Alice Roberts on Creationism in schools [Daily Politics 05 02 2014]
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 окт 2024
- Professor Alice Roberts on how Creationism teaching in English schools damages Science education plus interview and some politician BS afterwards.
[Daily Politics 05 02 2014]
Matt Dillahunty said it best: "Teach a child one religion, you indoctrinate him/her, teach a child many religions, you inoculate him/her!"
Brilliant observation
@@andymoore9977 Not really an observation on my part, I'm just quoting wise words from a great man.
@@neilforbes416 But thanks for sharing it with us Neil. I have already started to use it!
@@andymoore9977 You're welcome.
Matt dillahunty is a belligerent idiot
When BBC presenters say that evolution is just a theory, you should remind them that a theory, in science , is the highest level a hypothesis can rise to.
Unfortunately, the majority of the general public have no idea what a scientific theory is, compared to the idea of a 'theory' as a guess, in general conversation. They mistake theory for a hypothesis. The world is full of idiots.
@Tim Webb You continue to believe, the rest of us will be comfortable with facts. But what you cannot get away with is confusing truth with belief. You will not accept facts, but tell others to believe fairytales. People like you are the reason that religion is having such a bad time at the moment. Thanks to science, we don't have to be oppressed by fools like you anymore.
@Tim Webb You are ignorant and delusional Tim. The fossil records are very clear and totally confirm the theory of evolution. The real nail in the coffin of creationists is DNA. We now know for certain, without a doubt, that evolution is a fact. The only argument you can have as a theist is that God put these facts in place to fool us all and test our faith. Is that what you think? Why would he do that?
@Tim Webb Bollocks.
@Tim Webb But it doesn't confirm anything to do with faith Tim. Please go back and make a better study of the fossil record and you will find the correlations. It is also clear, in the 'few million years' you state, that during that time, you can distinguish the evolutionary process in the record. The problem you have with trying to square religion with the fossils is not anything to do with evolution. The major religions have already accepted evolution and have tried to work in into their belief systems, because it is unarguably fact. If you so trust the 'Layers beneath the few millions of years you refer to, then you are clearly not a creationist, and you also have some issues with the biblical timescale. Do you?
Blimey, I really thought creationism was dead in the UK but they're still discussing it?
Alice Roberts saves the day.
Yes they're still discussing it However it is far from dead
Dont worry God is not beaten into the ground by anyone and this discussion will outlast our pitiful lives.
@Daniel Calvert you've not read enough to be intelligently critical. Cheers!
@Daniel Calvert Lots of Elvis impersonators as well. What is your point and scientific support for you banal view?
@@godislove8740 And if all you've ever read is a bible, then you have no right to criticise anyone who has actually read proper peer-reviewed science or technology texts. Science DEBUNKS creationism 100% of the time!
An analogy would be to teach Arthurian myth as factual content in history lessons, whereas they should be discussed as part of the English literature syllabus. The religious creationists should constrain themselves to religious studies to discuss the creationism myths
Teaching creationism as science in a classroom is equivalent as teaching Lord of the Rings as History of Western Civilizations.
You mean it isn't true?
Good analogy.
@@adambrickley1119 yes, If TLOTR was seperated from it's known cultural origin- written by an English man during WWII, if someone found the book centuries later they could wonder it was intended as factual. There are theories the Jewish creation myths were 'borrowed' out of context from older cultures.
she's the most gorgeous professor i have ever seen.
Nihilanth1982 Referring to Prof Alice Roberts, you're right. She is very attractive. With a gentle humorous manner, and a little extra warmth from some West Country (Dorset?) in her speech. All the same, her most attractive feature is how bright she is. But then, [sigh] I love intelligent women, especially when they are pretty too.
Added to the fact she is 100% correct !!!
Isn't she just beautiful and intelligent.Must ask her to marry me.........er.....when I finish my sentence !
@Tim Webb Take your fairy story trolling somewhere else mate. This is a video about facts, not drivel from a 2000 year old book written by a shepherd !
@Tim WebbA fairy story about an invisible man in the sky. 😂 What did he ever do for all the children who were raped and tortured by priests ??
Creationism should be taught in “Creative Writing” classes 😇😇
Excellent response!
@Billy Grahammer Why not, both are un-provable stories. I plump for evolution (with a creator involved, with a light touch, maybe billions of years ago) and others choose creation which happened just 4000 years ago.
extremely dull reading though
@@andymoore9977 you don’t need both, you only need science. Creationism has been debunked, extensively.
@@andrewfairborn6762 We are all entitled to our opinions, and let's face our individual views count for nothing in the grand schemes of things. But the best thing we can do is try and be nice to each other.....
I hope she never gives up this very important fight.
Commies never do .
Tim Webb That’s why it should be banned, it’s misinformation.
Tim Webb I’m just trying to learn stuff about us, other hominids and natural history in general and try not be misinformed about the planets various versions of their particular god creating it.
@rm3 sorry to hear your world is devoid of meaning and purpose. Mine is not.
My biology teacher was a creationist and although evolution was on the curriculum, all we got were the arguments against it, whilst cleverly never directly mentioning god or creation - deceitfully sowing the seeds of doubt in impressionable minds.
Fearing for my exam results, I bought a book on evolution and taught myself. If a holocaust denier would seem to make for an unsuitable history teacher, the same should apply for creationists teaching biology.
Well said Martyn Jones.
@@chattonlad9382 Write and tell somebody that the biology teacher is teaching his own curriculum and not the one he supposed to each. He should be fired but the authorities need the evidence. You and your classmates have that evidence.
@Martyn Jones Write and tell somebody that the biology teacher is teaching his own curriculum and not the one he supposed to each. He should be fired but the authorities need the evidence. You and your classmates have that evidence.
You tell 'em, Alice!
@Billy Grahammer Prove it, prove your conviction with science and empirical evidence. or is it all about how many Rolls Royce's self appointed religious leaders need?
Really can't believe we need to have this discussion in the UK. Disgusting....
