Creationism to be taught on GCSE science syllabus (you can't keep a good idea down)

The Times of London ^ | 10 March 2006 | Tony Halpin

[Greg o the Navy]

AN EXAMINATIONS board is including references to “creationism” in a new GCSE science course for schools.

[King Prout]

depending on how old, it might have been before I became active in the ongoing luddite wars.

DLR just has not struck me, in the threads in which I have been active, as being in need of a horsewhipping.

[Coyoteman]

I could chip you a good arrowhead if necessary, in about 30 seconds, but I prefer supermarkets.

Not one with notches in it for tying to the arrow. No way.

Actually, back in grad school I probably could have. Not museum quality, but a good deer-sticker. Now, probably not; out of practice.

You go back to the Dark Ages, thanks. I'll stay here and support science.

Drama queen!

Drama king!

[P-Marlowe]

Gentlemen, please. Refrain from the cheap shots.

It's all they have.

[Coyoteman]

Gentlemen, please. Refrain from the cheap shots.

It's all they have

Sorry, that is not the case. We have data and well-supported theory on our side.

Here is some of the data:

---

Fossil: KNM-WT 15000

Site: Nariokotome, West Turkana, Kenya (1)

Discovered By: K. Kimeu, 1984 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.6 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7, 10), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Male (based on pelvis, browridge) (1, 8, 9)

Cranial Capacity: 880 (909 as adult) cc (1)

Information: Most complete early hominid skeleton (80 bones and skull) (1, 8)

Interpretation: Hairless and dark pigmented body (based on environment, limb proportions) (7, 8, 9). Juvenile (9-12 based on 2nd molar eruption and unfused growth plates) (1, 3, 4, 7, 8). Juvenile (8 years old based on recent studies on tooth development) (27). Incapable of speech (based on narrowing of spinal canal in thoracic region) (1)

Nickname: Turkana Boy (1), Nariokotome Boy

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=38

[King Prout]

Gentlemen, please. Refrain from the cheap shots.

It's all they have.

oh? read my posts on this thread and see if your assertion above fits you or me better.

[Gargantua]

"The average IQ in the room is 140. 100 Creationists enter the room. How many points is the average IQ lowered?"

I'm a "Creationist," and Mensa says my I.Q. is 160+.

You?

;-/

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOL! Thanks for the chuckle!

[AndrewC]

Guess who?

Tallhappy is not committed to the truth, obviously. And this is hardly the first time he has slandered me with false accusations for no cause -- and then not even been honorable enough to ping me to it when he publicly slanders me.

Tallhappy, I want you to explain this behavior. I'm giving you one chance to shape up and atone before I refer your stalking behavior to the moderators. If you fail to respond, or respond in a dishonorable manner (now or in the future) I'm going to leave it to the moderators to handle. I'd rather resolve this matter by having you begin to behave like an adult for a change, but if you are unable to do so, and since my past attempts to raise your level of civility have failed, I'll have no choice but to hand it off to those who have more options at their disposal than I do.

...

And your jumping to his defense looks like you're a meddlesome busybody who wants to throw stones at only one party without knowing the whole story. You're entitled to your opinion, but I submit that you have no clue about his past record of such behavior. One time would just be reason for eye-rolling. At the present time, however, and as I MADE CLEAR in the post you're whining about, it has continued to the point of outright stalking, especially since he finds excuses (often entirely illusory) to attack me out of the blue, when I had not addressed him on the current thread or any other for quite some time. He goes out of his way to frequently fire off a serious personal attack at me, usually quite false (while cowardly not even pinging me) on a regular basis and with no apparent triggering reason. He just has a fixation on me, and enjoys lying about me in a manner that often deprives me of the opportunity to defend myself in a timely manner. If you think that trying to find a way to put a lid on such behavior makes *me* the bad guy here, then just say so, and then I'll know to completely discount your judgment.

Disclaimer: quoted text from Freerepublic threads and "All" addressed in preparation for...

[AndrewC]

We have data and well-supported theory on our side.

I'm sorry, but by your own restrictions on what science is, your link is nothing. The only peer-reviewed article cite is number 27 which would evidently age the skull at 8 years if it were human, but it is obviously not a human skull.

[microgood]

Actually, back in grad school I probably could have. Not museum quality, but a good deer-sticker. Now, probably not; out of practice.

So you had to become what you were studying. Cool.

[ToryHeartland]

This is an increasingly powerful movement. I'm happy to see that it's sucking air out of the liberal agenda in another country.

With respect, you appear to have altogether misunderstood the article. 'Creationism' is mentioned in the OCR has part of the history of science curriculum, as the spokesman makes clear:

A spokeswoman for OCR said: “Candidates need to understand the social and historical context to scientific ideas both pre and post Darwin. Candidates are asked to discuss why the opponents of Darwinism thought the way they did and how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting empirical evidence.”

My emphasis: note the past tense.

For the current curriculum (followed, btw, at the Church school my own daughters attend), the article is also explicit, to wit:

A spokesman at the Department for Education and Skills said: “Neither creationism nor intelligent design is taught as a subject in schools, and are not specified in the science curriculum. The National Curriculum for science clearly sets down that pupils should be taught that the fossil record is evidence for evolution.”

There are private schools which do teach various forms of religious creationism in lieu of science; a couple are Evangelical Christian foundations, the rest are Islamic schools. Mr. Blair is pushing legislation to enable public funding of these private religious schools--so much for a liberal agenda.

I am sorry, but this article does not at all mean what you appear to wish that it meant.

[ml1954]

Do we teach that gravity is an intelligent hand pushing you down?

Check out Intelligent Falling

[ml1954]

Evolution and creation are both religious in nature...

