Dick Dawkins Celebrates Victory Over Creationists

Submitted by: davymid 5 years ago in Science
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/jan/15/free-schools-creationism-intelligent-design?INTCMP=SRCH

Schools in the UK that teach "intelligent design" as science will no longer have govt funding. Opinions, I-A-B?
There are 78 comments:
Male 528
brilliant, no god, better country for me
0
Reply
Female 2,674
Just to note, I agree with everything Mr_Pedo_Bear said. I just wanted to explain how it`s not like intelligent design whereas Mr_Pedo_Bear explained how it is like evolution. ^^
0
Reply
Female 2,674
@CrakrJak - The process of Windows OS changing to its current state is much more like evolution than like intelligent design, even though it was clearly developed by humans. If it was more like intelligent design/creationism then the very first Windows OS would be exactly the same as Windows 7. Also, Windows would not change past being Windows 7. Therefore, it would have been very impressive for Windows 7 to have been the original, but as technology progresses, Windows wouldn`t progress, it`d remain unchanging, and we`d be stuck with old technology.
0
Reply
Male 997
Evolution is where organisms with more positive traits are more likely to survive and procreate meaning more members of the species gain those traits over time evolving. If something fit`s it doesn`t evolve quickly.

Look at sharks http://www.elasmo-research.org/education/evolution/evol_s_predator.htmBecause the rate of evolutionary change in sharks is very slow and gradual, it can be frustratingly difficult to determine where one species stops and another begins. There is no evidence of punctuated equilibrium (sudden `jumps` in form) in the shark fossil record. Without sharp discontinuities, boundaries between named species are often made rather arbitrarily along a continuum of variation.
0
Reply
Male 997
@Crackrjak you ignore Reboot`s reply and focus on distorting what I said. I was giving an example of a chain where you`d be able to tell the entire chain even if you removed a link and some of the evidence of transformation using an example of something very simple you would be able to understand.
I will also disagree at what you claim that it would be intelligent design. There is a force driving the evolution of windows os. Customer feedback. Features which work better, get praise and carried onto the next system. Features which don`t die out are removed. very very crude very very basic but I was trying for a very very simplistic thing for you to understand.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Mr_Pedo_Bear: You are honestly going to try and equate computer software, made and directed by human intelligence, not natural selection, as a proof of biological evolution ?

That would be an example of intelligent design, not evolution.
0
Reply
Male 233
@CrakrJak

So you distrust the fossil record as a means of determining evolution. What about the DNA evidence that i outlined? The fusion of ape and human chromosomes.
Do you have anything at all to challenge that?
I`m gonna go ahead and say you don`t which is why you didn`t respond to it because even you have to admit that it`s hard science.
It`s pretty damn solid evidence of evolution.
Dispute it if you can or admit that you can but don`t ignore it
0
Reply
Male 233
@CrakrJak

[quote]Actually there is no continuous strand in the fossil record. What is seen in the fossil record is a lot of leaves and very very few actual branches.[/quote]


I never said there was a continuous strand of fossils so don`t put words in my mouth.
What there is, is a wealth of fossils that show transition to people who are actually educated in the relevant fields. What you`re missing is an education crakr. You claim to see only "leaves" because you have little to no understanding of what you`re actually looking at.
And again, you`re just pointing to the gaps as if they somehow discredit the fossils we`ve found. Unless we find fossil evidence of every single animal in the chain, it will never be enough for christians like you. I don`t need to say much more on this subject because the posts following yours do a good job of explaining how you`re wrong and/or misinformed about the subject
0
Reply
Male 997
cont- heres the Evolutionary tree of Windows OS remove a link or two from it you can still work out the chain and connections of the operating system. Yet creationists say oh you`ve not got that link because fossilisation is rare, but you have everything else connecting A to C oh well no B yet it doesn`t happen god did it.....
0
Reply
Male 997
@CrakrJak He does not believe that life came to earth by aliens. What he was saying was if you take the creationists example that a form of life started something on earth aliens,god or what not. It itself is soo complex that it must have evolved to that point it doesn`t mean it was god. That film edited him out into rubbish and mis-information was not a true representation of what he said. You complain when people bring up parts of the old testament out of context to discredit religion don`t do the same, if you`re going to express his view point find out what he thinks not what some religious nut jobs made it look like.. It`s hypocritical!
As for the continual fossil record as Reboot explained fossilisation is rare look how many becomes oil. We have loads of minor chains of loads of different species, and we constantly connect new missing links. It`s like saying we`re missing all windows 98 therefore there is no proof showing windows 95 evolving multiple times to windows 7
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]Macro is the change of one entirely different species into another. I cannot concede, nor can anyone definitively prove that any one species and changed into another. [/quote]

