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.
No, it shouldn’t. The Bible should be taught in British classrooms.
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.
Add astrology and alchemy while you’re at it.
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.
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.
As part of an elective Theology course? YES!
I see the creationist camel has its nose under the FR tent again.
Just when I was getting ready to cough up a few hundred for the Freepathon.
Let me be the first to say...’This belongs in Religion’.
Why teach creationism or evolution? Why not simply teach science?