Monday, October 01, 2007
“The use of the word ‘theory’ can mislead those not familiar with science..”
With Lisburn Council encouraging post-primary schools to teach neo-creationists’ untestable hypotheses as alternative theories to evolution, and the NI Department of Education apparently unsure about what they should do about it, James Randerson at the Guardian’s Science blog has pointed to the government’s new guidance to teachers in another part of the UK. And that guidance couldn’t be clearer - creationism and intelligent design are not alternative scientific theories to evolution and “should not be taught as science.” Perhaps someone could tell the spokeswoman for the Department of Education here?
From the post by James Randerson
The new guidelines could not be clearer:
“Creationism and intelligent design are not part of the science National Curriculum programmes of study and should not be taught as science.” [added emphasis]That doesn’t mean it cannot be mentioned of course, but the guidelines state that it should only feature as part of discussions about what does and does not make a scientific theory.
The use of the word ‘theory’ can mislead those not familiar with science as a subject discipline because it is different from the everyday meaning of being little more than a ‘hunch’. In science the meaning is much less tentative and indicates that there is a substantial amount of supporting evidence, underpinned by principles and explanations accepted by the international scientific community...Creationism and intelligent design are sometimes claimed to be scientific theories. This is not the case as they have no underpinning scientific principles, or explanations, and are not accepted by the science community as a whole.
And also from those guidelines
Creationism and intelligent design are not part of the science National Curriculum programmes of study and should not be taught as science. However, there is a real difference between teaching ‘x’ and teaching about ‘x’. Any questions about creationism and intelligent design which arise in science lessons, for example as a result of media coverage, could provide the opportunity to explain or explore why they are not considered to be scientific theories and, in the right context, why evolution is considered to be a scientific theory.
If the Northern Ireland Department of Education haven’t issued these guidelines to schools here, they should do so now.
Adds here’s another snippet from the guidelines to teachers elsewhere in the UK
Which subject should deal with creationism and intelligent design?
Teachers of subjects such as RE, history or citizenship may deal with creationism and intelligent design in their lessons. If such issues were to arise there might be value in science colleagues working with these teachers in addressing them.
Pete Baker @ 08:45 PM
I think that it should be up to the school… esp. if it is a faith school to teach them the creation theory and i think that it is right give the kids a balanced veiw of the world and all of its theories esp on such a contiversial issue.
Posted by on Oct 01, 2007 @ 09:37 PMRuth
I’m not sure you read the actual post..
But here’s another snippet from the guidelines to teachers elsewhere in the UK
Which subject should deal with creationism and intelligent design?
Teachers of subjects such as RE, history or citizenship may deal with creationism and intelligent design in their lessons. If such issues were to arise there might be value in science colleagues working with these teachers in addressing them.
Posted by on Oct 01, 2007 @ 09:43 PMRuth
Forgive me, but that is absolute crap, as I suspect you well know. Creationism is no more a scientific theory than the idea of fairies at the bottom of the garden.It is not science, it is not embedded in any fact, it is a religious fairy story - if it is an alternative to anything, it is only as a change from telling the youngsters about snow white and the seven dwarfs. If creationism is allowed to rear it’s ugly head in schools, that’s where it should be put, with the nursery rhymes and fairy stories, and labelled as such.
Posted by on Oct 01, 2007 @ 09:48 PMdeja vu or groundhog day?
challenge. say ‘lisburn council is an example of intelligent design’ three times without cracking up with laughter.
ruth, the point is intelligent design is a matter of faith and belief rather than a testable scientific proposition. on your reasoning teaching 20th century history should include the beliefs of David Irvin to, umm, give kids a balanced view?
anyway below is clip referring to recent US court decision re teaching ID in science classes. anyone for separation of church and state?
‘Intelligent design’ teaching ban
A court in the US has ruled against the teaching of “intelligent design” alongside Darwin’s theory of evolution.
A group of parents in the Pennsylvania town of Dover had taken the school board to court for demanding biology classes not teach evolution as fact. The authorities wanted to introduce the idea that Earth’s life was too complicated to have evolved on its own.
Judge John Jones ruled the school board had violated the constitutional ban on teaching religion in public schools.
The 11 parents who brought the case argued that teaching intelligent design (ID) was effectively teaching creationism, which is banned.
We find that the secular purposes claimed by the board amount to a pretext for the board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion
Judge John JonesThey complained that ID - which argues life must have been helped to develop by an unseen power - was tantamount to religious education.
The separation of church and state is enshrined in the US constitution.
The school board argued they had sought to improve science education by exposing pupils to alternatives to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. But Judge Jones said he had determined that ID was not science and “cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents”.
In a 139-page written ruling, the judge said: “Our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.”
He accused school board members of disguising their true motives for introducing the ID policy. “We find that the secular purposes claimed by the board amount to a pretext for the board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom,” he said.
He banned any future implementation of the policy in Dover schools.
The case, the first of its kind, sets an important precedent in a country where several states have adopted the teaching of ID, reports the BBC’s James Coomerasamy in Washington.
Ironically, he adds, it is a somewhat academic ruling in the Dover area since parents there voted last month to replace the school board members who brought in the policy.
