Alice Roberts weighs in.

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: Alice Roberts weighs in.

Postby Brian Jordan » Sun Feb 02, 2014 11:42 am

cathy wrote:Dave teaches textiles after all, which even CST would find difficult to teach from a creationist view. Gods woolly sheep specially designed to keep us warm after the fall, or look how intelligently designed kevlar is?
Well, being a biblical literalist he could no doubt do a lecture on fabrics according to Leviticus. Then another justifying his other lectures where mixing fibres is no doubt advocated.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re:

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Feb 02, 2014 5:54 pm

An excellent response by Phoebe under that new Batten article.
"You seem to be making the mistake of conflating evolution with atheism or some kind of anti theism. You seem to be stating it is taught only to satisfy some kind of anti theistic opinion. That is not the case. Evolution is the current accepted theory of biological diversity based on the best interpretations of the best evidence we have. If that changes so will the theory, it has. after all, been refined as new facts are found. It is, in short, purely based in the science we have.
Whether you believe that science to be fundamentally flawed or not, that is the reasoning behind the acceptance and teaching of evolution. Nothing more nothing less.
If you wish to change that then it is all that evidence you must challange. Not just small parts, the whole after all is greater than the sum of those parts. Coldly, without emotional recourse to your beliefs or those of others. Logically, step by step and coherently you must present a more cogent case for your beliefs that will persuade all your scientific peers whatever their beliefs. All beliefs because there are many very good evolutionary biologists who are devout and good Christians as well, I doubt God gives extra brownie points for views on how He created. The bible seems to consider other factors, like behaviour to others, acceptance of Jesus etc as far more important.
Claiming that there is some kind of anti theistic, secularist conspiracy does creation science no favours. It diminishes and throws doubt on all you say. How can I take an article on geology serioulsy when the next sentence says it won't be accepted because geologists are godless? Scientists of all persuasions moved from a steady state to big bang model of the origins of the universe despite the religous implications of the universe having a start."

Even though I know they would never publish it, I tried to send them a comment saying "Phoebe is correct". But the website appears to have been set up to BLOCK any response that MY email address tries to send under new website articles (so much for inviting comments or encouraging more 'critical thinking'). But I take it as a compliment ie my posts aren't uninformed nonsense that they could easily 'refute'.

Batten's reply? Accuse Phoebe of not reading the article "very carefully" despite a lack of any supporting evidence, accuser her (probably correctly) of not reading all those tiresome links, state that evolution is not science but is an alternative 'creation myth', and accuse her of making "unsubstantiated assertions about all manner of things that are answered repeatedly on creation.com" (perhaps she is not satisfied with their 'answers').

What self-important BIGOTS CMI are.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Re:

Postby Brian Jordan » Sun Feb 02, 2014 9:53 pm

a_haworthroberts wrote:But I take it as a compliment ie my posts aren't uninformed nonsense that they could easily 'refute'.
I hate to say it Ashley, but it ain't necessarily so. Even people who agree with much of what you say can have too much of a good thing. You may just have wearied the creationists. Sorry.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Re:

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Feb 02, 2014 10:20 pm

Brian Jordan wrote:
a_haworthroberts wrote:But I take it as a compliment ie my posts aren't uninformed nonsense that they could easily 'refute'.
I hate to say it Ashley, but it ain't necessarily so. Even people who agree with much of what you say can have too much of a good thing. You may just have wearied the creationists. Sorry.


You may be right. They may have some other reason why they don't try to refute me.

But I would have thought that if I did send them uninformed nonsense they might refute it so others can read it despite the fact that I write to them frequently.

It is also possible that they are refusing even to read anything from me any more and simply delete it all - but they have not told me this.

I have no intention of stopping writing to them via their website if there is more anti-scientific rubbish as I see it posted on their site (new nonsense not the old articles they keep recycling). I can still apparently reach them with comments via another link there that is not article-specific.

And if you or others (I only know of one) think that I am "wearying" people here (or somehow 'stopping' them from posting) I simply repeat that the BCSE needs to introduce a weekly post or word limit - whether enforceable or else voluntary (for the former). Until then I will try to limit MYSELF - but I cannot predict what I may read online in coming days and weeks. As I also said previously, sometimes I post BECAUSE few others are doing so - whether due to busyness or something else.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re:

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Feb 03, 2014 6:43 pm

On reflection my comment yesterday about a possibly (backhanded) 'compliment' via CMI probably sounded vain.

I was feeling a bit frustrated when I made it. My aim is NOT to get my name onto the CMI website. What made me feel frustrated was their apparent ongoing attempt to silently block me from even being able to submit comments on some of their new website articles via the link provided at the bottom of those articles.

