NationStates Jolt Archive

Whoop-di-fucking-do.

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


Granted, some schools already teach creationism, but it is now part of a syllabus.

Also, creationism isn't actually being taught, but it is the thin end of the wedge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy). and as James Williams says, "This opens a legitimate gate for the inclusion of creationism or intelligent design in science classes as if they were legitimate theories on a par with evolution fact and theory.I'm happy for religious theories to be considered in religious education, but not in science where consideration could lead to a false verification of their status as being equal to scientific theories."

Bah, I wonder what pissant thought this was a good idea.

I suppose I wasn't that surprised to hear this.

Time to start a boycott of OCR. They won't keep it on the syallbus for long if they begin to lose business.
"Candidates are asked to discuss why the opponents of Darwinism thought the way they did and how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting empirical evidence," he said.I don't mind that being discussed in class, but keep it off the exam paper please.

I don't mind that being discussed in class, but keep it off the exam paper please.

I don't mind it being taught in History or RE.

But I don't like the way it is worded, Creationism didn't arise due to a differing interpretation of data. It arose because some people believe bad theology.

I wonder how long this thread will take to escalate into world war three, with millions of teenagers thinking that they even know what science is..... let the battles commence.

LOL -Great Britain becomes a red state.

I can see the debate in the classroom being constructive. If all goes well, it may lead to an increased awareness of the fallacy of Creationism.

Great, it'll show up here next. Thank fuck I'm almost out of the education system

What they're on about teaching isn't science. It might be history, RS, or even Social Ed, but it sure ain't science.

I can see the debate in the classroom being constructive. If all goes well, it may lead to an increased awareness of the fallacy of Creationism.

Ha ha :)

Reminds me a bit of this: http://www.idiolect.org.uk/docs/jan04/teaching_creation_science.pdf

"Creation science is a model of how not to do science... The best place for it to be taught is in science lessons."

LOL -Great Britain becomes a red state.

(I so wish I had used that as a thread title)

LOL -Great Britain becomes a red state.
It already is, has been since 1997...Labour is in power.

Its colour is red, just like every other left wing party.


edit: just noticed a shockingly misplaced apostrophe.

It already is, has been since 1997...Labour is in power.

It's colour is red, just like every other left wing party.
:D

Ha ha :)

Reminds me a bit of this: http://www.idiolect.org.uk/docs/jan04/teaching_creation_science.pdf

"Creation science is a model of how not to do science... The best place for it to be taught is in science lessons."
Very cool link, thanks.

I don't mind it being taught in History or RE.

But I don't like the way it is worded, Creationism didn't arise due to a differing interpretation of data. It arose because some people believe bad theology.

If it belongs in RE it is an example of superficial dogma as opposed to spiritual belief. I can not express how strongly to object to the incidious and fraudulant claims these charlatans make.

Ha ha :)

Reminds me a bit of this: http://www.idiolect.org.uk/docs/jan04/teaching_creation_science.pdf

"Creation science is a model of how not to do science... The best place for it to be taught is in science lessons."

A very good point.

Woohoo! Finally the silent minority has a say in this corrupt and evil country.

Hmm... what they're actually teaching seems to looking at how creationists have contested the evidence towards evolution and that there is nothing about the creationist theory. Which might be a good idea. Science is too often taken for granted, that what is taught is ALWAYS true. When actually some of it is the just the best available model and might break down if further evidence is found. Such as classical physics and atomic theory.

And there is a lot of controversy about the specifics of evolution - Dawkin vs. Gould. But maybe looking at how empircal evidence is interpreted for this is a little too advanced. :/

Great, it'll show up here next. Thank fuck I'm almost out of the education system

The Irish education system sure sounds interesting... Or is this some sort of special program you're following?

Exam questions like that would be great opportunities to make fantastic points about both interpretetations and even the presence of evidence itself being twisted to suit other aims no matter which side of the "debate" you're on. It would be an easy few marks for anyone who'd considered the politics of evolutionary theory.

Let's see how many FSM references we can squeeze into our answers to the first paper.

Time to start a boycott of OCR. They won't keep it on the syallbus for long if they begin to lose business.
Candidates are asked to discuss why the opponents of Darwinism thought the way they did and how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting empirical evidence," he said.

I don't mind that being discussed in class, but keep it off the exam paper please.

The problem is that this isn't an example of a scientific controversy that arose from different ways of interpreting empirical evidence. An example of that would be the long argument between different camps about the nature of polymers - were they long-chain molecules or colloidal aggregations?

This was a controversy that involved people who had come to beliefs outside of science having a problem with distancing said beliefs from scientific investigation. It wasn't a scientific controversy, because it was and is decidedly outside of the realm of science. And it didn't have to do with interpreting empirical evidence, at least not from a scientific point of view. It had to do with people distorting science by assuming a given origin and then looking for evidence for it.

There is already a pretty new thread for this: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=472469

I only hope that the kids are educated properly on creationism - educated well enough to understand how flawed it is. It's things like this that make me wish I didn't have to share a world with the entire human race.

Ha ha :)

Reminds me a bit of this: http://www.idiolect.org.uk/docs/jan04/teaching_creation_science.pdf

"Creation science is a model of how not to do science... The best place for it to be taught is in science lessons."

Now *that* sounds like a good idea to me. It certainly is a prime example of how not to do science.

They still bring in the idea that religion can cause scientific controversies - which isn't really true, as the controversy stems from something completely outside the realm of science, but other than that, the idea is perfect.

Now *that* sounds like a good idea to me. It certainly is a prime example of how not to do science.

I agree. Unfortunately I'm not convinced that OCR is planning to do it like that. Given government support for Vardy to teach his poison.

This link (http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentViewArticle.asp?article=1690) gives a good account on what he is doing. And also links to http://www.cadpag.co.uk/ which is also interesting reading.