Should creationism be taught in British classrooms?

The New Statesman ^ | 04/11/2010 | Michael Reiss

[SeekAndFind]

FYI, the author, of this article, Michael Reiss, was forced out of his position as director of communications at the Royal Society 18 months ago because he said that creationist and ID views should be treated critically but respectfully, when raised by students in science classes.

Reiss’ sacking has been perhaps the most public demonstration of an Expelled-like phenomenon in Britain to date.

[Woebama]

No, it shouldn’t. The Bible should be taught in British classrooms.

[MsLady]

There is actually more evidence to back up creationism then there is evolution. Never, ever, ever, does chaos create order. You need more faith to believe in evolution(everything is just an accident) than creationism.

[SeekAndFind]

Actually, Reiss appears to be a free-floating theistic evolutionist, has not backed down from his original position. However, his reformulation is quite interesting, as it now rests on a distinction between what one teaches and what one teaches about in science classes.

He is clearly making the point that the classroom is not about indoctrination, and so one can teach about creationism without ‘teaching’ it per se as dogma.

You can teach ABOUT something, critquing or defending aspects of it for instance without requiring students to believe it one way or the other.

[Woebama]

You can teach ABOUT something, critquing or defending aspects of it for instance without requiring students to believe it one way or the other.
___________________________________________________________

Exactly right. I’m intending to homeschool and will teach my daughter about Darwin as a theory with support and current controversy. Am not going to send her into the world unequipped to discuss and understand the ideas that drive it.

[Da_Shrimp]

No, there really isn’t. The Stratigraphic Record does not match the events outlined in Genesis. Sorry.

[Woebama]

I also will of course teach the Biblical creation account. None of this self-created moderate theory. Present the alternate idea and . . . next lesson.

[UK_Jeffersonian]

To some people's incredulity and others' satisfaction, creationism's influence is growing across the globe.

BS. Is there any point in reading further?

[Tax-chick]

British schools have the same problems as ours: discipline problems, p.c. kowtowing to gays and Moslems (oddly, both ;-), failure to teach basic skills, grade inflation, etc.

The argument over Darwinism vs. alternatives is just a play-fight to distract the people from the almost-complete collapse of the system. If students can’t read or add, it doesn’t matter much what else the curriculum includes.

[Non-Sequitur]

Add astrology and alchemy while you’re at it.

[SeekAndFind]

BS. Is there any point in reading further?

Well, we'd like to know why the statement that creationism's influence is growing across the globe is BS.

[kosciusko51]

The problem is that creationism and ID run afoul of the basic presupposition of philosophical materialism, i.e. all there is a matter. This is also a problem for theistic evolutionary thinking.

Modern evolutionary thought do not allow for the supernatural. Yes, there are some theistic evos who spout the "God as a watchmaker" stance, but that is in direct opposition to Richard Dawkins, Eugenie Scott, and the rest of the evolutionist watchdogs. These watchdogs want evolution to be true so that God would be a lie.

Also, while there are those who will talk about all of the mechanics that are supposedly revealed by evolutionary theory, the cannot explain how life started. By ignoring this crucial foundation piece, they prop their theory on massive amounts of speculation and conjecture.

[MsLady]

It doesn’t really matter to me, if God says it, it is. Why should I believe fallible man? Does man suddenly have all the answers? I don’t think so. There is no solid evidence for stratigraphic record, it’s all up to interpretation, man is fallible and the farther back you go, the less reliable the information. The world wide flood for one thing would have disturbed much. I saw a documentary done a few years back that says it does go along with what the bible says. I’ll just stick with what God says.

[kosciusko51]

And global warming and Keynesian economics.

[cookcounty]

" ..... there is a real difference between teaching something and teaching about something."

Bingo. I wish the paranoid "scientists" who dominate the field of science education in the United States had the beginning of a clue about this.

[goodusername]

“Never, ever, ever, does chaos create order. “

—I’m not sure what you mean by “chaos creating order”, but order and complexity arise spontaneously in the chemical world all the time. Otherwise, chemistry would be a rather worthless and boring subject (albeit much easier). Ever seen snowflakes (an increase in order), or rust (an increase in complexity Fe + O2 -> Fe2O3)?

[cookcounty]

"The Stratigraphic Record does not match the events outlined in Genesis. Sorry.

So clever. The IDer's are lumped as Creationists, yet whenever one wants to criticize those conveniently dumped into the same pot, one begins by setting them all up as YECers. Sloppy, sloppy thinking. Actually, it isn't even thinking, it's emoting.

[Da_Shrimp]

I didn’t think my reply suggested that. I have no problem with ID-ers. The ID just took a long time, from our POV.

[Da_Shrimp]

Your opinion and that's fair enough, of course.

No real evidence of a global flood, though.

Peace, anyway. I have no real argument with you, we just look at things completely differently and will never see eye to eye.