Revealed: rise of creationism in UK schools

[petpiranha]

http://education.guardian.co.uk/scho...957858,00.html

Les - what do you make of this then...? BTW there's some good article links at the bottom of the actual article page.

PR packs spread controversial theory

James Randerson, science correspondent
Monday November 27, 2006
The Guardian


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.

"I am flabbergasted that any head of science would give credence to this creationist theory and be prepared to put it alongside Darwinism," he said. "Treating it as an alternative centralist theory alongside Darwinism in science lessons is deeply worrying."

The teaching pack, which includes two DVDs and a manual, was sent to the head of science at all secondary schools in the country on September 18 by the group Truth in Science. The enclosed feedback postcard was returned by 89 schools. As well as 59 positive responses, 15 were negative or dismissive and 15 said the material was "not suitable".

"We are not attacking the teaching of Darwinian theory," said Richard Buggs, a member of Truth in Science. "We are just saying that criticisms of Darwin's theory should also be taught."

"Intelligent design looks at empirical evidence in the natural world and says, 'this is evidence for a designer'. If you go any further the argument does become religious and intelligent design does have religious implications," added Dr Buggs.

But leading scientists argue that ID is not science because it invokes supernatural causes. "There is just no evidence for intelligent design, it is pure religion and has nothing to do with science. It should be banned from science classes," said Lewis Wolpert, a developmental biologist at the University of London and vice-president of the British Humanist Association.

The DVDs were produced in America and feature figures linked to the Discovery Institute in Seattle, a thinktank that has made concerted efforts to promote ID and insert it into high school science lessons in the US. Last year a judge in Dover, Pennsylvania, ruled that ID could not be taught in science lessons. "Intelligent design is a religious view, a mere relabelling of creationism, and not a scientific theory," he wrote in his judgment.

It is not clear exactly how many schools are using the Truth in Science material, or how it is being used.

The government has made it clear the Truth in Science materials should not be used in science lessons. In a response to the Labour MP Graham Stringer on November 1, Jim Knight, a minister in the Department for Education and Skills, wrote: "Neither intelligent design nor creationism are recognised scientific theories and they are not included in the science curriculum."

Andy McIntosh, a professor of thermodynamics at the University of Leeds who is on the board of Truth in Science, said: "We are just simply a group of people who have put together ... a different case."

>>>The teaching pack, which includes two DVDs and a manual

Les, any chance you could get hold of these? Could be a laugh...

[Vonnie]

Well when I was at school, it was never explained that Darwinism was theoretical - I just thought that's the way it was until I left school and read a bit more into it so anything that raises awareness and encourages pupils to actually think for themselves is a boon in my opinion. As long as they're taught that intelligent design is another theory, and then taught exactly how it's bollocks from a scientific viewpoint then I see no problem with it being introduced.

[LesMTS]

Les - what do you make of this then...?

Hahaha! I was just starting a thread on this, co-incidentally. I think it's a joke. It's not science. By all means teach it in RE but not in biology lessons. If they start teaching these ill-defined ramblings in science classes I'm moving to the bottom of the marianas trench where I'll learn to live near a volcanic vent and spend my days metabolising sulphurous compounds.

Here's what I had...

Front page news in The Guardian today.
Basically, a group of supporters of intelligent design called "Truth in Science" are pressuring schools and the government to teach this subject in biology lessons. So far their recommendations have been (apparently) accepted by 59 schools.
Truth in Science argue that controversy surrounding Darwinian evolution should be taught in science lessons to teach pupils the importance of scientific debate.
Opponents argue that there is no controversy and intelligent design isn't science because [1] its evidence is assigned to a conclusion subjectively (e.g. this is really complicated yet works so well....it must have been designed) [2] It starts with a conclusion and then gathers evidence, whereas science should start with the evidence and draw the conclusion.

http://education.guardian.co.uk/scho...957858,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6187534.stm

Thoughts?

[petpiranha]

>and then taught exactly how it's bollocks from a scientific viewpoint
that's the bit I'm worried about though

[LesMTS]

Well when I was at school, it was never explained that Darwinism was theoretical

Evolution is a theory, yes. But 'theory' in this context means something very different from the normal, day-to-day usage of the word.
This is part of the problem, the phrase "Theory of Evolution" causes a lot of confusion.
The only scientific controversy with Darwinian evolution is over tiny details regarding exactly how it happens. That it happens is supported by every single advance in biology at every level of that subject for the last God-knows-how-many years.