Alice is spot on. It makes my blood boil that we peddle fairy tales as fact to children. You may as well "teach" middle ages ideas like flat earth and the sun orbitng the earth. We need to teach our children critical thinking..get them to question, think, look at and for the evidence, dont tale things "on faith" as this is a form of mind control.
some parents dont have a choice their kids are forced into a religious school because their is no alternative
KEITH OLBERMANN
Parents do have a right to choose their children's education - but not an unfettered right. They are required, by law, to provide an education for their children, but that education must meet certain basic standards. One of these standards is that peuudo-science (in this case just religious belief) should not be presented as if it is real science. I have no problem with creationism being taught as part of religious education but it has no place whatsoever in a science classroom.
When I was about 7 - back in the 1960's - I went with the school to the Natural History Museum in London, two days later in R.E. the teacher tried to tell us that the world was created about 4500 years ago. As a seven year old it confused me a little.
When I was told 'God created man in His image', I asked my teacher 'What church did dinosaurs go to then Miss ?' and I got sent to the Headmaster's office.
I was told by my parents not to lie as no one will believe you in future if you are found to be lying even once, yet here we are 50+ years later still pushing these myths to children like they are facts. How can we expect the young to be honest when they are virtually forced to believe such utter nonsense as religion ?
education makes atheist's.
@@ARSONXBELLA I sort of agree.... don't get me wrong, I am not saying religion should not be taught - it teaches ethics etc etc, but I do hold the belief that if people are educated more then they will forego those stone-age superstitions as being factual.
Those books that make up bibles, korans etc etc are meant to be guides not absolutes to be adhered to hundreds maybe thousands of years after they were written in order to help people who were not educated to the level and standard of the more enlightened peoples of the world.
In centuries gone by, people were burned at the stake for saying that the world was not flat........
i went to a church of england school and was sent to the headmaster too would have been about 1969 they would take us on nature trails telling us god made everything it astounds me that i had more understanding than the adults that taught me
@@1man1bike1road I was bought up not to tell lies - you have to have too good a memory to remember who you said what to.... things don't 'ring true' and it's easy to tell the nonsense from the truth, thanks for your comment friend !
@@1man1bike1road Well we should be greatful that we live today - a few centuries ago people would be tortured and executed as heretics for not 'following the rules', even now some fundamentalist followers of various faiths take it upon themselves to act on behalf of some non-existant entity to destroy 'infidels' ! - it's just ignorance really.
Everything taught in a science class must use the scientific method and since the evidence of creationism cannot stand up to that method it doesn’t have a place in a science class. I don’t see how this can be up for debate.
Well informed parents.. That would be a good idea.
Too bad they stopped there. She was about to really let them have it.
@Tim Webb Oh yeah? There's more physical proof of evolution than all that's said in you fairy stories of that plagerised book you call the bible.
Evolution is FACT, if you disagree, it is still a fact.
walkergarya Evolution is a theory.
paul boach The Theory of Evolution is a Scientific Theory.
A Scientific Theory is an explanation of phenomenon, supported by evidence and accepted by the scientific community.
The PROCESS of Evolution, is a fact.
paul boach It's important to understand the difference between the commonly understood definition of the word 'theory' and the scientific one. It's more than a guess; it's more than a hypothesis - it's a tried and tested explanation for how something works in nature. Nobody questions the validity of the theory of gravity or germ theory - do they?
Just like The Theory of Gravity, Cell Theory, Germ Theory, Tectonic Plate Theory, or any other Theory within science. If someone disagrees with facts, they are dangerous.
***** Jack Tom, it is interesting that not more than about 6 hours ago I was looking into this matter of "theory" and what it means in regard to origins. Actually, the "theory" of evolution isn't really a "theory." I heard the definition of theory as found in scientific circles and evolution can't really be considered a theory. It requires evidence--and there is no evidence for evolution. It requires something to be tested and evolution can't be tested. It requires repeatable facts, and no one has observed evolution. Evolution isn't even a theory--but a guess.And why would anyone guess about such an important topic--when getting this wrong will have eternal results? That is the question that needs to be answered.Basically, people have developed a naturalistic view of the world. This is the evolutionist's worldview. They say that miracles can't even enter our consideration. Thus, with God eliminated, they are in the unenviable position of explaining everything without a supernatural Creator--and this is an impossible task. And why would they eliminate God and the supernatural? Because they don't want to be held accountable to a Higher Power and need to bring their life into conformity with His will. It requires dying to themselves and accepting the authority of God over them. They run from this. Thus they end up with a poor, pitiable attempt to explain all things naturally. It can't be done. Just as God says, "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'"(Psalm 14:1). Although the evidence of creation is all around us, people deny the obvious--and God says, "They are without excuse," since God has made creation plain to them (see Romans 1:18-21). How sad and how nonsensical!
Alice,
The problem is that if I even reveal the fact that I'm agnostic, I'll be discriminated against in the workplace. Creationism is shoved down our throats since we are young here in the U.S. God forbid I'd have a free thought!
Wow, you live in one of those parts of the US? That's really too bad. :(
That is very sad. We have a more open view in the UK and I think Alice wants to protect that.
John Crocker John, don't think that everyone in the US is like that. If you're an educated person with an advanced degree working in a white collar technology-based field in a major metropolitan area you might go virtually your whole life without bumping up against that sort of thing (same thing with guns). Creationism is more a product of the economic, social and educational inequities between people in the United States. Economically at least, think of the US more like Europe as a whole than as a single society or country. Just like Europe has poorer parts and countries in the south and east of the continent and all the divides there so too does the US have its own large swaths of its population in the South, Midwest and Western areas of the country who are outcast from the main society. These are people who rarely travel internationally, are disproportionately poor, are socially isolated outside of their church communities and are bombarded by right wing media like Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. It's a sad but inevitable result.
zyxwut321 Dear ZYXwut321, I'm from the south and have a B.S. and M.S. in chemistry. I have many, many friends that are just as open minded as I. It's a lot-not all- of the older generation that hangs on to this bullshit dogma. Not all..
