Let us test Darwin, teacher says

Status
Not open for further replies.
Peri

Peri

Vote early and vote often
Joined
Aug 31, 2002
Messages
3,261
Link
Let us test Darwin, teacher says

Creationist teaching materials deemed "not appropriate" by the government should be allowed in class, Education Secretary Alan Johnson has been told.
Ex-head of chemistry at Liverpool's Blue Coat School, Nick Cowan, says the packs promoting intelligent design are useful for debating Darwinist theories.
He urged Mr Johnson to view packs from creationist advocates Truth in Science for himself, before condemning them.

Education officials insist intelligent design is not recognised as science.
This is because it denies the evolutionary foundation of modern biology on the basis of literal readings of Genesis.

The Department for Education and Skills recently condemned the teaching packs, sent out to 5,000 secondary schools by the group of academics and clerics, as inappropriate and not supportive of the science curriculum.
Reacting to Mr Cowan's letter, a DfES spokesman said: "Neither creationism nor intelligent design are taught as a subject in schools, and are not specified in the science curriculum.

"The National Curriculum for science clearly sets down that pupils should be taught that the fossil record is evidence for evolution, and how variation and selection may lead to evolution or extinction."

'Sacred cow'

However, Mr Cowan says the materials are "very scholarly" and could be extremely useful in helping children understand the importance of scientific debate
He told the BBC: "Darwin has for many people become a sacred cow.
"There's a sense that if you criticise Darwin you must be some kind of religious nut case.
"We might has well have said Einstein shouldn't have said what he did because it criticised Newton."

'Controversy'

Mr Cowan argues that science only moves forward by reviewing and reworking previous theories and that these materials foster an understanding of this.
He also points out that the Truth in Science materials, which he describes as outstanding, do not mention creationism or even God.
He says the GCSE syllabus requires children to appreciate how science works and understand the nature of scientific controversy.
"The government wants children to be exposed to scientific debate at the age of 14 or 15.
"All the Truth in Science stuff does is put forward stuff that says here's a controversy. This is exactly the kind of thing that young people should be exposed to," Mr Cowan added.

'Poorly served'

The chairman of the parliamentary science and technology committee, Phil Willis, said using the packs in science classes "elevated creationism" to the same level of debate as Darwinism and that there was no justification for that.

He added: "There's little enough time with the school curriculum to deal with real science like climate change, energy and the weather.
"This is quite frankly a distraction that science teachers can well do without."
Click to expand...

Thoughts?
 
NO, if this were a scholarly, peer reviewed, look at problems with Darwinian evolution then yes. In this case the material is coming straight from the religous right which often misrepresents science or even gives definitions of theorys wrong. Then takes down the incorrect theory and claims it has proven it wrong.

Exposure to such tactics can quickly and easily confuse students.
 
OP said:
"Darwin has for many people become a sacred cow.
"There's a sense that if you criticise Darwin you must be some kind of religious nut case.
"We might has well have said Einstein shouldn't have said what he did because it criticised Newton."
Click to expand...

I really hate quotes like this. I've never seen anyone attack creationism, or defend evolution, on the basis that Darwin was some kind of sacred visionary. Those critical of Darwin usually get called nut cases because they do so by using scripture or shaky science to do so. There are plenty of rational and scientific criticisms of Darwin's original hypotheses on natural selection, they just don't happen to get much press.
 
Questioning Darwinism is good. Trying to replace it with fundamentalist evangelical teachings isn't.
 
Science should be taught in Science lessons. The Bible should be taught in Church. Where's the problem? :undecide:
 
Turner said:
Questioning Darwinism is good. Trying to replace it with fundamentalist evangelical teachings isn't.
Click to expand...

QFT.

Give us an alternative, new, reasonable theory perhaps.. not return us to that dusty nonsense!
 
A teacher who should be fired said:
All the Truth in Science stuff does is put forward stuff that says here's a controversy. This is exactly the kind of thing that young people should be exposed to," Mr Cowan added.
Click to expand...

