Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Lisburn Council promotes “an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion”
Yesterday the BBC’s Will Crawley noted the persistent questioning of the Education minister, Caitríona Ruane, by DUP MLA David Simpson on various aspects of the teaching of neo-creationism in schools, and his commenters pick up on some of the answers given. [scroll down] Meanwhile today’s Irish News reports [subs req] that Lisburn District Council has passed a motion proposed by DUP councillor Paul Givan who belives he has spotted a gap in those answers which might allow the teaching of neo-creationism as an alternative to evolution in post-primary schools - and not just, I’d suggest, in classes on religion. Adds This quote from the Belfast Telegraph report
Adds 2 Today’s Newsletter reports that the Culture Minister, Edwin Poots, was among those supporting the motion.In a statement the Department of Education said the teaching of alternative theories was a matter for schools. A spokeswoman said: “The revised curriculum offers scope for schools to explore alternative theories to evolution, which could include creationism, if they so wish.”
The gap appears to be between this answer
Mr David Simpson asked the Minister of Education, pursuant to her answer to AQW 928/07, under GCSE science specifications allowing for the explanation of theories other than evolution to explore the development of life on earth, what resource material will be made available to teachers wishing to explore other such scientific explanations with pupils. (AQW 74/08)
Ms Ruane: It is up to schools to decide what teaching resources they wish to use to deliver the curriculum, in accordance with the needs of their pupils and the ethos of the school. A range of organisations produce teaching materials that schools can choose to avail of. [added emphasis]
and this one
Mr David Simpson asked the Minister of Education, pursuant to her answer to AQW 928/07, what training will be given to teachers to help them to explore scientific explanations for the development of life on earth, other than evolution. (AQW 76/08)
Ms Ruane: Teachers are currently involved in a phased programme of training to support the introduction of the revised curriculum. Any in-service training for teachers follows the requirements of the statutory curriculum and GCSE specifications which do not include any specific reference to alternative explanations of the origins of life. The Education and Library Boards have not received requests from any school or teacher for support on this issue. [added emphasis]
Which, as the Irish News reports [subs req], has prompted the motion to Lisburn Council from Paul Givan
Although the council has no control over the cirriculum, Paul Givan of the DUP suggested that it ask schools in the area to consider teaching the theories.
Intelligent design theory claims that a supernatural designer was involved in the creation of life on earth.
Creationism teaches that God created life, although it does not try to explain how.
All 13 DUP and seven Ulster Unionist councillors voted in favour of the suggestion, which was opposed by Sinn Féin and the SDLP.
Mr Givan said his suggestion had been inspired by a question his party colleague David Simpson had asked education minister Caitríona Ruane in the assembly
He said Ms Ruane’s response had indicated that under the revised curriculum, schools were encouraged to teach pupils greater critical thinking.
“I think these ideas - and there is a disparity of opinions out there - should at least be given equality of treatment,” Mr Givan said.
My view of this should be clear to anyone paying attention. It’s a continuation of the attempts to entwined religion and science. In the US they, thankfully, have a legal ruling that such neo-creationism are non-science in the face of repeated attempts to foist these beliefs onto school science cirriculums - as noted here in December 2005.
The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.
Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.
To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions. [added emphasis]
The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.
With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.
Will we see such a definitive response to the same questioning of science here?
Update There’s a new post on this topic and the guidance to schools elsewhere.
Pete Baker @ 12:01 PM
If they teach ID will they also teach Pastaferianism, the belief that the universe was created by the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster, its atleast as viable a theory as that the universe was created byt an ethereal jewish man who lives in the clouds
Posted by on Sep 26, 2007 @ 01:00 PMSchools can already teach ID in Religious Education. As ID isn’t a science I’d be a bit worried if it was taught during science lessons.
Posted by on Sep 26, 2007 @ 01:07 PMThis is seriously shocking. Personally I’d prefer they teach kids the history of Harry Potter or the anatomy of Winnie the Pooh than trying to fill them full of ID drivel - which has even less of a basis in anything remotely resembling reality.
DUP voters I hope are mortified by this.Posted by on Sep 26, 2007 @ 01:27 PMAccording to the old testiment and the Koran pork is to be avoided one of davids jobs is director of a meat producer. QED
Posted by on Sep 26, 2007 @ 01:58 PMI listened to BBC’s talkback on the issue and I have to say that Richard Dawkins was pretty poor. When challenged to give one example of any sign that evolution is an ongoing process and to name any animal that has evolved today his response was ‘evolution takes a very long time’. In other words he couldn’t give an example. I ask the question what is wrong with everyone presenting the evidence and along young people to take an informed choice? Is that not called Freedom of Information!
Posted by on Sep 26, 2007 @ 02:03 PMWhat next?
Parallel universes? Things that only exist when you look at them?
Oh wait…
Posted by on Sep 26, 2007 @ 02:05 PMNo Andrew thats called being silly.
Do you expect an animal to evolve during the lunch hour? Or perhaps you’d rather give it a bank holiday weekend? What about the July fortnight?Why not just teach the kiddies that the world is flat and that we are the centre of the universe - I’ve never met anybody who could actually pyhsically prove me otherwise.
Then again, after 14 years of religious instruction I never did meet anybody who could offer even the slightest scrap of proof of God, and that hasn’t harmed his popularity at all.
Posted by on Sep 26, 2007 @ 02:11 PMActually, there is an easy answer to the question of on-going evolution--viruses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_evolutionPosted by on Sep 26, 2007 @ 02:21 PMask the question what is wrong with everyone presenting the evidence and along young people to take an informed choice?
And what evidence, of intelligent design, would that be Andrew?
Posted by on Sep 26, 2007 @ 02:26 PMAnother example of evolution. Men’s nipples. What the hell are they for?