[quote]The current theory of evolution is based on the belief of long periods of stasis and brief periods of rapid change.[/quote]

You`re describing punctuated equilibrium, but many scientists also believe in gradualism.

[quote]What is seen in the fossil record is a lot of leaves and very very few actual branches.[/quote]

This gap theory crap is really annoying. It`s unreasonable to expect a perfect chain of fossils from A to B.
Well you already did with micro. The reason micro happens so fast and macro so slow is differences in reproduction rates. Viruses and bacteria reproduce magnitudes faster than humans.

0
Reply
Female 2,674
"Dawkins himself believes life on Earth was seeded by aliens, because he knows abiogenesis is impossible to prove. "

Why does it matter what Dawkins thinks (if that`s even true, I`ve never heard it before now)? Science isn`t a religion, Dawkins isn`t a religious leader. He could be a scientologist for all I care, it doesn`t discredit anything he says in relation to evolution. Dawkins getting something wrong doesn`t mean someone else can`t prove him wrong. That`s how science works...
0
Reply
Female 2,674
@Chaosmaster - If someone believes in a god and in evolution, then I really don`t care. If they think their god got everything rolling, that`s their business (as long as they aren`t trying to teach it as fact). They don`t believe in creation in that case though. How the earth came to be and evolution are separate things.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]As for the macro vs micro, they are not the same thing, and one does not prove the other. You may say we use it lamely, but the fact is you act like nuts about it and refuse to admit that as of yet, there has been no actual proof of macro, only for micro.[/quote]

There is no distinction. It`s something your side made up in response to the overwhelming evidence showing evolution. Faced with looking increasingly insane by denying reality or admitting they were wrong, your side had to come up with some way out. They chose "micro vs macro", also known as "the fact that it happens over days, months, years, decades...err...doesn`t mean it happens over centuries, millenia. If you can`t watch it happening over millenia, it doesn`t exist at all!"
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]We can`t all be right, but we can all be wrong. Why is it so f`ing hard to agree to disagree? Why does someone always have to win out over another group?[/quote]

Because you`re trying to destroy us.

You want to infect and corrupt science, using it as a host to indoctrinate children into your religion. You`re doing so because science has earned a reputation for a high level of dependability whereas religion has none at all.

Of course, doing so will break a key part of science - being based on evidence, with testing. By turning science into a zombie of its former self, cold selling your religion, you damage it badly. Which must be what you`re trying to do, unless you`re stupid.

We`re not trying to force your religious places to teach what the evidence indicates is true.

You`re trying to force our educational places to teach your religion instead of what evidence indicates to be true.

You are the aggressors. Just stop it.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Also, everything should be evolving, according to Darwin, but there are examples of creatures that haven`t changed since the Cambrian explosion[/quote]

Like every single creationist, you are ignorant of what the theory of evolution actually is. That shows in everything you write about it.

The theory of evolution is not Darwin`s work. He played a very important part, but he`s not the sole author of the current theory.

If a lifeform is already well enough suited to its environmental niche, there is no evolutionary pressure on it. Evolution works by selection - no selection, no evolution.

