Posted on 10/05/2007 6:26:08 AM PDT by SubGeniusX
The teaching of evolution is becoming increasingly difficult in UK schools because of the rise of creationism, a leading scientist is warning. Head of science at London's Institute of Education Professor Michael Reiss says some teachers, fearful of entering the debate, avoid the subject totally.
This could leave pupils with gaps in their scientific knowledge, he says.
Prof Reiss says the rise of creationism is partly down to the large increase in Muslim pupils in UK schools.
He said: "The number of Muslim students has grown considerably in the last 10 to 20 years and a higher proportion of Muslim families do not accept evolutionary theory compared with Christian families.
"That's one reason why it's more of an issue in schools."
Prof Reiss estimates that one in 10 people in the UK now believes in literal interpretations of religious creation stories - whether they are based on the Bible or the Koran.
Many more teachers he met at scientific meetings were telling him they encountered more pupils with creationist views, he said.
"The days have long gone when science teachers could ignore creationism when teaching about origins."
Instead, teachers should tackle the issue head-on, whilst trying not to alienate students, he argues in a new book.
'Not equally valid'
"By not dismissing their beliefs, we can ensure that these students learn what evolutionary theory really says - and give everyone the understanding to respect the views of others," he added.
His book; Teaching about Scientific Origins: Taking Account of Creationism, gives science teachers advice on how to deal with the "dilemma".
He supports new government guidelines which say creationism should not be discussed in science classes unless it is raised by pupils.
But Prof Reiss argues that there is an educational value in comparing creationist ideas with scientific theories like Darwin's theory of evolution because they demonstrate how science, unlike religious beliefs, can be tested.
The scientist, who is also a Church of England priest, adds that any teaching should not give the impression that creationism and the theory of evolution are equally valid scientifically.
Dr Hilary Leevers, of the Campaign for Science and Engineering, said science teachers would be teaching evolution not creationism and so should not need a book to tell them how to "delicately handle controversy between a scientific theory and a belief".
"The author suggests that science teachers cannot ignore creationism when teaching origins, but the opposite is true," she said.
Teachers could discuss how creationism differed from scientific theory if a student brought up the subject, but any further discussion should occur in religious education lessons, she said.
A Department for Children, Schools and Families spokesman said it had recently published guidelines to teachers on the issue.
"Creationism and intelligent design are not scientific theories nor testable as scientific fact - and have no place in the science curriculum. "But we advise science teachers that when questions about creationism come up in lessons, it provides an opportunity to explain or explore what makes a scientific theory."
Better tell these guys.
Ray DA, Xing J, Hedges DJ, Hall MA, Laborde ME, Anders BA, White BR, Stoilova N, Fowlkes JD, Landry KE, Chemnick LG, Ryder OA, Batzer MA.
Department of Biological Sciences, Biological Computation and Visualization Center, Center for Bio-Modular Multi-scale systems, Louisiana State University, 202 Life Sciences Bldg., Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA.
Short INterspersed Elements (SINEs) make very useful phylogenetic markers because the integration of a particular element at a location in the genome is irreversible and of known polarity. These attributes make analysis of SINEs as phylogenetic characters an essentially homoplasy-free affair. Alu elements are primate-specific SINEs that make up a large portion of the human genome and are also widespread in other primates. Using a combination wet-bench and computational approach we recovered 190 Alu insertions, 183 of which are specific to the genomes of nine New World primates. We used these loci to investigate branching order and have produced a cladogram that supports a sister relationship between Atelidae (spider, woolly, and howler monkeys) and Cebidae (marmosets, tamarins, and owl monkeys) and then the joining of this two family clade to Pitheciidae (titi and saki monkeys). The data support these relationships with a homoplasy index of 0.00. In this study, we report one of the largest applications of SINE elements to phylogenetic analysis to date, and the results provide a robust molecular phylogeny for platyrrhine primates.
Hitler and Nazism were pretty good at building machinery. First usable jet fighter. First liquid fueled ballistic missile.
But I seem to be confirming your thesis.
Better tell your friends that SINES can’t give an Evolutionary explanation for why Coral has human immune system functionality that Fish lack.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1823622/posts
DNA Code skipping is the death knell for Evolutionary Theory.
It's not considered controversial enough for publication. Everyone knows that Man creates all transgenic lab animals like pigs that grow human hormones for sale to pharmaceutical companies. Man is Intelligent. Hence, ID explains transgenic beasts through the empirical observations in our labs.
Perhaps you'd like to argue that Evolutionary Theory explains such transgenic animals, instead?!
Yes, it is evident that there is no published falsification criteria for Evolution.
My point re Mr. LeTourneu, is that in real life, it wouldn’t stop any progress in the world if there are such gaps.