That move provoked US TV evangelist Pat Robertson to warn the town was invoking the wrath of God.story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/americas/4545822.stm
Published: 2005/12/20 18:54:51 GMTPosted by on Oct 01, 2007 @ 09:51 PMRuth has fallen prey to those who say “We should teach both theories and let the kids decide for themselves”.
But, of course, there aren’t two theories.
There is one theory and one religious belief.
The theory should be taught in the science class and the belief should be taught in the R.E. class.Posted by on Oct 01, 2007 @ 09:51 PMRuth: “I think that it should be up to the school…”
Ruth, no-one is preventing this being taught in RE but there should be no blurring of the boundaries between this and science, faith school or not. Like the article says no-one is against Creationism being heard because let’s be honest if you’re going to pit Creationism and Evolution head to head then there will only ever be one winner (in any right thinking person that is)
its really depressing that we’re forced into even discussing this in 2007.
Posted by on Oct 01, 2007 @ 09:51 PMRuth: I think that it should be up to the school… esp. if it is a faith school to teach them the creation theory and i think that it is right give the kids a balanced veiw of the world and all of its theories esp on such a contiversial issue.
Since when did faith schools seek to provide a ‘balanced view of the world’? Though there are - depending on your definition - very few faith schools in NI, and those can teach whatever they like, since they don’t use public money.
But as for non-faith schools, should they teach all creation myths, or just pick a small sample at random? There are a number of Hindu creation stories, for instance.
Posted by on Oct 01, 2007 @ 09:54 PMbut what about the forensics and the SETI project!??!
Posted by on Oct 01, 2007 @ 09:54 PMI agree its soo depressing that this sort of stuff is even being discussed in 2007!
Posted by on Oct 01, 2007 @ 10:28 PMIt’s bloody depressing that it is still being debated here on Slugger given the flights of fancy achieved by some posters on the previous thread on this subject. However. The problem with the “teach them both and let them make up their own minds” approach is that it is almost invariably propounded by the sort of people who do exactly the opposite when it comes ot religion. They baptise their children early and inculcate them from infancy with the parents’ particular brand of religion to the exclusion of all others. Let that happen in the science class and it won’t be long before Darwin is chucked in the dustbin alongside other inconvenient theories such as loving thy neighbour…
Posted by on Oct 01, 2007 @ 10:55 PMCreationism and ID are such an integral part of a belief system that they should be considered not as an alternative science theory but more in the realms of religion or philosophy.
It can not be ignored because it is so important to millions of people throughout the world.
It should be examined at various levels and those who study it can come to their own conclusions.
I find it difficult to see how it can be taught at primary school level.Posted by on Oct 01, 2007 @ 11:12 PMThis is getting so depressing. ID and creationism have been shot down by every credible scientist - from Sir David Attenborough to James Lovelock. Even ‘Darwin’s Rottweiler’ Richard Dawkins was exasperated that this ‘debate’ was draining energy from the need to enhance science education. The energy and brilliance of scientists is being displaced by puerile cries of ‘Look at me’ from the ID & creationist camp. Meanwhile we have too many offering the let them choose argument. How many of those have read the bible, and worse still how many have read the peer-reviewed science behind evolutionary theory? For the sake of all our sanity even try some of the popular science texts...ahh nevermind the faithheads are taking centre stage, no doubt the book burning, record burning follows shortly...I’ll just listen to my CDs before the faith thought police raid the house…
Posted by on Oct 02, 2007 @ 12:08 AMUlsterfan,
“I find it difficult to see how it can be taught at primary school level.”
I presume as it’s always been taught, by means of Kiddie Bibles. You know those cute books with big coloured pix of the animals going two by two into Noah’s Ark.
I think they’re very entertaining stories for children. But of course they belong in the RE lesson. I wonder how long it’ll be though before the kids clamour for Harry Potter instead.
Posted by on Oct 02, 2007 @ 12:35 AMBetter to concentrate on teaching kids the differences between theories and facts. We have had theories before that led to claims such as “there is nothing smaller than an atom”, “time, distance, mass and energy are fixed, distinct and measurable qualities” or “light travels through aether.” The usefulness of these theories were served, they were in time proven to be false, and we moved on better for having fumbled around in the dark and made our mistakes.
By this, I really care little about the education of the kids, but it might make a positive difference to the mental health of future generations by cutting the number of tedious accusations whenever anyone points out an exception not covered by evolution. (And take the chip of the shoulder of the religious types my reminding them, and scientists too, that science do not pretend to be all-knowing.)
Posted by on Oct 02, 2007 @ 02:36 AMI have decided to present some evidence of ID from scholars in their field rather than argue with the unelightened.
Jewish M.I.T. researcher, Dr Gerald Schroeder illustrates:
Each cell in your body, is selecting right now approximately five hundred thousand amino acids, consisting of some ten million atoms, organizing them into preselected strings, joining them together, checking to be certain each string is folded into specific shapes, and then shipping each protein off to a site, some inside the cell, some outside, sites that somehow have signaled a need for these specific proteins. Every second. Every cell. Your body is a living wonder.