[Vonnie]

>and then taught exactly how it's bollocks from a scientific viewpoint
that's the bit I'm worried about though

In what sense?

[hotblonde]

Well when I was at school, it was never explained that Darwinism was theoretical - I just thought that's the way it was until I left school and read a bit more into it so anything that raises awareness and encourages pupils to actually think for themselves is a boon in my opinion.

A hypothesis and a theory are defined very differently in science. A theory has many facts to back up the hypothesis. Darwin missed out the hereditary factor of his theory and much of it is debatable in the sense of how it works in terms of various types of evolutionary patterns..hence still thoerised but doesn't imply that it's untrue or still 'out there'. More that it's still 'evolving' (pardon pun) and still developing.

Hahaha! I was just starting a thread on this, co-incidentally. I think it's a joke. It's not science. By all means teach it in RE but not in biology lessons. If they start teaching these ill-defined ramblings in science classes I'm moving to the bottom of the marianas trench where I'll learn to live near a volcanic vent and spend my days metabolising sulphurous compounds.

I was taught creationism in one of my biology modules in 1st year as part of science...it does open up debate and is quite interesting to see the different viewpoints, esp. from devout christians.


edit, just noticed you told Vonnie the same thing..damn you, you scientist.

[petpiranha]

If it's about scientific debate then I'd be tempted to publish guides "for debate purposes" arguing that we were all monkeys in trees until aliens arrived, who carried out experiments, and we become more intelligent beings. But it happened so long ago that no-one remembers...and entire civilizations left the planet because there was a bigger party happening over in sector k.l.h.g.v.i.j.h.F.8.-.8.5.7.6.7.6.8.7.6.8.6.

[endless psych]

If it's about scientific debate then I'd be tempted to publish guides "for debate purposes" arguing that we were all monkeys in trees until aliens arrived, who carried out experiments, and we become more intelligent beings. But it happened so long ago that no-one remembers...and entire civilizations left the planet because there was a bigger party happening over in sector k.l.h.g.v.i.j.h.F.8.-.8.5.7.6.7.6.8.7.6.8.6.

So scientology for dummies then?

[petpiranha]

Let's leave science-fiction writers out of this

The human race are lab rats and the experiment is to see if we'll destroy our own natural habitat or save it (ie. the planet). All the other nearby races are taking bets and laughing their asses off.

It's like the snake vs. scorpion scene in bond begins.

[endless psych]

I reckon if that were taught in Schools it would become a hell of a lot more popular then creationism overnight...

[LesMTS]

I reckon if that were taught in Schools it would become a hell of a lot more popular then creationism overnight...

Well, if they're going to teach stuff that's just made up then they may aswell go wild.

[StuntGirl]

I did higher Religious, Moral and Philosophical Studies at school at we were taught Darwinian theory, creationism and intelligent design along side each other, with the pro's and cons being pointed out for each. We were told that, although Darwin's theory was the scientifically 'correct' one, in that it was quantifiable where the others weren't, the only people who could decide what they truly believed was us.

I think having the option to see Darwinism in context to longer held belief systems is important, but I certainly wouldn't have ID or creationism taught in the science lab. I mean, if you teach ID and creationism as part of science, then (since it would only be fair) you would have to teach the 'Creation' stories of all major religions in science as well. Leave ID, etc to the student philosophers... I spent a good year stroking my chin contempleting it all.

As an aside, it turned out that my Religious, moral and philosophical studies teacher was a hardcore creationist, right down to the seven days bit and Eve coming out of Adam and everything. And I've never met a more rational, balanced logical guy ever. He couldn't tell us that he believed in creationism (apparently its not very moral if you're teaching RS) but on the last day of school he put up a serious argument that almost had me agreeing with him.

[petpiranha]

>Well, if they're going to teach stuff that's just made up then they may aswell go wild.

I'm sure david icke could contribute here

>Eve coming out of Adam

Excuse me but what the fuck is that theory???

[endless psych]

>Eve coming out of Adam

Excuse me but what the fuck is that theory???

Not strictly speaking a theory - its more relgious dogma...