can have all the biological knowledge in the world without any evolutionary concepts.
Evolution class should be a elective.


Robert, even if you disagree with evolution, surely it still remains a biological issue - as you need to understand the mechanisms of how meiosis leads to chromosome replication and the DNA may be incorrectly matched, and hence how this leads to mutation. Whether or not this leads to evolution is definitely a biological question, Robert.
And "Evolution class should be elective"? I think that at the most, a third of the population might feel sympathetic to creationism, but that is very conservative. Sadly for you Robert, you would lose resoundingly.
Luke Tyler
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:58 pm
Location: Cheshire, England

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby jon_12091 » Thu Dec 01, 2011 11:01 pm

Robert Byers wrote:It seems like your saying anything in anyway a negative reflection on a people is not legal.

There are some fairly stringent laws regarding what can and can not be said in the UK - I'm sure if ask on some the other creationist forums you use the UK members will fill you in on all their gripes in a somewhat hypocritical manner as the same laws that stop them saying things also protect them.

The UK also has some fairly draconian libel laws and we've accused creationists of pretty much every form of dishonesty they could sue for slander I'm sure Ham has the money.
'If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists'
Miners against fascism.
Hywel Francis
User avatar
jon_12091
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby Michael » Thu Dec 01, 2011 11:10 pm

jon_12091 wrote:
Robert Byers wrote:It seems like your saying anything in anyway a negative reflection on a people is not legal.

There are some fairly stringent laws regarding what can and can not be said in the UK - I'm sure if ask on some the other creationist forums you use the UK members will fill you in on all their gripes in a somewhat hypocritical manner as the same laws that stop them saying things also protect them.

The UK also has some fairly draconian libel laws and we've accused creationists of pretty much every form of dishonesty they could sue for slander I'm sure Ham has the money.



Why don't they sue then?
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby Luke Tyler » Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:46 am

You can't sue for libel if the accusations are demonstrably true!
Luke Tyler
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:58 pm
Location: Cheshire, England

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby Michael » Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:57 am

Luke Tyler wrote:You can't sue for libel if the accusations are demonstrably true!



Luke,

You have opened an enormous can of worms !!!!
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby Dagsannr » Fri Dec 02, 2011 9:04 am

jon_12091 wrote:The UK also has some fairly draconian libel laws and we've accused creationists of pretty much every form of dishonesty they could sue for slander I'm sure Ham has the money.


If I recall correctly, and don't quote me on this (or I'll sue you! :wink: ) organisations and the like cannot be sued for libel over comments left on their websites. I have recollections of somone attempting to sure for something like that and was told that as the site is essentially anonymous, and considered a public forum, anything said there is largely free from the threat legal action.

But I might be wrong.

Besides, a creationist would be mad to try and bring it into the courts in the UK. People, depending on their outlook, could use the case as an attempt to rule on not only the legality of the comment, but the legal status of creationism, the authenticity of the bible and even the legally defined existence of the supernatural. Given that the existence of a god could never be proven in court, it would essentially expose creationists as pedalling unprovable assumptions.
There are 2 types of people in the world:

Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
Dagsannr
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:57 pm
Location: Carlisle

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby Roger Stanyard » Fri Dec 02, 2011 10:20 am

Natman wrote:Besides, a creationist would be mad to try and bring it into the courts in the UK. People, depending on their outlook, could use the case as an attempt to rule on not only the legality of the comment, but the legal status of creationism, the authenticity of the bible and even the legally defined existence of the supernatural. Given that the existence of a god could never be proven in court, it would essentially expose creationists as pedalling unprovable assumptions.



Well, the creationists track record in the courts is that they always lose, without exception. See Dover and all the other cases.

I don't think anyone would be trembling in their boots faced with the Thomas Moore Law Center.

The whole creationist/ID movement is built on deception which the courts are very adept at exposing.

Still it wouldn't surprise me if C4ID is angling to get into the British courts given its close association with the Disco Kids and that it appears to be stuffed full of extremely well connected lawyers (Langlois and Mackay, for example) . Getting ID into the classroom in the UK would give the Disco Kids powerful ammunition for going back to the courts (especially the Supreme Court) in the USA.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby Dagsannr » Fri Dec 02, 2011 11:52 am

Roger Stanyard wrote:Getting ID into the classroom in the UK would give the Disco Kids powerful ammunition for going back to the courts (especially the Supreme Court) in the USA.


Fortunately, the exclusion of ID in classrooms in the UK isn't based upon the interpretation of a written constitution forbidding the establishment of religion by government. As you know, the court cases in the USA were a failed attempt by the ID movement to rule that their ideas weren't religious but represented genuine scientific thinking. They needed to break the link between ID and creationism to have it allowed to be taught in schools. They weren't able to do this in the USA.

In the UK there is no such law preventing the preaching of religion in schools (the opposite infact, given kids are required to have collective worship), so technically there is no seperation issues. However, we have the advantage in that cirriculum topics are not decided by elected officials with a religious vote-base to appease, but rather educational experts who listen to scientists.

Until scientists are convinced that ID is science (never gonna happen) then ID will never get the legitimacy it craves, court cases or not. Going to court to get ID is classrooms would never work in the UK as the courts have no say in the matter.