There seem to be three possibilities (CMI have been silent so I have to make assumptions):
- they read most of my messages but have decided not to refute ones they can refute because they either are too busy or they assume I am a publicity seeker who simply wants my name on their website;
- they read most of my messages and cannot easily refute them;
- they have stopped reading any of my messages.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Alice Roberts weighs in.

Postby Brian Jordan » Wed Feb 05, 2014 1:12 pm

Alice Roberts has just been on the "Soapbox" section of Daily Politics on BBC2 (I guess about 75 or 80mins in when it comes on iPlayer.) Her point was that cretinism should be banned from private school science lessons as it is (well, supposedly) from state funded education. She spoke of different inspection criteria for the two sectors and cited Jonny Scaramanga (he apparently has an article in today's New Statesman) about ACE anti-evolutionism. Angus Maud was there and replied that it was a matter for the parents. As long as the parents were aware what was being taught, it was fine by him. He appeared to see no reason to ban even flat-earthism, should a school see fit to teach it.

No indication was given whether he'd been told by Gove to take that approach. It seems to me, though, to be entirely consistent with Gove's wish to decentralise education. If you give schools to nutters to do as they please with the children, schools and our money you need to have the courage of your convictions and inspect them according to their own criteria. Like the Learning Outside the Classroom quango which cares not a jot about downright lies being taught, as long as the children don't get bitten by Noah's animals.
Grrr.
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Alice Roberts weighs in.

Postby cathy » Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:40 pm

to be entirely consistent with Gove's wish to decentralise education. If you give schools to nutters to do as they please with the children, schools and our money you need to have the courage of your convictions and inspect them according to their own criteria. Like the Learning Outside the Classroom quango which cares not a jot about downright lies being taught, as long as the children don't get bitten by Noah's animals.

Ah have you heard Gove's latest gormless thing. To break down the 'berlin wall' between state and private schools - to make them indistinguishable. OOOH lovely, but heres the rub - moneeeeey. I have a friend who works in the private sector - classes of 20 maximum in KS3, lower in KS4 and miniscule at A level. Six full time technicians giving technical support. The latest equipment. All the textbooks you can eat. Armies of cleaners and dinner supervisors so teachers get a break. Parents so interested in their childrens education they are willing to shell out thousands to fund it.

State sector? Cuts, cuts cuts. Poorly paid disgruntled support staff on pay freeze for years. Overworked teachers. 30 per class and A levels that no longer run if less then 18 sign up. If lots students want to do your subject - then why make five safe and reasonable sized AS or A2 level groups for your classes that hold 16 when you can cram 20 in and just have four! Who cares if you have tubing piggy backing all over the place to ensure they can all get a tap to do refluxing or condensing and are so close to their bunsens it is like hell on earth. Who cares if the labs are never empty enough to tidy?

So if Gormless idiot Gove wants to break down the divisions - he'll have to @@%$&£% pay the £12,000 per child per year that the private sector has at its disposable!!! :evil: :evil:

Oh that is a way off topic rant. Sorry.

Oh and free schools? Well it was obvious to anyone that had an IQ that had managed to struggle into double figures (hence Gove missed it) that they were going to be a creationists dream ticket. Maybe if Gove dropped the free schools idea and saved the money wasted on DfE officials needed to weed out the loonies applying for free schools he'd have enough to fund his magical mystery ideas of state = private. But I think my IQ has struggled past double figures so guess I'm ahead of the gormless one :evil:
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Alice Roberts weighs in.

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Feb 05, 2014 7:59 pm

Brian Jordan wrote:Alice Roberts has just been on the "Soapbox" section of Daily Politics on BBC2 (I guess about 75 or 80mins in when it comes on iPlayer.) Her point was that cretinism should be banned from private school science lessons as it is (well, supposedly) from state funded education. She spoke of different inspection criteria for the two sectors and cited Jonny Scaramanga (he apparently has an article in today's New Statesman) about ACE anti-evolutionism. Angus Maud was there and replied that it was a matter for the parents. As long as the parents were aware what was being taught, it was fine by him. He appeared to see no reason to ban even flat-earthism, should a school see fit to teach it.

No indication was given whether he'd been told by Gove to take that approach. It seems to me, though, to be entirely consistent with Gove's wish to decentralise education. If you give schools to nutters to do as they please with the children, schools and our money you need to have the courage of your convictions and inspect them according to their own criteria. Like the Learning Outside the Classroom quango which cares not a jot about downright lies being taught, as long as the children don't get bitten by Noah's animals.
Grrr.



