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."
I checked back in the afternoon, and found a fourth reiteration of nonsense.
I gave up at iteration number three.
Do you have any idea what he means when he says “ID cannot exist in a system without bias” ?
I’ve heard more comprehensible arguments from Lewis Carroll’s characters.
No, and I couldn't find that phrase on google in any meaningful context.
I don't think it has any meaning at all in the real world.
It has a meaning, just not a useful one. “Bias” implies a system would trigger Dembski’s explanatory filter by including an event that is too improbable to have occurred via natural causes.
In this sense, ID is a forensic science. Unfortunately for the ID proponents and their children, this is the only sense in which ID is science.
An actual scientist, confronted with an unexplained phenomenon would become curious and plan a program of investigation. For a creation scientist, the discovery of an unexplained phenomenon is the end goal.
Hence the concept of irreducible complexity. When a creation scientist finds something really, really complex, and there are are no obvious examples of intermediate structures (remember the argument from lack of intermediates and transitionals?), you can announce that you have found proof of design by an outside agent.
A real scientist would see something like a flagellum and test the assertion of irreducibility using knockout genes, and by looking for subsystems used for other purposes.
It’s a matter of whether you seek understanding of the natural world, or whether you want to believe that demiurges are necessary to push arrows continuously in flight.
No, ID will not exist in every possible biased system, but ID can not exist at all in a system without bias.
That's why "bias" is a valid falsification criteria for ID.
Bias does not mandate ID, but the lack of bias precludes ID.
If you have a rigorous, mathematical algorithm for calculating “bias,” by all means, whip it out. Dembski’s unfortunately depends on cute things like “best estimate” at key places where we don’t know the steps by which something happened.
You are also wrong in saying lack of bias precludes ID. There are people selling strings of “random” numbers to gambling institutions and research projects. The process by which the numbers are generated is highly sophisticated, and the products are guaranteed to be without bias. the process by which numbers are picked for lotto is also designed.
There is no reason whatsoever why a designer wouldn’t include stochastic processes in a design.
Without knowing who or what the designer is, you cannot say anything whatsoever about the designer’s motives and methods.
Randomness can exist by sophisticated design, but that design injected bias into the process. Thus, bias is in every system that has ID.
It's the converse that is important: there is no process that is without bias that can contain ID.
Unless you just like hearing yourself type, I’m sure you will give us a rigorous algorithm for detecting bias.
That’s like pretending to win an argument by challenging someone to “define life.”
Nice try, though.
So far the only “data” found in DNA is in coding for Amino Acids to make Proteins with structural function; or being transcribed into a RNA with structural function. We know the code. Exactly which triplet DNA codes will specify which Amino Acid. What could be more rational that this?
This is more rational: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2007/09/24/dna_unraveled/
Only 1.5% of our DNA codes for proteins. If you want to begin your amazing layman’s journey into the other 98.5% of life, then click the above link.
...and enjoy your Future Shock.
The data is still all in coding for Amino Acids to make a protein with electromagnetic properties and a function due to its structure or in making RNA with a function due to its electromagnetic properties.
Nothing is being abandoned. A new level of regulation in RNA. A very important escort to getting DNA made into other RNA’s and into RNA’s that translate into the Amino Acid sequence of a protein.
Oh, brother...
I've had that one pulled on me also, mostly by creationists.
The definition of life is not particularly relevant to the discussion of evolution. Evolution does not require "life." It only requires entities that replicate with occasional errors. Self-replicating chemicals can undergo evolution.
You are asserting that something called ID can be falsified by the absence of something else called "bias."
Define bias.
This is hardly an abandonment of the explanation for DNA ‘data storage’ that a triplet codon specifies an Amino Acid.
What data do you think is in DNA besides this? Why would the Universal Code be abandoned? What in the article you referenced even hinted that there was some sort of ‘secret knowledge’ hidden in DNA that would cause an abandonment of the Central Dogma?
You are confused. I’m not referring to a new type of data being stored, or even so much as existing data being stored in a new way (though you seemed to have missed that implication in the article that I linked for you).
Instead, I’m referring to a more rational explanation for the cause of data being stored (e.g. intelligence rather than random chance).
Your computer data didn’t just pop onto a hard drive by accident, yet you willingly suspend your disbelief of Evolution long enough to somehow accept that gigabytes of codons were stored (much less processed via a sophisticated genetic data processing engine) without any form of intelligent intervention.
Moreover, you suspend such disbelief even though Evolutionary Theory to date has concentrated so intensely upn a mere 1.5% of our DNA (i.e. that codes for proteins)...almost ignoring the larger picture in the other 98.5%.
“Scientific discovery tended (before the secular socialist movement) to actually affirm the existence of the Creator.”
And if it didn’t, we burned them!
“Everything from the fact that the Universe had a beginning to the exact balance of universal forces & laws to earth’s very exact position in the cosmos points to “design”.”
We exist, therefore a Creator exists? The fact that life appeared on a planet that happened to be hospitable to life is not exactly a miracle.
“The fact that life appeared on a planet that happened to be hospitable to life is not exactly a miracle.”
You should read up on what it takes to be “hospitable to life” and ask yourself if it’s all a coincidence/accident. Or, perhaps you’d rather sit back and smugly scoff.
“Master Pangloss taught the metaphysico-theologo cosmolonigology. He could prove to admiration that there is no effect without a cause; and, that in this best of all possible worlds, the Baron’s castle was the most magnificent of all castles, and My Lady the best of all possible baronesses.
“’It is demonstrable,’ said he, ‘that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end. Observe, for instance, the nose is formed for spectacles, therefore we wear spectacles. The legs are visibly designed for stockings, accordingly we wear stockings. Stones were made to be hewn and to construct castles, therefore My Lord has a magnificent castle; for the greatest baron in the province ought to be the best lodged. Swine were intended to be eaten, therefore we eat pork all the year round: and they, who assert that everything is right, do not express themselves correctly; they should say that everything is best.”
I prefer to smugly scoff.
“I prefer to smugly scoff.”
As do most with your position. I expected no less.
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.