Ernie you are quoting a headline whose sole justification is an entry exam question imagine you were prime minister write a speech . We did the same thing at my comprehensive. And my entry question for Newcastle Polly was to justify the death penalty for terrorist murders of policemen I never got the impression I was being groomed for home secretary.

Yes but you are always going on about how people just believe what they read without thinking

That’s news to me…….got any links ? “always going on” sounds like quite a lot !

And you appear to have missed the bit where I say “I’m happy to be corrected”. I’ve accepted that the Telegraph’s claim might be false.

BTW do you fancy commenting on the thread’s actual subject matter, ie, the teaching of creationism in science classes in state funded schools, you don’t appear to have, or has my criticism of busybodies who are obsessed with other peoples religious views now put the focus on me ?

Ernie you are quoting a headline whose sole justification is an entry exam question imagine you were prime minister write a speech . We did the same thing at my comprehensive. And my entry question for Newcastle Polly was to justify the death penalty for terrorist murders of policemen I never got the impression I was being groomed for home secretary.

You also appear to be more interested in talking about the Daily Telegraph crankboy, fancy talking about the subject that Woppit brought up ?

Or is there now an acceptance that it’s a non-story/issue so focus has to be redirected at me instead ?

Blimey, who’s urinated on your potato wedges today ernie?
You usually have some insightful commentary on political stories, but you just seem to be spoiling for a fight tonight.

Ernie I don’t think this is a non subject at all I just thought your Eaton crack was lazy and rubbish and should be challenged.

On wopits original point the teaching of creationism is a real issue and should be challenged it has no place in science and has no valid science behind it . It is not worthy of debate and there is no controversy to debate . To teach that evolution has been scientifically disproved is a simple lie. The education of future generations is everyone’s business and there is a public interest in ensuring children are provided with as good an education as possible . one cannot buy the right to teach children palpable nonsence nor can one claim the right to do so at public expense by demanding that because your religion dictates it it is science not nonsence.

I just thought your Eaton crack was lazy and rubbish and should be challenged.

Yeah I can see – that’s 3 times now that you’ve gone on about it, I was happy to accept your point after the first time you made it. And it wasn’t even central to the point that I was making.

Which was, that the link in Woppit’s original post does not claim that creationism is taught in science classes in state schools. Although you would forgiven to think that it was going by some of the comments.

The link merely reaffirms that creationism cannot be taught in state funded schools, from the link :

“The requirement on every academy and free school to provide a broad and balanced curriculum in any case prevents the teaching of creationism as evidence based theory in any academy or free school.”

Obviously that gets in the way of a little rant. And the problem was compounded by me talking about ‘whining busybodies who are obsessed with other peoples religious views’. Because you see even though saying “Stand by for whining religious apologists” is a little bit rude, these people don’t like it very much if people are a little bit rude to them.

It’s fine to point and laugh and ridicule people who have religious views, but don’t do it to them.

Creationism has been taught in academies and in free schools hence the current clarification. Which is important to draw a clear line . It should not be taught as science in any school whether state or privately funded.
The value of teaching science as science and religion as a separate view which has nothing to do with science is not a non story.
I think wopits title is unnecessarily provocative if it helps.

A step in the right direction from our religion-sympathising government. Next stop – banning all faith schools in favour for secular education establishments.

Creationism has been taught in academies and in free schools..

Woppit’s link in his original post makes absolutely no mention of that* – perhaps if that’s the point this thread is suppose to making a link with such a claim would be useful ?

In fact Woppit’s link makes it abundantly clear that nothing has changed with regards to the teaching of creationism in place of evolution in state schools. According to the link :

“It is already the case that all state schools, including academies, are prohibited from teaching creationism as scientific fact. That has not changed”

So I disagree with you when you claim that it isn’t a non-story**. Unless of course I have missed something and you can point to one thing in the OP’s link which suggests something has changed.

*If it was taught in any state schools it wasn’t done legally or within the rules, the link makes that very clear. But then of course lots of things sometimes happen in schools, and elsewhere, which aren’t legal or within the rules.

**”Nothing has changed” might be a story but it isn’t a very interesting one 🙂

Woppit provocative… ha… please pull the other one.

A good ruling. Irrelevant of whether it happens now, it stops it happening in the future which would seem to be a good thing.