A person who absolutely rejects Darwin’s racist book (”The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life”) can still be the researcher that finds the ultimate cure for cancer. A Creationist can be the one who engineers the way to Mars. A biblical literalist (A Genesis literalist) can be the one who develops the next generation of systems that defend our nation against our enemies.
All progress depends on what happens NOW, currently observable in laboratories and testing facilities. What works NOW is what is important.
I wouldn’t know, I’ve never read the Bible nor did I extensively study evolution in high school. I don’t fully believe in Creation, ID or Evolution, as science has not been able to prove either of them.
A question everybody should ask those that promote evolution is HOW did organisms evolve.
According to you, the criteria for evolution to be scientific is that it must have a “published specific peer-reviewed” falsification criteria - which I showed was not the standard for all other scientific theories and invited you to show otherwise. You refused to even address it.
But you say the criteria for ID be scientific is just that God’s an answer for “any system” which you think ”there is no basis”. One bar ridiculously high, one bar absurdly low - equals one pathetic appearance on FR today.
ASA Vet’s right, enough time’s been spent on this. Regards…
RE :"ID *is* a scientific theory because it is the only theory that explains all modern transgenic animals "
What are you talking about? , ID doesnt explain anything. It says that life appeared in some unspecified form, you are not proposing how. Even the Creationists propose a creator, but ID stops even before that with a designer. It's meaningless.
ID says 'it was done, and we can never know how". The exclusion of identifying the creator/designer, while used as a legal trick to get it past the liberal courts makes it even more un-scientific. It means that lack of evidence, is called evidence, and lack of a theory, is called a theory. Then any arguments against evolution are recast as evidence of ID/design/creation. So called ID evidence is now related to probabilities of some evolution model specified by the IDer:
P(design)+P(evolution) =1.0, and P(evolution)=10(-1 big number).
So P(design) =1.0-10(-big number) = 1.0 ,
So making up your own model for the opposing theory and calculating a small probability number for it, without proposing your own alternative and is cited as evidence for your own so called theory ID. Note: Creationists used this same proof and were outraged when it didn’t fly. In 1970s and 1980s,
P(creation)+P(evolution) was =1.0 and P(creation) =1.0-10(-big number) = 1.0
I have not tried to make the point that only a Christian or a Creationist can be a great inventor or innovator. I brought up LeTourneau, who was a biblicist Christian with a fervor for Christian missionary endeavor. LeTourneau was not hindered in the least by not believing in evolution. His stuff worked because he found out what worked and what didn’t work in laboratories and testing facilities, using his own eye balls. What worked was the result of OBSERVABLE science.
But how do you explain how well the molecular genomic data comports with common descent? Why is there so much homology between species that the fossil record and morphology indicate share a recent common ancestor, and so much divergence between species that the fossil record and morphology indicate do not share a recent common ancestor? Why is the amount of change mathematically predictable based upon the time of divergence? Why is the majority of change in DNA sequences that do not code for protein?
Evolution through natural selection explains the amount of difference, and the relative abundance of differences (most of it non-Coding differences)? What is the Scientific alternative explanation?
ID *is* falsifiable. ID is falsified in any system that contains no bias.
The disconnect is that the ideologues who control the gates to scientific publication refuse to publish ID's falsification criteria.
However, that failing on their part is no excuse for their refusal to publish falsification criteria for Evolutionary Theory.
ID is not dependent on God. Any intelligence could suffice.
This is why Intelligent Design explains, scientifically, all modern transgenic animals such as pigs that have their DNA modified such that they grow human hormones in our labs.
Evolutionary Theory fails to explain those sorts of transgenic animals, by the way...
But I am agreeing with you. Hitler was a creationist and a great promoter of Christianity. He explicitly denied that humans could have evolved. He, and the current militant Muslims, are on your side.
Just the other day the president of Iran gave a speech at Columbia denouncing godless science and praising creation science.
Incorrect.
Intelligent Design explains, scientifically, all modern transgenic animals such as pigs that have their DNA modified such that they grow human hormones in our labs. Evolutionary Theory fails to explain those sorts of transgenic animals, by the way...
So, it isn’t the lack of “specific peer-reviewed falsification criteria” that makes evolution unfalsifiable. Explain to me again how the theory of evolution is unfalsifiable, and how “a rabbit in the Precambrian” fails to falsify evolution.
It's not "many fish."
It's "all fish."
No known Fish has human immune functionality. This is problematic for Evolutionary Theory because ET holds that Coral came first, then Fish from that, then Mammals came from Fish, then Humans came from early Mammals in a sequential process.
But Coral and Humans share something that Fish don't have. How could Mammals get something...then pass it to Humans...if they didn't get it from Fish per ET?!
The Fish passed this functionality to Mammals, then all known Fish dead or alive lost that functionality?!
Preposterous!
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.