... on Bias of Alice Roberts

... on Bias of Alice Roberts · Creationism is not Lying, School Freedom is not Warping Minds and Carreers forever!

Q

Alice Roberts on Creationism in schools [Daily Politics 05 02 2014]
paul boach
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyqWiUI-gzQ

0:37

Being honest with children includes being so about the "overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution"?

Only from the side of adults who believe that!

Being against creationism in schools is privileging the honesty of certain adults over the honesty of other adults. Specifically, being against creation science in Christian private schools denies certain parents and teachers to be honest and inform thoroughly (while parents still have the opportunity to be honest and inform less thoroughly at home), in favour of the honesty of other teachers, whom the said parents would often enough and reasonably enough, qualify as evolutionist fanatics.

0:44

You may believe that it is nonsense to present a religious creation narrative as a scientifically valid alternative, but what about the guys who anyway believe in it? Like the Evolutionists who believe the synthesis of several paganisms dressed up as science? Wait ... you were perhaps referring to Creationists? If by scientifically valid you don't mean "valid as scientific explanation on its totally own", but "valid as scientifically correct on every point where science is relevant", you happen to be wrong.

0:50

I don't have a problem with Evolution being discussed in Religious Education lessons, like in the chapter about Atheism and Secularism .... but it could just as well be banned from the science classrooms! Not that I think it is likely it will be so.

1:22

UK still has free schools able to teach creationism, if they renounce Government Funding? Good.

1:32 More debate?

Let it include looking at some Creationist presentations of the evidence?

Creation vs. Evolution : Archaeology vs Vertabrate Palaeontology in Geology
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/06/archaeology-vs-vertabrate-palaeontology.html

1:51

Oh, evolution is based on evidence? Why then only discuss that evidence from the Evolutionist side of interpretation? It teaches us to question everything we think we know? It is not exactly teaching you to question your acceptance of the evidence being all in favour of evolution and deep time, is it? Btw, your tone is going distinctly religious (evidenced by your gestures and face expression, I am watching sound off with subtitles).

You think THAT is what "we" should be teaching "our" children? If you and your hubby think so about your own children, no Creationist takes a quarrel with that. But it seems there is a wider scope, sth much more socialist. Like UK (or whatever, and I mean human representatives, not "the society" as an abstract or full collective) acting as if all children in UK or born to UK citizens were the children of UK rather than of their parents.

If THAT is what you mean (as seems likely from context), you are defying God. Honour thy father and thy mother. IV commandment, in some enumerations V. If and when you make this policy, you will be paying for it. Nisi Dominus custodierit civitatem, frustra vigilat qui custodit eam.

1:58 rather then some unswerving belief in ancient texts

Do you have a specific problem with ancient texts? You really don't seem to have a great problem with unswerving belief!

2:04

Apart from fact Evolutionism has ruined YOUR scientific education, which you are showing, some parents simply do not agree with you. Where does your "right" come from to override their rights as parents? From your degree in science? Mengele thought the same, when it came to certain human rights being subservient to his degree of medicine, his project of scientific research.

2:36 You were asked about the evidence, not about explicitating your thesis. "It produces a very narrow minded approach to the world" Yes, we know you think that; but where is the EVIDENCE (some women perhaps seem to have a problem with this kind of question) that their approach is more narrowminded than yours?

2:56 I think I already took a look at Johnny Scaramanga. I also think I recall that he is taking his experience at one particular school with one type of teacher mentality as evidence for what creationism in general is like. I had two abusive relatives who were atheist (on and off) and evolution believers (unswerving), and you would hardly consider this as hardcore evidence atheist and evolution believing parents or teachers always abuse their offspring or pupils, would you?

3:04 Evolution is indefensible - I agree. Anyone who believes evolution is dishonest - I do not agree, nor do most creationists I know of.

Perhaps most people in general are such that they believe anyone who believes different from them is dishonest, I have seen a lot of people in France who seem to believe I am dishonest (or at least with myself) for being a Creationist and Geocentric, perhaps it has to do with them being Evolutionists?

Or perhaps with them being like most people : narrow minded about viewpoints different to their own. But unlike the if so hypothetical "most creationists" as per "creationists" X "most people" [within each group], the concrete "most creationists I know of" would not take that point of view. If Johnny Scaramanga promotes opposite view, why not nickname him "Johnny Scary-Monger"?

