RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: Depressing News. Or is it?, Creationism shoehorned into UK schools< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2006,10:06   

Creationism gains a foothold in UK schools

I am conflicted about this.

I have little to no objection to IDC being taught in a comparative religious education class. That being said, since I am aware of the gross inadequacies of the "comparative" elements of UK religious education, I am perhaps rethinking those absent objections. In addition, evolutionary biology gets only a cursory treatment in UK biology courses up to GCSE (16 years old) and is one tiny section of the biology course as a whole. To me this whole thing whiffs of backdoor creationism as I am willing to bet eager RE teachers play the emphasis to suit their needs.

The ridiculously named "Truth in Science" lot seem to have won a battle, perhaps. I am not sure how this will work out yet. I've got no problem with any aspect of science being challenged on the basis of the evidence, but when the level of science being discussed is really very simple and the purpose of education at the level it is being introduced is to get kids familiar with the very basics of the subject, I think this will do more harm than good. {Added in edit: Be aware also that IDC is far from a challenge on the basis of the evidence, it's a political lever to force religious apologetics into science and education, nothing more.}

Sure, across the nation, there will be science teachers howling with glee at the thought of a useful example of not-even-bad  science like ID as a teaching tool of how science is not done. Sadly my fear is that these will be the minority, and that in our already beleaguered schools tired teachers will not deal with this creationist bunkum properly.  Let's be honest in many schools teaching the actual subject to the kids is hard enough without asinine distractions like this. Its usefulness as a teaching tool goes only as far as the excellence of the teacher using it, and the amount of work that teacher already has to do.

Perhaps my pessimism is misplaced. Perhaps by identifying ID as precisely what it is, i.e. asinine religious apologetics demonstrably false before Darwin was born, the government  have been a bit clever. The UK creationist lobby can now not cry discrimination, their views are being taught and in the appropriate forum. Then again perhaps my pessimism isn't misplaced because once such bunkum is being taught in one classroom it's a short trip down the corridor to the science classroom.

Oh parliament! What have you done to us?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1391
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2006,10:17   

From the article:

Quote
Andrew McIntosh, a professor of engineering at Leeds university who heads Truth in Science, said: “We believe that evolutionary theory should be taught in a critical manner, and some space must be given to credible alternative theories, such as intelligent design.”


Quote
McIntosh said: “People like Dawkins are pushing atheism through schools, which is a religious view, and not a scientific one. Atheism is not the natural state of a scientist, since there have been scientists who have been theists both before and after Darwin.”


This Andy McIntosh character really annoys me. His field of research is flame technology, He has zero academic qualifications or experience in biology, yet he waves his professorship around as if this gives weight to his hard-line creationist views.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2006,16:46   

I have seen no reasonable IDers. They're all odious duplicitous tards.

ID: lying for Jebus.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,07:49   

Alan Fox ...
Quote
From the article:

Quote

Andrew McIntosh, a professor of engineering at Leeds university who heads Truth in Science, said: “We believe that evolutionary theory should be taught in a critical manner, and some space must be given to credible alternative theories, such as intelligent design.”


Quote

McIntosh said: “People like Dawkins are pushing atheism through schools, which is a religious view, and not a scientific one. Atheism is not the natural state of a scientist, since there have been scientists who have been theists both before and after Darwin.”


This Andy McIntosh character really annoys me. His field of research is flame technology, He has zero academic qualifications or experience in biology, yet he waves his professorship around as if this gives weight to his hard-line creationist views.
Hard line creationist views?  All the man said was "Evolutionary theory should be taught in a critical manner ... let's consider some alternatives."