I can't decide if the way we have it is better (as a lost court case could have massive implications) or worse (there's no legal fall-back to prevent ID in schools, merely a scientific one).
There are 2 types of people in the world:

Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
Dagsannr
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:57 pm
Location: Carlisle

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby Michael » Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:01 pm

What do you do about ID and YEC being taught in schools today?
Michael
 
Posts: 2786
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Lancaster

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby Roger Stanyard » Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:19 pm

Natman wrote:
Fortunately, the exclusion of ID in classrooms in the UK isn't based upon the interpretation of a written constitution forbidding the establishment of religion by government. As you know, the court cases in the USA were a failed attempt by the ID movement to rule that their ideas weren't religious but represented genuine scientific thinking. They needed to break the link between ID and creationism to have it allowed to be taught in schools. They weren't able to do this in the USA.

In the UK there is no such law preventing the preaching of religion in schools (the opposite infact, given kids are required to have collective worship), so technically there is no seperation issues. However, we have the advantage in that cirriculum topics are not decided by elected officials with a religious vote-base to appease, but rather educational experts who listen to scientists.

Until scientists are convinced that ID is science (never gonna happen) then ID will never get the legitimacy it craves, court cases or not. Going to court to get ID is classrooms would never work in the UK as the courts have no say in the matter.

I can't decide if the way we have it is better (as a lost court case could have massive implications) or worse (there's no legal fall-back to prevent ID in schools, merely a scientific one).


The thought has crossed my mind that C4ID/DI's strategy for the UK isn't schools but universities and further and higher education. The US has dozens of such institutions pushing creationism or ID - Biola, Cedarville, Regent, Liberty, Patrick Henry...ad nauseum, ad infinitum.

There we do have some protection: the 1871 Universities Test Act, which I assume stops American fundamentalist universities opening up shop in the UK.

Don't forget that the Disco Kids are ultimately in the business of social re-engineering and that, pretty well without exception, British universities are "liberal" and thus an anathema to creationists and IDers.
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities - Voltaire
User avatar
Roger Stanyard
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby Dagsannr » Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:31 pm

Roger Stanyard wrote:The thought has crossed my mind that C4ID/DI's strategy for the UK isn't schools but universities and further and higher education. The US has dozens of such institutions pushing creationism or ID - Biola, Cedarville, Regent, Liberty, Patrick Henry...ad nauseum, ad infinitum.


Mmmm, they could set up their own university-lite to quietly push such things, but given the strength of UK university reputations in science, and that a lot of academic research is still done in universities, they'd struggle to attract seriously minded science students. A few graduates of 'biblical' universities with 'science' degrees isn't going to make any difference to the thousands of well educated biology graduates we churn out every year. Employers know which academic institutions are reliable, and the government is still listening to genuine scientists.

Plus, I suspect most students head off to uni with the intention of enjoying the highly liberal lifestyle on offer. Universities that place restrictions on lifestyle and entertainment for religious reasons are never going to be popular, not in Europe.

We need to remain vigilant and aware of the insidious nature of the creationist threat, but the culture of liberal secularism in the UK is a strong one, and is our best defence against fundamentalists so far.

Michael wrote:What do you do about ID and YEC being taught in schools today?


Pity the students and hope that the lack of a balanced education isn't going to impair their future prospects. It's still very much a minority and research has shown that heavy-handed creationist brain-washing rarely sticks once eduction progresses post-A level status.
There are 2 types of people in the world:

Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
Dagsannr
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:57 pm
Location: Carlisle

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby jon_12091 » Fri Dec 02, 2011 12:37 pm

Roger Stanyard wrote:I don't think anyone would be trembling in their boots faced with the Thomas Moore Law Center.

I don't think we would recieve anything like such stiff opposition -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Legal_Centre
Their track record appears somewhat lack lustre - possibly not suprising given the involment of Andrea Minichiello Williams (lawyer, lobbyist and an apparent YEC who thinks the world is only 4000 years old)
'If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists'
Miners against fascism.
Hywel Francis
User avatar
jon_12091
 
Posts: 1476
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: The elephant in the room.

Postby Brian Jordan » Fri Dec 02, 2011 4:18 pm

At first looking not terribly on-topic is the news that the government is concerned that 40 Islamic schools are teaching 5000 pupils according the the Saudi Arabian National Curriculum. Their concern is about anti-semitism but a search relating that curriculum to evolution brings up a couple of mentions of its claiming that evolution is a Jewish invention - that, specifically, Darwin was Jewish! It sounds as though the Saudis regard that fantasy as reason enough to banish evolution from the curriculum (or that evolution is reason enough to call Darwin Jewish?), but apart from that one connection to the curriculum I can find nothing else. Nor anything much else about the curriculum at all. Any ideas where such might be seen in English?
In the 11th grade, pupils learn about the Jewish contribution to secularism (and the attack on religion): “The main Theories that Secular thought was built on; and which had a role in legitimizing it:
1. The Theory of the Jew (Darwin) of Evolution.
http://www.fighthatred.com/recent-events/national-political-hate/874-saudi-arabia-remains-a-primary-force-for-anti-semitism-in-the-world
But perhaps the most bizarre accusation of all is that Jews are to blame for the theory of evolution, on account of the false claim that Charles Darwin was Jewish.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/tom-j-wilson/where-was-the-mention-of-_b_980065.html
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests

cron