Paul Dodson I'm guessing as an individual you likely live and work near one of the more wealthy, progressive metropolitan areas surrounding a major research university or two. I've lived in the south for extended periods of time myself and believe me, for as "many" people who are open-minded the predominant culture is not. Wealthy parts of individual metropolitan areas like Atlanta, Austin, Charlotte and Research Triangle aside most of the south (along with the Midwest and West outside of the coast) is a pretty depressing wasteland of anti-intellectualism.
Until this I didn't know this was an issue in this country. I was born here, and have always lived here all my life and have never met anyone dumb enough to believe creationism. And I've met a lot of dumb people.
You are an idiot that thinks your grandpa is a fish you are insane and going to hell
So that would mean religious folk either live inside churches or when not at church they never leave their house? Is that correct, Tim? Because I've never been in a Sainsbury's but I've likely spoken to many people who have over the course of my life.
Im assume yr drunk or joking! lol
That's for sure .
+David Gonzales The law that you don't know is the Constitution of the United States. It specifies that the state shall not prescribe any religion, which is a safaguard for the freedom of religion. Some teachers teach only science, because that is what science teachers do. It is their job. Religion is taught by other teachers. Religion has no place in science classes.
Love Alice Roberts.
Her work is always worth watching.
We should get physics and chemistry introduced into the R.E. curriculum.
And Critical Thinking skills, Al. Religion can't face up to that...
@@gedorfmibarah6111 “It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.”
― G.K. Chesterton
@@dulls8475 No, it's not. What is absurd is not taking into account how truly long 2 billion years actually is.
@@kilroy2517 I myself don't believe the earth is that old.
@Tim Webb It's astounding how you fundies can say with a straight face what is true about your own beliefs. Religion is what humans use to fill the gaps in their knowledge, because we hate not knowing. As we learn more about the universe and those gaps shrink, we have less and less need of superstition and mythology to fill them. Religion is a rotting house of cards, and your god is no longer needed. Anyway, you're sure hanging your hat on that zircon dating issue, so please provide some supporting evidence - links to websites citing studies, etc. I have found so far that all of these "scientific" studies that fundies use to promote their disease are performed by groups with an agenda, and use disingenuous, flawed and misshapen "science" that is debunked by real scientists.
I’ve started to believe in creationism because of Professor Alice Roberts. Because when I look at something as complex and intricate and beautiful as Professor Alice Roberts, I don’t think that just could have evolved by chance. [apologies to Stewart Lee for plagiarism]
That's something like what I was gonna type... But
I don't allow myself to think it.
Problem is there is only one.
Oh! In the future we can have a "Made to Order Dr.Roberts ?"
How: Deliciously Delightful
(Apologies to the Hage for The Plague)
Forgiven not Forgotten
"presenting a relgious creation story as a scientificly valid alternative is nonesense..." simply beautiful.....marry me :)
The US caused this
@@skindred1888 Too many idiots in my country so I apologize on behalf of the US :(
@@FactStorm you should, you guys are awful.
The problem is, most people don't understand what a theory or a hypothesis is. A hypothesis is an idea based on limited or no evidence. It becomes a theory when compelling evidence presents. A theory is measurable, a hypothesis hasn't reached that stage, therefore evolution IS a theory and creationism is hypothesis. In the absence of measurable data, it is therefore not even a matter of opinion that it shouldn't be discussed in a scientific environment. It simply mustn't and that's where the debate should stop, until someone credible offers up measurable, peer reviewed evidence and data of a creator.
Religion was invented when the first conman met the first fool.
Mark twain
No. Religion began when the first human being started to think existentially and ask, "Why am I here?"
2021 and real life human beings are still debating whether an invisible man in the sky is really responsible for it all because it says so in some badly written ancient text. Unreal.
Frances Maude immediately fudged what was a clear question and then when challenged used a completely null argument. The interviewer should have taken him to task.
Keep your CreationIST nonsense out of our Science classes. Teach it if you must in your religious myth classes, none of my business there, but IN Science we must teach what is consistent with a scientific outlook.
The scientific method.
Creation is what we do daily. When we create, we can evolve to enhance our creations.
@Tim Webb Of course there's an alternative to creation. You may not personally believe it, or simply don't understand science, but Evolution is pretty well proven. Your belief is faith based, mine is based on provable science. To claim "it works" is nonsense, none of it makes any sense at all outside of a religious dogma.
Tim Webb so we can add the non sequitur fallacy to your list. You really are a walking anthology of logical fallacies, aren't you BSc boy? 😂😂
Tim Webb amused rather than bothered. It's quite entertaining watching someone who 'claims' to have a BSc talk so much ignorant, infantile nonsense and yet expects to be taken seriously.
All sixthformers should be made to read Julian Jaynes ' book, The Breakdown of Consciousness in the Bicameral Mind. It shows how the very brief history of consciousness and rational thinking is really the process of freeing mankind from the burden of religion. Not teaching kids about this but instead teaching them to believe in gods and demons is criminal abuse. It is high time that research was done on a wide scale into the link between religion and mental illness.
Taught in mythology along side Norse, Greek, Egyptian, Chinese mythology, Aztec, Inca ……. Muslim, Jewish. And we always talk about the parents choice what about the students choice. Many parents actually don’t know what’s best.
I'm a committed Christian and have been a science teacher for 35 years. For me there are some of my fellow Christians who have forgotten their heritage - a heritage that actually invented Science and which, from the days of Augustine of Hippo, accepted that when Science (or the equivalent of his time) contradicted scripture it meant that our interpretation was wrong. We are supposed to learn from Science, not reject it.
Well said, Mr Morton. Creationism is NOT science and has no place in science lessons. The belief that God created the universe and all that there is is a matter for R.E. lessons. I believe in evolution and I believe in Creation by God. There's no contradiction between the two. Anyone who believes in the literal truth of Genesis in a fundamentalist sense is ignoring the evidence of bid God-given reason, and probably insulting the author(s) of that book, who may never have intended it to be taken literally.
I am neither a scriptural nor a Darwinian fundamentalist: both Holy Scripture and science tell us important things about the great truths of the universe.
