No, it doesn't
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."
so the better question to you, is morality an inherited “trait” that is a result of
direction-less changes over time?
or is there and independent cause of morality out side of human programming codes?
I accept an objective external cause of morality independents of human programming.
thus I care to whom my children marry, based on integrity, humility,love and kindness not programmed traits.
if one makes no distinction, and morality is only a product of programmed traits (genetics) (that change over time) then a liar has no more “will” to control his deceit than some has the ability to “will” oneself tall (or short)
this is the premise for eugenics. viewing the TOTALITY of human as being nothing more than inherited traits, all behaviors included..eliminate the “undesirable” the “painful” and to usher in/create a “more” perfect world.
Morality is a result of the fact that actions have consequences. The consequences are independent of our preferences and are fairly stable over time.
Harming other people has adverse consequences for the person doing the harm as well as the person harmed. This fact is also fairly constant over time. This is a fairly subtle point that may not be learned except by parental teaching and example. That fact that some people don’t learn it does not mean it isn’t objectively true.
As for eugenics, it was first proposed in writing by Plato. I think you will find the equivalent of the Nazi program fully specified thousands of years before modern science.
Actions still have a cause (human for this discussion), what are our actions caused by? brain-biochemical/electrical programming, what caused the Totality of our thoughts or “will”? is there a cause of morality/”will” that is independent of biochemical/electrical programming (or can we do only what is determined by our Programming?). Is that all we are?
Parents do not escape this, Parental teachings still have a source. to be objective it still needs a source outside of/independent of the parental or non-parental (insert any name you wish) mind(by definition: subjective).
I never suggest “eugenics” was a scientist original (I guess in “your” terminology that would be a very nice “straw man”). merely “they” start/use the (unoriginal if you like) premise: that the totality (sole cause) of human existence is determined by inherited programmed traits(ie genetics)this includes all behaviors?
with a 1A premise: that by using death of individuals as a consequence for undesirable traits as determined/classified with the help “scientist” (again all actions are traits from premise 1) they can select for a “healthy population”
why would “science/ist” by into those premises, unoriginal as they may be?
I tried to directly answered your question why “clergy” would buy into those premises? why do avoid the same question directed at a different group?
perceived current or past stability speaks only as a snap shot,just as direction-less changes over time, doesn’t preclude stability in traits, it doesn’t guarantee continued stability in traits. change the consequence to the trait, change the behavior(al trait).
sorry, more accurately you asked why “clergy” bought into claims of Hitlers GODesque TALK...my question was a similar aimed based on a different group.
both are question deal with ideas that are unorginal,to nazism no?
Students already have a big fat gap where basic arithmetic should be. Perhaps teachers should address that first, before filling their student's heads with fairytales about knuckle-dragging ape-men.
Please see my FR homepage.
All non human primates? All mutated humans? All inventions of an unscrupulous Scientific conspiracy? All frauds?
Why did you resurrect this long dead thread?
So that you could have an excuse to post to it, and satisfy that darwinism itch.
No, it doesn't
What an altruist you are then. Thanks!
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.