Scotland Bans Creationism From Science Classes

guno

Gold Member
Mar 18, 2014
21,553
4,894
290
NYC and NC
Scotland is way ahead of the United States

The letter effectively prohibits the teaching of creationism, i.e. Young Earth Creationism or Biblical creationism, as a legitimate scientific alternative to “the established science of evolution, common descent, and deep time.”

Teaching creationism in religious and moral studies classes in Scotland’s schools will continue to be permissible.

Scotland Bans Creationism From Science Classes
 
I once briefly went toe-to-toe with a fourth grader during class at a public elementary. She insisted the earth was only 7,000 years old (or something like that). I asked her why the fossilized remains of a modern house cat have never been found. She said "they haven't looked hard enough". :lol:
 
And then there was the third-grader who smugly reminded me that her family is Latter Day Saints and they don't recite the Pledge of Allegiance. I told her that was just fine by me and to remain quietly seated.
 
Good law in Scotland and should be mandated in American public education. Creationism and ID can be explored in humanities and liberal arts classes.
 
As I remember, Bishop Ussher, by following generations in the Bible, established the beginning of it all in the year 4004 BC.
 
Scotland is way ahead of the United States

The letter effectively prohibits the teaching of creationism, i.e. Young Earth Creationism or Biblical creationism, as a legitimate scientific alternative to “the established science of evolution, common descent, and deep time.”

Teaching creationism in religious and moral studies classes in Scotland’s schools will continue to be permissible.

Scotland Bans Creationism From Science Classes

We have too. We don't teach it in science class, we teach it in religious classes were it belongs.
 
And playing Devil's Advocate (ironicly enough) creationists aren't 100% wrong.

Science says the universe began with the Big Bang. Very basicly, a singularity one day decided to spring into being the entire universe just cuz. That's not a very scientific notion. It fits the observed expansion of the universe working backwards, and we can see almost to that moment in telescopes (relatively speaking.) But the fact remains that 'one day a singularity felt like creating the universe so did' is a really sucky theory.

In comparison, 'God made the singularity create the universe' is substantially better. It isn't disputing the Big Bang event, expansion of the universe, it's simply ascribing responsibility to why the BIg Bang happened a helluva lot more satisfactorily than 'just because' as science does. :)
 
War of the Arteries

The great human physique proportionality drawing by the legendary Renaissance artist Leonardo da Vinci depicts the intricate symmetries found right in the human body. The drawing represents a general fascination with the odd elegance of evolution.

My mom attended the Catholic school Patna Women's College (established with the support of Bishop Sullivan S.J. in 1940) in Bihar, India. Her curriculum included a mix of theology and science/history courses. It would seem normal to her for school coursework to combine creationism with standard science.

When we hear news from around the world (i.e., Scotland) about school curricula policies, are we more motivated to talk about empirical eccentricity?



:afro:

Patna Women's College

1138cop.jpg
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top