Aren't scientists supposed to be open minded?  Are they not supposed to be critical thinkers?  Why would you be unwilling to critically examine the historical and scientific claims of the Book of Genesis, a book which has been foundational to Western Civilization?  Who cares if it's also a religious book?  You don't have to talk about the religion part.  Just examine the claims as they touch upon historical geology and biology.  To exclude such an influential book which touches on many aspects of science and history from science dialog seems to me the ultimate in intellectual insecurity and closed-mindedness.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,08:08   

Quote (afdave @ Jan. 02 2007,07:49)
Aren't scientists supposed to be open minded?  Are they not supposed to be critical thinkers?  Why would you be unwilling to critically examine the historical and scientific claims of the Book of Genesis, a book which has been foundational to Western Civilization?  Who cares if it's also a religious book?  You don't have to talk about the religion part.  Just examine the claims as they touch upon historical geology and biology.  To exclude such an influential book which touches on many aspects of science and history from science dialog seems to me the ultimate in intellectual insecurity and closed-mindedness.

Yes

Yes

Because it is not science, it is philosophy/religion, and that is the type of class in which it should be studied.

Scientists teaching science - they use books about science not philosophy/religion.

Have you NO understanding of science?  Actually, I guess that is a pretty stupid question.  I guess it is a demonstration of your intellectual insecurity and closed-mindedness.

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,08:27   

Quote (afdave @ Jan. 02 2007,07:49)
Aren't scientists supposed to be open minded?

Yes.

Quote
Are they not supposed to be critical thinkers?


Yes, they are.

Quote
Why would you be unwilling to critically examine the historical and scientific claims of the Book of Genesis, a book which has been foundational to Western Civilization?


It's been done, Dave. It was over centuries ago. Why are you so unwilling to revisit the "foundational" value of the book according to the results?

Quote
Who cares if it's also a religious book?


You do, Dave. Because it sure as #### ain't no textbook. Outside of some titilating/revolting tales, religious value is its only saving grace.

Quote
Just examine the claims as they touch upon historical geology and biology.


Check and check. Or did the 1800s never happen in Dave's world?

Quote
To exclude such an influential book which touches on many aspects of science and history from science dialog seems to me the ultimate in intellectual insecurity and closed-mindedness.


Interesting. By your criteria (historical influence and mention of some aspect of science and/or history), open-mindedness demands that we include many texts in our "science" classes, Dave. Assuming we teach chronologically, you wouldn't have any objection to the Hindu Vedas and Marx's manifesto (not to mention many others) bracketing your book, would you Dave? Sure, we'll probably never get around to photosynthesis and cell diagrams, but whatever...

Quote
You don't have to talk about the religion part.


Gee, thanks for granting your permission, Dave. 'Cause without it, science teachers were in serious danger of running afoul of the first amendment.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,10:02   

Best place for it, as long as the teachers dont abuse it, but then I expect that it will be abused since some teachers are lying scum.  
The tricky bit is that as some people have pointed out, it will allow ID'ers to rant on about the science behind theri view, yet in a religious setting without allowing real science to answer.  This could cause problems.  Actually, to me it smells of a typical uneducated compromise.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2007,14:46   

Are scientists open minded?

Absolutely yes. Guess what Davey boy, the claims now resurrected as "intelligent design creationism" have been critically and carefully examined before. As have the "scientific" claims (read: claims that are to do with the natural world) of the bible been examined. All have been found to have no relation to the observed universe. Not one claim has been found to have even the merest shred of reliable, reproducible evidence to support it.

Yes yes yes, we all know you think they do, we all know you've swallowed the AiG KoolAid. Guess what, you are wrong, as has been demonstrated time after time after time after time on two threads (at least) and in excess of 11000 posts. And let's be honest,  by ooooooooh every observation and experiment made by every scientist (religious or otherwise) in every lab, field, discipline and institution since before the ancient Greeks and across the whole globe.  We KNOW you don't get this, we know WHY you don't get this, it really really really isn't us that has the problem.

In fact were I to pick up my Big Book of Words and Phrases (Illustrated pop-up edition) and flip to the big cardboard chew proof page which has the definition of "Self-deluding, unteachable, unwarrantedly arrogant, bible-blinded moron" Your gormless fizzog would pop so far and so fast out of the page that I would be concussed in an instant and spend hours unconscious with a gruelling nightmare vision of what it must be like to live inside that shrivelled, walnut of a thing that you call a brain (but is most probably a misplaced, hyperactive bile gland). For gibbering donkey fuck's sake Davey, the ideas contained in ID and the "science" contained in the bible has been so thoroughly disproven that it is only possible to believe otherwise under the grip of some truly amazing mental pathology. Like I said before Davey, go away, go far far away and use some of the money you have earned riding toy aeroplanes at the county fairground to get yourself some very in depth psychoanalysis and therapy.