@@simongleaden2864 you said it.
@Tim Webb You are either a poorly skilled satirist or a badly educated Christian. Yes of course I've read that Scripture, it's presumptuous of you to think otherwise. Moreover, I am an accredited preacher in the Church of Scotland so preach on scriptural texts pretty much every week.
@Tim Webb Yeah. And the Devil can quote Scripture too.
Andrew Morton . What I don’t understand is if you support science over creationism, how come you’re still a Christian? Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t a belief in Christianity a believe in a creator?
As an agnostic atheist, and keen that, as far as possible, we use evidence and the scientific method to build our understanding of the world, I take a keen interest in the issues raised in this video. But if I'm going to be brutally honest, and be truly objective, I really came here to see Alice.... :o)
There's loads of creation myths. Why only teach one?
Belief in creationism manifests slavery . Evolution and evidence based on reason and common sense manifests freedom .
this is happening in UK?
Being taught to think, research and question, is far superior to be told the pseuodo-answers to the biggest questions of our species, at the age of 6.
Hey kids, you're 6 years old, and you've been given all the answers now. Go forth into life and never question anything else.
How can you "appropriately teach" a pack of lies?
In Australia, schools both Government and private schools are registered with various state Governments, depending where the school is situated. All schools have to adhere to the curriculum that is approve by the various State Educated Departments. If they don't, they can be deregistered by the authorities. I believe it happened to a christian school in the 1990s and an Islamic school recently.
Hi dude! Just thought I'd say hi from England (What a wonder science is! Good to hear Australia has a decent system for schools to adhere to.
evolution is based in science, creationism is based in religion, you don't teach geography in math classes, and shouldn't teach religion in science classes.
That’s the problem being via live video. It’s so easy to be cut off as opposed to sitting in front of them.
They all make valid points too, which surprised me as I expected a shouting match with little focus.
Creationism is not science. Science involves putting forward an idea (called a hypothesis) which postulates a cause with an effect. It then amasses evidence and objectively assesses that evidence to see whether it supports the hypothesis or not. If it does, the hypothesis is used to make a prediction which can be further tested. If not, the hypothesis is either rejected or amended for further testing. The key word in all of this is objective. Creationism involves beliefs which are subjective. What is worse, it bowdlerises the scientific method by only looking for evidence that supports its beliefs and ignoring or supressing that which does not. In addition, its supporters continually point to facts for which science (as yet) has no answers as 'proof' of the validity of their ideas. Science does not pretend to have answers for everything. It is an evolving, learning and adaptable way of looking at the universe. That is why it has been so successful over the last three hundred years. The old saying, 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' is true up to a point but absence of evidence is not proof of presence.
@Tim Webb No, you are conflating (or deliberately misrepresenting) the facts. Many of the experiments relating to the origins of life are revealing new, interesting information. Look up some of the work being currently done on abiogenesis and spontaneous organisation is complex systems. The only straw man argument being advanced here is by you when you claim that our lack of detail on the exact sequence of events leading up to the emergence of life is in some way proof of the existence of a creator. In other words you are using a negative as proof of a positive - an elementary and fundemental error of logic obvious to all.
@Tim Webb Ah, the ad hominem attack. Nothing new or relevant to say so resort to name calling. Like most religious believers you make definite statements about subjects that it is obvious you are totally ignorant of. In addition, decrying anyone who argues differently to you and so shows your obsessions to be what they really are is, of course, lying. I was right about you in the other thread, you are a religious lunatic.
@Tim Webb Like most obsessed individuals your lack of self awareness prevents you from distinguishing puerile name calling from an accurate description. Nothing you mentioned was either new or relevant. There are numerous papers published on the internet on Abiogenesis and Spontaneous Organisation in Complex Systems. All you have to do is look them up and read them, which I have, unlike you. If you are so insecure that you need specific references, they can be provided, but I am not here to make up for your lack of scientific education.
Once again, as with most others of a religious/creationist bent, you make it clear that you do not know what you are speaking of. If you did you would be aware that there is a great deal of difference between random events (which follow well known mathematical laws of probability) and chaos (which does not). Random events are not 'blind' in the sense that you use the word but religious faith most certainly is. Conflating these two concepts is a common and well worn tactic to try and disprove many ideas that directly confront religious dogma with it's own contradictions and absurdities. Close the door on your way out.
@Tim WebbLeaving aside the unwanted advice and inappropriate biblical alliterations, I'm not sure what is gushing out of you, but I'm pretty sure that it is something other than blood. However, as you doubt the viability of Self Organisation, hold on to your hat, this is just the tip of the iceberg -
The many self-organising phenomena in physics include phase transitions and spontaneous symmetry breaking such as spontaneous magnetisation and crystal growth in classical physics, and the laser, superconductivity and Bose-Einstein condensation in quantum physics. It is found in self-organised criticality in dynamical systems, in spin foam systems, and in loop quantum gravity, river basins and deltas, in dendrite solidification (snow flakes), and in turbulent structures.The DNA molecular structure has been observed to self-assemble into the other structures required for certain functions.
Self-organisation in chemistry includes molecular self-assembly, reaction-diffusion systems and oscillating reactions, auto catalytic networks, liquid crystals, grid complexes, colloidal crystals, self-assembled mono layers, and micro phase separation of block co polymers.Birds flocking is an example of self-organisation in behavioural biology. Self-organisation in biology can be observed in spontaneous folding of proteins and other bio - macro molecules, formation of lipid bi layer membranes, pattern formation and morphogenesis in developmental biology, the coordination of human movement, social behaviour in insects (bees, ants, termites) and mammals, and flocking behaviour in birds and fish. In swarm robotics, self-organisation is used to produce emergent behaviour.
This is a highly abridged account of how self organisation occurs in many situations. I could elaborate, but I'm sure that you get the point. If you want a precis of the current thinking on abiogenesis I can provide one for you - or would you prefer to stick with 'God did it?'
