Posted on 11/30/2006 7:44:59 AM PST by SirLinksalot
Let us test Darwin, teacher says
Science teaching materials deemed "not appropriate" by the government should be allowed in class, Education Secretary Alan Johnson has been urged.
Chemistry teacher at Liverpool's Blue Coat School, Nick Cowan, says the packs promoting intelligent design are useful in debating Darwinist evolution.
Education officials insist intelligent design is not recognised as science.
It argues that evolution cannot explain everything so the Universe must have had an intelligent creator.
The packs were sent out to 5,000 secondary schools by a group of academics and clerics known as Truth in Science.
The Department for Education and Skills said they were 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."
The call from Mr Cowan - former head of the school's chemistry department - comes as the Guardian reported that the Truth in Science materials were being used in 59 schools.
'Sacred cow'
Mr Cowan says they 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 as well have said Einstein shouldn't have said what he did because it criticised Newton."
He argues that science only moves forward by reviewing and reworking previous theories and that these materials foster an understanding of this.
'Controversy'
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."
Dr Evan Harris, honorary associate of the National Secular Society and Liberal Democrat science spokesman, said it was worrying that some schools were giving "this nonsense" any credence.
Many leading scientists argue that ideas about intelligent design should not be allowed in school because they are simply not scientific.
Back in April, the Royal Society warned against allowing creationism in school saying that pupils must understand that science backs Darwin's theory of evolution.
The society's statement said: "Young people are poorly served by deliberate attempts to withhold, distort or misrepresent scientific knowledge and understanding in order to promote particular religious beliefs."
Recently, the British Humanist Association asked Mr Johnson for greater clarity on the teaching of creationism in schools.
An excellent example!
This guy has no bias ... 10 to 1 he supports the man-made global warming envirowackos with the same lack of scientific basis.
"Darwin has been tested constantly and relentlessly for 148 years nonstop and has passed every single rigorous test without fail."
What an absolute crock. It is completely the opposite. Darwinism has a glass jaw and thus refuses to expose itself to rigorous examination and debate.
If you want to see what type of "science" the creation "science" folks are doing, here is an excellent resource:
The Creation Research Society has the following on their home page:
The Creation Research Society is a professional organization of trained scientists and interested laypersons who are firmly committed to scientific special creation. The Society was organized in 1963 by a committee of ten like-minded scientists, and has grown into an organization with an international membership.They go on to say:
All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:
1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.
4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.
Does this sound like science to you? Does this sound like research? Their "science" consists of twisting evidence to fit religious belief.
Any time preconceived beliefs, such as these, override the scientific method, an individual is doing apologetics, not science. It doesn't matter what scientific degrees one may have; to agree to a set of standards such as this, which is common (whether explicit or implicit) in creationist circles, is to cease doing science.
The attempts to teach this kind of "science" in science classes, while pretending its not religion, is a blatant lie from start to finish.
Pretty funny, no? Truth in Science is nothing but a lie.
How exactly does a theory refuse to be tested? Call in sick the day of the test?
Is that what you REALLY feel?
Um...by teaching the controversy. The students have brains, don't they? And surely they can think for themselves when presented with the arguments and evidence from both sides? Or perhaps the evolutionists are afraid that their hypotheses will not withstand critical analysis?
I've given up on these knuckledraggers here. They remind me of the famous Monte Python knight that gets all his parts cut off and then demands you come back and fight him. The knuckledraggers win, because they steadfastly refuse to accept reality and lose.
"An oak tree is an acorns way of making more acorns"
Why does an oak tree make acorns, Schuck?
"'I've given up on these knuckledraggers here"
Wait, don't apes drag their knuckles?
Yeap, with what we know about DNA/RNA today it's passed the tests.
Please remind me, what tests has Darwin passed?
the Creationist rely on one thing over all FAITH. The scientist relies on Investigations and proof and has no faith in a theory if they cant prove what happened and reproduce it. Science is not faith and faith has no place in science. let them teach a faith course if they want. but dont mix the two or you will get a jackalope or nessi in your lake or yetti in your back yard. Finally with all sciences believing is not knowing and we are only starting to prove how things works and have a lot more to learn.
Actually, science is based on the 'a priori' metaphysical axiom that only natural explanations are acceptable.
Hopefully, no thinking person is deceived when 'science' arrives at a 'natural' explanation. No other explanation is allowed, by definition.
Who do you propose to be qualified to present exactly what "the controversy" is? The arguments and evidence on one side is pretty well defined. Who do you propose to be held authoritative to lay out the arguments and evidence of the "other side", and what exactly are those arguments and evidence?
Yeah, right. "Real" science like humans can reverse global warming, we're running out of oil tomorrow and Bush caused Katrina.
Do kids have a chance these days just to do basic biology, chemistry and physics???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.