Freedom of speech?!

My attention was recently drawn to an article regarding a Primary School headteacher who had a chunk of abuse thrown at her for stating her belief that there is more evidence for the Bible's creation story than for modern science's evolution theory.

The article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3428056/Church-England-primary-school-headteacher-sparks-online-ridicule-claiming-evolution-theory-evidence-Bible-true.html#ixzz3zKPbxAba

A few things to note:
- It's a Church of England school.
- Teachers have views about the world too.
- We're meant to live in a society of free speech.

Things people said include:
1. She is 'stupid and ignorant.'
2. She should quit her job.
3. Her comments are tantamount to 'child abuse.'

I want to go through these.

1. Many people hold to 'scientific fact' when they don't actually know the facts themselves. They essentially think, "Someone more intelligent than me has done some research and says it's true, so it must be true." Any non-science-literate person who accepts scientific theory as fact is themselves 'ignorant' and (therefore) essentially 'stupid.' This is because it is hypocritical to claim that 'religious people' are 'brainwashing' people into their belief system ('preying on the weak-minded,' as it were) because they believe such a belief system is delusional, when in actual fact they are believing a number of things to be true that they do not actually hold the evidence for or can prove to be true. What we essentially have in the UK education system is 'scientific brainwashing' whereby children are told, "This is what the scientists say, so it must be true."


We also need to be careful that we are not ignorant of the assumptions made when people talk. From a mathematical point of view, we accept that 1+1=2. If I were to suggest that 1+1=10, people would call me a fool. However, 1+1 does indeed equal 10. What you may not have realised up until now is that my first statement was using the decimal number system, and the second using binary. What's the boiling point of water? 100 degrees, 373.15 degrees or 212 degrees? All are correct. The first answer is Celsius, the second Kelvin, the third Fahrenheit.

It wasn't so long ago that 'evolution' meant evolving from apes. Now the scientific community suggest it is more likely from a 'common ancestor.' Given that scientific research, theory and experiementation requires the tweaking of pre-existing theories as new evidence is found, how we ever say that it is 'fact'?

When people talk, especially when science is involved, we need to know the assumptions they are making. Unfortunately, many assumptions are not stated. The hearer 'fills in the blanks' and may well come away thinking that something was said that really wasn't.

A nice, recent example was with an article stating, "NASA confirms evidence that liquid water flows on today's Mars." When this (and many such articles) emerged, I was intrigued. Careful reading actually showed that there are some streaks on some of the slopes which contain some minerals that have been found in water on Earth. This is not evidence. This is one hypothesis after another. It is an assumption that water would be the same on every planet (unless they actualy refer to the water of Earth when they talk of water on Mars). It is an assumption that the identification of certain minerals demands a conclusion of water. It is an assumption that the streaks on the slopes were formed by liquid water. The evidence might 'point in that direction,' and it may well be proved sometime in the future (or proved false), but at the moment it certainly isn't a scientific 'fact.' And yet I heard people saying, "Isn't it amazing that they've actually found water on Mars?!"

So who is 'stupid and ignorant' when it comes to science?

Not only this, but most of the common people who like to hold tightly to the infallibility of scientific theory ridicule people who believe religious texts such as the Bible. The irony is that such people have not often read the Bible, and those who have often have only read it once, not realising that a single reading cannot possibly give the fullness of understanding that they claim to have. They do not fully realise the difference between poetic, historical, and prophetic writing. They do not fully understand the cultural significance of the laws that were given (instead, claiming it is just a 'primitive' society), nor that parables appear in many places, not just when Jesus speaks.

Many people call religious people 'stupid and ignorant' when it comes to science, but these people could be considered 'stupid and ignorant' when it comes to religious texts.

Just have a look around to see what 'science' has done for the moral standards of society.


2. Forcing someone to quit their job because of their views... isn't that called 'intolerance'?! What a civilised society we are!


3. It could be considered 'tantamount to child abuse' to allow young people to experiment with ouija boards and tarot cards. Just because some people choose not to believe in the existence of demonic influence, is that really sufficient evidence to prove it is not real?

What about parents shouting angrily at each other in the presence of their children? What example are they setting for their children?

What about people who encourage their children to accept scientific 'facts' without detailed scrutiny of them?

To suggest that expressing views to children is 'tantamount to child abuse' is a very risky position to hold.