NationStates Jolt Archive

BBC: Creationism to be in GCSE papers

Creationist theories about how the world was made are to be debated in GCSE science lessons in mainstream secondary schools in England.

.
.
.

Its new "Gateway to Science" curriculum asks pupils to examine how organisms become fossilised.

Teachers are asked to "explain that the fossil record has been interpreted differently over time (e.g. creationist interpretation)".

OCR, one of the three main exam boards in England, said that the syllabus was intended to make students aware of scientific controversy.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4793198.stm


THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSY! THE CONTROVERSY IS POLITICAL!

OMFG

I'm going to write to my former high school. :upyours:

I saw this a few minutes ago, I was a little surprised. I've not heard of anyone even suggesting this be done. I wonder what's prompted it.

Oh noes, it's spreading! :eek:

Why not include this in the Religious Studies GSCE? I don't see how it's pertinent to a pure science one such as the Biology GCSE.

Oh. I didn't realize you have that many religious idiots in your country, too. I thought we were the only ones to have people stupid enough to vote for Bus... I mean want Intelligent Design in science class. makes me feel both better and worse. :confused:

Oh. I didn't realize you have that many religious idiots in your country, too. I thought we were the only ones to have people stupid enough to vote for Bus... I mean want Intelligent Design in science class. makes me feel both better and worse. :confused:
lol, well to be fair it's not being taught as an equal partner to evolution, quite the opposite. The exam board, OCR, say:

"Creationism and 'intelligent design' are not regarded by OCR as scientific theories. They are beliefs that do not lie within scientific understanding."

It looks like its inclusion is intended to rubbish the theories rather than promote them, although putting them in at all does raise their profile and so may risk backfiring.

you're a mod again, TG? ooh...

and i think on-topic: boo! keep that nonsense away!

I am honestly ambivalent to this, insofar as it is evidently a relativist, politically contrived move, however it does introduce a degree of academia to the otherwise droll and inane public examinations we are compelled to endure.

Ha-ha, you're like us now.

Oh. I didn't realize you have that many religious idiots in your country, too.
Neither did we :'(

The only possible hope:
"Creationism and 'intelligent design' are not regarded by OCR as scientific theories. They are beliefs that do not lie within scientific understanding."
I'm hoping they mean that they're basically holding up creationism as an example of what you get when people don't think/analyse evidence properly.
I hope. Please?

Oh well, if not it'll make my Biology GCSE worth more...

EDIT: Dammit, beaten by Philosopy. Hmm...

I am honestly ambivalent to this, insofar as it is evidently a relativist, politically contrived move, however it does introduce a degree of academia to the otherwise droll and inane public examinations we are compelled to endure.
Still, would it not be better placed in Philosophy or even Religious Studies GSCEs?

I saw this a few minutes ago, I was a little surprised. I've not heard of anyone even suggesting this be done. I wonder what's prompted it.

All that money Blair gets towards education from "faith based iniatives"? Or is it just god asking for payback for backing him when he prayed to our heavenly father and conveniently came up with the answer he wanted about Iraq?

All that money Blair gets towards education from "faith based iniatives"? Or is it just god asking for payback for backing him when he prayed to our heavenly father and conveniently came up with the answer he wanted about Iraq?
Ah, but Blair never claimed God told him what to do, and besides, this is a single exam board, not a Government policy.

Ah, but Blair never claimed God told him what to do, and besides, this is a single exam board, not a Government policy.

Yeah, i just wanted to be needlessly sarky, excuse me :)

The madness is spreading!!! :eek:

Ok, it's clear to me that humanity as a species doesn't deserve to survive. I vote we all lay down and die so when dolphins/pigs/cockroaches evolve enough they can try and do a better job than we have.

The problem is that the current political elite in the UK is religiously observant. I don't know how they slipped through the net, but there you have it.

Another education 'reform' is watering down the science and maths curricula to the extent that they are a joke. I have seen the sample questions. :(

Yeah, i just wanted to be needlessly sarky, excuse me :)
I did think it was funny, my sense of fair play just made me pipe up anyway. :p

Ah, but Blair never claimed God told him what to do, and besides, this is a single exam board, not a Government policy.
Exam boards can't do their own thing, at the very least they need education department acquiescence.

