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.
Please....I can't even get evolutionists on this forum to answer a single fundamental question that I've been asking for quite some time now. To wit:
What physical event does natural selection explain, that isn't already explained by drift, recombination, and mutation. None of which, in and of themselves, infer evolution.
If natural selection can not explain any physical event, then has no business being in a scientific theory. Period.
*sigh* I see. It drives me nuts.
There's a lot bigger issues facing those schools that evlolution/creation if that guys writing style is what they're producing.
This article is a good example, too. Look for paragraphs.
LOL! I suppose it could be an internet-transfer issue, but it's true that most journalism is very deficient in paragraphing.
High School textbooks have been revised to remove many fallacies due to the current criticisms… How long would you have these fallacies stay in the textbooks without criticism?
I'm sure that explains the dearth of great scientists and inventors that existed BEFORE evolution was taught in the public school system.
When you have people running around here claiming that the test for falsification is the production of a clone through biological reproduction, you have to ask yourself...
You forget about "teaching the controversy" in science class as well.
What controversy you ask?
Good question, because there isn't one.
The Creationists have decided that evolution is a threat to their "truth", therefore there is a controversy within the scientific community about evolution.
Well, there is no controversy, evolution is the best scientific theory to explain the evidence, there is no competition, and there is no controversy.
But, if the Creationists and their hand waving get the attention of a school board, that knows nothing about science, their claims will be and are believed.
The Creationists create from whole cloth, a controversy that does not exist, in order to have thier religious beliefs indoctrinated into the students via "science".
Create a controversy that does not exist, make a lot of noise, and get your creationist religion in schools via the backdoor.
Teach the controversy? LOL, there is no controversy in science about Evolution being the best theory to explain the evidence that we have.
Don't tell a creationist this, because they will hand wave it away, as they do everything else. The controversy exists, because they say it exists, and that's all that they need to know.
Hmmm… Interesting – but it does not apply to this article. Now, if you are trying to play the misguided ‘guilt by association’ card toward id, I would hope you would look at the actual cards that are currently being dealt by the ‘scientific commune’. You know, the latest book writing heavyweights such as Dawkins, Harris, Singer, Pinker, Wilson, et al…
It is time that scientists and other public intellectuals observed that the contest between faith and reason is zero-sum. There is no question but that nominally religious scientists like Francis Collins and Kenneth R. Miller are doing lasting harm to our discourse by the accommodations they have made to religious irrationality.
-Harris
"Innocent children are being saddled with demonstrable falsehoods," he says. "It's time to question the abuse of childhood innocence with superstitious ideas of hellfire and damnation. Isn't it weird the way we automatically label a tiny child with its parents' religion?""Sectarian religious schools," Dawkins asserts, have been "deeply damaging" to generations of children.
Dawkins, who makes no effort to disguise his atheism and contempt for religion, focuses on the Bible, too.
"The God of the Old Testament has got to be the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous, and proud of it, petty, vindictive, unjust, unforgiving, racist," he says. Dawkins then criticizes Abraham, compares Moses to Hitler and Saddam Hussein, and calls the New Testament "St Paul's nasty, sado-masochistic doctrine of atonement for original sin."
The Virus of Faith - Dawkins
We should no more allow parents to teach their children to believe, for example, in the literal truth of the Bible or that planets rule their lives, than we should allow parents to knock their children's teeth out.Do you really want to ignore this attack? ShuckMaster stated the same basic tenants of this liberal scientific mullah ‘Dawkins’ – lock em’ up for child abuse! But if scientists (and misguided liberal freepers) truly believe that teaching a belief in an ultimate source of morality and consciousness other than purely unintelligent (or stupid) natural causes is actual child abuse … I suggest they actually step up to the plate. Don’t be a hypocrite. If I saw a child being abused I’d do something about it regardless of what the police could do with our current laws.
-Dawkins / Humphrey
Just remember that you are doing it in the name of ‘current’ science and your views can change because, as you know, science changes continuously… And remember that morality is merely a human construct per ‘current’ science (social Darwinism)…
Thanks for the ping!
"Darwin has been tested constantly and relentlessly for 148 years nonstop and has passed every single rigorous test without fail."
I've heard this lie so many times that I guess it must be true. Goebbels would be proud of you!
Since I don't believe any evo will provide you even a simple answer, I'll provide their answer for them. BANG!
Have you got the first Eukaryotic cell in your back pocket? If so break it out and let's have a look at it!
People aren't against evolution because they don't understand it. People are against evolution because they do understand it and are scared to face reality.
Being scared of reality is not a conservative trait so you need to pull your heads out of the sand and show a little self-respect because you are playing right into the liberals hands and being an embarrassment to the whole conservative movement with your willful ignorance and stubborn anti-science position.
Science is self correcting. That's exactly how it works.
You are wrong. There is no evidence whatsoever that there ever was a global flood. You are delusional to think otherwise. And, assuming there was, it would not account for the structure of the fossil record. that is an age old science-lie that creationists have had debunked over and over again. No point in going into details here since most people chose not to listen. Based on your post, I don't think you even understand the concept of an intermediate form. What you posted is the exact kind of rubbish that should never be taught in schools. It is insiduously naive and does not fit any evidence whatsoever, nor does it even conform to the laws of physics.
So everything I was taught throughout high school and college that has now been *corrected* was wrong. But the corrections will only be correct until the next scientific discovery which comes along and shows that todays *correct* knowledge is wrong also. And so it goes.... And we should trust science because.....????
I suppose you anti-science types would prefer that science never make any advancements in medicine and technology, etc; just as your pinko liberal kin would prefer no one ever have to get a job to pay for their welfare but, that's not the way the real world works. Constant advancement in free market economics and scientific achievement is the conservative American way and you backwards thinking liberals and Luddites will just have to get used to it.
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.