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."
"None are so blind as those who refuse to see."
Yours isn't a debate, it's a mindless rant.
There is no "maybe" to it. ID explains the creation of all modern transgenic animals.
Moreover, ID *can* be falsified by showing that there is no bias in the system in question.
You showed me where the falsification criteria for Evolutionary Theory is/are published?
I think not.
What post number above?
...sounds of more crickets chirping...
...that Man modifies DNA to make pigs grow human hormones in the lab.
The Left tries to say that the Nationalist Socialist Workers Party were a bunch of Right wingers. That would be the first time a right wing party embraced Socialism and called themselves a “workers party”.
Many people try to claim that Nazi’s were Atheists. Personally I think the Atheists caught enough flack last century from the Communists being atheists. Besides, it just isn’t true; when the Nazi party took power they cracked down on Atheists as being anti-State.
From the Lansing State Journal newspaper (Lansing, Michigan) of February 23, 1933.
HITLER AIMS BLOW AT ‘GODLESS’ MOVE
Chancellor’s Forces Seek the Catholic Support for Latest Campaign
BERLIN, Feb. 23 (AP)—A campaign against the “godless movement” and an appeal for Catholic support were launched Wednesday by Chancellor Adolf Hitler’s forces. They struck at two of his formidable opponents in the March 5 elections, the first at communists and the latter at the allied Catholic parties.
Meanwhile five more persons were killed and scores were injured Tuesday night in the incipient civil war which has been waging since Hitler’s rise to power. This brought the number of deaths in political clashes since the first of the year, when Hitler began negotiations for the chancellorship, to about 70.
A campaign against the “godless movement” was announced by Bernard Rust, nazi commissioner for education and culture in Prussia, in an address Tuesday night before students at the technical university here. He said the details would be revealed in the next few days. In his speech opening the campaign for the reichstag and Prussian diet elections, Hitler attacked communists for the spread of atheism.
An appeal to Catholic nazis was printed Wednesday in Hitler’s Voelkischer Beobachter, assailing the Catholic centrist and populist parties. It recalled the papal encyclical of January 9, 1928, which admonished priests to serve the religious interests of the nation and not to affiliate with political parties. Hitler, himself, is a Catholic.
Nazis invaded a centrist campaign meeting at Trier but were repulsed after a stiff fight. Several persons were injured at Kiel and Opladen in nazi-reichsbanner clashes.
A lot of animals may look similar to our eyes and yet not be the same kind. And God was well able to make different kinds that still possess better than 90% identical DNA, and yet they are not the same kind. The creator’s definitions are ultimately what matters. Not man’s.
God was well able to make the tissues of one kind compatible for replacement parts in another kind, as He willed man to have the knowledge and skill to accomplish it in a surgical theater. It does not prove in the least that the one kind had ever been the other kind.
Evolution doesn't TRY to explain them. So so what ?
And for us more simple minded, please try to give a plain English explanation of how ID is falsifiable.
ID can only exist where there is bias. Ergo, ID is falsified in any system without bias.
...So ID is a better explanation for transgenic animals than is Evolution.
Purge the schools? You mean they’re already teaching that crap in the public schools?
These concepts form the basis, used in all of science, for testing the hypotheses in question. If the null hypothesis is not disproved, then the alternate hypothesis is rejected.
I'd lay five to one in favor of (a) the muslims win out (Creation is included) and (b) the teaching guide will be a hideous parody.
That would give academia just what it wants - acceptance by the anti-west (within and without) and a means not so much to teach evolution as to as discredit ID.
Non-sequitur. The existence of transgenic animals only proves that ID is possible, not that it is responsible for the existence of all life. The claim is akin to asserting that the existence of Ford automobiles is proof that all automobiles were made by Ford.
A null hypothesis is just a theory set up to be nullified or refuted in order to support an alternate hypothesis.
You have clearly confused the above with that of “falsification criteria” (which are tests that can be applied to rule out a single theory).
Yes, the existence of transgenic animals proves that ID is possible...and the existence of transgenic animals is also unexplained by the Theory of Evolution.
Ergo, the Theory of Evolution can not explain the origins of all life.
But I’ll tell you that I do believe that God has kept some car motors together that should have flown apart, and it was a miracle from God, quite literally, that our family got to our destination. I mean a specific miracle.
Would I suggest that an auto mechanic factor that in, and use lower quality parts to save money, “’cause God will keep it together anyway” ?? Of course not! That, in fact, would violate good stewardship principles that God also instructs us in His Word.
That is precisely the goal of evolutionary science. As with physics, it can provide a model for how things probably happened, and the model is revised whenever new facts are discovered. Any theorist worth his salt will never say "this is what happened", he'll say "this is how it could have happened" or "this is what probably happened".
I don't know if Hitler was a creationist but he was decidedly anti-Christian. One of the policies of the Third Reich was to marginalize Christianity and supplant it with a state religion based on ancient Germanic paganism.
Perhaps I'm misusing the word "fact".
For something to be a "fact" in my mind, I expect it to be demonstrable to others, and undeniable by others.
Like "George Bush is president of the U.S."
or
"If you eat a teaspoonful of potassium cyanide you will die."
My wife deeply believes in God. That doesn't make God's existence demonstrable or undeniable to me. Doesn't "fact" require those two attributes ?
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.