I`d like to see your examples. I expect there have been minor changes as a result of minimal selection.

[quote]Dawkins himself believes life on Earth was seeded by aliens, because he knows abiogenesis is impossible to prove.[/quote]

That makes no sense. It would just move the start point from humans to aliens. I don`t believe you.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
ReBoot: Actually there is no continuous strand in the fossil record. What is seen in the fossil record is a lot of leaves and very very few actual branches.

The current theory of evolution is based on the belief of long periods of stasis and brief periods of rapid change. Also, everything should be evolving, according to Darwin, but there are examples of creatures that haven`t changed since the Cambrian explosion (which in and of itself is a great scientific mystery).

Dawkins himself believes life on Earth was seeded by aliens, because he knows abiogenesis is impossible to prove.
0
Reply
Male 234
So what happens when someone comes along and says, "I believe in God and Evolution."? It just makes sense that someone who can organize an entire world, an entire universe would plan ahead knowing things will change and the creatures will have to change too. But, you know, I`m just going to get classified as one of those "stupid christians".
0
Reply
Male 438
"I absolutely despise seeing the theory of evolution taught as a irrefutable fact"

There is no such thing as an `irrefutable fact` in science, you can refute anything as long as you do the work by collecting evidence, anyalizing it, allowing for peer review, ect. Creationists want to refute evolution without doing any of the work, it is a lazy way to come to a conclusion and it is ignorantly dishonest.
0
Reply
Male 1,737
I don`t think certain topics should should be taught in grade schools, stick to the stuff they need to know to get a better education.

As for the macro vs micro, they are not the same thing, and one does not prove the other. You may say we use it lamely, but the fact is you act like nuts about it and refuse to admit that as of yet, there has been no actual proof of macro, only for micro. They have speculation and educated guesses on macro, but that`s it so far.

We can`t all be right, but we can all be wrong. Why is it so f`ing hard to agree to disagree? Why does someone always have to win out over another group?
0
Reply
Male 438
@Stand4christ,

If there are so many holes in evolution why do all the scientists in other related fields (geology, biology, geneology, ect., ect., ect.,) agree that evolution is a reality. Don`t you think there would be at least one field that would disagree with evolution if it was even half as flawed as you claim? For your opinion to be taken seriously one would have to believe a grand conspiracy throughout the science community worldwide. And even if evolution was proven false, it would still not prove creationism true without evidence to back it up. Creationism is NOT a theory, it is not even a hypothesis, it is an assertion.

Name ONE thing that was asserted by any religion that was then proven true without the use of science....you can`t.

0
Reply
Male 150
Stand4Christ
"Macro-evolution" is nothing more than the micro-evolution over time. You clearly state that micro-evolution is "simply adaptingto a changing or entirely new environment".
Now this occurs when two groups of one species becomes separated due to environment conditions. Over time adaptions favor different environments that eventually the original one species can no longer reproduce, making two separate species. Look to the mule or human chromosome 2 for one of the many examples.
But I suppose that all of this falls on deaf ears as I could sit here and explain every last aspect that I have studied in great detail would be ignored by, "it`s only a `theory`" argument.
Honestly, I`ve talked to plenty of creationists on not a single one has been close to what the actual theory says, and you are just another one. So first get some education, and then come back and make an argument, cause it`s annoying as hell to first explain it before
0
Reply
Male 12,138
To say that you believe in micro-evolution, but deny macro-evolution is as fundamentally dishonest as saying that you agree that a man can walk to Jerusalem from Belgium but can`t possibly reach the moon. It sickens me.

This "Micro-Evolution" vs "Macro-Evolution" is a deliberately dishonest attempt from the fundamental Christians to claim that there`s different *TYPES* of evolution. Not the case, unfortunately.

