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."
Here is current evidence for both evolution and transitionals:
Ring species provide unusual and valuable situations in which we can observe two species and the intermediate forms connecting them. In a ring species:
- A ring of populations encircles an area of unsuitable habitat.
- At one location in the ring of populations, two distinct forms coexist without interbreeding, and hence are different species.
- Around the rest of the ring, the traits of one of these species change gradually, through intermediate populations, into the traits of the second species.
A ring species, therefore, is a ring of populations in which there is only one place where two distinct species meet. Ernst Mayr called ring species "the perfect demonstration of speciation" because they show a range of intermediate forms between two species. They allow us to use variation in space to infer how changes occurred over time. This approach is especially powerful when we can reconstruct the biogeographical history of a ring species, as has been done in two cases. Source
To falsify ID, one need merely show features that clearly reflect lack of intelligent design. A plethora of features (e.g. the wiring of the retina being in front of the photosensors, thus blocking some of the incoming light) have been found. QED.
Your bald denial doesn't make it so. Please demonstrate how it is not rational.
That's correct. You certainly aren't posting a mathemtical formula that would allow the calculation of divergence based upon time as you claimed existed in an earlier post, for instance.
And yes, the thousands of Scientist studying Molecular Evolution should know that the math doesn't exist for your claimed prediction.
All of this is only micro-evoltion within a kind. It remains within a kind. Kind produces kind. Always has — always will. This is not one kind of living being changing in to another kind of living being. Kinds observably have variations, but still within the kind.
Incorrect. Poor logic.
For one thing, it isn't possible for the VERY FIRST LIFE to have been created from pre-existing living systems.
By definition.
“And as for teaching “all other possible, contrary views” in grade school and high school — that idea is silly. Think it through and you’ll see why”
Kids can’t handle it?? I taught HS math and coached in my younger years and have worked with young people off and on all my life and IMHO they would like to know. I have heard stories of when a student asks a teachers in some schools about creationism, the teacher cuts them off and tries to make a fool of them. That is not teaching.
If you don’t state something to be fact, then you don’t believe it, you are only stating it as a possibility. You can’t believe in God and not state Him as a factual Being and Personality.
Ring Species are a scientific joke in which the mere color change of a salamander is deemed a “new species.”
Ha! You've never used a Zune, then!
If you want to say that Abiogenesis is poorly explained by any proffered hypothesis, is a ‘historic’ science, and cannot be observed in the present day; I would agree with you. Say that Evolution is poorly explained by the theory, is a ‘historic’ science, and cannot be observed in the present day; and I will disagree.
You could not be more wrong. In fact the great bulk, if not all, of your anti-science assertions on this thread are so wrong as to be aptly called, ridiculous. Either you're in over your head because you have no comprehension of science, or you're blinded by your faith in falsehood.
No, now I'm talking about your logic. It's poor. I gave an example.
Now you want to argue that the example that illustrates my point is off topic. It's not.
"You could not be more wrong." - Rudder
Then you'll have no difficulty showing me where the falsification criteria for Evolutionary Theory is/are published.
...sounds of crickets chirping.
You lose.
It's not an analogy; it's reality. The very first life to ever exist was *not* created by some pre-existing life form.
By definition.
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 don't see how your statements (which I agree with) refute the "gaps in knowledge" argument.
Lack of knowledge of evolution does not preclude achievement, even great achievement. Neither does belief in ID or belief in God.
Teaching ID as scientific theory is like teaching laying on of hands as a metallurgical improvement method.
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.