I assume that you will respond with the usual ' but this is not proof of anything' or something similar. No, it is not, - to an individual like yourself, but it is to those who can think outside of religious ideology and it is indicative of how you are mistaken to airily dismiss anything that casts doubt on scriptural dogma as irrelevant or 'ungodly'. Would you like to see more?
@Tim Webb So now you are attempting to argue the relevance of something you denied even existed? You cannot deny the fact of Spontaneous Organisation so you now change tack and try to dismiss it's importance. What is more, you are deliberately conflating order with information. Crystals spontaneously increase the order of their system when they form but there is no information needed for this to occur as is the case with folding proteins and DNA phase change. You claiming that it is because they are programmed with instructions telling them to do so (which no one has uncovered) is just an unsupported claim, like the rest of religious faith. Spontaneous Organisation occurs across multiple disciplines in nature and there are listed many examples, no matter how you try to deny it's existence and it is a very good contender for (at least one mechanism) for abiogenesis to occur. The entire point of robotic self organisation was that the chips were not programmed for that (or any other) type of behaviour. It 'evolved' according to the laws of probability along analogous lines (it is thought) to the emergence of life.There are many changes which do not require information to occur and your obsession with it's necessity is just one example of your lack of scientific nous. Now, leaving all of the childish name calling and nonsensical prating aside, do you have anything of value to present?
Schools that include Creationism as a theory should be forced to put the "Theory of Creationism" through Peer Review just like ALL scientific theories have to.
I think teaching creationism as science is lying to the students in the way that it would alter their behavior in the future taking the wrong choices. and this is immoral.
I'm absolutely against it.
my, aren't you a loving Christian.
morality comes from being human. not from invented deity's and the beliefs those deity's supposedly created.
and I guess a final point is you come across as a very angry person. where is the love for all people that your deity says is the way you're supposed to live by.
not a nice attitude sir.
the trouble is no one has come forward for any more proof of a god than for a unicorn or an invisible dragon! until they do rational people wont take them seriously
lol The only game in town! You would have to prove that!!! We are not central to the universe just a tiny spec in a vast cosmos. Its yr job to prove yr god/s and as yet there has been no evidence so it is you who is deluded until you can come up with some evidence.
lol it yr job to explain the proof of this god of yrs! I don't need to explain anything. I see no more proof for yr god than for winged horses or talking snakes or any other fanciful mythology
oh dear, your petty inane insults are water off a ducks back Im afraid! but good luck anyhow
Creationists like to ask "Who created the Universe ?"
Which is rather annoying because it's not my problem.
In any case, don't they already know the answer ?
god forbid we go down the american education road (pun intended)
It's rubbish but not for the reasons you hear in the also rubbish popular media. It promotes socialism and personal financial failure, lack of individual responsibility and junk science like the CO2 climate change religion, currently doing more damage than Christianity even.
@@Mrbfgray impressive! Imagine to get it all wrong.
@@Mrbfgray what are you talking about haha
@@Mrbfgray the difference is co2 climate change has evidence. Creationism doesn't
@@TheWeepingDalek And unbelievably--that evidence has been modified to fit the dogma by NASA/NOAA, because the raw data shows max temp measurements in the 1930's, cooling to about 1970/80. Remember when the fear was the next glacial maximum was on the way? That was for good reason. Likewise 'The Dust Bowl', Grapes of Wrath style was from '30's.
CO2 is not trivial, it just seems like it compared to natural climate variation which really is scary.
Few have actually looked at the data other than the cherry picked by media nonsense selected for max drama. Popular media has never given a damn or known squat about science, yet that's where Greta gets her brilliance.
Teaching kids purely creationism is like teaching kids that 2+2=5 when we know for a fact that it's not, it's 4.
Evolution sure did a good job with Alice Roberts .
P.S. Let them teach Creationism during " funny hour " !
+Par N As source material for sarcastic comedians, creationism is a gold mine.
She has not understood the teachings of creationists. She has just ASSUMED that they teach creationism just based on the teachings of the bible. They support their teachings on the available evidence. She came out with a nonsensical statement of comparing creationist teachings with teaching of a flat earth.
I am happy to engage with any discussion on this point but abuse will be ignored
neoptelemus . Excellent points. Interested to see who takes you on........without the usual atheistic abuse.
It is a sad irony that creationism taught in the land of Charles Darwin.
i was taught it in the county of shropshire where darwin was born, i was born in the same town he was.
Gregor Mendel pioneered genetics and he was an Abbot; Charles Darwin planned to become a minister, Einstein was devoutly Jewish for a time and both never accepted they were atheist. Hardly evidence that religious teaching can "ruin a scientific education". Furthermore, Alice Roberts' point that creationists refute the theory of evolution, does not mean that refuting the theory of evolution per se is non-scientific. Evolution is a theory and not a fact, and if we cannot be skeptical or even seek to undermine it, then that is surely another form of religious indoctrination; especially if prohibition on doing so is by way of government diktat.
AR lost credibility with me when she cited an isolated village in North America where the people were small and stout - saying that it might foreshadow eventual human evolution. Yet she is right that "creationism" should not be taught as part of the science curriculum. She is wrong in advocating censoring something on the basis of what scientists believe. When I was taught about Darwinian theory (in a faith school) nearly 70 years ago, a large number of scientists didn't accept it - and those who did couldn't agree on how it worked.
Wilhelm Moggeridge scientists don't 'believe' things.
genesis doesn't agree with itself about how creation happened. i don't get your point
@@sidarthur8706 I never mentioned Genesis. I don't think Genesis has any part in the debate. What I am saying is that simply accepting something because a scientist or a group of scientists say it is so isn't science. It is appeal to authority . Alice R has a particular bias, not uncommon among scientists, which assumes things are wrong because they don't fit a belief system - rather like creationist nuts. My particular scientific hero is Georges Lemaitre whose theory of an expanding universe was rejected by Einstein on the basis of "atrocious physics".
I saw a Roman Catholic priest explain the whole thing very well. To paraphrase, the bible was written over a period spanning roughly 700 BC (or perhaps 1600 BC) to 200 AD, whereas science as we know it started about 1600 AD through to the current time. Therefore you cannot expect to find scientific information in the bible.
