NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,591-2078747,00.html


The Times March 10, 2006

Creationism to be taught on GCSE science syllabus
By Tony Halpin
Exam board is accused of confusing pupils by including religion
AN EXAMINATIONS board is including references to “creationism” in a new GCSE science course for schools.

The OCR board admitted that a biology course due to be introduced in September encourages schools to consider alternative views to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.

Its new “Gateway to Science” curriculum asks pupils to examine how organisms become fossilised. It then asks teachers to “explain that the fossil record has been interpreted differently over time (eg 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. But critics accused the board of blurring the line between science and religious education by putting creationism into lessons alongside evolution.

A spokeswoman for OCR said: “Candidates need to understand the social and historical context to scientific ideas both pre and post Darwin. 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.”

John Noel, OCR’s science qualifications manager, told The Times Educational Supplement: “It is simply looking at one particular example of how scientific interpretation changes over time.

“The history of scientific ideas not only has a legitimate place in science lessons, it is a requirement of the new programme of study.”

But James Williams, science course leader at Sussex University’s school of education, said: “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.”

A second exam board, Edexcel, included a reference to creationism in a draft lesson plan for teachers as part of preparations for a new biology GCSE. But a spokeswoman said that it had not been included in the final specifications for the course.

Evangelical Christians in the US have been pressing for schools to teach “creationism”, the idea that God created the world, as well as an offshoot theory of “intelligent design”, which holds that nature is so complex that it could not have evolved on its own.

Controversy about the teaching of creationism has flared in England over three comprehensives run by the Emmanuel Schools Foundation, which is funded by Sir Peter Vardy, a millionaire Christian car dealer. Sir Peter said in 2003: “We present both. One is a theory, the other is a faith position. It is up to the children.”

A spokesman at the Department for Education and Skills said: “Neither creationism nor intelligent design is taught as a subject in schools, and are not specified in the science curriculum.

“The National Curriculum for science clearly sets down that pupils should be taught that the fossil record is evidence for evolution.”


It's a sad day for sanity.

And here I thought you guys just watched "the Meaning of Life" in those classes.

I disagree. If you don't understand how the opponent thinks, you can't work to refute them.

Old news.

It's a sad day for everyone when we post articles over a week old. Especialy when there's already been a thread on the topic.

You lose at the interwebs.

Actually it's the other way around. They were there before you infected them.

It's a sad day for everyone when we post articles over a week old. Especialy when there's already been a thread on the topic.

You lose at the interwebs.


Ooops! My bad :)

I disagree. If you don't understand how the opponent thinks, you can't work to refute them.
Too true.

sounds pretty fair too me let the GCSE kids choose what they think certainly beats the "we are right everyone else is wrong" feeling I get in science

sounds pretty fair too me let the GCSE kids choose what they think certainly beats the "we are right everyone else is wrong" feeling I get in science

Could it be that this stupid rethoric will have to be heard for another thousand years? It's not about "we are right everyone else is wrong", as much as you would like to make it seem so on account of your fantasies about how reality works. It's "science is science, everything else is not science". You know, just like you dislike seeing logic applied to religion. Isn't it? "Religion is religion, it's faith, not evidence-based". Heh. The rest of the world is past the age in which church put its paws on science. Some little thing called the "Scientific Method". I have nothing against religion per se, but it angers me when they start trying to mix their gods with actual classroom work. I wonder, I really have to wonder, could it be that nobody will ever prevent those people from attempting, time and again, to usher in another Dark Ages? Are scientists "witches" now? Because I can be classified as a "witch", being an occultist. That's right, I'm an occultist, not an atheist. Yet I wouldn't want Crowley to be taught in classrooms instead of, say, maths. To all churches in the world: You lost the battle of logic and wits. Get the fuck over it already.

sounds pretty fair too me let the GCSE kids choose what they think certainly beats the "we are right everyone else is wrong" feeling I get in science

It's perfectly worthwhile to teach controversy, and there are real controversies within evolution. The problem is that the whole ID "controversy" is not one of them. The jury is out on many things, including specific details as to life's origins, what caused the cambrian explosion, etc. The jury reached a verdict a long time ago (and recent examinations agree) that evolution did happen.