I didn't need to read any further than that. By any accepted definition of the word religion, you are wrong. This is a frequently repeated error.

[ToryHeartland]

AndrewC They obviously have not heard of the Dover decision over there in DarwinDawkinsland.

Unfortunately, you are flat-out wrong on this particular point.

I assure you, the Kitzmiller v. Dover Case received extensive coverage (newprint and broadcast media) here in what you have so charmingly characterised as "DarwinDawkinsland."

What concerned me about the coverage--and which I think should concern you as well--was the opportunity it afforded our mainstream press for yet another orgy of anti-American tweaking and smug superiority. The BBC (British Bolshevik Corporation) is never happier than when it can present American politicians as religious maniacs, ignorant yahoo bumpkins, and charlatan Elmer Gantrys--it all helps feed the socialists' pro-EU/anti-American agenda.

British conservatives, on the other hand, value NATO and the Atlantic Alliance, acknowledge the primary role the US plays both in defending and extending freedom in the world--and we had a hard political fight to secure such support as we could, from our current socialist government, for the global war on terror. And believe me, we were cheered by the decision of the conservative judge in Kitzmiller/Dover, whom I understand was appointed by President Bush, as an antidote to the mindless anti-American rubbish our press was running prior to his ruling.

Ichneumon the First Amendment -- the basis of the Dover decision -- does not hold sway in England.

Indeed not. But we do have our own constitutional guarantees of our ancient liberties. It is ironic that here, where there is not the legal separation of church and state, we no longer have to contend with religionists pursuing political agendas (we had plenty of those nightmares in our history, and it's not quite over in Northern Ireland even today). Or at least we didn't until very recently, when a portion of the Muslim population began lobbying--for state-funding for Darwin-free Islamic schools!

[ahayes]

Oh great, that would lead to the death of intellectual inquiry. If a supernatural being tampered with the universe and left evidence that leads to a false conclusion, than nothing true can really be learned by studying the universe. If you can't find Truth that way, why even bother with science? Most scientists on some level or another are driven by the desire to know what happened and why and how the world works.

You can see this in creationists. Most of them don't really do any serious research into geology, for instance. They think they already know what happened--the universe was made 6000 years ago, there was a global flood 4000 years ago, and that's why things are the way they are. They avoid the actual evidence because they think they know the answer already and they have a sneaking feeling that the evidence doesn't say what they think it should--which of course in the most stubborn of faith simply reinforces the notion that the evidence of the natural world can't be trusted.

[Fester Chugabrew]

I like microwaves and medicines and all the rest.

You err in assuming a creationist approach to science results in lack of curiosity and scientific progess. The same people who are given to believe the universe is intelligently designed have been instructed to fill the earth and subdue it, and to despise superstitions that men create for themselves. Microwaves and medicines are a fine thing when properly used. As with everyhting else that is intelligently designed, they have a purpose.

[ToryHeartland]

Never would I have thought that a balanced approach would be taken by the English.

It is indeed a balanced approach we have here--though not, I suspect, in the manner you intended.

Let me ping you to my posts #71 and #74 in this thread; it is very clear that few responders here have read beyond the misleading headline attached to the article when posted here. 'Creationism' is part of the history of science, though the material in the GCSE curriculum does point out it is still a political issue in the United States.

Here is a sample of GCSE Biology revision notes for students, from the BBC's website; it is not the ringing endorsement of creationism/ID that some seem to wish that it was.

------------------------------------------------

from http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/biology/variationandinheritance/3evolutionrev10.shtml

The theory of evolution and scientific debate

When Charles Darwin proposed his theory of evolution 150 years ago it was deeply controversial. Many people - including other scientists - were shocked or bitterly hostile to the idea. This was because:

* The theory of evolution of species undermined the religious belief in creation - the idea that god had made the earth and everything in it, just the way it is today.

* The thousands of millions of years necessary for evolution to take place contradicted current thinking about the age of the earth, which most scientists thought was only tens of millions of years old at most.

* The idea that species had evolved from earlier, different species contradicted people's instinctive assumption that organisms had always been the way they are now - that only apes can develop from apes and only humans from humans.

* The idea that humans were not created humans and could be related to some 'lesser' species was distasteful to some and considered blasphemy by others.

Just an unproven theory?

The debate on evolution continues even today. Anti-evolutionists point to the fact that the fossil record is incomplete and full of gaps, and to the existence of species such as the Nautilus mollusc or the Horseshoe crab which have not changed for millions of years. They argue it is just an unproven theory. Some fundamentalist religious groups, particularly in the USA, still campaign to have the study of evolution removed from the curriculum.

Scientists on the other hand, whilst agreeing the need to question any theory, point to the evidence supporting the idea of evolution.

* Geologists can now date rocks accurately, and confirm that the process of rock formation has been going on for 4.5 billion years - easily long enough to allow for the slow evolution of species by natural selection.

* The fossil record grows more complete all the time, and shows a clear sequence of change

* Advances in the science of genetics means we now have a thorough understanding of the mechanism of heredity and natural selection. Selective breeding by man of species such as dogs and many plants proves that changes in characteristics can be produced by genetic mutation and handed down.

The debate around evolution is a good example of how contentious science can be, and of how scientific evidence can be interpreted in different ways and used to support different points of view. The historical context in which a new scientific idea is proposed - eg the current state of scientific knowledge and prevailing religious beliefs - all help to determine whether the idea is adopted or rejected.

Discussion and debate is essential to science. What matters in science is to

1. Use the scientific method: first look objectively at ALL the evidence, then develop a theory that explains it as completely as possible, and

2. Keep an open mind to new possibilities, even when they seem to fly in the face of reason!

[From many - one.]

Nice example.