Art Vanden Berg
Father Coyne talking to Bill Maher where he says about those creationists such as Ken Ham and their nonsense.
"It's a kind of a plague, it presents itself as science when it's not".
Having studied geology and still finding fossils in the cliffs in West Somerset I completely support Alice Roberts. Creationism is a myth, a story that was made up before science. I am essentially agnostic so I cannot deny that in a very old and very large universe there may be a creator. If so science is the way to find out.
John, Beautifully put!-Paul
And where did your creator come from? You are stuck in a myth taught to you as a child that has put in protections for itself. Non believing, questioning or being curious is punished in these fairy stories. I substitute god with gap filler.
Kokainuser
My mother came from the UK. Her mother came from there as well? Where did your Allah come from, where did his magic, knowledge and morals come from? Are you trying to gap fill again? Can you learn things without a brain. Please explain what Allah is made of, where your heaven and hell live? These are fairy stories, we are nothing without a brain, a physical organ. Without it we are dead, when we die our brain dies. You have been taught BS.
God is the Alpha and Omega, yes I am very spiritual but not trapped by religious dogma. I believe in God not only for the moral conscious of our society but because of its predilections on man's behavior, oddly enough by these comments, have not changed.
For moral conscious? You mean slavery,women as second class people,mass murder under the name of your god? The religious have been trying to claim the moral question. Morals were around well before religions and gods were invented. God did not create people, people created gods to explain the unknown and to make them feel better. A big daddy is watching them and the scary thought of death.
Creationism is not a theory , it is a myth
If we teach Creationalism, you've got to teach Vampirism, Werewolves, Ogres etc.
You can't prove Vampires don't exist! Kids need to know to carry garlic and a sharp wooden stake after dark.
10 Laws of nature regarding information, which prove evolution false and prove creation is true:
1. Anything material, such as physical/chemical processes, cannot create something non-material
2. Information is a non-material fundamental entity and not a property of matter
3. Information requires a material medium for storage and transmission
4. Information cannot arise from statistical processes
5. There can be no information without a code -- no thought or idea can be shared without a code
6. All codes result from an intentional choice and agreement between sender and recipient
7. The determination of meaning for and from a set of symbols is a mental process that requires intelligence
8. There can be no new information without an intelligent, purposeful sender
9. Any given chain of information can be traced back to an intelligent source
10. Information comprises the non-material foundation for all:
a. technological systems
b. works of art
c. biological systems
Conclusions:
1. Since the DNA code of all life is clearly within the definition domain of information, we conclude that there must be a sender
2. Since the density and complexity of the DNA encoded information is billions of times greater than man's present technology, we conclude that the sender must be supremely intelligent
3. Since the sender must have
a. encoded (stored) the information into the DNA molecules,
b. constructed the molecular biomachines required for the encoding, decoding, and synthesizing process and,
c. designed all the features for the original life forms,
We conclude the sender must be purposeful and supremely powerful.
4. Since information is a non-material fundamental entity and cannot originate from material quantities, we conclude that the sender must have a non-material comnponent
5. Since information is a non-material fundamental entity and cannot originate from material quantities, and since information also originates from man, we conclude man's nature must have a non-material component (spirit)
6. Since information is a non-material entity, we conclude that the assumption "the universe is comprised solely of mass and energy" is false.
7. Since:
1) biological information originates only from an intelligent sender and,
2) all theories of chemical and biological evolution require that information must originate solely from mass and energy alone (without a sender), we conclude that all theories or concepts of biological evolution are false.
Anyone who dissagrees with these laws and concluseions must falsify them by demonstrating the initial origin of information from purely material sources.
Therefore, the laws of nature about information have: 1. refuted the assumption of scientific materialism and the theories of chemical and biological evolution 2. all philosophies or theories based on the assumption of scientific materialism including chemical and biological evolution are falsified by the laws of nature about information
If you teach creationism in public schools, wouldn't you have to teach the creation theory of every religious organization that demands it? Because I'll guarantee you who's going to be first in THAT particular line: Scientology.
Xenu forbid!
Alice inspires many to mass debate, risking damage to their eyesight.
Easy, creationism is not a science. With all due respect towards beliefs, faith is faith, and fact is a fact. Anyway, science is based on theories and theories on facts, but theories are not truths. So, let's learn science as a try to understand truths through theories, and let's deal with beliefs as a matter of faith. Whatever try to mix science and beliefs is a fraud. And this is truth. Brilliant Alice!!!
More debate?! That is exactly the problem with this type of sterile word exchanges.
Do doctors debate the veracity of schizophrenic hallucinations with patients?
Should we also perhaps have a public debate over Santa and the Tooth Fairy?
alice roberts is amazing!!. s2
Problem is, I think, the word 'theory' in 'theory ofevolution', to which creationists say'well it's only a theory' (deliberately?) misinterpreting the scientific meaning. It's a pity we can't call it a 'law' but there we are, it's only a theory
Martin Pook: True, but theories are based on evidence and there is overwhelming evidence for evolution......there is zero evidence for creationism.
@@paganphil100 Absolutely, but it the misinterpretation of the word as understood by scientists. Creationists will grasp at any straw.
Creationism should be taught in schools - in the same way that the story of the baker who caused the Great Fire of London should be taught. As a laughable footnote of history.
So, it would be OK for private schools to teach children that 1 + 1 = 5 in a maths lesson? Parents can teach their kids anything they like outside of school, education however needs to stick to the proven and provable.
Flash forward 6 yrs and look across the pond. Yah, let them get the foot in the door and bingo you got a form of the Taliban in politics questioning evolution ... AGAIN.
brings the world the likes of Donald Trump
But they are very cleaver I once heard "Pastors" Paula White and Copeland speaking several languages that no one heard before, they where just amazing the only thing that annoyed me was that they didn't translate what was being said, though I have to admit, the congregation seemed to understand and didn't mind paying for Copeland's 2nd Jet, lovely people!