There`s no distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. It`s simply f*cking evolution, and it observably happens. Please understand why some of us scientists see this as a threat from the religious right. The sooner Christianity gets back on board with intelligence, the better we`ll all be.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]Lying? Who`s lying? I will concede that micro-evolution is provable and true. I will not concede that macro-evolution is true. One does not beget the other.[/quote]
You`re either being deliberatly wilfully ignorant, or you`re a just being a dick. And your chosen username of "Stand4Christ" betrays you as religious fanatic (of course, your particular flavour of religious fanatic).
0
Reply
Male 233
@Stand4Christ

As for DNA evidence just look at human chromosome 2

As you know humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes for a total of 46
All the other great apes have 48. Since scientists operate using the theory of evolution this means that those two missing chromosomes must be found in the human genome because an organism could not survive the total loss of two chromosomes.
If you look at human chromosome 2 you find exactly what you`d expect: a fused chromosome with telomeres where they don`t belong(the middle) and two centromeres. It is in fact a fusion with ape chromosome 13
This proves that we have a common ancestor with apes >> we came from an ancestor which is not as we are today >> evolution
0
Reply
Male 35
Good. Creationism/intelligent design is not a scientific theory (see Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District), and should not be taught in the science classroom.
0
Reply
Male 35
Correction: Intelligent design does not need to be taught in school.
0
Reply
Male 35
Intelligent Design needs to be taught in school. It is a core tenant of a traditionally religious belief, and so it should be taught in the church. However, I absolutely despise seeing the theory of evolution taught as a irrefutable fact, and that your an idiot if you don`t see it that way. Continue to teach evolution, but teach it as a theory, an option, honestly, by cramming evolution down peoples throats, scientists have stifled any future generation from seeking any other viable alternative. Who knows what happened, maybe God started the ball rolling and kind of guided it along the way, the fact is we don`t know for sure, so stop saying that science knows what happened and I`m an idiot for not believing it as fact.
0
Reply
Male 233
@Stand4Christ

[quote] There is not one single continuous strand of fossil record that proves evolution. [/quote]

You speak from ignorance
Science has tons of transition fossils. people who actually understand biology and bone morphology can tell you that they are a progression from one stage to the next.
As for a "continuous strand" what do you expect to see? fossilization is an incredibly rare process not to mention it all gets buried and we have to dig it up

the usual christian argument if we find a fossil that is clearly transitioning eg> from aquatic to amphibious/land-gong is to point at the gaps that fossil has created. for them there will never be enough
0
Reply
Male 35
Continuing with the fossil record. Show me in the record each stage of evolution of one species into another. I would love to see the evolution of a fish into a lizard, that would be awesome. The fact is, the fossil record is full of huge holes. 3. Repeatable proof. Huh? Really? When? Where? Shouldn`t this be huge news if scientist caused one species to change into another? Or, even better, if we observed this in nature. The fact is evolution, if real, takes too long to present repeatable proof, a necessity to be a scientific fact. Show me the real proof, not just a circumstantial evidence, and then we`ll talk about seeing evolution as an irrefutable fact. Again, who`s really lying here? Christians are just presenting another theory to how creatures and the earth came into being, no lying. I don`t know of a single Christian who wants to get rid of science class or to stop inquiry into who we are, and what we are made of. I, personally, do not think that Intelligent...
0
Reply
Male 2,384
you`re god dam right
0
Reply
Male 35
Lying? Who`s lying? I will concede that micro-evolution is provable and true. I will not concede that macro-evolution is true. One does not beget the other. Micro is simply adapting to a changing or entirely new environment. Macro is the change of one entirely different species into another. I cannot concede, nor can anyone definitively prove that any one species and changed into another. Let`s tackle some of the more popular "proofs". 1. DNA evidence. We can see that many things on the earth have similar DNA. Humans share many similar strands with mice. Ok, how does this prove evolution? It is just as likely that this exists because we all use oxygen, most have 4 limbs, we all eat, and crap. Maybe that`s why our DNA is so similar creature to creature because each creature is so similar in function. 2. Fossil record. Really? First, I can`t believe this is put forward as proof. There is not one single continuous strand of fossil record that proves evolution. continued on next
0
Reply
Male 438
“If we are going to teach ‘creation theory’ as an alternative to evolution then we should also teach ‘stork theory’ as an alternative to biological reproduction.” ~Judith Hayes~
0
Reply
Male 233
@snack1928

