It couldn't happen in the USA

[pcstru]

Which, IMO, is a pity.

 

Government bans all existing and future Academies and Free Schools from teaching creationism as science.

[featured_spectre]

I am on a forum for one of my hobbies and the whole "evolution is a theory" rubbish is spouted by the creationists on the site.

 

It is thrown back that "Gravity is a theory". Also it tends to be the ones that don't believe in evolution that are against having their children vaccinated.

[pcstru]

Evolution is a theory. A very good one! It is one that has made useful predictions, predictions which have subsequently been confirmed by evidence. And there is a whole hell of a lot of evidence. As a theory evolution is falsifiable. Despite the mountains of evidence in support of evolution, it would take just one single piece of evidence to prove it is false.

 

Gravity too is a theory. It is pretty dodgy in some respects, we know newton was 'wrong' hence General Relativity. GR is also, almost certainly wrong.Both are tremendously useful if you want to hit another planet with a probe, measure your position on the earth via satellites to within a few meters, or just program a robot to catch a ball.

 

Creationism is not _even_ a theory. It makes no useful predictions. It cannot be falsified by evidence. It is not supported by any evidence in that there is no objective evidence that "god" did it.

 

Now if only we could get HRH Charles W to shut up about homoeopathy being a medicine.

[Andrew_C]

Now if only we could get HRH Charles W to shut up .

Fixed that for you.

[synaesthesia]

At least its better than that woman blaming homeopathy products for turning people gay. Not much, but still.

[pcstru]

At least its better than that woman blaming homeopathy products for turning people gay. Not much, but still.

Mmmm. Well ...

 

There is evidence of homoeopathic products.

There is evidence that people take them.

There is evidence that some people are homosexual.

There is probably evidence that someone came out after taking a homoeopathic remedy.

 

And as a theory, "Homeopathic products turn people gay" is at least falsifiable, in that you could statistically quantify any correlation and show that there was nothing beyond noise (no signal).

 

So IMO it (creationism) is not better than that at all. It is a whole steaming heap-load worse.

Edited June 18, 2014 by pcstru

[synaesthesia]

Not quite what was meant, but it all boils down to stupidity though really.

[pcstru]

Not quite what was meant, but it all boils down to stupidity though really.

Yes, but I can have some sympathy for those that are fooled by Homoeopathy; the placebo effect is real and we all have cognitive biases which make it difficult to evaluate evidence especially in the context of our own lives. "I was feeling rough, I took a potion, I felt better" has many possible explanations but it is difficult for people not to equate a correlation as cause and effect.

 

Creationism goes way beyond such natural cognitive biases. It involves feats of amazing compartmentalisation of evidence, twisting of known facts and a complete lack of evidence in support. There is a conscious choice in that, it's not *just* being fooled by effects like regression to the mean.

 

Of course, people are free to believe what they want. The problem comes when they then want those beliefs to be promulgated using taxpayers money and falsely presented as a "scientific theory". It is good to see that this is being recognised in the UK.

[tmcd35]

Evolution is a theory.

 

Gravity too is a theory.

 

I think it's worth pointing out that the word 'theory' in a scientific sense =/= 'theory' in the everyday, Joe Public, I've got a random idea that may or may not be right sense.

 

I know Wiki isn't the best source for referene but - Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - The first paragraph is as good a definition as any.

 

The Theory of Gravity is a good example. I dare you to jump out a 2nd storey window and then come tell me the gravity isn't proven!

[Bompalompalomp]

At least its better than that woman blaming homeopathy products for turning people gay. Not much, but still.

 

You sure they're not just dyslexic and dropping the E?

[pcstru]

I think it's worth pointing out that the word 'theory' in a scientific sense =/= 'theory' in the everyday, Joe Public, I've got a random idea that may or may not be right sense.

 

I know Wiki isn't the best source for referene but - Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - The first paragraph is as good a definition as any.

It's a fair point, although generally, creationists are using the term correctly when they point out that evolution is a theory. Usually, there is another word present, a rhetorical modifier - "Evolution is just a theory", as if that puts it on the same level as "intelligent design" or a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis - which are not even scientific theories (in that they cannot be falsified).

The Theory of Gravity is a good example. I dare you to jump out a 2nd storey window and then come tell me the gravity isn't proven!

 

Pedantically, it wouldn't prove it. Absolute proof doesn't really exist outside of logical philosophy and mathematics. Of course, in everyday living and everyday use of language, it's reasonable to describe 'gravity' as 'proven'. But like many things, as you get more into the detail of what do we mean by 'gravity', we necessarily disassociate from such absolutes as 'proven'.