There is a real opportunity for a serious conversation between educated, mentally competent, rational adults (a category of human beings to which you fail to qualify for on any of the four criteria) about a serious issue on this, and many other threads, it should be manifestly obvious to all but a dog-in-the-manger style moron like you that your presence is neither desired nor required. Go away until you have something worthwhile to say, which judging by past experience should be immediately after your death.

Louis

P.S. Added in edit, I wonder is this post is sufficient for me to earn the rank of BAWAA Knight?

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,06:32   

UPDATE

If this Grauniad story is to be believed then I am significantly less pissed off about IDC being included in UK RE classes.

A good, comparative reigious education death to creationism, and certainly one of the most vital tools in combatting the excesses of religious loons.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,07:32   

In a move that is likely to spark controversy, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority has for the first time recommended that pupils be taught about atheism and creationism in RE classes.

To put it mildly!!

But I think it is a good idea to be honest.  RI (as it was then) never hurt me as a child at school.

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
k.e.



Posts: 40
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,07:57   

Quote (MidnightVoice @ Jan. 23 2007,07:32)
In a move that is likely to spark controversy, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority has for the first time recommended that pupils be taught about atheism and creationism in RE classes.

To put it mildly!!

But I think it is a good idea to be honest.  RI (as it was then) never hurt me as a child at school.

Yeah and when the kids figure out the Kreationism is just another krappy oversold and underwhelming Korporate American product that when compared to its competitors, is nowhere as interesting as Shintoism, Sufism, Shamenism, Sock pupeting, Surfing, Stalinism, Shiva, Stravinsky, Sikism or oral Sex (and those are just the S catagory of cults, past times and personalities).

No wonder the ID/creationists would complain.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,07:58   

Oral sex has NOTHING to do with cults......

......unless you need to sort out your spelling that is.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
k.e.



Posts: 40
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,08:07   

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 23 2007,07:58)
Oral sex has NOTHING to do with cults......

......unless you need to sort out your spelling that is.

Louis

Oh sorry you're right, that should be under O....

I once met a horny witch who promised to sort out my spelling and she was definetly into ....cults.

Just replace it with Scientology the effect is about the same the first time if they get your name and address, the charges go up if you want more.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,08:23   

Best place for it.  With appropriate material, they could have a good discussion on religion and atheism and also the importance of religious origins stories, which is what creationism is.  I'd like to know what truthiness in science make of it all, since they want it in science classes.

If your looking for some entertainment here in the UK, heres a couple of pro-ID blogs:
http://www.exilefromgroggs.blogspot.com/
http://idintheuk.blogspot.com/

Some fun can be ghad with their denizens.  exilefrom groggs confuses philosophy with religion with science, but is otherwise a nice chap.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,08:26   

You lucky devil!

All the cults (correct spelling) I encounter are the boring religious type who want to save my soul. I've never encountered one o' them freaky sex cults that want me to worship their demon god by having serial instances of 15 second*, extremely flatulent sex with beautiful nubile young ladies who know about Matters Carnal. Now that's a religion I could go for!

But then I wasn't even born in the '60s, so I've probably missed out.

Scientology is just New Age crack compared to the old school opium of other religions. If rich celebs wish to piss their money away to find out about Xenu and his little green buddies then whoop-ti-do. They'll all be tying bits of red string to each other next, and drinking "special water". You see if they don't.

Louis

*Yes I know, I know, a whole 15 seconds. I said to my wife the other evening "Darling, would you like to try these new Olympic condoms. They come in bronze, silver, or gold." She replied "Ok then, let's try the silver one, it would make a nice change for you to come second". She was of course referring to my sexual prowess. I am after all something of a sexual athlete. I always come first. But seriously, she told me she'd been vaccinated for longer. And with bigger. She said "What about my clitoris?" I said "It's ok, I've shut it's cage and fed it some seeds". Is this thing on? Am i too hip for the room? Don't forget to tip your waitress etc.

