Creationism creeeping into UK schools

[Aladdin]

Dozens of schools are using creationist teaching materials condemned by the government as "not appropriate to support the science curriculum", the Guardian has learned.
The packs promote the creationist alternative to Darwinian evolution called intelligent design and the group behind them said 59 schools are using the information as "a useful classroom resource".

A teacher at one of the schools said it intended to use the DVDs to present intelligent design as an alternative to Darwinism. Nick Cowan, head of chemistry at Bluecoat school, in Liverpool, said: "Just because it takes a negative look at Darwinism doesn't mean it is not science. I think to critique Darwinism is quite appropriate."

But the government has made it clear that "neither intelligent design nor creationism are recognised scientific theories". The chairman of the parliamentary science and technology select committee, the Lib Dem MP Phil Willis, said he was horrified that the packs were being used in schools.

http://education.guardian.co.uk/scho...src=rss&feed=1

Fucking disgusting and disgraceful.

Those responsible should be sacked and the schools put under new management.

Poor children...

[girl with sharp teeth]

.

[Aladdin]

Who promotes it as fact? Darwinism is taught as scientific theory.

Creationism or so-called "intelligent design" are of as much scientific validity as the Tooth Fairy.

There is a place for Creationism: religious lessons. To try to pass it off as anything of scientific importance is a disgrace. It should not be told in science lessons. It should not be offered as an alternative view on how the Earth and life on it came to be.

[girl with sharp teeth]

.

[Aladdin]

Originally Posted by girl with sharp teeth

My school certainly did.

Did it? You should write to them.

Then again there aren't any other plausible theories worthy of mention.

Why? Because you don't like it?

Science should be full of opposing theories. Science should be about looking at things objectively and encouraging students to think for themselves as to whether each theory holds water or not.

Science should be full of opposing scientific theories.

Creationism and ID are nothing of the sort. They are religious beliefs with no scientific base whatsoever. Therefore they should be taught in religious lessons alone.

Unless of course the religious lobby is happy to return the favour, and to allow science to enter religious lessons and to explain to students the plausibility of the many claims made by the holy books.

[Bullseye]

Although i do agree with Aladdin that Creationism should only be taught in Religious classes and not passed of as fact. I think it should be taken into account the sheer odds of random chance evolution to intelligent life forms are in itself, a starting point at proving their maybe a superior "Being" pulling the strings on designing life in the universe or at leats on Earth. Just because someone doesn't believe in a theory does not mean it is not a possibility and although it is not as scientific as such, it could be if looked at from a certain perspective. But i still say it should be taught as religious theory not scientific theory.

[Uncle Joe]

Originally Posted by girl with sharp teeth

To promote creationism as recognised fact is horribly wrong. To promote Darwinism as recognised fact when it is still only a theory surely doesn't rate much higher...

It rates a teensy bit higher than your post suggests...

'Only a theory' applies if you aren't using the scientific definition of 'theory'. Darwinism is a theory which has been confirmed by various means, to the satisfaction of most scientists working in the field of biology ans paleontology. It will always be described as a 'theory' because that's how scientists work.

[Aladdin]

I find it really fucking funny (not) that the religion lobby teach their beliefs to children as The One and Undeniable Truth in religious lessons and then get all worked out about Evolution being only "a theory" and demanding the right to put their beliefs alongside it.

As I said, perhaps when the religion lobby agrees to have scientific theory to make counter-points to all their claims during religion lessons they might have more of a right to demand their beliefs are put forward in science lessons.

[budda]

I've got no huge issue with both theories being put to the kids, my objection would come when only a creationistic approach was taken.

It entirely depends how it is taught, after all, darwinism doesnt rule out the existance of a Creator.

[Kermit]

There is no proof of Darwinism.
There is no proof of Creationism.
There is no proof of "Intelligent Design".

Darwinism certainly hasn't been proven to the satisfaction of all; there is a huge amount of argument about what evolved from what, and there is still no concrete fossilised proof of the "missing link" (Vernon Kaye doesn't count).

