BAJR Federation Archaeology

Full Version: Alice Roberts says no to teaching creationism in our schools!
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
I am not exactly sure that any argument about what is a correct chronology of the "king list" should be accepted without the concept of conjecture and refutations, particularly as if there ever might be a singular guise of authority called archaeology. What I do find interesting about any religionist view of the world is whether it should be considered a matter of mental health.
P Prentice Wrote:not really. creationism as we know it is a 20th century construct invented specifically to provide a rationale for sustaining bigotry in the overwhelming face of post Darwinian science
The primary source material does not support your argument.

"sustaining bigotry" is a good phrase to appear in a thread highly intolerant of other peoples' opinions, though!
pdurdin Wrote:The primary source material does not support your argument.
your primary source is a bit crap
pdurdin Wrote:Because if you teach the history of pre-19th century science without the creationist context then you're leaving out significant parts of the story.

Your talking about history, not science.

Though there is a history to science, which would include things like religious persecution of early scientists, alchemy, Einstein and Bohr's TV debate, the creationist/ catholic anti-science propaganda (check out the online 'evidence' against radiocarbon dating) etc etc Creationism is NOT a theory in the same terms as say evolution.
It is a creation myth similar to and just as relevant as the Norse creation myths and existence of Valhalla. We wouldn't teach such a myth as as relevant as evolution in a science class now would we?
robot Wrote:Hm, may I throw an interesting little sideline at you all?
Now Im no expert like other august members- but there are other text for which, it can be argued, there is equally, or even less proof that the events recorded are true, that ARE accepted by archaeology. The most obvious one is the King list, from which a lot of Sumerian chronology is derived. Similarly Egyptian chronology, Mayan inscriptions...heck even the chronology of the "Dark Ages" has been in doubt (the King Otto question).

I think you'll find things like that are unproved theories that some archaeologists believe based on current evidence....not true

robot Wrote:Perhaps its how Creationism and other theories, should be used in the teaching of science. Some say on here that Creationists are "nutters"- but what is there about this theory that has so many people believing in it even in modern times?

People are (as a whole) stupid.
Just because it is believed to be true doesn't make it so......and has no relevance to the argument whether it is or not.
Look at the belief that the earth is flat or that the atmosphere is made of glass spheres. Just coz millions of people believed it to be true didn't make it so.

robot Wrote:Working from there- a case can be made for looking for the evidence for the theory (laying aside the Good Book and the 6006BC date)- and one then can even bring in the Bible and examine some of the suggestions in it in terms of modern science- in the same way "Intelligent Designers" like Richard Dawkins have interpreted sections. From there- the theory can then equally be de-constructed. That way kids can look at any theory and evaluate pros and cons- even evolution!

Isnt that the way Archaeology and other sciences should work?

You could......but science is already taught like that.....but it's earlier scientific theories that are deconstructed.
Why has the creationist twaddle any relevance?

You could equally pick the 'theory' that King Lear could have ordered the tide to retreat and deconstruct that.
What I find interesting are the theories behind why humans are hard wired to belive in things like religion and other concepts that you cannot prove or disprove. Aspects of a none physical world such as right and wrong. I think it was Prachett who said you can take the physical world a part and put it though a grinder but nowhere would you find one physical particle of beauty, love or hate . Myths are important to humans and "truth" is in the mind of the believer. This goes as much for scientific theory as religion though one you can deconstruct and test for physical laws. The other you can probably also deconstruct and test for rules that show how cognative processes developed in humans.

Remove our ability to believe in the impossible and you remove part of what makes us human. (I am not a creationist but I believe people have the right to express ideas up to the point when they begin to hurt themselves and others)
Wax Wrote:What I find interesting are the theories behind why humans are hard wired to belive in things like religion and other concepts that you cannot prove or disprove)

another wax classic. using your argument you cannot prove or disprove fairies, the man in the moon, the divine right of kings, arian supremacy, any number of second comings, paedophile rights or smoking causes cancer.
whilst you carry on believing in the impossible, generations of children are being harmed (brainwashed) and forced to shun anybody not of their faith, shun anything written or made by anybody not of their faith, a life of servitude to a thoroughly debunked myth. children in some parts get shot for attemting to speak out against the very thing you would defend!
P Prentice Wrote:another wax classic.

Ignor that Wax - one day PPrat might just reflect on what it is to be human after all...

(that really is my final Word on Profesor Roberts trivial campaign , and this fearmongering some of you so enjoy about hoards of 'Religous Nutters' descending on Britian - (what newspapers do you read BTW?)
we already ahve a circiculum (go look at it), we have proffesionals who create and supervise it, so unless of any of you have Scientific Evidence that is is actually a problem, or are actualy direclty involved in teaching, i suggest you shut TF up - i for one am tired of your self aggrandising smugness in relation to what in reality is just another minority group in a patchwork society-

ps: i see no body (pun alert) picked up on Repatriation in relation to Physical Anthropology - shame, as it has much of interest for anybody with a real interest in the relationship between Institutional Science vs Non-Science based worldviews...some comments here are very much like the red faced Curators who now accept that they have no 'god-given' (whoopsies!) rights or precedence of descion making over indigenous cultures and communities...

this for me is the context of the issue for anybody with a proffesional interest in archaeology - anything else from 'archaeologists' is bunk. (IMHO)

pps: what is being missed here is how Evolution is being taught and is commonly understood;

principaly; "Survival of the Fittest", in the language of the time, means more "survival of that which can best fit-in, eg to a niche", and absolutley not as generally understood today "survival of the most fit/strongest/intellegent" - and linked very often to very flawed 'Market Principles' and dubious social elitism (that is probaly how PP sees it anyway)xx(

for anybody (even archaeolgoists) with a real interest in the History of Science, it is apparent that Evolutionary Studies are themselves full of 'cults' and 'nutters' (and i am not even talking about the ones in church!) - the rapidly changing knowledge in regard of epigeneteics might even make some reconsider ideas as 'laughable' as Lamarck...:I
Poor mr PP you do have a bee in your bonnet. Nowhere in my post did I say I belived in those things, what I belive in a a prepensititiy for the Human brain to want to believe in these things which is to do with the way the brain is wired. And if you continue the list you give it would include justice, fair play and compassion.
For the record I gave up beliving in the supernatural around the age of seven when Father Christmas turned out to be my dad :face-kiss:
GnomeKing Wrote:we already ahve a circiculum (go look at it), we have proffesionals who create and supervise it, so unless of any of you have Scientific Evidence that is is actually a problem, or are actualy direclty involved in teaching
Pages: 1 2 3 4