Another education 'reform' is watering down the science and maths curricula to the extent that they are a joke. I have seen the sample questions. :(
Ah, but when you set an unrealistic and artificial target of 50% university attendance, how else are you meant to achieve that except by making it really easy for everyone? :p

Exam boards can't do their own thing, at the very least they need education department acquiescence.
True, but seeing as this is about the 'scientific controversy' I doubt the Education Department would have been that bothered.

Having said that, Ruth Kelly is apparently a member of that whatdoyoucallit fundamentalist Catholic group...

EDIT: Her appointment was questioned following revelations of links to the Catholic conservative movement Opus Dei, which critics accuse of being secretive and elitist - claims members deny.

And Ms Kelly rejected calls to quit her job or break off links with the group and said: "It is a private spiritual life and I don't think it is relevant to my job. I am here as a Catholic." (from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4100061.stm)

lol, well to be fair it's not being taught as an equal partner to evolution, quite the opposite. The exam board, OCR, say:

"Creationism and 'intelligent design' are not regarded by OCR as scientific theories. They are beliefs that do not lie within scientific understanding."

It looks like its inclusion is intended to rubbish the theories rather than promote them, although putting them in at all does raise their profile and so may risk backfiring.
We put our stupid in the middle between the coasts. Where do you guys put your stupid? :(

I did think it was funny, my sense of fair play just made me pipe up anyway. :p

Aw, giving Blair fair play...i haven't done that since tuition fees, to be honest. Now i believe his every action is the work of a Thatcherite devil incarnate, and he should burn at the stake for crimes against, y'know, politics and peepul.

As he would say.

Ah, but when you set an unrealistic and artificial target of 50% university attendance, how else are you meant to achieve that except by making it really easy for everyone? :p
True. :(

Having spent four years at university, of which one year was spent repeating the previous one, I am painfully aware that half the current 40% participation simply should not be there. I worked hard to overcome my problems and the education I received has already turned out of great benefit to me, but for a lot of people I met, it was not worth it. One in three students on my course dropped out before the end, and many of those who got to the end, performed so badly that the qualification will have no applications.

We put our stupid in the middle between the coasts. Where do you guys put your stupid? :(
SE England, particularly the Home Counties.

Seriously, ask a northerner what they think about god. :p

SE England, particularly the Home Counties.

Seriously, ask a northerner what they think about god. :p
Oh, and now here was this Home Counties person resisting the temptation to say it was Northeners...

To quote Doonesbury again:

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20060305

Having said that, Ruth Kelly is apparently a member of that whatdoyoucallit fundamentalist Catholic group...
Politicians already have to declare their financial interests, and may be barred from certain positions if there is a potential for conflict. I believe religious interests should be declared too. Membership of fundamentalist organisations should bar a person from holding high office in an education policy unit.

SE England, particularly the Home Counties.

Seriously, ask a northerner what they think about god. :p
You guys shoudl do what we did and get the beaches. Put your stupid away from the coasts. If you do that, when you go to the beach you wont have to here them yelling, "Repent now or god will step on yoru balls," very much.

Politicians already have to declare their financial interests, and may be barred from certain positions if there is a potential for conflict. I believe religious interests should be declared too. Membership of fundamentalist organisations should bar a person from holding high office in an education policy unit.
I think such a declaration would create a stigma though; it implies the person has done something wrong. I think people of faith can contribute a lot to any debate on how the country is run, as long as they don't try to run the country by their faith.

SE England, particularly the Home Counties.

Seriously, ask a northerner what they think about god. :p

I live in Cambridgeshire, i.e. the SE. :(

Oh, and now here was this Home Counties person resisting the temptation to say it was Northeners...
This Midlander was going to say "Parliament".

This Midlander was going to say "Parliament".
:D That's probably the best answer.

God, this is awful, it'd be okay in RE, but in science. it's not as though the current science isn't bad enough already. (Moduals, 'Plate Techtonics' in Chemistry!) he fatc is that Science is already messed up and adding a repligious part makes it worse. It's already rediciously easy, (I've gotten 100% on exams without revising, and I'm not that good at Science.) and this just makes it worse.

SE England, particularly the Home Counties.

Seriously, ask a northerner what they think about god. :p
Complete bullshit!