3:35

The whole question, my lady, is whether the parents' right to chose to a certain extent is limited by the policies of the government or by sth higher.

You clearly do NOT have the right to chose to educate the children as Molochists and presenting your oldest son on the altar of Moloch next time you go to Bohemian Grove.

We agree, there is a limit to parental rights. But the limit is NOT about preventing narrow mindedness, because with most evolutionists I know, it has failed. There are, believe it or not, in France in fact evolutionists who will not believe one Creationist is a Catholic. No, it has to be some kind of American sect, they seem to think. A bit like Jim Jones' sect which committed suicide with cool aid poisoned, right? C'mon, if that attitude is NOT narrow minded, what attitude is?

There is no such thing as preventing narrow minded education. There are some measures which can be taken : presenting many diverse subjects, ideally diverse not just in content but also in ideal approach, which you seem to lack, having an over exposure to science only attitudes, it would seem, and presenting as many viewpoints as possible - which is precisely what you are preventing on your side as much as Scaramanga's former teachers were preventing it on theirs.

This, of course, if the limit is sth higher. If the limit is just government policies, what is preventing next government policy from being a repeat of Mengele - or of Molochism?

3:55 Yes, you had a very biassed and incompetent department of education in beginning of 2014. You seem to be bragging about it.

4:13 There is nothing inconsistent with inspecting government run schools or government contracted and financed private schools on whether they comply with specific government rules and leave that off when it comes to schools having no such contract.

Those should only be inspected about keeping normal laws.

And while it is bad to have a government policy about no creationism in science education, I prefer having it as a mere government policy over having it as a law.

Your harassing of Creationists begins to look a bit like the harassing of Catholics from Elisabeth to 1830.

The Irish have even got songs about it. The shamrock is forbid by law, to grow on Irish ground ...

ORTHODOX CELTS Wearing of the green
VIDEOKOD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77N8ijdSFdQ

4:43

Ah, someone seems to have some sense!

Francis Maud, MP! Applaud!

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.

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.

6:30

sn (not yet seen name) says "Creationism is best talked about with the context of religious education". When it comes to what Genesis 1-11 mean textually, I agree. But not when it comes to Creationist evaluations of C-14-method or of stratigraphy.

6:37 so, people thinking Creationism has a scientific defense for full Biblical inerrancy need to be taken alongside what other people think - but why not alongside what other (mainstream) scientists think about that evidence?

Creationism is a belief. Right. So is Evolutionism. Even the Theorem of Pythagoras is a belief, math teachers generally do believe it. Which is more likely to be uncontroversial. But when two opposing beliefs are about same set of questions, they normally belong in same subject.

"In the beginning, God created Heaven and Earth" should be contrasted with* "In the beginning of Japan, the kamis created Japan out of the sea" or "From Chaos came, Nyx, Erebos, Gaia and Eros" or "We live in a dream which Brahma is dreaming, when he wakes up we disappear" or "there is no God, after Big Bang everything happened from matter and energy by natural laws and we are just a byproduct."

But :

"U-Pb dating does not contrast with Biblical timescale, since the ages given are untestable and since some Pb could have been there from start" should be contrasted with "U-Pb dating proves Earth to be 4.5 billion years old."

Was his name Roberts? Too bad for him. He is missing out on the patronage St Robert Bellarmine could otherwise give him and his family ...

No, Roberts was the name of Alice, still not sure what the second male speaker is called.

Note, this is not a total and general diss of Alice overall, outside this question. I just saw another clip which gives me hope she might be the right person to ask about a thing:

Video

Alice Roberts: In her own words
Jane Shirley
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=px0LIhPIWXs

5:56

Palaeolithic colonisation of the world?

Wonderful, Alice Roberts is the right person to ask about whether the carbon dated time between last Neanderthal population and first modern Europeans corresponds to advent of modern population in other parts of the world as well.

This has a bearing on my theory that carbon 14 content at Flood was c. "35 000 BP" to "40 000 BP" when the bones get tested today - so that older C14 dates are pre-Flood, younger post-Flood.

* For Christian pupils I add : in due time, when they are old enough to take in that other people have other beliefs. Not necessarily as young as pre-teens, but, in modern circumstances, it might be inescapable. And obviously non-Christian parents have a right to corresponding shielding choices about the schools of their children.