Posted by on Sep 26, 2007 @ 02:28 PMI remember an oul beast of a biology teacher at school who prefaced the topic of evolution with a disclaimer to the effect that it was a load of nonsense. Young minds can be extremely malleable and the shaping of them by religious headbins has contributed to this country being a shithole.
Posted by on Sep 26, 2007 @ 02:31 PMCheck out forthcoming debate between Dawkins and fellow Oxford Professor (and Ulsterman) Prof John Lennox here - http://www.tiny.cc/52jch
Posted by on Sep 26, 2007 @ 02:51 PM“Men’s nipples. What the hell are they for?”
I think, Gram, you may need to address that question to advocates of liberal anglicanism who may be able to provide an explanation. Some Catholic priests may also venture an opinion, although the current line is that any experience in this area is now a thing of the past.
Evangelical protestants of course do not believe that men have nipples (and are probably not too sure as to whether or not women have them either) - but in any case certainly not as a focus of pleasure since taking pleasure in the procreative process is sinful and with them they insist that it should be as boring as possible.
Posted by on Sep 26, 2007 @ 03:23 PMEvery single unionist voted in favour. Are there no athiest unionists in Lisburn, or even unionists that are moderate christians who accept evolution (like C of I). [keep it civil - edited moderator]
Posted by on Sep 26, 2007 @ 03:30 PMI like the Terry Pratchett Discworld theory that the world is carried by a tortoise on the back of elephants (or something along those lines). Can we teach that one in schools as well, please? :-)
Posted by on Sep 26, 2007 @ 03:46 PMI don’t know what is siller - sanctimonious Dawkinsite atheists who think that Christians believe God is an old man floating in the clouds or dimwit Evangelicals whose faith is so weak that they think it is incompatible with belief in evolution.
Either way, more evidence that the Ulster Unionist Party remain a crowd of oul’ orange eejits living off the votes of people who wouldn’t buy into this nonsense for a moment.
Posted by on Sep 26, 2007 @ 03:57 PMi accept that evolution may be proved to be wrong.
IDers cannot accept that ID may ever be proved wrong, for to do so would destroy their fundamental beliefs.This makes evolution a scientific theory and ID a religious belief. So go ahead and teach ID in a religious education class (only lets not be disingenuous and call it creationism) but don’t lie and teach it in a science class.
Plus, this freedom of speech argument is disingenuous - “teach the controversy and let the students decide for themselves”. There is no scientific controversy. There are lots of religious people arguing that there is a scientific controversy, this does not make it so.
I know that stupid America ideas (invading iraq for example) are very popular with the UK government, but please, we don’t have to go along with everything here in NI.
Posted by on Sep 26, 2007 @ 04:19 PM“I don’t know what is siller - sanctimonious Dawkinsite atheists who think that Christians believe God is an old man floating in the clouds”
um… straw man?
“Dawkinsite athiests” have no trouble accepting that not all supernaturalists have the same belief in a monte-python god.
Posted by on Sep 26, 2007 @ 04:38 PMgram: Men’s nipples. What the hell are they for?
Men have nipples because women need nipples. The hormones that turn nipples into bouncy milk factories are programmed by the tiny fraction of the human genome that distinguishes between men and women. Or you can probably buy the required hormones over the Internet these days, too.
Posted by on Sep 26, 2007 @ 05:09 PMPete,
“Neo-creationism”? Has Creationism moved on again?Last I looked this hokum was called Intelligent Design. Are we talking about the same thing here?
Posted by on Sep 26, 2007 @ 05:40 PMI tempted to have some fun with the excerpt from the US court ruling quoted above. There’s a touching faith in Darwinism when the court says it “cannot yet render an explanation on every point”. Hasn’t evolution had long enough? No Darwinist can show how life can be created out of nothing. But even though there are plenty of “untestable” hypotheses in Darwinism, children are still to be taught that no alternative to evolution is permitted.
Posted by on Sep 26, 2007 @ 05:40 PMNot that it’ll make any difference to the debate.
But, here goes..
Watchman, the key point is that evoluion is a scientific theory - that is a specific definition which involves testing over time.
Neo-creationism, such as ID, is an unscientific and untestable hypothesis.
It’s a distinction that even the spokeswoman for the Department of Education doesn’t understand…
Posted by on Sep 26, 2007 @ 05:52 PMThe Watchman: children are still to be taught that no alternative to evolution is permitted.
No. Though they might be taught that no other theory has so far come anywhere close to explaining the existence and diversity of life on earth. And in particular, creationism explains absolutely nothing - “See that? Goddidit!”
Posted by on Sep 26, 2007 @ 06:00 PMdarwins theory has many holes. just google it to find out. usually a theory with that many holes is discounted. the reason people cling to evolution is because they dont want to believe in God. because if Gods real then they would have to change their lifestyles or face going to hell when they died… bit scarey.... better to push all that hell stuff to the side and get on with doing whatever we want, eh?
unfortunately a law of biology states that life comes from other life. so thats just killed the idea that life just appeared from chance combined elements. if it could do that, life would spring up in other places over the years. it doesnt.
theres also the eye. lots of detail on the web. i think darwin himself said that his theory could not explain how an eye, with many complex pulleys and muscle ropes to manouvre it, could have slowly formed over many years. guess what, lots of animals have eyes. i have 2 !if you have any sense you will look into this God stuff, just to find out how you can avoid going to that hell place for eternity. or you could set about proving how an eye can evolve, and all the other gaps in evolution theory. good luck !
cheerio.
Posted by on Sep 26, 2007 @ 06:12 PMWho designed the Designer?
Posted by on Sep 26, 2007 @ 06:29 PM
