BBC - This just in

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


Discuss.

I have no problem with creationism being discussed as long as it is known it is not a competing scientific theory. I've had a couple of classes, albeit at college, that discussed creationism vs. evolutionary theory - quite an interesting discussion. I was amazed at how many people actually dismissed creationism. However, one lady received a deduction in her grade for loving god and jesus and not talking about such "satanic nonsense".

[Victus]

It sounds like they're not actually teaching ID per say, but rather teaching evolution via fossil records and then saying, as an aside, something to the effect of, "and some people even believe X... *class laughs hysterically* ".

There is nothing objective about the claim that human life is "too complicated to have developed without a designer." Is there a quantitative complication scale? The claim is unscientific to begin with, and only gains strength by appealing to an emotional attachment to the idea of a creator, and relying on the public's misunderstanding if what a scientific theory represents. It's not science, so don't teach it in a public science class. Teach it to your own kids at home if you feel compelled to do so, or send them to a private school.

StillSurviving wrote

There is nothing objective about the claim that human life is "too complicated to have developed without a designer." Is there a quantitative complication scale? The claim is unscientific to begin with, and only gains strength by appealing to an emotional attachment to the idea of a creator, and relying on the public's misunderstanding if what a scientific theory represents. It's not science, so don't teach it in a public science class. Teach it to your own kids at home if you feel compelled to do so, or send them to a private school.

so would there be a seperate class for each theory? surly one teacher would not teach all theories, they would be biast towards the one they beleive.
whilst im all for it, home schooling would also lead to parents being biast to what they beleive, there is no answer but one thing i know for sure is kids these days might see through the lies of religion and in years to come, with any luck, religion might truly be history!

[a different tim]

I'm actually quite surprised at Vardy's position (footnote at the bottom). He specifically states "one is a theory, the other is a faith position". So what's his justification for including ID in science classes in his schools?

I'd want to see the curriculum before I comment on OCR. If it's part of historical context, fine. Otherwise, out with it.

[a different tim]

Update - heard a bit more about it on the radio on the way back from work. The OCR guy said it's historical context, "to show what a great leap forward Darwinism was for science" and "to show that it [Darwinism] provides a better explanation for where fossils come from". Dawkins is concerned (I think rightly given some of the faith schools we have here) that some schools and teachers will interpret it to mean they can endorse creationism in science class. OCR guy counters that students will be expected to demonstrate an understanding of Darwnism in the exam, and that high achieving pupils may further explain why Darwinism was a gerat leap forward. He also mentions, correctly, that these students will have encountered creationism outside the science class.

Hmmmmm.....

as a tangent--anyone catch any of the BBC produced walking with ..series?

THe latest one was sea monsters--fantastic series about a time travelling zoologist and his crew diving in the eight most lethal seas of all time.

Fantastic graphics and wonderful information developed in an exceptionallty palateble way.

[a different tim]

Yes, but there's been one since - "walking with monsters - life before dinosaurs" (cambrian, ordovician, permian).

I like them but I prefer the original "walking with dinosaurs/beasts" that doesn't have the time travelling zoologist but just narrates it like a David Attenborough documentary or something. I guess the actors are cheaper than the CGI. I'm pleased to say that "life before dinosaurs" returned to this format.

I feel I should add that the makers admit to being a little...creative in their interpretation of some often rather incomplete fossils, and especially about the reconstructions of animal behaviour.

I also enjoyed "the future's wild" where they just cut out any pretence and made a bunch of shit up.

I really liked "Walking with Cavemen". I showed it to my intro Biology class and they liked it too.

a different tim wrote

I like them but I prefer the original "walking with dinosaurs/beasts" that doesn't have the time travelling zoologist but just narrates it like a David Attenborough documentary or something. I guess the actors are cheaper than the CGI. I'm pleased to say that "life before dinosaurs" returned to this format.

I feel I should add that the makers admit to being a little...creative in their interpretation of some often rather incomplete fossils, and especially about the reconstructions of animal behaviour.

I also enjoyed "the future's wild" where they just cut out any pretence and made a bunch of shit up.

I can't stand those shows. Just the thought that people watch them and think they are legitimate. It's like handing power to any preacher with half a brain who can see that they're taking liberties. Then there's the painful writing and acting. And they're spreading the idea that evolution is somehow predictable.

*cringe*

At least the caveman one was a bit closer to making believable leaps from anthropology and the fossil record.

It should be confined to religious teaching, rather than in biology.

Well said Marquis. Providing a "well rounded education" is just a friggin pathetic way to disguise anti-evolution sentiment. Idiots, idiots, idiots.

Marquis de Sade wrote

It should be confined to religious teaching, rather than in biology.

I disagree actually. I think they shoudl teach Intelligent design in schools, I have no problem with that.

It's the idea that intelliegent design is an actual scientific theory--or the codicil that it gets in on that states that evolution is not proven.

If science is taught honestly and openly--if it is taught well --it is immune to ID.

It's only if ID is taught dishonestly--if the bases for it are not demonstrated in context with reason that it gains its strength.

[a different tim]

whoneedscience wrote

I can't stand those shows. Just the thought that people watch them and think they are legitimate. It's like handing power to any preacher with half a brain who can see that they're taking liberties. Then there's the painful writing and acting. And they're spreading the idea that evolution is somehow predictable.

*cringe*

At least the caveman one was a bit closer to making believable leaps from anthropology and the fossil record.

Oh, I don't like them for scientific reasons. It's clear that they do take liberties as you say.

I like them because they have dinosaurs!!