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."
Perhaps the two of you are unsure of a few points, but don’t mistake your confusion for that of someone else refusing to explain a point.
Just ask for a specific explanation...and be thoughtful enough to ping me.
False ....
Stalinist Russia rejected Darwinian evolution as "bourgeois" and instead embraced the non-Darwinian "proletarian biology" of Lysenko and Michurin (a disaster from which Russian genetics and biological sciences has still not completely recovered).
as for Hitler please see: Post #184
Hitler was clearly coming from a Creationist standpoint ... please note I am not comparing Creationists to Hitler or Stalin ... I am merely refuting common false claims made by Creationists ...
RE “Just post the published falsification criteria for the Theory of Evolution”
RE : “So you admit that there is no published falsification criteria for Evolution “
I found this online:
Here’s an opportunity to see how good you are at refuting evolution scientifically. That means using science, not faith. If you have faith that evolution is false, that’s great for you but has nothing to do with science
Type of Statement Points
Observation of spontaneous generation of a modern lifeform
either from nothing or from nonliving elements. 5
Explanation of how totally independent dating methods agree
so well if the dates they show are wrong. 5
Evidence showing that all remains of Earth are younger than
1 million years. 3
Example of total genetic discontinuity (polymerase chain
reaction) between two species considered closely related
by conventional science. 2
Example of two species considered separated by over 100
million years of time by conventional science found to 2
be contemporaneous.
Example of a fossil considered over 2 million years old by
conventional science showing the exact same genetic makeup as
a modern member of the same species. 1
Correct statement of the theory of evolution. 1
Any other single statement showing you understand evolution. 1
Any quote from secondary sources. -1
Any statement mischaracterizing evolution. -1
Misunderstanding of the difference between theory and fact. -2
Misunderstanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. -2
Misunderstanding of entropy, order, randomness or
complexity. -2
Misunderstanding of the use of C-14 dating. -2
Misunderstanding of isochron dating. -2
Misunderstanding of nuclear decay. -2
Misunderstanding of the speed of light. -2
Appeal to supernatural entities. Such is outside the
framework of science. -2
Misquoting or distorting someone’s statement. -3
Mischaracterizing a disagreement on the hows of evolution
as doubt of the fact of evolution. -4
Appeal to your own ignorance “I don’t see how else...”
is a description of your personal inadequacy, not that
of conventional science. -4
Outright lie. It doesn’t matter if you didn’t know it
was a lie. -5
Use of argument already thoroughly refuted. You are
responsible for looking these things up. -5
Appeal to moral consequences. That has no bearing on
truth value. -5
http://www.holysmoke.org/cretins/anti-evo.htm
First of all, I presume "down" is equivalent to "due" (I wish they'd speak proper English over there in ... England).
Secondly, a stuck clock will be right twice during the day, so trying to attach Biblical Creationism to 'islam' because they might agree on one point is not an argument but mudslinging.
And thirdly, I don't profess to be an expert on islam, but whenever I've checked, islam (e.g., 'ask islam', and other such sites on the web) seems to relish in the fact that they support evolution as a point to distinguish themselves from Bible believing Christians. Islam certainly believes in a Theistic guided evolution, but it is still evolution. E.g., below is an excerpt pulled from the website 'Understanding islam', that seems to be a fairly representative example of what I've read from other islamic sources:
The above verses clearly tell us that in the beginning man was created from clay. The words 'creation from clay', obviously, do not necessitate that God created an effigy of man from clay and then gave life to it. It may, as we know, imply that in the beginning man came into existence out of the earth [the mud or the clay etc. of the earth]. In other words, God inculcated in earth - mixed with water - the potential to produce life. Over centuries or even millennia, the life-bearing potential of the earth materialized and a species quite similar to, yet somewhat different from man was born[1]. This was the first stage in the creation of man, as is evidenced by the words: "He started the creation of man from clay".
I.e., I don't know of any islamic versions of Answers in Genesis, ICR, Ken Ham, etc...The islam position seems to be one of Theistic evolution.
This article seems to be projecting an association between a known bogyman (islam) and Creationism for the mere goal of browbeating Creationists.
Perfect summary in one tidy little sentence. Please allow me to present you with my "You Hit the Nail Right on the Head" Award, MrB :+)
That’s not scientific falsification criteria. Try again.
That's kind of why they call them the natural sciences. How would transcendant, supernatural topics be covered in science class?