What's your point? If we're only going to teach proven fact then 95% of the scientific syllabus should be ditched.

All should be taught equally, leaving people to make their own mind up. Personally I think that the whole Big Bang/Darwinism theory does not disprove a God, especially as nobody has been able to explain how nothing can suddenly explode into something with no outside help.

[Aladdin]

My point this that evolution is a scientific theory, and an almost universally respected one at that.

Creationism/ID are NOT scientific theories but religious beliefs. And as such if they must be taught to children, it should be done so at at religious education, not at science lessons.

You would think it couldn't be simpler. Though for some people in the religious lobby this is not enough.

Perhaps we should demand the introduction of scientific alternative explanations to every religious claim taught to children during religious lessons as well. It would only be fair.

[girl with sharp teeth]

.

[Kermit]

Critique is important in science, and pointing out other theories to the prevailing one is an important critique. Evolution/Big Bang theory has an awful lot of holes in it, after all.

Critique is important in religion, too, and pointing out other theories to miracles is important. For instance the parting of the Red Sea is often regarded as simply the result of a tidal estuary and mudflats; Noah's Ark is widely regarded to be localised flooding in the Caspian Sea. I was taught about possible natural reasons for the miracles, and I went to an evil Catholic school.

I don't understand why you are so upset- evolution is just a theory, and there isn't really any more proof for it than there is for any other theory. There's certainly no concrete evidence of evolution.

[Jim V]

It's worth bearing in mind that the word theory has two different understandings - which is what most people are trying to point out.

Scientific theory is based upon evidence and although they are not seen as absolutely proven, as they never are, there is evidence of evolution. The issue is whether Darwin's understanding of the issue is absolutely correct, and whether a Darwinian explanation takes into accounts other issues with the theory that have been revealed.

And Kermit, your casual dismissal the years of scientific research, the mountains of skeletal evidence, fossiled evidence, and examination of varied flora and insectal development over small geographic areas that all points towards the real presence of an adaptive development of creatures based on random mutation and isolated natural selection is shocking.

Aladdin's issue is with what you've said, the easy casual dismissal of the very basis of scientific thought - all because you haven't examined any of that evidence.

You've heard that evolution or ID are just equal theories arguing it out and as a result ignore any scientific fact or study. ID is a theory based on no evidence, though that doesn't mean it can't be true. But to rate it as equal, to base decisions on nothing, on no evidence, on no study, to simply see everything as the same because things haven't been 100% proven?

That's the end of reason, that's scarificing the most important principals of the society we live within

rant over - sorry can't stress how fucking vital this issue is to me.

[Aladdin]

I am upset because there is no place for religion in science lessons. It's as simple as that.

And frankly, to suggest that because evolution cannot be proved 100% we should tell children "but it is possible that all of this is wrong and that the world and everything in it was created by a deity" is ludicrous and it has nothing to do with improving teaching standards or broadening up the minds of students by encouraging debate.

The two are not comparable or compatible within the context of scientific research and study. Because one of them is not science.

Let's be honest here: The efforts to introduce creationism/ID into science have absolutely fuck all to do with improving teaching standards in science. They are simply an attempt by the religious lobby to infiltrate as many areas and subjects as possible in order to reach as many children as possible and expose them to religion as much as possible.

That is bad for teaching standards, not good. And it should not be allowed.

Incidentally, whatever scientific theory might have been mentioned in religious lessons would have been very small and very carefully selected.

Many important claims made by the Bible for instance, from Adam and Eve to the existence of different languages (the Tower of Babel tale) to Noah's Ark to the age of the planet could be every easily and comprehensively dismissed. Now, this does not necessarily mean there is no God, and indeed science and religion could co-exist if the religious lobby was tolerant enough. But the people who are pushing for teaching Creationism in science lessons tend to be the same people who claim the Bible is the literal and full true word of God and will refuse to admit that some of what is claimed in it is simply not true and never happened.

As I said, it's bad news all around, it has nothing to do with improving teaching standards and broadening the mind, and everything with trying to influence and reach as many children as possible in areas where it shouldn't.