Christ Centered Gamer

Wilpanzer wrote:

ArchAngel wrote:I don't think anybody here follow that.

Many of the people who are agreeing with me are Christians whose faith is very important to them. Just because they don't think a religious teaching should be taught in a science classroom doesn't make them any less a Christian.

I am an Atheist, but I am a minority here. The fact I'm welcomed and embraced here is a credit to this community, not a bafflement of their faith.

Evolutionism is just a belief too.

Actually I have had a professor who is atheist tell me that some evolutionists claim it is easier to prove creationism
the sad thing is that all this newest battle and other actions like it does is detract from the truth and the message Which is in my opinion the goal of evil to get us off topic and entangled in legalism I am not saying that we need to avoid or stay out of battles of earth BUT we can not let it get to where proving who is right or wrong keeps us from telling others of the truth of God and salvation

What?

I know that Biblical Creationism isn't science. The problem is that people tend to use the term "Creationism" to describe a variety of approaches, some religious some not, so for me the question is: just how specific is that law?

There is no law. Bring a valid scientific theory and it's potentially appropriate for education. I mean, I'm not sure how well Standard Model vs. String Theory will do in an elementary classroom, but that's a little outside the scope.

Can you show me a valid scientific theory that's being actively barred?

From the article:

The funding agreement defines creationism as "any doctrine or theory which holds that natural biological processes cannot account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth and therefore rejects the scientific theory of evolution,"

That's a startlingly broad definition. Like I said before, they're not simply blocking Biblical Creationism (which I agree isn't science) but are blocking absolutely any theory other than Evolution.

Does that seem scientific to you? Isn't science supposed to be open to new data and new theories? That policy (you're right, it isn't a law) is basically locking out everything else by its wording, regardless of whether or not it has anything to do with Biblical Creationism.

Fair point. I forgot about the article and I was thinking from a U.S. standpoint. Poo on me for not recalling or reading the funding agreement.

So, yeah, that ruling certainly doesn't encapsulate the spirit of science, and while Evolution is more firmly planted than most theories currently standing, it's certainly not above challenge. Not every challenge is valid, but no theory is above challenge.

That does leave a bad taste in my mouth. On one hand, people will try to weasel their religious beliefs or crackpot ideas (plasma cosmology, or even flat earth) and I'm struggling to find a way to define scientific consensus or at least scientifically valid theories, but having a high level policy specifically stating it has to follow one particular theory is too heavy handed for it's own good.

I agree with the spirit of the ruling, but the bit you quoted does lose me. I'm having a hard time even interpreting what it can or can't mean. You bring up a good point.

Yeah, the wording gives me pause too.

But who cares, it's England, so whatevs.