Wrong rant, but hey, have it anyway!

Having tried desperatley for nearly five weeks tos top say Fuckwits in my hell posts I am at a loss for any other word; Fuckwits , UUUNNNGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Given the sort of views that tend to go along with Creationism it made me wonder what other delights they might be teaching to the little darlings. I wonder what they do for sex-education? Anyone know?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Louise:
Reduced me to foaming at the mouth too.

Given the sort of views that tend to go along with Creationism it made me wonder what other delights they might be teaching to the little darlings. I wonder what they do for sex-education? Anyone know?

L

---

I trust that the next inspection will minutely scrutinise the content of the biology lessons and, in the event of religious propaganda being taught as a substitute for science the responsible individuals will be summarily dismissed.

Would you be wanting a tot of rum with that the Fairport Convention fanfare in your honour?

I was v. disappointed - I'd have much rather seen the rather joyless looking headmaster thoroughly Paxo'd

L.

I don't usually use emoticons, but how many am I allowed?

Doesn't care about children being taught lies so long as the exam results are good. Let's have an A-level in Bollocks, shall we? Oh look the results from these Faith schools are very good!

B*****d!

This is one of our sorriest exports. You have my humble apologies.

[Link edited. Do not use the URL as the name of the website you are linking to. It ruins the layout of the page and draws hostly ire]

They interviewed first the vicar who is backing the school (Holloway someone?) who came from the angle that this is not about the question of the science (the micro-evolution) but the philosophy derived from it (he called it "macro-evolution"), which is fair enough - he didn't claim Gen 1-3 was "literal" but said it was "true". Not in itself an objectionable position.

However, two things were erroneous about what this guy also said:

(a) he claims it to be the position of most in the CofE. B.S., frankly, and

quote:

---

I suppose it was too much to hope for that we'd get a sensible answer from the Prime Minister.

---

So-called "Macro-evolution" is part of the science, not the philosophy. Macro-evolution is the evolution of new higher taxa - new genera, families and so on. "Micro-evolution" is merely variation within a species or genus at most.

Virtually all creationists accept the latter - they don't have much choice since it's been directly observed, and they invoke it to explain how current biodiversity can arise from the limited numbers of animals that could be fitted on Noah's Ark.

"Macro-evolution" is an inherent part of the scientific theory of evolution. Owing to its timescale it cannot be directly observed, but leaves its mark in the fossil record and in molecular and genetic evidence within modern species. Because this is a bit more esoteric and harder to get one's head round (whilst hardly being rocket science) it is easier to deny its existence to the non-scientifically literate.

It's simply not good enough to say that Creationism is simply 'an alternative theory'. Perhaps we should teach Flat-Earthism as an 'alternative theory' or that the Sun goes round the Earth. Typical too of Our Glorious Leader to say that it doesn't matter what the children are taught as long as they get good results.

People may knock Anglo-Catholicism (or indeed mainstream Broad Anglicanism) for many things but at least you would never, NEVER, get an Anglo-Catholic priest to espouse this sort of bollocks and try to teach it to our kiddiwinks. It just plays into the hands of the Dawkinites and makes yet another rod for others to beat us.

Off to cancel my bloody standing-order to the rat-bags at lunchtime.

quote:

---

(b) as was pointed out by Richard Dawkins in the interview immediately following his bit, the school not only questions the philosophy, but indeed does challenge the science - the curriculum apparently calls on teachers to challenge "Old Earth" dating of millions and billions of years. Now, whilst this doesn't explicitly say they're teaching Young Earth Creationism (as opposed to a more nuanced Theistic Evolution), what other conclusion can we come to?

---

I have a copy of David Holloway's book "Church and State in the New Millennium" (which I keep in a locked box next to my copy of the Necronomicon for fear it should fall into impressionable hands). Holloway hedges as to how Creationist he is, but the footnotes confirm that such "academic" research that he relies on is derived from Creationist sources. Holloway's views are not compatible with the vast body of scientific evidence which supports Darwinian theory and, as such, should not be taught to children in science lessons.

Incidentally the day that David Holloway's views become mainstream Anglicanism is the day I leave. And Cosmo is quite right. It is highly regrettable that the Bishops don't have the guts to denounce this pernicious nonsense.

Bring on your petition Dyfrig.



[corrected a spelling because I'm feeling fussy today.]

What Holloway is saying - not only is it not CofE position, someone with a bit of nous (Newcastle if he's got the guts, or Harries) should be pointing this out loud and clear.

In fact, I don't think there's any mainline denomination in Britain that holds this position as a tenet of faith or espouses it as its general consensus. Any Methodists/URCs/Baptists know more on this?

I really, really can't believe this is happening. I'm all for opening up eduactional opportunities, but to say, like Blair, that the results should be more important than the content is just sooooo stupid. What next - it's ok to get an A in RE even though you've been taught that Young Earth Creationism is part of the Nicene Creed?

quote:

---

"academic" research that he relies on is derived from Creationist sources

---

That's like studying Judaism from materials supplied by the Ku Klux Klan.

I wonder about an open letter sent to the press, stating our opposition to teaching of this nature as Christians?

Every apposite link on the Jesmond Parish Church website points to anti-evolutionary material and the Christian Institute (curiously also based in Jesmond - why might that be?) has a whole section on what teachers should be doing to counter the Anti-Christian Scientific movement (it also says that the alternative Biblical theories are 'always better'). Surprise, surprise it also has links to the most fundamental parish in the Diocese of Sydney, St Matthias Centennial Park (run by the Archbishop's brother) which has it's own press.

The best Bishop to condemn this would be Bishop Paul Richardson, the Assistant Bishop of Newcastle. He is a Catholic traditionalist but well respected by Holloway and his ilk. If he could be persuaded to come out against this (and he would present a splendidly cogent and articulate case I'm sure) then it would do the rest of the Church a lot of good.

quote:

---

As Christian teachers it is essential that we are able to counter the anti-creationist position... It must be our duty as Christian teachers to counter these false doctrines with well-founded insights.

---

Emphasis mine.

ROFLMAO

quote:

---

In fact, I don't think there's any mainline denomination in Britain that holds this position as a tenet of faith or espouses it as its general consensus. Any Methodists/URCs/Baptists know more on this?

---

It certainly isn't the Methodist position to judge from the reaction of my good lady wife on Tuesday evening!

PM me chaps if you need my contact details (out lecturing tonight tho)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dyfrig:
I think it's time for action.

Can we get some sort of petition together,

---

Go for it Dyfrig and Karl add my name to it as well.

BTW, when I heard this on Radio 4 this morning, why was Karl 6the fitst person I thought of?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve_R:

why was Karl 6the fitst person I thought of

---

Cheers

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dyfrig:
In fact, I don't think there's any mainline denomination in Britain that holds this position as a tenet of faith or espouses it as its general consensus. Any Methodists/URCs/Baptists know more on this?

---

There is no official Baptist position on this, at least not in The Baptist Union of Great Britain, which doesn't have a statement of faith, rather a Statement of Intent.

Like most things in the BUGB, matters which fall outside a strict interpretation of basic Trinitarian Christianity are largely a matter of conscience.