Creationism to be taught on GCSE science syllabus (you can't keep a good idea down)

The Times of London ^ | 10 March 2006 | Tony Halpin

[Greg o the Navy]

AN EXAMINATIONS board is including references to “creationism” in a new GCSE science course for schools.

[ToryHeartland]

To be fair, Lucretius (99 B.C. to 55 B.C.) said something very much along that line. However no one since then that comes to mind. (Creationists are sooo first century B.C.)

They are unlikely to find any comfort in Lucretius--who is almost the sole source (apart from a few fragments) of the teachings of Epicurus (whose writings were systematically destroyed by the early Church fathers). Lucretius' view of Epicurus's role:

Humana ante oculos foede cum vita iaceret / in terris oppressa gravi sub religione / quae caput a caeli regionibus ostendebat / horribili super aspectu mortalibus instans / primum Graius homo mortalis tollere contra / est oculos ausus primusque obistere contra / quem neque fama deum nec fulmina nec minitanti / murmure compressit caelum, sed eo magis acrem / inritat animi virtutem, effringere ut arta / naturae primus portarum claustra cupiret

De Rerum Natura, 1:62-71

When man's life lay for all to see foully grovelling upon the ground, crushed beneath the weight of Superstition, which displayed her head from the regions of heaven, lowering over mortals with horrible aspect, a man of Greece [Epicurus] was the first that dared to uplift mortal eyes against her, the first to make stand against her; for neither fables of the gods could quell him, nor thunderbolts, nor heaven with menacing roar, but all the more they goaded the eager courage of his soul, so that he should desire, first of all men, to shatter the confining bars of nature's gates [trans: W.H.D.Rouse]

This was the preamble to Epicurus's atomic theory, in turn the foundation for his morality -- ok, I'll stop there. But L and E are both remarkable figures, however you look at them.

[ToryHeartland]

What is GCSE?

General Certificate of Secondary Education, a set of standard exams used in England and Wales. Roughly corresponds to the American High School Diploma, except one sits GCSE Exams for a range of subjects, some required, the rest elective, and thus receives a range of grades in different subjects. Level A* GCSE roughly corresponds to first-year at an American University (in the UK, university degrees are 3 years, not 4).

Our current crop of socialists have been tinkering like crazy with our educational institutions (it's a real political football), so the above paragraph may be out of date by the time I hit the 'post' button on this!

[Fester Chugabrew]

One is a scientific theory that has many facts to back it up . . .

There seems to be a fair amount if evidence that matter is organized and peforms specific functions. It hardly necessitates a religious conviction of some kind to attribute this to intelligent design. For the most part the teaching of evolution is a shaping principle suited to those who prefer to limit or eliminate the possibility of intelligent design. Such a shaping principle is not entitled to a sole hearing in the classroom, whether by logic or by law.

[MeanAsSnake]

Of course not, everyone knows that it is an intelligent hand "PULLING" you down.

[MeanAsSnake]

Of course not, everyone knows that it is an intelligent hand "PULLING" you down.

[xzins]

Thanks, Tory. Is it possible for a student to take those exams and score a level different than "A?" Is there a level "B" or something lower? If so, how many levels are there, and what are they designated?

It seems like a rational system.

[VadeRetro]

If evolution were such a well supported theory, then why prey tell is it that the more evidence presented me about evo, the less I believe it?

Maybe you're not comfortable with having lots of evidence? A stray thought from the could-be-a-clue-in-there-somewhere department: you used "prey" instead of "pray."

[trickyricky]

just assume for a minute we were designed by a higher power

That assumption is self-evident, but those who refuse to acknowledge it
will never be convinced, this side of the grave.
When they stand before their Creator, then they will have no
choice but to acknowledge Him.

Then it will be too late.

I refuse to argue with them.
Pray that their eyes be opened, and their hearts be broken
and they come to salvation, before it's too late.

[ToryHeartland]

I haven't explained it well (it's changed since my day of 'O' and 'A' Levels). Previously, there were 3 exam levels: CSE (Certificate of Secondary Education) was the lowest rank -- a minimum number of these would be something like the basic American High School Diploma. Typically, most students additional took some 'O' (Ordinary) Level exams; completion of 'O' Levels marked the end of secondary education for a number of pupils, though if you were aiming at university entrance, you needed to do a further year in school and round of 'A' (Advanced) Level exams. Since my time, the CSE's and O Levels have been combined into the GCSE level (lowest) with new AS and A levels introduced for higher qualifications.

It is probably more rational than I have explained!

[VadeRetro]

You are too ploddingly literal, BP! Consider yourself Twisted and Shouted. I was doing the creationist trick of pretending to be even dumber than I am.

I don't do that a lot. I try to be better than that. But I remember an old Jack Benny episode with him yelling, "See!? I can do that, too!"

[Amelia]

IMO, science is restricting itself too much in an attempt to keep ANY *non-natural* explanation out of the picture. Insisting that there is no supernatural explanation, starts scientific inquiry with a presumption.

Science is the study of the natural world.

I'm not saying there's not a place for the study of the supernatural, but by definition, science is not that place.

[trashcanbred]

And your proof is this is what?

Let's put it this way... it is called the fossil record.

[ToryHeartland]

you and others lack the gene to recognize sarcasm. That is not a characteristic of your countrymen there in DarwinDawkinsland

My dear fellow, you appear to labour under an egregious misapprehension. Satire and irony are national art forms here, not sarcasm--which is a base and puerile form of discourse little practised here and even less admired. For sarcastic comments, we visit New York.

But you are indeed correct, I failed to detect sarcasm in your posting, and mistakenly thought you had some meaningful point to contribute to a serious discussion. Apologies, my bad; won't happen again.

[trashcanbred]

Yes we all have that problem. It is the great equalizer.

Wrong... what makes both unequal is the fossil record and many years studying genetics.

My beef with evolution is the singularity of common descent and the notion that the process from the first life to where we are to date is a random process

Sorry but it is mutations that are random, the process is not. Random mutations are known to happen today. That is not theory that is a fact. Natural selection is FAR from random.

[whispering out loud]

Paul didn't say he had preached the gospel throughout the world, just "under the influence of the holy spirit, not his own knowledge" said the gospel had been preached.

Missionaries have on several occasions made the statement of prophecies of "white men" who would come to the village, and that the village would in turn accept the God of the white men that came. Sounds an awful lot to me like someone had been there before, "weather in flesh, or in spirit."