She's not saying ban teaching 'creationism' in schools - she's saying ban it from science class.
I fundamentally disagree with Professor Roberts on this one.
No room for debate. Religion belongs in Religious Education. The Bible (et al) is demonstrably wrong on every claim made.
@Tim Webb Well I've had an interesting cast around the net, but random archeological finds and igneous rocks don't really prove anything. Some are interesting and have a story to tell. The problem is that Ron Wyatt et al are trying to prove their connection to biblical events. Thats not the way it works. No reputable Archeologist condones his findings.
I'm no historian but it seems to me that Ron and his colleagues are following a clear fallacy of starting at the beginning and working their way to what they find. We dont know what the beginning is, so we have to study what we have and deduce from that.
There are a thousand solutions to why you will find horse and human bones and wheels on the sea floor.
In comparison all serious scientists from multiple disciplines concur, for instance, that the world is immeasurably older than the bible asserts.
That's testable and it is wrong.
@Tim Webb Of course I meant "Older" - still ot got my head around the predictive text on this thing. My apologies.
@Tim Webb Chariots, horses and people where transported by ship at the date you state. Ships sometimes sink. That is the most likely solution. More is needed to tie it to a specific event. To be fair I can't see how this story could be corroborated given how long ago it is.
Serious Archeologist? One who follows the evidence, not the Wyatts of this world who have bent the evidence to fit their beliefs. (How many times has he "found" Noah's Ark?).
Radiocarbon dating has its uses and limitations. Theres also cosmology, paleontology, geology, loads of ologies! If any scientist had discovered that the earth is only 6000 years old and can offer the proof, the Nobel prize would be theirs. As it is we only have the Tureks and the Hovinds who don't (or refuse to) understand science who spread conspiracy theories that a scientific clique is keeping the facts to themselves. And you can't argue with a conspiracy theorist.
That being said, on open mind is essential in all things. Even if the bible is wrong, I'm always interested to know why people believe, because god cannot be disproven, nothing can.
@Tim Webb You're in a different world from the rest of us brother.
All the best.
@Tim Webb Yep that's my home
Who was Ptolomy during Exodus?
Why should (some) parents have a choice that a selected part of their children's science education is taught without reference to scientific method? If those young people go for example to develop drugs do we want drugs developed based on something other than a safe scientific method? The minister is grasping for ...some...parents to have some choice and it is he who isn't clear where the red line is. Looking back in the UK on this from 2017 after some events of 2016 we can see the foolish erosion of the value of evidence base in public debate
😍I need to get in her class asap
Would you leave the education of a child to parents who teach selfishness or an unsanitary life-style or antagonism to people of another race or religion. Why is is such a great thing to allow parents a say in their child's education? State schools with a common curriculum devised and supported by the commmunity is the only way to go.
Why not teach astrology, voodoo, witchcraft and fortune telling as well!
It's completely legitimate to ban the harming of children and teaching them things which are patently false and are not supported by any evidence does harm their growing minds and their future.
Like all that trans bollocks?
She’s beauty with brain. I have a crush on her
Get in the Q !!!!
Both of you have lost.I have asked her to marry me and she has said yes,as soon as I can get a divorce from Kylie Minogue !
a couple of folks are having rather loving conversations with themselves,
while awaiting the arrival of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
Creationism blows all religions out of the water... Thank God... Hahaha
Question: Do you have a problem with teaching Creationism?
Answer of MP: As long as it is made clear, then I don't have a problem.
As long as WHAT is made clear?
@SigmaTauri2 PC in action, he was afraid that someone would be offended, someone that believes in fairy stories but fuck those that believe in the proven truth.
Alice has my vote. :)
Theories taught as if they are indisputable facts should have no place in science lessons
Prof. Alice cut off in her prime there. What a shame. Go, Alice, keep at 'em!
Debate will muddy the waters. Invest in science and outlaw the teaching of creationism as science. It should be taught with magic, religion, snake oil production, gender studies and other Woo. Spend no more than 3 minutes on it.
Given the need to consider science and its social implications and consequences, discussing creationism together with science is valid but it needs competent facilitators (teachers) to be able to do this. Therein lies a substantial problem. The questions of what does religion provide that science does not or why do people still follow religions, despite contradictory evidence to many of the religious texts are important questions that should be explored as part of one’s education. Unfortunately, the school system is rooted in and developed through subjects rather than lived experience in the real world. Hence the tendency to create artificial boundaries and prioritise subjects, notably on what are presented as the needs of the economy.
No. Creationism has no place in a science lesson. It is no more relevant to science than any fairy story.
@@peteconrad2077 Agreed. Perhaps it was the energy of your forced agenda that blinded you to what I wrote. I specifically referred to the problem of schools being structured around delivery through subjects; whereas a discussion of science and religion should form part of one’s education, i.e., a different format and competent teachers are what is needed to facilitate such discussions.
@@cliffjamesmusic you suggested that creationism should be discussed alongside science. That’s ridiculous and promotion of nonsense as equivalent to truth. Creationism has no place alongside science. None. It’s a fairly story. If it must be told to children by parents so be it, but not in school. Schools are for teaching truth not myths. I’d possible allow it to be taught alongside the brothers Grimm and Hans Christian Andersen to which spit has some equivalence.
@@peteconrad2077 The cultural setting of science (and technology) in social evolution interests me. That includes what we study as science and why, including for whose potential benefit. It is set in a culture emerging but still heavily rooted in and steered by religions and their institutions. The reason for bringing science and religion together is to explain why we have moved from certain religious beliefs to scientific ones. Knowing i.e. believing that you (science) are right and telling religious believers they are fools might feed your ego but it is not an educational approach to enabling people to discover the truth for themselves - especially as science is continually showing itself to be wrong, as is in the very nature of scientific discovery, an essential requirement, if learning is to take place.
@@cliffjamesmusic i really don’;t care if I educate them or not. They are all very unlikely to shake what is an irrational belief. Science has superseded religion as a model for understanding our universe and has made huge swathes of religious teaching redundant already. My aim is to hold a mirror up to the hypocrisy and wilful ignorance of most religious thought to help those who may be sympathetic to either view see behind the mask of reason that religion uses to hide its fundamentally irrational nature.