Re. Religion in schools, like it or not, it is a big part of the world we live in and should be taught. Kids should understand it and be told what the different religions represent or stand for. What should not happen is any kind of indoctrination, or promotion of 1 religion above any other.

In fact Woppit’s link makes it abundantly clear that nothing has changed with regards to the teaching of creationism in place of evolution in state schools. According to the link :
“It is already the case that all state schools, including academies, are prohibited from teaching creationism as scientific fact. That has not changed”

That is the spin words of a Goverment spokesperson. The rest of the link makes it “abundantly clear” that new explicit clauses have been introduced and that campaigners felt that the prior rules were not clear enough.

The move is the culmination of a long campaign by secularists, who first succeeded in getting creationism banned from all future free schools, then future stand-alone academies and then finally all future multi-academy trusts.

It is the first time the rule has applied to current free schools and academies, however.

…
The new church academies clauses state…
…

A spokesperson for the Department for Education insisted the new rules merely clarified what was already the government position – although that view is disputed by campaigners.

From your above post Graham : “the new rules merely clarified what was already the government position”. In the previous page you implied that creationism was taught in science classes in state funded classes after several posters challenged that suggestion.

There is some opposition to academy and free schools which take state funded schools out of local authority control, and quite right too, they’re a bad idea imo.

Understandably people are concerned that all manner of problems might occur including the clearly unacceptable situation of creationism being taught in place of science, a problem not helped by ranters such as Woppit, and others, frightening people with their hostile anti-religious rhetoric.

So the government has obviously felt the need to very clearly clarify the situation, which is that creationism cannot be taught in science classes in any state funded school, just like it’s always been the case. Nothing has changed.

“It is already the case that all state schools, including academies, are prohibited from teaching creationism as scientific fact. That has not changed”

This is side-stepped by teaching both creationism and evolution as ‘theories’ and failing to consider that only one is empirically based and open to academic rigour and debate whereas the other is a ‘belief’ that is reinforced by endless repetition and ceremony. I have read that this goes on in the Vardy schools.

This is side-stepped by teaching both creationism and evolution as ‘theories’…

It can’t be sidestepped like that, any school doing that would be blatantly breaking the rules.

Which are, that in UK state funded schools creationism cannot be taught in science classes in place of the theory of evolution.

So the government has obviously felt the need to very clearly clarify the situation, which is that creationism cannot be taught in science classes in any state funded school, just like it’s always been the case. Nothing has changed.

Why?

If it’s already against the rules to teach Creationism, and state schools aren’t teaching it, why is it suddenly necessary to clarify those rules? Is it something they thought was likely to happen?

Just to come along out of the blue and go, “you know that thing you’re not doing? Just so we’re clear, you still can’t do it” makes little sense. I grant you, “making sense” isn’t a top government priority and our lovable rogues that are our national media could cheerfully run a headline of “Princess Diana: still dead,” but still. That’s just odd.

Vardy schools do not teach creationism

Stand by for whining religious apologists

Was that aimed at me?

Why?

If it’s already against the rules to teach Creationism, and state schools aren’t teaching it, why is it suddenly necessary to clarify those rules? Is it something they thought was likely to happen?

Just to come along out of the blue and go, “you know that thing you’re not doing? Just so we’re clear, you still can’t do it” makes little sense. I grant you, “making sense” isn’t a top government priority and our lovable rogues that are our national media could cheerfully run a headline of “Princess Diana: still dead,” but still. That’s just odd.

Why are you asking me that when I’ve already answered the question in the same post that you quote me from ?

ernie_lynch – Member

There is some opposition to academy and free schools which take state funded schools out of local authority control, and quite right too, they’re a bad idea imo.

Understandably people are concerned that all manner of problems might occur including the clearly unacceptable situation of creationism being taught in place of science, a problem not helped by ranters such as Woppit, and others, frightening people with their hostile anti-religious rhetoric.

So the government has obviously felt the need to very clearly clarify the situation, which is that creationism cannot be taught in science classes in any state funded school, just like it’s always been the case. Nothing has changed.
Posted 10 minutes ago # Edit

Personally I’m glad that the situation has been clarified and that everyone now knows that creationism cannot be taught in science classes in state funded schools in the UK.

Perhaps now everyone, including Woppit, can stop going on about it ? 🙂

molgrips – Member

Stand by for whining religious apologists

Was that aimed at me?