I'll check out the Daily Politics later.

Meanwhile I saw these:
http://leavingfundamentalism.wordpress. ... onspiracy/
http://www.theguardian.com/science/head ... nce-debate
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014 ... st-ken-ham
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Alice Roberts weighs in.

Postby Brian Jordan » Wed Feb 05, 2014 8:50 pm

cathy wrote:Ah have you heard Gove's latest gormless thing. To break down the 'berlin wall' between state and private schools - to make them indistinguishable. OOOH lovely, but heres the rub - moneeeeey. I have a friend who works in the private sector - classes of 20 maximum in KS3, lower in KS4 and miniscule at A level. Six full time technicians giving technical support. The latest equipment. All the textbooks you can eat. Armies of cleaners and dinner supervisors so teachers get a break. Parents so interested in their childrens education they are willing to shell out thousands to fund it.
<snip>
I'll take my moderator's hat off for a minute Cathy and say I don't mind if it seems off topic because anything relating to Gove relates to his lunacy in delivering our schools into the hands of potential fellow - if differing - lunatics. An excellent post.
There, I guess I'd better smack my own hand now. :twisted:
Edit: OOPS! I won't say what my error was in case nobody had noticed. Apologies to both if they did!
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Alice Roberts weighs in.

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed Feb 05, 2014 8:59 pm

a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Alice Roberts weighs in.

Postby Brian Jordan » Wed Feb 05, 2014 9:21 pm

I think both posters have got it wrong. I understood Maude to care not at all whether nuttery was taught in science classes. I think his acceptance of flatearthism shows that. I suppose I'd have to watch it again to be certain but at the moment I'm sure he'd let the schools teach any old rubbish as long as the parents were sufficiently deluded and so compliant.
His relaxation might turn into rigid apoplexy if a school started to similarly abuse one of Gove's pet subjects. I imagine "pig Latin" wouldn't go down at all well if mixed in with the real thing.!
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Alice Roberts weighs in.

Postby Brian Jordan » Sat Feb 22, 2014 1:53 pm

I posted three items here about a York University study on teaching science and creationism. Having found not only the paper that an American site referred to but the Ph.D. thesis on which the paper was based, I thought Dr. Pam Hanley, her thesis and bibliography merited a thread of its own so I've split my posts off onto a new thread: Pam Hanley, creationism and science teaching
http://www.forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3449
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Alice Roberts weighs in.

Postby Brian Jordan » Fri Feb 28, 2014 1:53 pm

Jewish Chronicle weighs in.
Why creationism still belongs in schools
By Adam Hilsenrath, February 26, 2014
Not very persuasively, when he tries to claim Brian Cox is on his side against Alice Roberts. He clearly doesn't listen to The Infinite Monkey Cage!
http://www.thejc.com/campus/campus-comment/115952/why-creationism-still-belongs-schools
"PPSIMMONS is an amorphous mass of stupid" - Rationalwiki
User avatar
Brian Jordan
Forum Admin
 
Posts: 4216
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 4:59 pm

Re: Alice Roberts weighs in.

Postby cathy » Fri Feb 28, 2014 5:06 pm

Not a particularly well informed article. For starters he seems to be conflating creationism with a belief in God, which only creationists and hardline anti theists do.

Secondly I suspect Brian Cox and Alice Roberts are in accord. Brian Cox has said he has no argument with thinking believers that do not deny science but thinks creationism and ID are crap piles of dishonesty. Along with the charlatans that push them. I'd imagine Brian Cox is in total accord with Alice Roberts on their place in schools.

Lastly people that choose to teach their children creationism are liars. As are any scientists professing to accept it. Science and religion are not incompatible. Creationism and science ARE incompatible. And in my opinion creationism and religion are also incompatible and no creationist should call itself a Christian because the whole crock of sXXX is based in lies and bullying.

Rubbish article from uninformed kid with an ego.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Alice Roberts weighs in.

Postby a_haworthroberts » Fri Feb 28, 2014 6:31 pm

I haven't got a clue what Guardian article Hilsenrath is referring to (without being helpful enough the name it). (I did a quick online search.)

Cox is a humanist and dislikes pseudo-science.

Higgs is an atheist.

Creationists appear incapable of being truthful. (I suspect he may have seen an article but that it does NOT in any way suggest covering creationism within science or imply that they are compatible - but that he probably wishes his readers to assume otherwise and thus does not make it easy for them to double check.)
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 9075
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

PreviousNext

Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 7 guests