without looking it up myself and just based on the definitions you laid out there, they don`t seem to be in conflict

cell theory: cells come from other cells
Abiogenesis: inorganic compounds combine to form organic compounds >> life

where`s the conflict?
0
Reply
Male 35
How can two theories, the Cell Theory, and the Theory of Abiogenesis both be accepted in the scientific community, if they directly contradict each other?
Cell Theory states all cells come from preexisting cells, cells are the basic building blocks of life, and that all living things are composed of cells?
Theory of Abiogenesis states that life was able to start due to a combination of factors that were all nonliving which produced life.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
If someone decides that a part of their religion is that their god or gods created evolution, well, OK, you can believe what you like.

If someone decides to preach that in their church/mosque/synagogue/temple/sacred grove/whatever, well, OK, it`s your religious location for your religion.

Just stop lying about it, stop trying to force your religion on people and stop trying to destroy science. That is what you`re doing when you try to corrupt science by forcing your religion into it, in schools. If you do that, you`re bottom-feeders and parasites. Literally parasites, leeching off science. Or maybe a virus would be a better analogy, since they infect a host and use it to make more of themselves.

Am I adequately expressing the depth of my contempt for such people?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Creationism and Evolution are both Theories.[/quote]

Doubly wrong.

Evolution is an observation (more accurately, a multitude of observations). It vastly exceeds the usual standards required for something to be called a fact.

The theory of evolution is a theory explaining how evolution (a fact) works. Like all scientific theories in current use, it has been repeatedly tested and passed every test every time - that`s the required standard for a scientific theory to remain current.

Creationism is a religious belief. It is not a theory at all. In scientific terms it`s an unfalsifiable hypothesis at best, which means it is not and never can be science.

To every one of you who advocates lying in order to indoctrinate children into your religion and to corrupt and destroy education:

drat you, you cowardly piece of poo scumbag liar.

Also, your faith is weak. That`s why you need to lie about it.

You are despic
0
Reply
Male 2,988
a step in the correct direction that needs to make its way to the U.S.
0
Reply
Male 4,431
If you want to take 15 or so minutes to read up on it (evolution) and the strong science behind it, go here (National Geographic article). Pretty enlightening (if you`re actually willing to open your mind a bit).
0
Reply
Male 1,793
evolution isn`t a theory it is a fact.... idiots...
0
Reply
Male 997
I don`t think people who are saying the UK was funding creationism don`t get the concept of a free school. In an area where there is a need a organisation or the local parents/people can set up a school in vacant buildings etc to fit a need i.e not enough places, or they think current local schools aren`t upto scratch. They are given funding from the government for this, all this did was affirm it couldn`t be abused to set up religious indoctrination of creationism, scientology etc It`s been under that impression from beginning this just affirmed in writing.

Creationism isn`t taught in school`s not even faith schools(which tend to give better education then state schools)Closest we ever had to that was the teaching of lamark evolution as an example of a wrong theory lol
0
Reply
Male 219
Why should either be funded for education in a grade-school level? You can`t prove either, or disprove either...I say let the parents decide what to teach their children as far as the two and keep it out of schools.
0
Reply
Male 550
I agree with LazyMe. I am strongly irritated that this is even a discussion point here in Europe.
How did this happen in UK too?
Where did education in England fail?
0
Reply
Male 542
Not sure why any school would teach intelligent design. I say, you`re free to connect the dots as you please with your own research.