{large shepards crook comes in from stage left, pulling me off**}

**NO! That is NOT what I meant.

--------------
Bye.

  
k.e.



Posts: 40
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,08:51   

Quote
But then I wasn't even born in the '60s, so I've probably missed out.


I think I was a Rastifarion or something in the '70's ....if I recall correctly..... anyway that's what I told the girl who had 400 Bhudda sticks (my favourite religion) in Bali in 1975. Those were the days $2.00 each and a pound of Sumatran Heads for $13.00 at Lake Toba. We used to have joint rolling competitions. I think the record was 13 papers. It took 4  of us (+- blow ins)to get through that in about 2 weeks.

I hope I didn't write that down ...oops too late.

Can't offer any cure on coming second bit except to say that as Salvidor Dali said on his 70th birthday "The best thing about being 70 was waking up without an erection." Practice makes perfect and it does keep getting better with age.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,09:00   

Aaaaaaand we're back to drugs! YAY! Better living through chemistry.

Oh and I was joking about the coming second part. I'm usually much further down the list!

Louis

P.S. Hey kids, don't do drugs. Send them to me and selected members of ATBC and we'll do them for you. Why go to all that hard work when the ATBC (Not So) Recovering Pot Fiend Programme can take care of your high for you? Call our toll free number 0800 SMOKE ME. Stay in school.

--------------
Bye.

  
millipj



Posts: 10
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,16:26   

Quote (guthrie @ Jan. 02 2007,10:02)
Best place for it, as long as the teachers dont abuse it, but then I expect that it will be abused since some teachers are lying scum.  
The tricky bit is that as some people have pointed out, it will allow ID'ers to rant on about the science behind theri view, yet in a religious setting without allowing real science to answer.  This could cause problems.  Actually, to me it smells of a typical uneducated compromise.

Now that it has been thrust into their arena the mainstream religious groups in the UK will not be happy.

The bad teachers who were peddling YEC will still peddle it and ID. The good teachers (who undoubtedly are the majority) will rip it to shreds as bad religion (its based on lies) and bad science.

I think that this is a major own goal for Truth in Science and ID

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,17:04   

More entertaining than that, Milli.

Quote
We though it was strange as well, as we've made it very clear that we would like to see intelligent design in science classes, not RE.


THey are hacked off that their lies wont be recognised as actual science.
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/blogcategory/51/63

2nd entry down, "what the blogs are saying".  It is not the outcome they want at all.

even more entertaining, I know the person who runs the pagan prattle website they quote from.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2007,18:55   

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 23 2007,08:26)
I've never encountered one o' them freaky sex cults that want me to worship their demon god by having serial instances of 15 second*, extremely flatulent sex with beautiful nubile young ladies who know about Matters Carnal. Now that's a religion I could go for!

Tantric maithuna, dude.


;)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,04:07   

Tantric who now?

Does she have an address? And several open minded friends?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Darth Robo



Posts: 148
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,11:26   

Like Louis, I'm also a bit wary that the credence of ID will be overstated in these lessons and that it will be used as a stepping stone to get it into science lessons if popular opinion demands it.  Also, will they conflate evolution with atheism?  If taught in the right way, these classes might not be a problem, but then:

"I expect that it will be abused since some teachers are lying scum."

Then it WOULD be a problem.  Beware fundies sneaking in back doors.

--------------
"Commentary: How would you like to be the wholly-owned servant to an organic meatbag? It's demeaning! If, uh, you weren't one yourself, I mean..."

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2007,16:54   

As far as I can see there is no popular demand for ID here in the UK.  truthiness in science, in using it as a smoke screen, manage not to engage with anyone outside their churches very well.  The only pro-ID blogs I can find are deathly quiet, or else overrun with pro-evolution people pointing out the religiously caused stupidities of the pro-ID people.  

What we have to watch here is the gvt, and we have to ensure that it is made clear that Id is non-scientific and should never be taught in the classroom.

  
  22 replies since Dec. 31 2006,10:06 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]