That what I automatically thought – that it was aimed at you.

What a thoroughly unpleasant thread this is

If he thinks I’m ever going to sympathise with people teaching creationism as science then even after all this time and all these arguments he still as absolutely no grasp of what I’m talking about..

IF it was aimed at me of course 🙂

IF it was aimed at me of course

It was aimed at starting another dull religion baiting/bashing thread.

“Wizard in the sky” etc etc etc etc etc – yawn.

molgrips – Member
If he thinks I’m ever going to sympathise with people teaching creationism as science then even after all this time and all these arguments

The merest hint of a suggestion of any such a thought had not even BEGUN to contemplate crossing even the extreme outer edge of what passes for my mind, mol. 🙂

To be fair,

If there’s one thing that needs bashing, it’s Creationism. Unnecessarily provocative subject title aside, I’m not quite sure what else is here that the relatively right-thinking STW theists would object to? Seems to be a reasonable debate so far.

“Wizard in the sky” etc

… said no-one on this thread (other than yourself just now).

Woppit – which of your kids will this ruling effect?

Title slightly stirring…
Legit topic for discussion.
But there isn’t really anything to say anti this news , is there?

As usual in these threads, only arguments really so far from people who haven’t read the links being discussed, or are taking offense on other people’s behalves.

same old STW. 🙂

But there isn’t really anything to say anti this news , is there?

I was rather hoping there might be, but hey-ho. I guess the trout aren’t rising again, today. 😐

What a thoroughly unpleasant thread this is

I don’t think so. why do you think this?

As usual in these threads, only arguments really so far from people who haven’t read the links being discussed, or are taking offense on other people’s behalves.

Or the normal attention seekers.

… said no-one on this thread (other than yourself just now).

I said that’s what he had tried to provoke.

I didn’t say he succeeded.

So you’re arguing about what might happen rather than what’s actually happening? I suppose if nothing else that’s in keeping with the rest of the thread.

So you’re arguing about what might happen rather than what’s actually happening?

I’m not arguing about anything.

I was responding to molgrips’ query, as to who the thread title was aimed at.

You can try and provoke an argument if you want thought.

Well, I’d hate to feel left out.

“Argue” was perhaps too strong a word there, apologies. I meant it in the sense of a stance or a viewpoint, rather than picking a fight.

I was rather hoping there might be, but hey-ho. I guess the trout aren’t rising again, today.

No we learnt long ago to leave you to your charmless vitriol all on your own.

Just Mols and others who are “provoked” on our behalf…. Bless, at least they make you feel wanted though, aye?

Unnecessarily provocative subject title aside, I’m not quite sure what else is here that the relatively right-thinking STW theists would object to? Seems to be a reasonable debate so far.

It’s alright cougs, you don’t need to justify anything, it’s obvious that religion bashing is far game as far as STW is concerned and fair play to Woppit for his imagination in terms of the incredible variety of opportunities he discovers in order to do this. Really very impressive.

Having fun with the wendies and the god botherers today Woppit – quiet day? 😉

Some state-funded faith schools have redacted exam questions on evolution in the past, which presumably means that it’s unlikely they were teaching evolution in science lessons. That doesn’t mean that they were taught creationism in science lessons, but it’s certainly cause for concern and goes against requirements for a full education.

With the widening of providers of state-funded education, and the concerns over the ‘Trojan horse’ schools, it seems fair enough to explicitly bar teaching of creationism in state-funded science lessons.

Having fun with the wendies and the god botherers today Woppit – quiet day?

Yeah, what can you do…

Always count on Ro5ey to chippie in, though. 😀

it’s obvious that religion bashing is far game as far as STW is concerned

Oh please, not that old chestnut. What would you have us do instead? Would you seriously prefer censorship over freedom of discussion?

Cos we can change it if you want. All the football threads can go for a start, and Binners’ breakfast lasagne thread as it offends my vegetarian sensibilities. Pretty sure the other mods will have other things to make verboten too, you can kiss goodbye to the A&A threads I expect.

Best get rid of all the politics threads as well, and the ones around sexism and racism. Dangerous topics, those. In fact, all the debate threads will have to go, we can’t risk anyone being offended now can we.

You could always ban me again…

NO NO DON’T. I WAS JUST JOKIIIIII……. 😉