Home Grown

Scofflaw

In (nearly) local news:

ROW BREWS OVER DUP CALL FOR SCHOOLS TO TEACH CREATIONISM

Believing in evolution probably is harder up North, though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Red Hand

Well, maybe the teaching of creationism is the pricce of peace up North?;)

Zillah

The Irish are far too surly these days, it'll be shot down. They have neither the charisma nor popular support the largely unsuccessful efforts in the US have.

PDN

Now that peace has broken out they need to stop burning effigies of the Pope on bonfires on the 12th of July. Effigies of Darwin should be much less offensive to Nationalists.

Will the Prods be allowed to hold Creationist parades along the Garvaghy Road?

Bottle_of_Smoke

PDN wrote:

Now that peace has broken out they need to stop burning effigies of the Pope on bonfires on the 12th of July. Effigies of Darwin should be much less offensive to Nationalists.

Will the Prods be allowed to hold Creationist parades along the Garvaghy Road?

ROFL


Can't see them getting any support.

Dades

PDN wrote:

Will the Prods be allowed to hold Creationist parades along the Garvaghy Road?

I'd rather the bowler hats and sashes to that!

Though it might be fun to jeer and throw fossils at them.

5uspect

I can't wait to see the murals...

lostexpectation

as is said ok to look at in re not in science class

hairyheretic

We could always ask the DUP to press for the inclusion of all creation beliefs. There must be at least a few score, if not a few hundred, worldwide. And we of course have to include the Flying Spagetti Monster too

PDN

My own belief is that the material taught in each subject should be that which is considered relevant by those who are acknowledged as being proficient in that subject.

So, for example, denialist theories of the Holocaust should not be taught as fact in history class, no matter how many of the general populace believe them, because the vast majority of historians agree that the Holocaust occurred. The point of teaching history is not to give air-time to every conceivable historical theory that exists.

Creationism should not be taught in science class because the consensus of most scientists is that the world was not created in 6 days.

Creationism should be mentioned in RE classes as a sizeable minority within certain religions believe in creationism. Creationism is primarily a religious, rather than a scientific, position.

If belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster ever attracts enough adherents to become statistically significant then it should be examined in RE classes.

hairyheretic

I have no issue with creationism being taught in a religion class. It's not science though.

5uspect

PDN wrote:

My own belief is that the material taught in each subject should be that which is considered relevant by those who are acknowledged as being proficient in that subject.

So, for example, denialist theories of the Holocaust should not be taught as fact in history class, no matter how many of the general populace believe them, because the vast majority of historians agree that the Holocaust occurred. The point of teaching history is not to give air-time to every conceivable historical theory that exists.

Creationism should not be taught in science class because the consensus of most scientists is that the world was not created in 6 days.

Creationism should be mentioned in RE classes as a sizeable minority within certain religions believe in creationism. Creationism is primarily a religious, rather than a scientific, position.

If belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster ever attracts enough adherents to become statistically significant then it should be examined in RE classes.

Agreed, as long as any teaching of religion is entirely comparative and doesn't aim to induct children into the "one true faith".

The Church of the FSM currently claim 10 million followers and are applying official recognition as a religion, you'd never know what might happen!

Also don't forget the long oppressed Jedi...

hairyheretic

What's the criteria for official recognition of a religion then?

Scofflaw

hairyheretic wrote:

What's the criteria for official recognition of a religion then?

Simply put, the criteria are variable, and non-transparent. The UK officially recognises no religion except the established religion (Church of England, Church of Scotland). In Belgium the decision is taken by a particular Minister. The Iranians recognise those religions that are mentioned in the Koran. The Egyptians follow this procedure:

"For a religious denomination to be officially recognized, a request must be submitted to the Religious Affairs Department at the Ministry of Interior, which assesses whether the proposed religion would pose a threat, upset national unity or social peace. The department also consults the
leading religious figures in the country, particularly the Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Sheikh of Al-Azhar. The registration is then referred to the President, who issues a decree recognizing the new religion."

In Ireland, I think it's just those religions that are recognised in the Constitution - I'm not sure whether there is actually a mechanism for recognising new religions as such.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Rev Hellfire

I think the real issue here (as regards the OP) is not the teaching of creationism but rather the more important issue of interference by the council into the running of schools.

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

In Ireland, I think it's just those religions that are recognised in the Constitution - I'm not sure whether there is actually a mechanism for recognising new religions as such.

There is no legal recognition of religions as such in Ireland. However, a church or religious group may apply to be registered as a charity by the Revenue Commissioners on the grounds that their aims include "the advancement of religion." I suppose that pretty well equates to being recognised as a religion.

Interestingly there are no legal grounds to set up a charity with the aims of reducing religion, only of advancing religion. Some on this board may feel discriminated against, but you could always try registering an atheistic group as a charity on the grounds of "the advancement of education".

5uspect

PDN wrote:

Interestingly there are no legal grounds to set up a charity with the aims of reducing religion, only of advancing religion. Some on this board may feel discriminated against, but you could always try registering an atheistic group as a charity on the grounds of "the advancement of education".

Isn't Dawkins doing exactly that with richarddawkins.net?

EDIT .org
http://richarddawkinsfoundation.org/