As to the bringing back of religion class, I wholeheartedly agree. It was part of my education, and I do believe that western civilization cannot be adequately understood without knowledge of our religous heritage.
The above comment made by a non-repentant "evolutionist", which around here is pretty much synonymous with commie pinko fag atheist hippie monkey boy supporter of public breastfeeding with a side order of total anarchy.
Not much different from the view held by many Christian and Jewish scientists.
Now THAT would make a great tagline!
Not to you, but they work for science and those who do it, scientists.
My turn...
1. Several methods of determining phylogenies (ie: Cladistics) are capable of contradicting the existence of evolutionary trees. They could provide counter-evidence for common descent, but they don't.
2. The genetic code could conceivably be different between different groups of organisms. If this happened frequently, it would cause severe problems for the theory of common descent. Instead, only minor differences in the genetic code are found, and they tend to occur in ways that strengthen the evolutionary tree.
3. If there were no significant differences in the fauna at different times, or different geographical locations which have been separated for a very long time from other locations (e.g. Australia), this would be a clear falsification.
4. Not all facts would fit with evolution (e.g. the discovery of a rabbit skeleton in Cambrian shales) and therefore if such facts emerge, evolution would be falsified. It is simply the case that there have not been any facts that have falsified evolution.
5. In order to falsify any scientific theory, one must find a core, lynch pin claim that admits to the possibility of being observably incorrect. Even so, it's not just a matter of finding a single piece of "counter-evidence" -- it may be that what appears at first to be a falsification is a manifestation of a previously unconsidered and unexamined phenomenon. Thus, even if something were found in layer X of some rock, this does not on its face falsify the theory: it must be shown to have no other cogent explanation within the theory it proposes to falsify. Because of this, while it would be somewhat of a chore to falsify evolution's falsifiable claims, it cannot be forgotten that it was an equally difficult chore to construct those conditions that would show it false in the first place, and as such, it would likely take time for the falsification of a theory this encompassing to be accepted as such. The work involved in falsifying any given theory, however, does not go to its falsifiability: just because something is monumentally hard doesn't mean it's impossible.
6. Evolution is falsifiable; it is simply not false.
I don't disagree.
My point (Post 204, I believe) was that the posted article made a connection between islam and Creationists that I don't believe exists. I've never read of any 'Young Earth Creationist' islamics. I believe the mohammedan's consistent position is one of Theistic guided Evolution. The fact that islam supports Theistic guided evolution does not make it wrong (e.g., a stuck clock is correct twice a day), but my perception was that the author of the article was trying to browbeat Creationists with the claim that they were acting like islamics.
I suspect the real reason the teachers are running into some 'resistance' when teaching evolution in the classrooms is that more Christians have been influenced by the Creationist arguments. But rather than confront this issue, the author is attempting to 'shame' the Creationists by associating them with the mohammedans.
That was my problem with the article. Theistic guided evolution vs. Day Age vs. Gap vs. Framework vs. 'Literal' ('Young' Earth) Creation is an endless debate that I wasn't intending to step into.
RE : “ I believe the mohammedan’s consistent position is one of Theistic guided Evolution”
That’s ID not Creationism.
oops ...
Thanks
actually it was an oversight on my part ...
I screwed up the HTML tag
not intentional
No, ID is a religious belief masquerading as science while a belief that evolution is Theistically guided need not carry the pretence. The key is that an honest person would not pretend that science is a valid tool for proving or disproving the existence of a creator.
:: Intelligent Design: The Scientific Alternative to Evolution, by William S. Harris, Ph.D. and John H. Calvert, J.D. (National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly, Autumn 2003).
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/NCBQ3_3HarrisCalvert.pdf
By that criteria, Evolution is falsified by pigeons that are no different in New York City than in Sidney, Australia.
Of course, that's yet another reason why your proposed falsification criteria for Evolution will never be published...
You're really missing the bus here. The bigger point is that a formal falsification criteria for the Theory of Evolution has never been published by any respected Science publication.
The secondary point is that DNA code-skipping does indeed destroy Evolutionary trees (e.g. Coral has Human immune functionality, but no Fish has it...and Evolutionary trees have no path from Coral to Humans that can bypass Fish).
The third point is that there are enormous numbers of fossils that don't fit into accepted Evolutionary trees for one reason or another (e.g. time frame for which found in).
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.