Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The United Nations Old Guard. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Lunacy is contagious
Topic Started: Mar 10 2006, 02:03 PM (106 Views)
Ecopoeia
Member Avatar
E-u-o-c-o-u-p-i-e-i-a-u-o-e-a
Grumpy Old Men
The creationists' incessant whining has clearly infected the UK curriculum designers:

Link

East Hackney
 
Heh. I have no problem with creationism being "discussed", so long as it's in the context of "now, children, there are certain alternative theories to
evolution. Let's find out why they're all a load of shite."

We shall see what this entails...


Exam board brings creationism into science class

Donald MacLeod
Friday March 10, 2006


Pupils in England will be required to discuss creationist theories as part of a new GCSE biology course being introduced in September.

The move has alarmed scientists who fear it could open the door for the promotion of creationist ideas like "intelligent design" and give them scientific respectability at a time when they are being promoted by fundamentalist Christians and Muslims.

It follows heated debates in the US, where a judge in Pennsylvania ruled that intelligent design should not be taught in schools because it was a religious idea with no scientific basis.

In England, the change is taking place alongside the promotion of faith schools and anxieties about the teaching of creationist views in Emmanuel school, Gateshead, an academy sponsored by the Christian millionaire Sir Peter Vardy.

The new biology syllabus in England does not require the teaching of creationist views alongside Darwin's theory of evolution, but it opens the way for classroom discussions in science lessons and pupils will be assessed on work they do on this topic.

The schools standards minister, Jacqui Smith, said in a parliamentary answer that pupils were encouraged to explore different views, theories and beliefs in many different subjects, including science.

"Creationism is one of many differing beliefs which pupils might discuss and consider, perhaps when they learn about another aspect of science: 'ways in which scientific work may be affected by the contexts in which it takes place... and how these contexts may affect whether or not ideas are accepted'," she said.

The new OCR biology syllabus for GCSE says pupils should be able to "explain that the fossil record has been interpreted differently over time (eg creationist interpretation)".

The chairman of the Creation Science Movement, David Rosevear, told the Times Educational Supplement: "There is nothing wrong with presenting a different point of view to promote debate. It does not mean a student is going to say 'I believe in Genesis chapter one' any more than they are going to say evolution is fact."

But the science course leader at Sussex University's school of education, James Williams, said: "This is not science, it is not recognised by the scientific community and to legitimise it like this is wrong."

The Department for Education and Skills issued a statement saying: "Neither creationism nor intelligent design are taught as part of the science curriculum and are not specified in the science curriculum.

"The emphasis in the science curriculum on scientific inquiry means that pupils are encouraged to explore different views, theories and beliefs. Therefore, although creationism and intelligent design are not part of the National Curriculum and not specified in the science curriculum, it could come up in this context."

A spokeswoman added: "Creationism is taught in RE lessons and is one of the many religious views on how the world was created. Schemes of work for RE offer guidance to teachers wishing to address creationism as one of a number of possible other views."

There is no doubt that Darwin still rules the biology syllabus. OCR, for instance, requires teachers to describe examples of change by natural selection occurring today, such as bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics, as well as the fossil record.

But teachers will now be drawn more into debates about evolution with the requirement "explain the reasons why the theory of evolution by natural selection met with an initially hostile response (social and historical context)".
Enough is as good as a feast

To Ill-Advisedly Go!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fonzoland
Member Avatar
Resident Grammar Nazi
Members
Fucking morons... they want to teach creationism? Fine. Do it in Religious Studies, or in Philosophy, or in Sociology. When did exploring "different views, theories and beliefs" for the sake of it become a part of Science?

Next steps:
Proving the existence of God in Political Science
Acupuncture in Medicine
Astrology in Astrophysics
Voodoo in the Military Academy

*deletes second half of the rant*
Posted ImagePosted Image
I met God the other day, but all I got was this lousy quote:
"He's too feminine for his shirt...too feminine for his shirt...oh so feminine it hurts..."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ecopoeia
Member Avatar
E-u-o-c-o-u-p-i-e-i-a-u-o-e-a
Grumpy Old Men
Fonzoland,Mar 10 2006
03:24 PM
Astrology in Astrophysics

Aha! That's the analogy I've been searching for!
Enough is as good as a feast

To Ill-Advisedly Go!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gruenberg
Member Avatar

Members
Ecopoeia,Mar 10 2006
02:26 PM
Fonzoland,Mar 10 2006
03:24 PM
Astrology in Astrophysics

Aha! That's the analogy I've been searching for!

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178
[size0]Everything that can be done visibly in this world can be done by demons.

For an organisation that likes to think of itself as elite, [UNOG] doesn't have the highest of standards when it comes to membership. -- Cluichstan
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ecopoeia
Member Avatar
E-u-o-c-o-u-p-i-e-i-a-u-o-e-a
Grumpy Old Men
Let's hope this doesn't have the effect opposite to that desired...
Enough is as good as a feast

To Ill-Advisedly Go!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Forgottenlord

Members
When did the world get so fucked?
No, seriously
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TBlack
Member Avatar
The baby killer
Grumpy Old Men
forgottenlord,Mar 10 2006
03:12 PM
When did the world get so fucked?