I think such a declaration would create a stigma though; it implies the person has done something wrong. I think people of faith can contribute a lot to any debate on how the country is run, as long as they don't try to run the country by their faith.
One has to ask what is reasonable, however. A politician with oversight of regulatory mechanisms may hold shares in a few companies, but sitting on their boards as a non-executive director and enjoying use of corporate jets, hotels and other hospitality, that's a no-no, given his/her position. Is this stigmatising people who have worked hard to be successful in business? No, it is a common-sense acknowledgement that certain elements of an individual's private life may make them unsuitable for some positions.

One has to ask what is reasonable, however. A politician with oversight of regulatory mechanisms may hold shares in a few companies, but sitting on their boards as a non-executive director and enjoying use of corporate jets, hotels and other hospitality, that's a no-no, given his/her position. Is this stigmatising people who have worked hard to be successful in business? No, it is a common-sense acknowledgement that certain elements of an individual's private life may make them unsuitable for some positions.
I do understand what you're getting at, it's just that I think like everything in life there is a very real difference between fundamentalists and moderates. I am a Christian, but that doesn't mean I would be promoting creationalism if I were the Edu. Sec. - I don't believe in it. I would resist efforts to lump me in the same camp as if we all think the same way and promote exactly the same thing. The church never has agreed - that's why there are so many different ones. :p

The church never has agreed - that's why there are so many different ones. :p
That's something that I don't see given much airtime in the US media. The fact that Christianity with an accompanying rejection of evolution, cosmology and geology is almost unique to the US, and not widely embraced by fundamentalists of other religions.

The exam board says students need to understand the background to theories.

Its new "Gateway to Science" curriculum asks pupils to examine how organisms become fossilised.

Teachers are asked to "explain that the fossil record has been interpreted differently over time (e.g. creationist interpretation)".

Well, if that's the objective... I'm just thinking back to my old science teachers. They would tell their students that the outdated interpretation before Darwin was creationsim, and that some people just stopped evolving their scientific understanding of the world at that stage...

Well, if that's the objective... I'm just thinking back to my old science teachers. They would tell their students that the outdated interpretation before Darwin was creationsim, and that some people just stopped evolving their scientific understanding of the world at that stage...
The way I read the article is that they are teaching it in the same sense in Physics they teach the Ptolemaic theory of the solar system, before going on to Kepler. However, Ptolemy had some semblance of scientific methods, so this sound like they've got the wrong end of the stick. Again. :rolleyes:

I can see this going two ways. It could end up like America, where the defendants of creationism ("ID") tried to redefine a scientific theory :rolleyes: or it could be explaining what is wrong with such approaches, which would be beneficial, as it teaches the kids that science isn't just something known that people can tell you, but something you have to be careful to get right.

The thing is, leaving it up the teachers' judgement is still bad news, because there will be some who will exploit this for their own purposes. :(

I can see this going two ways. It could end up like America, where the defendants of creationism ("ID") tried to redefine a scientific theory :rolleyes: or it could be explaining what is wrong with such approaches, which would be beneficial, as it teaches the kids that science isn't just something known that people can tell you, but something you have to be careful to get right.
Isn't that easy, though? Who's pushing this? If its a church group, you have your answer. :D

Isn't that easy, though? Who's pushing this? If its a church group, you have your answer. :D

Easy? Isn't what easy? Have I given the impression that I was implying that something is difficult? I merely stated the possible direction in which things could go.

The thing is, leaving it up the teachers' judgement is still bad news, because there will be some who will exploit this for their own purposes. :(
I wouldn't be overly concerned about that; to teach Biology, you need a degree in Biology, and all that entails. To pass the exams, the students have to jump through the hoops set by the exam boards, including - even in this case - evolution being the accepted theory.
These should mean there are next to no religious-nutcase Biology-teachers teaching creationism as anything but a debunked non-hypothesis, and even if they do the students'll fail the exams, which'll soon mean they're found out. Bad for the league tables, and all that.

I do understand what you're getting at, it's just that I think like everything in life there is a very real difference between fundamentalists and moderates.

Opus Dei, is however, a fundementalist organisation. I'm not sure what their views on evolution are, but I know they aren't too keen on ideas they don't like spreading. Members of Opus Dei have to get permission to take certain University courses and have to submit their reading lists for approval.

