I'm not a creationist, but I have NO sympathy for the darwinists.
I still don't understand how creationism is science. Do we teach that gravity is an intelligent hand pushing you down? Scientists don't normally give up and say "Well... I am not sure of the answer so it must be designed that way by some unknown (or known) intelligence". That doesn't seem to be science to me.
creationist ping
Yeah, but a totally non-functional hypothesis.
So was Communism.
But James Williams, science course leader at Sussex University’s school of education, said: “This opens a legitimate gate for the inclusion of creationism or intelligent design in science classes as if they were legitimate theories on a par with evolution fact and theory.
“I’m happy for religious theories to be considered in religious education, but not in science where consideration could lead to a false verification of their status as being equal to scientific theories.”
You know, I don't understand what they are so concerned about. The man says "false verification." If his ideas are so superior, won't they come out on top every time? I see a dual arrogance here: (1) They think they have all the answers (2) Students are too stupid to figure things out by themselves.
I will be curious to see how this plays out in England. Frankly, I'm surprised to see this. Never would I have thought that a balanced approach would be taken by the English.
Is the vocal 1.2% minority here whining yet?
With respect, you appear to have altogether misunderstood the article. 'Creationism' is mentioned in the OCR has part of the history of science curriculum, as the spokesman makes clear:
A spokeswoman for OCR said: “Candidates need to understand the social and historical context to scientific ideas both pre and post Darwin. Candidates are asked to discuss why the opponents of Darwinism thought the way they did and how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting empirical evidence.”
My emphasis: note the past tense.
For the current curriculum (followed, btw, at the Church school my own daughters attend), the article is also explicit, to wit:
A spokesman at the Department for Education and Skills said: “Neither creationism nor intelligent design is 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.”
There are private schools which do teach various forms of religious creationism in lieu of science; a couple are Evangelical Christian foundations, the rest are Islamic schools. Mr. Blair is pushing legislation to enable public funding of these private religious schools--so much for a liberal agenda.
I am sorry, but this article does not at all mean what you appear to wish that it meant.
Which of the several hundred extant creation myths will they be mentioning?
From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4793198.stm, a further quote from the OCR spokesman:
"Creationism and 'intelligent design' are not regarded by OCR as scientific theories. They are beliefs that do not lie within scientific understanding."
Your labelling of the article here is about 180 degrees out -- unless the 'good idea' that can't be kept down is neo-Darwinian ToE, as taught by the GCSE curriculum
I hope they will include teaching about Ginnungagap and Niflheim. They shouldn’t leave out Apsu and Taimat either.
Or try to change the rules of logic again.
This is an increasingly powerful movement. I'm happy to see that it's sucking air out of the liberal agenda in another country.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^66
Any government powerful enough to force creationism down the throats of resistant children is powerful enough to shove evolution down the throats of resistant children too.
If creationism wins conservatives will be happy only until the liberals gain a little more strength and win the tug of war over the government school curriculum. The winner's prize? The hearts and minds of the next generation of voters.
The solution is complete privatization of universal K-12 education.
I am not by definition a creationist, but if someone in our society wanted to make this ‘creationist label’ (or even id) into a term used to judge others and cast them to the side… Well, I think Alvin Plantinga sums this up nicely here:
Suppose I claim all Democrats belong in jail. One might ask: Could I advance the discussion by just defining the word “Democrat” to mean “convicted felon”? If you defined “Republican” to mean “unmitigated scoundrel,” should Republicans everywhere hang their heads in shame?
I have loved science since a child, but as an adult I was disappointed to find science ’in a box’ and void of either intelligence or design when both of these aspects seem far too obvious for any denial. If science must deny any design or intelligence ultimately towards our very being, what does this mean? This question is rhetorical because the obvious meaning is we are nothing more than chemicals acting upon each other and for no higher reason than any other chemical reaction.
I disagree with this methodological naturalistic ‘belief’ so what label should science don me with to make me into a ‘convicted felon‘?
What is GCSE?
Do they still have schools in England?