I attended private catholic schools for my elementary, middle, and high school years and we never spoke about God in science class. Just our masses.
0
Reply
Male 2,841
This is the biggest f*ck you I have ever seen.
0
Reply
Male 3,059
Well done U.K.! You haven`t let the "Christian" right hijack your government as they`re in the process of doing here.

Thank you for setting an example that our politicians will be too chickensh*t to follow.
0
Reply
Female 2,674
"Creationism and Evolution are both Theories. If anything, The theory of creationism is as solved as it will ever be. Thus, the theory of evolution (still growing) should be funded more.. My opinion.."

But you are wrong. Creationism is not a theory. At most, it`s a hypothesis that no one has been able to test and get positive results enough for it to become a theory. Usually that`d lead to altering the hypothesis, but since people believe the thousands of years old book that it comes from is infallible and true, it`s essentially stuck as a hypothesis until people accept that it`s simply not true.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote">Creationism and Evolution are both Theories.[/quote">

No, one is a theory, the other is an axiomatic statement.
0
Reply
Male 47
Looks like somebody`s got a big head.

No seriously, look at that photo and tell me that his head doesn`t seem comically large.
0
Reply
Male 341
"Laws" are able to be proven and replicated with the same results. "Theories" try to prove how or why something, which is widely excepted, occurs. There is a "Law of Gravity" and a "Theory of Gravity". Creationism and Evolution are both Theories. If anything, The theory of creationism is as solved as it will ever be. Thus, the theory of evolution (still growing) should be funded more.. My opinion..
0
Reply
Male 25,416
The answer is never going be given to either or... Religion keeps people in line.
0
Reply
Male 14,332
0
Reply
Male 10,440
[quote] withdrawn for any free school that teaches what it claims are "evidence-based views or theories" that run "contrary to established scientific and/or historical evidence and explanations". [/quote]
Since when is creationism an "evidence based view or theory"?

Creationism is not a theory, nor is it evidence-based.

It`s also kind of stupid to see this in the UK. I thought you guys were past this. You may call this a victory, but its not nearly enough to save this world.
0
Reply
Male 677
@QueenZira
No, they weren`t funding the teaching of creationism, they were funding schools that happened to teach it.
0
Reply
Male 1,540
Well that`s good for the UK, but God he`s so drating smug sometimes.
0
Reply
Male 2,422
Creationists should really stop and consider if they are comfortable with the implications of presenting God as a mere hypothesis.
0
Reply
Male 483
It should be noted that this isn`t an enormous move for us here in the UK. The vast majority of schools do not teach creationism at all anyway.

I am incredibly pleased with this decision though, it sets us in good stead for the future.
0
Reply
Female 2,228
Ok hold on, the UK was still providing govt. funding for creationism in public schools? I believe we`ve prohibited that since at least the `80s. America for the win this time? AMERICA FOR THE WIN YEAHHHHHH! 8-)
0
Reply
Male 1,832
God stays in church, science stays in school. Why is this so hard?
0
Reply
Male 14,827
A victory for common sense and tolerance over closed minded bunkum.
0
Reply
Female 2,674
In addition, Francakes, if creationism (a non-scientific explanation of life from a story written thousands of years ago) is taught in schools, then there`s no reason why they shouldn`t teach an explanation that I`ll invent in a few seconds. So, people all started out as robots controlled by giant green slimy aliens. But then the sun rained poison onto the earth and mutated the robots into humans as we know today, and killed off all the aliens. Might as well teach that explanation in science classrooms as well. Oh noez, you think it shouldn`t be taught? Who are you to try to control what our kids are learning! I mean, we`re just assuming you`re a good person but we don`t KNOW that`s true and you want to control what our kids are learning! Too much government control!
0
Reply
Male 1,582
Good move UK. Much more progressive than us I see.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Hey Francakes, The 30 scientists you fear are scientists not religious-know-nothing-figureheads. You want your children to learn about the invisible man in the sky? Send them to church. Want them to learn science? Send them to school.

