and it spreads

[TemperateSeaIsland]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4793198.stm

Something I never thought I would see

 

[Troof]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4793198.stm

Something I never thought I would see

This is rather worrying.

I do hope that all the Biology teachers are properly informed about Creationism, Intelligent Design and Evolution. If they are there should be no problem, and their pupils will reject Creationism and Intelligent Design as bogus non-scientific theories.

 

[GoSeminoles!]

These aren't the sort of cultural exports I want my country noted for.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

It's only in England at the moment but I wouldnt be surprised if this spreads to Wales. I've been thinking about becoming a science teacher so this interests me quite a bit. This proposed paper seems good natured and may be harmless but its a very fine line...

 

[AllTalkNoAction]

Troof - how does a theory qualify to be called "scientific" ?

 

[Hydra009]

I might be wrong about this (creationist measures have a history of being insidious, like singling out one scientific theory to be "criticially analyzed" in order to promote creationist rhetoric in the classroom, and then characterizing opponents of the measure as being against critical thought) but it seems like the lesson plan would just go over the history of crevo.

The wording, though, is pretty sketchy: "Students should be taught how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting empirical evidence (for example Darwin's theory of evolution)." as it could easily give the false impression of creationism/ID and the theory of evolution being scientific equals, which they definitely aren't. Also, it mischaracterizes creationism as simply "a different way of interpreting empirical evidence", when its basis is not in empiricism at all, but in one's religious beliefs, where the view is generally "God said it, I believe it, evidence is irrelevant." In this light, creationism is not a different interpretation of evidence at all, but the wholesale rejection of it.

 

[Silent Bob]

Depending on how it is taught it could be good or bad. If it is meant to show the danger of bias and how pseudoscience is made then it is good. If it tries to pass this as a true scientific controversy it couldn't be further away from the truth.

I don't know, I do not trust the Brits on many things (no offence meant I love most of you guys!), but in education I think they are doing ok. Then again I could be wrong after all out of 50 graduates from my class in Glasgow uni only around 10 had a British passport.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

Depending on how it is taught it could be good or bad. If it is meant to show the danger of bias and how pseudoscience is made then it is good. If it tries to pass this as a true scientific controversy it couldn't be further away from the truth.

I don't know, I do not trust the Brits on many things (no offence meant I love most of you guys!), but in education I think they are doing ok. Then again I could be wrong after all out of 50 graduates from my class in Glasgow uni only around 10 had a British passport.

Thats what Im hoping for but Im feeling uneasy with it concetrating on creationism and evolution. A better example would be the overturning/modification of newtonian ideas of gravity and machanics by modern theories such as GR and QM.

 

[Dannager]

Troof - how does a theory qualify to be called "scientific" ?

Here you go!

In science, a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a firm empirical basis, i.e., it

1. is consistent with pre-existing theory to the extent that the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense,
2. is supported by many strands of evidence rather than a single foundation, ensuring that it probably is a good approximation if not totally correct,
3. makes predictions that might someday be used to disprove the theory,
4. is tentative, correctable and dynamic, in allowing for changes to be made as new data is discovered, rather than asserting certainty, and
5. is the most parsimonious explanation, sparing in proposed entities or explanations, commonly referred to as passing Ockham's razor.

 

[Athene]

I'm slightly worried this might open a gateway to teaching ID and creationism as valid theories next too evolution . . .. . but then again the number of people in the UK who actually believe in creationism are extremely small.

But on the other hand the big ID/creationism controversy is very topical at the moment, this is something that I would find interesting to study.

 

[AllTalkNoAction]

What pre-existing theory is evolution consistent with ?

What evidence supports evolution ?

What predictions does it make that might disprove it ?

 

[Goatboy]

What pre-existing theory is evolution consistent with ?

Theory of Gravity

What evidence supports evolution ?

The scientific kind

What predictions does it make that might disprove it ?

That we won’t find rabbit fossils in pre-cambrian geology

 

[Jet Black]

it is worth noting that the curriculum agrees that ID and creationism are not scientific theories. so any teachers caught trying to pass them off in that way should get sacked. I repeatedly had this problem with an old physics teacher of mine, and I regularly pwned him when he tried making out that scientific discoveries suggested that there was a god.

 

[AllTalkNoAction]

What evidence supports evolution ?

The scientific kind

Sounds like a circular argument to me !
Care to give some example of scientific evidence that show evolution *rather than* creation ?

 

[Edx]

Sounds like a circular argument to me !
Care to give some example of scientific evidence that show evolution *rather than* creation ?

Dont derail this thread. Go make your own

 

[AllTalkNoAction]

Ooh, someone doesn't like it when the claims of evolutionists are examined for scientific evidence !

Let's just teach the kids what we've always taught, we are the high priests with special knowledge !

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

Sounds like a circular argument to me !
Care to give some example of scientific evidence that show evolution *rather than* creation ?

Please define Creation in this context.

 

[Edx]

Ooh, someone doesn't like it when the claims of evolutionists are examined for scientific evidence !

Let's just teach the kids what we've always taught, we are the high priests with special knowledge !

Theres are thosuands of threads dedicated to "evidence for evolution", and you can even just start another thread if you want to. Its rude to just jump in asking really n00b questions which show you dont know anything about science or evolution. It will take a lot to explain all that to you, assuming you're willing to learn, but that will clutter up this thread with arguments which have nothing to do with the OP.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

Ooh, someone doesn't like it when the claims of evolutionists are examined for scientific evidence !

Let's just teach the kids what we've always taught, we are the high priests with special knowledge !

I dont mind the thread taking a bit of a tangent but there are plenty of threads going over the evidence for evolution.

 

[AllTalkNoAction]

. . . really n00b questions which show you dont know anything about science or evolution.

I want your evidence for evolution not someone else's buried in hundreds of threads with thousands of postings. Your assumtion about what I know is presumption which is not good scientific method.

It will take a lot to explain all that to you,

fluster & bluster - just give me some facts !!

We are talking about teaching children evolution, are you admitting that it can't really be done ?

"how is it that the children understand my points very well but you and glaudys can't even come close?"