Yesterday but you didn't notice because you were offline at the time.
"You would think it obvious to anyone, with a grain of intelligence, that there are far too many people born in England."
.:I'm melting!: http://alwaysautumn.etsy.com :.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ecopoeia
Member Avatar
E-u-o-c-o-u-p-i-e-i-a-u-o-e-a
Grumpy Old Men
What's 'offline'?
Enough is as good as a feast

To Ill-Advisedly Go!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fonzoland
Member Avatar
Resident Grammar Nazi
Members
Ecopoeia,Mar 10 2006
05:25 PM
What's 'offline'?

I think it's the same thing as jolt does, only on this side... brrrrr :wacko:
Posted ImagePosted Image
I met God the other day, but all I got was this lousy quote:
"He's too feminine for his shirt...too feminine for his shirt...oh so feminine it hurts..."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
_Myopia_
Member Avatar
Autonecromancer extraordinaire
Members
To be fair, it's not as bad as the headline makes out:

Here's the relevant section of the OCR syllabus:

Quote:
 
Assessable learning outcomes
both tiers:  standard demand


Describe how organisms may have become
fossilised:
• hard body parts (shells, bones, leaves)
covered in sediment, gradual replacement
by minerals;
• casts / impressions;
• preservation in amber, peat bogs, tar pits,
ice.

Explain that the fossil record is incomplete:
• some body parts, particularly soft tissue,
decay so do not fossilise;
• fossilisation rarely occurred;
• fossils not yet discovered.

Interpret data on the evolution of an organism such
as the horse.

Assessable learning outcomes
Higher Tier only: high demand


Explain that the fossil record has been interpreted
differently over time (e.g. creationist interpretation).


Creationism is an optional discussion topic, and it isn't even included as a legitimate alternative - it's more of a "this is what people used to think, but nowadays we understand that...".

If a teacher takes this and uses it to promote creationism, they probably would have been spouting rubbish regardless.

Also bear in mind that this is just one of the many science GCSE courses on offer, and even then it's only for higher tier candidates, who would hopefully be intelligent enough to note that the context of discussion suggests that it's not a very solid suggestion.

Having said that, it would be easier and better all round if it was just left out of science lessons altogether. Lamarckian evolution is a perfectly good example of a rival theory, and because it was a bit more scientific, probably offers more scope for discussion of how scientific theories compete and are discarded once beaten.
The Liberal not-quite-Utopia of _Myopia_
Liberty with Compassion - La liberté et l'humanité
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ardchoille
Member Avatar
Figurehead, SS Petulant Snit
Admin
This topic has been much discussed here in the wilds of Newcastle, NSW, too. Details of last year's education funding have just come out and somebody noted that two local Christian schools that teach Intelligent Design in their science courses were getting tax money. There has been a trickle of Letters to the Editor all week, which is a long time for a non-football topic to last (our local team, bottom of everybody's table, has just changed coaches).

The one I liked best was this -- from a believer:
  • The scientific way precludes religion

    Is intelligent design true? I have no doubt. But is it science?

    Several years ago Professor Ross Ebert (University of California) put it succinctly:

    "Science doesn't supply absolutes. It supplies a range of confidence about the questions it addresses.

    "Some things we are pretty unsure about and theories to explain these are little more than guesses ... such as the causation of earthquakes.

    "Other theories enjoy a middle range of confidence, like the Big Bang theory.

    "Some things have been confirmed so strongly it would be perverse to disbelieve them, such as theories of celestial mechanics, quantum theory, evolution and plate tectonics.

    Yet they are all falsifiable. In principle it is possible to think of evidence which would prove them false. This ... distinguishes science from other belief systems."

    In intelligent design, the designer is an absolute and not falsifiable, beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. This disqualifies the theory as science.

    A personal position does not entitle it to equal time in the classroom. Atheists have personal positions on God and religions -- but does that entitle them to equal time in religious studies classes? -- Mati Morel, Thornton.

I don't whether the ellipses are honest ellipses, but it reads as if they are. If so, I dips me lid to Mati Morel and his tribute to intellectual honesty.





I'm not the real me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vastiva
Member Avatar
Resident Novellist
Members
It was bad enough when us Americans were jumping off the logic bandwagon and into the "We're Stupid and Ignerink and WE LIKE IT TAT WAY!" cesspit... if the English are joining us, we'll have to order more bubbly.

Seriously, anyone who believes in Creationism and Intelligent Design usually comes out as saying "We don't understand it, so GOD DID IT with his MAGIC WAND!".

*pounds head on desk until it feels better*
That which is not khomerex is khesterex. Qapla jowi!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
« Previous Topic · Real World News · Next Topic »
Add Reply