This is settled law btw in America honey. Check out Dover vs. Kitzmiller
0
Reply
Female 2,674
"Especially because the religious groups didn`t ask evolution to not be taught, but their ideas (that can be backed by some form of science) to be taught too. Yet these guys came in and said only our idea be taught. "

Religious groups don`t ask that because they know it`s a losing battle, they would eliminate evolution in schools if they could. Their "ideas" are NOT backed by science at all! They come from a book that was written thousands of years ago by people without scientific knowledge. People have tried to use science to legitimize the bible but I`ve never heard a solid argument myself. Creationism definitely isn`t a scientific theory, too. Also, the vast majority of scientists accept evolution due to all the evidence backing it up (that`s why it`s a /theory/ and not a /hypothesis/). It`s not simply the "idea" of a few people.
0
Reply
Male 5,811
[quote]It almost sounds like whoever has the power to establishes scientific ideas has the power to decide what kids learn in school.[/quote]

Well...they SHOULD decide what goes into a science class, herp.
0
Reply
Male 38,457

They should teach creationism.
And doctors should go back to bleeding patients.
And rubbing an apple on a wart under the full moon is still a good remedy.
0
Reply
Male 1,312
Ok, now come to the U.S. and let`s do it. Please?
0
Reply
Female 157
George Orwell scary stuff is what this reminds me off. The part that was weird was "Under the new agreement, funding will be withdrawn for any free school that teaches..."contrary to established scientific and/or historical evidence and explanations." This is too much gov control. It almost sounds like whoever has the power to establishes scientific ideas has the power to decide what kids learn in school. So who are these 30 something scientists? We are just assuming they are good people, and know a lot about social science, culture, freedom and so on....yet people don`t really know that and they made a move that significantly change what kids learn in school. That part I didn`t like. Especially because the religious groups didn`t ask evolution to not be taught, but their ideas (that can be backed by some form of science) to be taught too. Yet these guys came in and said only our idea be taught. Not only that, but the new law requires that even IF there is scienti
0
Reply
Male 5,811
Not surprising. I`ve always liked how they have important scientists on their currency, such as Newton and Darwin, and other non-political figures like Shakespeare. Too bad they were withdrawn.
0
Reply
Male 83
Intelligent design is NOT science. It is NOT another theory or how we got here. In fact, it`s not a theory, in the scientific sense. A "theory," in the scientific world, is as close as we can get to "fact." Any "science" that validates intelligent design or creationism is pseudo-science, and has no place in any institution, including church, as far as I am concerned.
0
Reply
Male 4,746
Congrats guys! The further away from the dark age, backward thinking stuff we can get, in this world, the better off we`ll all be.
0
Reply
Male 4,431
No opinion to give other than that science is science, math is math, and social studies is social studies. And, regardless of how much a group of special interest folks would like for ID to be a science, it`s not. Religious folks have freedom to teach whatever they`d like in their own homes and on Sunday in their own tax-free and ungoverned churches. They should not be allowed to forward their agenda on the state`s dime at a place that requires attendance by law. Bravo (I guess) to the UK for doing what they should have been doing all along.
0
Reply
Male 38,457

So it`s not just in the US where those idiot Flat-Earthers push creationism.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Finally some sanity in the world.
0
Reply
Female 2,674
Anyway, I support this. Schools that choose to teach non-science in a science classroom don`t deserve state funding. Schools would receive a lot of crap for teaching that the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth. It`s no different imo.
0
Reply
Male 5,078
Good move UK.
0
Reply
Female 2,674
Who calls him "Dick" Dawkins? Seems kind of rude unless he uses that nickname himself (but I`ve never heard him be called that before).
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Link: Dick Dawkins Celebrates Victory Over Creationists [Rate Link] - Schools in the UK that teach `intelligent design` as science will no longer have govt funding. Opinions, I-A-B?
0
Reply