PLEASE point to an ACTUAL scientific theory on the ORIGIN of LIFE.
You’re here. 1M yrs ago humans weren’t.
@@larryscott3982 Fail. Typical for libtards.
The Alice Roberts Creationism paradox.
Here professor Alice Roberts argues against the teaching of Creationism in our school science lessons. However, it is undeniable that Alice is quite clearly an angel, sent down from the heavens, so paradoxically argues against her own existence .
THEY CUT OFF THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE, BECAUSE THE NEXT SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION, WAS DOWNING ST'S CAT; PRIORITIES EH ?
Alice Roberts is a great scientist. It's hard for religious people, but facts are facts ....
professor alice is extremely annoying to me but she is doing a great job with this issue , much respect : )
Are private schools publicly funded? I am not a Brit.
Why not teach astrology, water-divining, tea-leaf reading and much else to the exclusion of science, creative thinking and logic ?
Free market economics is thriving! 🤣
Hey Alice...Who made the big bang??? What was there before that event?
@MusicMadMaurice did you answer in Alice's place? Man up, let her speak. 💞
Barry Buschl: If the Big Bang Theory is correct then there was no "before" because that's when time itself started (yes , I know its just a theory).
RIP, poor Alice got cut off. How rude!
In religious education classes children should be taught about creationism, about all the world major religions, about the beliefs of aboriginal & native peoples, & about the beliefs of the ancient world. It's the way I know for them to become agnostics on the subject, because are based on beliefs alone & not facts that can be tested.
Religious schools promote division in any community. Religion should be taught
at home or onthe weekend in religious groups. There should be no religion-based
schools. Schooling should be for preparing a person to live successfully as
citizens in a community.
I would LOVE to get 'creative' with Alice
+Atheist Orphan form an orderly queue my friend I'm first in line ;) lol
5:46 If an Independent school were teaching the Earth was flat, it would have some job to explain seasons on Northern and Southern hemispheres, I have seen one, but it hardly explains why days are longer than 12 equinoctial hours in December in Southern hemisphere, well away from the Equator.
Creationists do have explanations and I have not seen any break the rules of geometry - except the one of distant starlight, where I think Geocentrism and refusing to take Bessel phenomenon of 1838 as parallactic, therefore as relevant to distance triangulation, is preferrable than more conventional methods (not sure if "starlight created in transit" is still around, but neither with me nor with CMI who prefer the more exotic ones).
It says sth about how narrow minded Alice in fact is, that she can compare Creationism to Flat Earth.
5:20 _"but if it does harm"_
The presenter seems fairly sold out on Alice's bias on the matter. She showed no evidence creationism in general (outside Scaramanga's school or former such) is doing any harm.
The earth is not flat, so teaching it causes harm.
If a child emerges from a Faith school with an A-Level in Creationism, fails to get a good job where education is needed, (s)he has been harmed.
Lying to children about science which creationism does is harmful. It creates ignorance and blind faith it is very harmful
@@kmills1231 I tend to agree with most what you said, except:
_"which creationism does"_
Did you mean, which evolutionism does, and that very massively? *slender hope*
@@andymoore9977 _"The earth is not flat, so teaching it causes harm."_
Not very serious harm, though.
Rob Skiba is doing fine ...
Thank You... just Thank You.
Should creationism be taught in British schools? - Creationism lacks empirical evidence therefore shouldn't be described as science. The solution is to teach philosophy. If people ask questions of what they are told 'are facts' and they understand the rationale for evidence based science then creationism would be very quickly dismissed as misguided human thought.
If you believe in, or have faith in something strongly enough to follow what it teaches, it's a religion, ergo, Creationism and Evolutionism are religions. I do very much admire Alice and her belief in the sciences as she understands them.. Long time understanding of science has taught us much that we would not otherwise have discovered. For example, archaeology is literally teaching us more and more about our past. When we look at what has been unearthed (again literally) in and around Israel and beyond, It is actually PROVING the Biblical narrative despite the Pooh-pooing from so-called professional scientists who don't like to acknowledge anything to do with Chritianity.
When you look at the world's greatest dictators and mass murderers such as Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Amin etc - most of whom were raised in Christian-based homes - they all turned to the evolutionary theories of Darwin, and we know the results. "Only the strongest survive" is a theory that has substantially proven the lie. Geology has shown that there WAS a worldwide flood which scientists such as Alice and world-famous David Attenborough prefer to decry, totally going against what the Geological Science tells us. They all love to tell how carbon dating "proves"the age of things, when in fact carbon dating has shown itself pretty self-damning in anything beyond a few hundred years, for its readings are never replicated. Every time Mr Attenborough gives a lecture, talk or interview, the age of the world changes; if that's the case, the science isn't working for them! Every year since I was a child, I heard that world had gone from thousands of years old, the tens, then hundred, then millions and today is now thrillions of years old. But that's their brand of science!
There is one very good reason why these decent-enough folk dismiss orthodox Biblical teachings in favour of Evolution: It pays better - from governments, from universities, and from colleges and schools. It also pays better from book publishers, lectures and TV programmes. Learned people like Alice and David have made fortunes and grand life-styles form pandering their brand of religion to the ever-eager public. I find it rather ironic that lmany ong-standing Jewish rabbies and practicing Jewish folk who years earlier were critical of the Christian Jeshua, have - through the Science and Biblical works - have committed themselves to Christian beliefs; that would not have happened twenty years ago, but for modern science and the trruths of the Bible. What has taken place in Israel and across the world in recent years is a complete turnaround for the Jewish people - and not even the Jews, but the Muslim communities as well.
I do love listening to Alice, but I'm afraid her beliefs are way off the mark....or does she really believe what she's preaching? If the latter is true, she's making a lot of money by promoting something she doesn't believe - one religion or the other?
Don't forget the Earth is flat...
@@Katy_Jones Yes, another religion ....for the brainless!