And while we're at it, we can start to teach the Phlogiston theory in chemistry class.
:rolleyes:
 
I would need to see the materials in question before commenting.

If they introduce students to genuine debates within evolutionary theory, such as the punctuated equilibrium idea, then so much the better. I doubt that that's all they do, however.
 
Mise said:
Science should be taught in Science lessons. The Bible should be taught in Church. Where's the problem? :undecide:
Click to expand...

there are nutjobs who want the Bible taught in a public schools as science, as in the case of creationism. these people need to learn the difference between church and state. if they can't, we should just deport them. ;)
 
I see your point, greekguy, but, technically, there is no seperation between church and state. (There IS a difference, but they can go together)

Wouldn't it be great if science teachers only taught science, but never speculation. (such as origins - see my siggy) I don't care if creation and evolution are taught as speculations (and theories), but never should they cross the border and call either of them a fact.
 
thescaryworker said:
I see your point, greekguy, but, technically, there is no seperation between church and state. (There IS a difference, but they can go together)

Wouldn't it be great if science teachers only taught science, but never speculation. (such as origins - see my siggy) I don't care if creation and evolution are taught as speculations (and theories), but never should they cross the border and call either of them a fact.
Click to expand...

A scientific theory is as 'fact' as you can get.
 
Sure. As long as we can also have "scholarly" debates from platygaeanists (flat-Earth believers) and geocentrists (the Sun orbits the Earth, not the other way around). Also we should allow for "scientific" arguments from Christians who believe that the moon is a light source, not something that reflects the Sun's light.
 
warpus said:
A scientific theory is as 'fact' as you can get.
Click to expand...

Say, what if there are conflicting Scientific theories? Evolution and Creation both make completely unprovable assumptions.

Creation: There is a god or a divine influence. He/She directly influenced the creation of everything. Including the world & the kinds of animals as they are today, without macro-evolution.

Evolution: Neither a god nor a divine influence had an influence on the universe. Everything happened via a combination chance and natural selection.

note: I always list in alphabetical order, its just a habit. I do not necessarily favor one over the other.

Both of the theories, after making their (completely unprovable) assumptions, interpret (based on their assumptions, and evidence) what the pieces of evidence mean.



For example (something completely unrelated to creation and evolution):

A candle of unknown make and origin burns at the rate of 1cm/hour.

How long has the candle been burning (don't account for all the previous times it may/could have been lit)?

You would have to assume how long the candle was before the current time it was lit.

One could say that it has been burning a long time, which could account for the large amount of wax collected at the bottom. (assuming all the wax at the bottom is not from this time it was lit)
Another could say that it has been burning a short time, because the wax at the bottom could be from previous times. (assuming only a small amount of the wax at the bottom is from this time it was lit)

They could argue forever, and never convince one another.
 
warpus said:
A scientific theory is as 'fact' as you can get.
Click to expand...

Depends on the solidity of the theory. Evolution isn't as strong a theory as most.
 
I'm fine with allowing the Creationist stuff into the science curriculum for use as debate purposes only, but they must be edited so that they are not so misleading. (EX: claims of no missing links need to mention the missing links found such as Celeocanth (sp?), Archaeopteryx, etc.)
 
ParkCungHee said:
Why isn't Lamarckism taught in classrooms if they want scientific debates?
Click to expand...
It is. I mentioned it was stupid immediately when I first heard of it, because of the logical reasoning on how people who are missing limbs due to injuries can make perfectly normal kids.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Klaus Hergersheimer
Drugs and the US market
4 5 6
Replies
112
Views
5K
Hygro
Hygro
Aiken_Drumn
Aristocrat and boyfriend 'carried baby around in Lidl bag in fatal runaway bid'
Replies
3
Views
624
Zardnaar
Zardnaar
Birdjaguar
Influencers
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
Moff Jerjerrod
Moff Jerjerrod
T
7 Certainly Has A "Vibe" That Puts People Off But Also Might Make It Great
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
GIO888
GIO888
M
Antiquity and Exploration Age Victory Projects
Replies
2
Views
645
Krikkit1
K
Back
Top Bottom