Agnostic biologist Dr Michael Denton agrees:
When in the history of science or engineering did such an advanced machine as the cell arise simply by “chance?” The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.
NICE TO HAVE SOME EXPERT OPINION talking sense instead of the drivel straw men arguments that have frequented this debate. Now, no doubt, the heavyweights of Dawkins, Donnacha, and Joe “Canard” with their paralysing intellects and 3 GCSEs in sociology from Belfast Tech think these men are mad also.
Posted by on Oct 02, 2007 @ 02:36 AMUnlike the previous thread, personal abuse arises in the first comment by I.D. expert Sam.
Says a lot for his intellectual debating style.Posted by on Oct 02, 2007 @ 03:02 AMI’m waiting for someone in lisburn to argue that newton’s “theory of gravity” is only a theory.
Perhaps we should also teach them that we stay attached to the earth because angels suck through the soil and keep us tied down.
yea let’s teach both and let the 12 year olds decide.
the real problem with ID proponents is that they are allowed to breed.
Posted by on Oct 02, 2007 @ 03:13 AMNever studied sociology, I’m afraid, Sam. They didn’t offer it in the Christian Brothers when I was doing my Leaving Cert. But then Catholic schools just churn out superstitious, Marian-obsessed slow learners, so I’ll bow to your obviously superior intellect, if not your god, if you can prove one thing for me: I don’t want you to prove your god exists, I just want you to prove to me that you exist. I believe you are a theory, a figment of my immoral imagination. Prove otherwise and we’ll start discussing the nature of matter.
Posted by on Oct 02, 2007 @ 04:07 AMWonders how that human body created by the Intelligent Designer sometimes goes horribly wrong resulting in malfunction and unbearable pain.
Wonders if maybe that Intelligent Designer has some warped sense of humour.
Wonders if perhaps pain is a matter of choice.
Wonders how a three month old infant exercises its Free Will to allow itself to decide that it wants to have to endure incredible pain.
Wonderful.
Posted by on Oct 02, 2007 @ 04:21 AMSam, what ‘sense’ would that be? They’ve merely asserted that g-d must exist because they can’t understand how complex molecules can exist without a g-d as an intelligent designer. That is recursive because it repeats the question to the given answer, i.e. how can something as complex as a g-d exist without an intelligent designer to design him (or her - in case Susan reads this), and so on? Murray Gell-Man did some work at the Sanfa Fe Institute to show how systems are self-organising. I suggest you acquaint yourself with it.
Posted by on Oct 02, 2007 @ 04:58 AMHow many teachers, teaching science believe in creationism or ID? Any numbers on that?
Posted by on Oct 02, 2007 @ 07:05 AMUnlike the previous thread, personal abuse arises in the first comment by I.D. expert Sam.
Says a lot for his intellectual debating style.Says a lot for his Christian values too, Joe.
Posted by on Oct 02, 2007 @ 08:33 AMPete,
The sooner the British guidelines are introduced here the better.
Someone mentioned ID and the Lisburnians at a
piss-updinner party on Saturday.Our Christian friends were scathing. One Anglican chap felt the Creationists put Christianity in a bad light. “It’s like the Enlightenment never happened,” he said.
A Catholic said it was as if the Vatican were calling Galileo a liar and wishing to indoctrinate our kids with a geocentric universe.
Posted by on Oct 02, 2007 @ 10:59 AMCreationism and Intelligent Design are ideas based upon biblical teaching. Biblical teaching is not science it is faith.
There is nothing wrong with faith based education so long as it does not seek to portray itself as science. Science is the anti-thesis of faith as it requires all theories to be proven to become accepted.
Creationism and Intelligent Design belong in the RE curriculum as both require faith and thus the scientific need for proof beyond doubt is rejected. Also both require that those who do not believe must prove them incorrect. Science requires those who believe a in a theory to prove it correct. Thus they are not science.Posted by on Oct 02, 2007 @ 11:36 AMLook, I know damn all about this creationism thing (and care less). I do know, just a bit, about teaching and schools, picked up from forty years working therein.
Thought 1: most schooling is about method, not content. There is not much point in teaching content because it tends to change over time. The content I was taught half-a-century ago is substantially irrelevant now. Even basics like vocabulary, and grammar change (shall we take the perambulator with us on the omnibus when we go for luncheon? The supreme sin of splitting infinitives? Due to?) Even spelling is dubious: I spent my last years telling kids not to trust Microsoft: program, neighbour, criticise. So science teaching (not my field,guv) comes down to a few basic principles and a fair bit of scientific method.
Thought 2: There is an eternity of difference between RE (which amounts to comparative religion, live with your neighbour, and a stack of morality) and confessional instruction. Since many of the kids I have worked with get the latter from the Mosque, do we want more of the same thing in state-funded eddicashun?
Thought 3: Do we want a National Curriculum? Should it reflect a common and shared culture? If so, where does creationism go (which, in honour of the great Tam Dalyell, I hereby nominate as “the Lisburn Question")? If not, is it to be foisted, along with tarot-reading, halal meat and going-home-early on mid-winter Fridays on all and sundry?
Posted by on Oct 02, 2007 @ 01:19 PM