Opus Dei, is however, a fundementalist organisation. I'm not sure what their views on evolution are, but I know they aren't too keen on ideas they don't like spreading. Members of Opus Dei have to get permission to take certain University courses and have to submit their reading lists for approval.
OMG! You're kidding! Even the most virulent fundamentalist organizations in the US don't advocate that.

Easy? Isn't what easy? Have I given the impression that I was implying that something is difficult? I merely stated the possible direction in which things could go.
No, I mean the direction it could go should be obvious by looking at whos pushing the issue. For example, here in the states if Ralph Reed is pushing the issue I know he wants ID to be taught on equal footing with evolution. On teh other hand, if Skeptic magazine is pushing it I know they want it to be taught in comparative religion. This push in the UK, I'm just curious who's behind it.

OMG! You're kidding! Even the most virulent fundamentalist organizations in the US don't advocate that.

Admittedly, my sources may be biased and exaggerated. But having lived near and Opus Dei house for most my life it doesn't surprise me.

Though, I think it would be highly skeptical of that claim since I cannot find anything to confirm that (and I'm not willing to become a member just to find out).


:Edit: And lo, just as was about to assume I had mistakenly remembered a conversation.

http://www.odan.org/forbidden_books.htm

No, I mean the direction it could go should be obvious by looking at whos pushing the issue. For example, here in the states if Ralph Reed is pushing the issue I know he wants ID to be taught on equal footing with evolution. On teh other hand, if Skeptic magazine is pushing it I know they want it to be taught in comparative religion. This push in the UK, I'm just curious who's behind it.

As I said in another thread, Tony Blair is close to a business man called Peter Vardy, who has been very proactive in pushing for his brand of evangelism to be taught in school (see here (http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentViewArticle.asp?article=1690)), to the extent he has been given a knighthood, partially for services to education.

Though I realise it is a huge jump make between Vardy and OCR changing their syllabus, I don't know of any other organisations who would push for this, and am not sure if OCR did this off their own bat. Especially given the way they say they will be teaching this in the news article.

This article (http://www.idiolect.org.uk/docs/jan04/teaching_creation_science.pdf) also pushes for creationism to be taught in schools, though for different reasons. It is possible that OCR is following this view, though I would think that they would be more explicit if that were the case.

As I said in another thread, Tony Blair is close to a business man called Peter Vardy, who has been very proactive in pushing for his brand of evangelism to be taught in school (see here (http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentViewArticle.asp?article=1690)), to the extent he has been given a knighthood, partially for services to education.

Though I realise it is a huge jump make between Vardy and OCR changing their syllabus, I don't know of any other organisations who would push for this, and am not sure if OCR did this off their own bat. Especially given the way they say they will be teaching this in the news article.

This article (http://www.idiolect.org.uk/docs/jan04/teaching_creation_science.pdf) also pushes for creationism to be taught in schools, though for different reasons. It is possible that OCR is following this view, though I would think that they would be more explicit if that were the case.
You also can't forget these 'trust' and 'foundations' or 'faith' schools Blairs so keen on. The ones that let the owner decided the curriclium.

You also can't forget these 'trust' and 'foundations' or 'faith' schools Blairs so keen on. The ones that let the owner decided the curriclium.

Well, that is what (Sir) Peter Vardy is doing.

Well, that is what (Sir) Peter Vardy is doing.
Thats what i mean, it's ime the goverment had contol over all schools.

A politician doesn't tell a doctor how to perform surgery.

A doctor doesn't tell a soldier how to shoot a gun.

A soldier doesn't tell a scientist what books to read.

A scientist doesn't tell a theologian what to believe.

Why should a theoligian tell a scientist what is true?

Welcome to Britain!

Scotland and Wales have a paddy and get their own parliaments while us English can't have one because we ask nicely.
If you're an asylum seeker you get better benefits than the hardworking people.
If you're american and you're name is Geroge W.Bush then you get brown-nosed by Tony Bliar.
Most of the kids can't read or write.
We're being sominated by Europe.
We have the crappest goverment ever.
HELP!

I'm surprised that the creationists haven't turned up yet.

I'm surprised that the creationists haven't turned up yet.

Do you really want them?