Posted on 10/05/2007 6:26:08 AM PDT by SubGeniusX
The teaching of evolution is becoming increasingly difficult in UK schools because of the rise of creationism, a leading scientist is warning. Head of science at London's Institute of Education Professor Michael Reiss says some teachers, fearful of entering the debate, avoid the subject totally.
This could leave pupils with gaps in their scientific knowledge, he says.
Prof Reiss says the rise of creationism is partly down to the large increase in Muslim pupils in UK schools.
He said: "The number of Muslim students has grown considerably in the last 10 to 20 years and a higher proportion of Muslim families do not accept evolutionary theory compared with Christian families.
"That's one reason why it's more of an issue in schools."
Prof Reiss estimates that one in 10 people in the UK now believes in literal interpretations of religious creation stories - whether they are based on the Bible or the Koran.
Many more teachers he met at scientific meetings were telling him they encountered more pupils with creationist views, he said.
"The days have long gone when science teachers could ignore creationism when teaching about origins."
Instead, teachers should tackle the issue head-on, whilst trying not to alienate students, he argues in a new book.
'Not equally valid'
"By not dismissing their beliefs, we can ensure that these students learn what evolutionary theory really says - and give everyone the understanding to respect the views of others," he added.
His book; Teaching about Scientific Origins: Taking Account of Creationism, gives science teachers advice on how to deal with the "dilemma".
He supports new government guidelines which say creationism should not be discussed in science classes unless it is raised by pupils.
But Prof Reiss argues that there is an educational value in comparing creationist ideas with scientific theories like Darwin's theory of evolution because they demonstrate how science, unlike religious beliefs, can be tested.
The scientist, who is also a Church of England priest, adds that any teaching should not give the impression that creationism and the theory of evolution are equally valid scientifically.
Dr Hilary Leevers, of the Campaign for Science and Engineering, said science teachers would be teaching evolution not creationism and so should not need a book to tell them how to "delicately handle controversy between a scientific theory and a belief".
"The author suggests that science teachers cannot ignore creationism when teaching origins, but the opposite is true," she said.
Teachers could discuss how creationism differed from scientific theory if a student brought up the subject, but any further discussion should occur in religious education lessons, she said.
A Department for Children, Schools and Families spokesman said it had recently published guidelines to teachers on the issue.
"Creationism and intelligent design are not scientific theories nor testable as scientific fact - and have no place in the science curriculum. "But we advise science teachers that when questions about creationism come up in lessons, it provides an opportunity to explain or explore what makes a scientific theory."
Hah! Disdain for the Christian view but accommodation of the Muslim. Spotlight on hypocrisy.
A One of them is honest and up front about the fact that their theory is based in religion, and the other tries to hide it by pretending to be science.
Bingo ! We have a winner !
Why must falsification criteria be specifically peer-reviewed? Why isn’t “a rabbit in the precambrian” valid as a falsification criteria? Is ID “empirically justified”?
The preponderance of evidence wins.
Isn’t that what scientific inquiry is all about?
"Scientific inquiry" is not conducted in grade school or high school classrooms, with the exceptions of things like science fair projects. What is conducted is science education. Students are provided with the results of scientific research, they do not actually do the research; they are not yet qualified.
And as for teaching "all other possible, contrary views" in grade school and high school -- that idea is silly. Think it through and you'll see why.
Because that draws a line in the sand. We're looking for empirical evidence/justifications for theories (falsification criteria gives us the tests for a theory)...best not to leave that out of the peer-review process.
Fail the test, fail the theory.
Fail to even have a test, even worse...
“LeTourneau was a firm believer in the effectiveness of practical instruction combined with classroom studies and, in 1946, he purchased an unused military hospital, accompanying land and buildings in Longview, Texas. There he established the LeTourneau Technical Institute to provide sound technical and mechanical training, traditional college courses, and TRAINING FOR MISSIONARY TECHNICIANS BASED ON THE PHILOSOPHY OF COMBINING WORK, EDUCATION AND CHRISTIAN TESTIMONY [emphasis added]. The LeTourneau Technical Institute became a college in its own right in 1961 and eventually gained university status to become LeTourneau University. LeTourneau University is still in operation today, offering liberal arts and engineering courses WITH A STRONG CHRISTIAN INFLUENCE [emphasis added].”
A creationist provided 70 % of the heavy equipment that helped win WWII. Dangerous! s/
I’d like someone explain how Darwinianism would have improved LeTourneau’s technical genius, for example. It would not have!
Both or neither. Not either-or.
First you wanted “published specific peer-reviewed falsification criteria” for evolutionary theory alone, and not for any other scientific theory. Now you’ll settle for it to be “refutable by any conceivable event”. Excellent, we’re in agreement. “Published specific peer review” is not necessary and never has been for any theory to be considered scientific.
Thanks for your time. I've got to get busy and make up for time lost now...
And only an idiot believes proof of such a negative is possible.
Belief in God is most certainly rational. Saying it's a fact is not.
Don't you wish!
I'm afraid that you'll have to cling to such fantasies considering that your pet theory isn't up to the test, though.
ping for later reading.
Submit such criteria for publication and peer review. You'll find as others have, however, that no such test for Evolutionary Theory is permitted to be published by the current regimes manning the gates of "science."
" Is ID “empirically justified”?"
Yes, ID has been shown, empirically, to explain all modern transgenic life forms (e.g. pigs with DNA modified to grow human hormones).
Based upon the assumption of common descent the idea of incremental random change over millions of years is easily tested by comparing two species that last shared a recent common ancestor a million years ago.
Neutral mutation theory would state the the majority of the changes in the DNA of these two species would be in non-Coding DNA that shows no conservation between lineages and is assumed therefore to have no function (94% of the human genome). Changes in DNA that does code for protein would predominantly be in the third codon position where it doesn’t usually change the amino acid coded for. And most actual coding substitutions will be conservative substitutions or substitutions in part of the Amino Acid chain of the protein that mearly has a structural role.
When comparing two species that shared a common ancestor a million years ago and another that shared a common ancestor a half million years ago, one would find the same distribution of changes (mostly neutral changes in non-coding DNA, lots of changes in the third position, coding changes that are conservative, and a few actual coding differences) but roughly half as many changes in the species that only diverged from each other for half the amount of time.
It is called Phylogenetic analysis, and recent genomic information has tested the idea of incremental random changes over millions of years, and the theory of evolution through natural selection is a very good explanation for the data.
Clearly you're correct. But if LeTourneau had operated on the principle that laying on of hands would triple the strength of steel his machines wouldn't have worked too well.
The question is whether or not to teach children to confuse scientific theory and belief.
And the answer is, we should not.
And that’s one reason ID is not a “scientific” theory, one that can be disproved. To prove it false would require a disproof of God. The fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative is a logical fallacy
Nonsense. That's like saying that digging through a junkyard proves that cars self-evolved because there were incremental changes over the years in various models. Utter rubbish.
Moreover, in both cases above such an "explanation" fails to explain things such as great leaps in technology/biology, DNA code skipping generations, irreducible complexity, etc.
The cars didn't self-evolve. Neither did the critters.
No, the above just shows no understanding of ID.
ID is disproved in any system for which there is no bias. One need not disprove God to show that there is no bias in a vacuum, ergo, one need not need to disprove God to falsify ID.
Moreover, ID *is* a scientific theory because it is the only theory that explains all modern transgenic animals (e.g. pigs that grow human hormones in labs).
Are the teachers qualified to present the actual special creation position? Or, are they restricted to the talking points provided by evolutionists?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.