[sted]

i love the fact that creationists use you couldnt see it happen you wernt there (or words to that effect) to say evolution is wrong well nobody alive today could see the bible written or taking place so by the same logic that could be just as made up. But going down that road how do i know any of you exist i cant see you you could all be figments of my imagination and i could be the figment of someone elses. You cant even prove you exist catagorically

[pcstru]

You cant even prove you exist catagorically

Cogito ergo sum, is as good as it gets (and pretty good IMO).

[AMLinington]

I am on a forum for one of my hobbies and the whole "evolution is a theory" rubbish is spouted by the creationists on the site.

 

It is thrown back that "Gravity is a theory". Also it tends to be the ones that don't believe in evolution that are against having their children vaccinated.

 

Natural selection at work.

[sted]

Cogito ergo sum, is as good as it gets (and pretty good IMO).

 

i think i maybe therefore i possibly am?

[featured_spectre]

Here is something for the creationists that usually has them stumped.

 

If humans were a product of Intelligent Design (ID), why do we have such obvious flaws?

 

Examples

Appendicitis - surely if the human body was intelligently designed then it wouldn't need the appendix or the appendix wouldn't fail in the way that it does.

Human Organs - Aside from Brain, Heart and Lungs, the remaining vital organs are not protected by any bones - Liver, kidneys, spleen, digestive tract etc, all out in the open so to speak. Intelligent designing would have had them all protected.

 

This is just 2 of the examples I can think of whilst sitting here, I could think of more. Also ID doesn't offer any proof, it just misshapes and distorts the evolutionary theory because ID has no basis in fact, whereas evolution does.

[sonofsanta]

Related article: 10 Scientific Ideas That Scientists Wish You Would Stop Misusing

 

(and also 10 Pseudo-Science Theories We'd Like to See Retired Forever for the quote on homeopathy: "Homeopathy claims water can cure you, because it once held medicine. That's like saying you can eat off an empty plate because it once held food.")

 

Also, generally, hurrah for common sense prevailing. ID/Creationism is demonstrably not scientific (makes no predictions that can be tested etc.) and therefore does not belong in the science classroom. That is as far as the discussion needs to go. Teach it in RE if you must teach it, along with all the other fairy tales.

[tommej]

This only seems to apply to state funded schools unless I'm missing something. Has anyone actually seen creationism being taught as science, pretty sure 99% of people would laugh at the stupidity in this country.

[edutech4schools]

I believe in both and all. We all live in a simulated universe with laws of evolution but that simulated universe was created by an intelligence.

 

Bang, everyone is right and we all get along.

[sonofsanta]

This only seems to apply to state funded schools unless I'm missing something. Has anyone actually seen creationism being taught as science, pretty sure 99% of people would laugh at the stupidity in this country.

 

It applies to academies and free schools, LEA schools presumably already being unable to teach it. It doesn't affect private schools or nurseries.

 

From the British Humanist Association, who've been campaigning on the issue:

In other words, in the Government’s view, if an Academy or Free School teaches creationism as scientifically valid then it is breaking the requirement to provide a broad and balanced curriculum. As every Academy and Free School has this requirement in its funding agreement, the implication of this interpretation is that no Academy and Free School, existing or future, can teach pseudoscience.

 

...

 

'However, there are other ongoing areas of concern, for example the large number of state financed creationist nurseries, or the inadequate inspection of private creationist schools, and continued vigilance is needed in the state-funded sector.'

 

Also: check out the header image there. As if I didn't have enough reasons to love Patrick Stewart already!

[pcstru]

I believe in both and all. We all live in a simulated universe with laws of evolution but that simulated universe was created by an intelligence.

The problem with the simulated universe stuff is there is no way to test it because a simulated universe looks exactly the same to someone inside as a 'natural' universe. As a theory it fails on testability, predictability and falsifiability and when it falls on Occam's Razor, it's blooded corpse is added to the pile of gore that failed the test for simplicity.

[edutech4schools]

The problem with the simulated universe stuff is there is no way to test it because a simulated universe looks exactly the same to someone inside as a 'natural' universe. As a theory it fails on testability, predictability and falsifiability and when it falls on Occam's Razor, it's blooded corpse is added to the pile of gore that failed the test for simplicity.

 

But it is statistically more likely than not, its just not testable with the tools and knowledge we have now. Example, the Earth is round, it is testable but that was not always the belief.

[sonofsanta]

But it is statistically more likely than not

 

You what? How'd you figure that? I don't even know what statistical test you could apply

[featured_spectre]

But it is statistically more likely than not, its just not testable with the tools and knowledge we have now. Example, the Earth is round, it is testable but that was not always the belief.

 

Wrong...Earth is not round, hell, earth is not even a sphere....it is an oblate Spheroid with its structure being closer to a pumpkin that a sphere.

[edutech4schools]

Simulated theory is testable, this is one way Do we live in the Matrix? Scientists believe they may have answered the question - Telegraph

 

but I have seen other ways in New Scientist about how it could be tested.