Creationism to be taught in UK schools

[Haller]

we can't teach the History of Science in History.

That's where I was taught it at school. Best place for it (and the best lessons I had at school). It should be taught, partly because the stories of, say, Kepler and Newton and Darwin are capable of inspiring interest in science and a questioning approach.

But including it in science is akin to insisting that Holocaust denial should be taught alongside the Second World War.

One other thing that worries me is the use of the word 'Darwinism' - which I've heard some education minister using in this context. The word is 'evolution'. By attaching it to one person, and giving it an 'ism' implies that it's an option but not an established fact. It's like talking about the Earth going round the Sun as Copernicanism, and it fits nicely into that Wedge.

 

[nino_savatte]

As if we needed more proof that we are being culturally dominated by the US, then this happens. Creationism is not science and should not be taught in GCSE Science. I can see that once Creationism finds its way into the classroom, ID won't be far behind.

 

[nino_savatte]

Reading the Wedge Strategy (see link on previous page) it's pretty clear that this is part of a well-funded and organised campaign to instill cultural conservatism in general. The point of attacking scientific materialism is to undermine rational thought, to faciliate their cultural warfare propaganda.

We can see how well it's worked in the US, and doing the same stuff in the UK is explicitly part of their agenda. nuLabour are serving their interests well.

Absolutement! Any remaining notions of us being culturally independent of the US have been dashed on the rocks.

 

[Fong]

"But with regard to the material world, we can at least go so far as this--
we can perceive that events are brought about not by insulated
interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular case, but by the
establishment of general laws."
Charles Darwin

when I was a girl, I was taught the history of science in my first year (year 7 now). we learnt about the alchemists, how religious authorities of the day quoshed scientific progress, about arab 'al chemia' and multi-lingual european 'alchemists', about ancient Egyptian science, about Imhotep, whose surgical techniques were way ahead of 17th Century European surgery, we were taught about the dark ages of Christianity, and the Renaissance with Newton, and 'science wars' which either speeded up progress, or held it back, depending on the argument, or discipline (the acceptance of calculus in Europe was slowed down for nearly a century because of math-'wars').

i feel that learning the 'History of Science' is an important introduction to Science in Schools
- it makes it appear exciting - full of blood, gore, murder, suppression of scientific proveable truths.
- it represents the triumph of logic and scientific methods of proof over superstition.
- it gets the kids interested and stops it from being 'boring'.
- it show the progression of critical theories and how, throughout the ages, religious, international and national state politics, business concerns , or otherwise, have affected, and continue to effect the development of science

we can't teach the History of Science in RE. we can't teach the History of Science in History. we can also teach of Creationism in RE, but it has a cross-over to Science too, in that it was Creationist Theorists were fought throughout the middle ages by emerging European and Middle Eastern Scientific Theorists.

the history of the Promulgators of Creationist Theorists is that of scientific suppression. Kids need to know about this so they can see what an archaic draconic theory Creationism is, but they need to know about it to understand evolutionary theory. to leave it out would be wrong. i don't think this introduction is anything other than an attempt to contextualise scientific progress. Dawin developed a theory of evolution which contradicted archaic beliefs in divine creation, which makes learning about creationist theory of scientific import.

just my two penn'orth

While I tend to agree with the principle of teaching an historical backdrop in science, I think you attach the idea of "Creationism" on an early age where it wasn't ever thought of as a scientific idea, it was a religous idea, then and now. Now it is still a religous idea, hidden the terms of scientific rhetoric, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a religous idea and has nothing to do with science at all.

Shouldn't be spoken of in Science classes at all.

This is purely a religous idea, and should be discussed in religous classes, where they should discuss how religon is dealing with present day interest in science and how it is attempting to adapt to fit the modern mind.

That is a religous discussion and has nothing to do with science.

 

[tangentlama]

it has everything to do with science. the list of scientific martyrs to political theistic oppression throughout history reads like a list of modern nobel prize winners to me, but again, remind me, we are talking 14-16 year olds here, being taught OCR GCSE Level Biology, aren't we?

since no one has given an example of the context in which 'creationism' will be taught in OCR GCSE Biology, and i will use this term in quotes from now on, because when I use it, I'm referring to and including it's own historical development to date, (which does belong in an RE lesson).

my guess is 'it' will be taught as part of the background context from which evolutionary theory emerged. more than one natural historian/botanist emerged from a clergy/church related background. surely 'creationism' and religious theories of divine creation are necessary to learn about.

no-one's suggesting that children are being taught about 'this' to indoctrinate or set them against science, or is that what you're all suggesting? if so. can i have some proof please.!

 

[Haller]

my guess is 'it' will be taught as part of the background context from which evolutionary theory emerged...no-one's suggesting that children are being taught about 'this' to indoctrinate or set them against science, or is that what you're all suggesting?

You're absolutely right, of course. It is being explicitly stated that this is how it fits into the curriculum.

The concern is that this development does not exist in isolation. It arises in the context of a fundamentalist attempt to open up a 'debate' so that science can be attacked.

 

[Aldebaran]

of course creationism should be taught in schools

Why? Do you claim that Belief in The Spaghetti Monster should be part of a school's curriculum? If not, why not? What more value has "ID/Creationism over the Spaghetti Monster?

but the fact is most of the world believes in creationism in some shape or form, except for a tiny academic elite in the west

" academic elite" in "the West"?
I'm "academic elite" in the Middle East and I find it no less then disgusting that an idea of merely fanatic Christian origin is treated by the some part of the "academic elite" in "the West" as if it could rely on support of and value in science.

to ignore it would be a disservice, as long as its made clear that its only theory not fully established fact ( as is evolutionary theory lets face it)

Correction: It is not a theory. It is wild idea based on a wildly off-base interpretation of a section of Christian theology.

salaam.

 

[smokedout]

was just about to post saying that y'all right and maybe it should be left to RE

then i read tangentlama's post and i guess i agree with that

to compare creationism to holocaust denial is nonsense, holocaust deniers represent a tiny clique of muppets whove been around for the last 50 years or so, creationism has been the dominant (and i didnt say scienitifc) paradigm in almost all cultures since the dawn of history

to teach kids about the origins of science and the enlightenment then you simply cant ignore creationsim, particualrly with relevance to the rejection of creationsim infavour of empiricism

theres also an argument to be made that creationism is relevent to psychology which may/may not be a science depending on your point of view.

and creationism IS a theory, what else is it, it may not be a scientific theory but it is most defintely a theory

philosophy and science are beginning to overlap more and ore with quantum theory, string theory etc, and more than one scientist is signing up to the idea of intelligent design (which is just contemporary creationism in many ways[

QUOTE]of 'tiny academic elites' - only they aren't really that tiny are they? The majority of people in the west would subscribe to evolution over creationism[/QUOTE] )

i think youd be surpised, and whilst the catholic church and others may be coming round to evolution I find the idea thats there is a dominant, omniprescent patriarchal deity watching our every move and then judging us to eternal damnation should he see fit far more damaging psychologically to children then the idea that some kind of intelligence may have been involved in our development (was aliens innit), and they get that crap in assembly everyday in a lot of schools

 

[Fong]

it has everything to do with science. the list of scientific martyrs to political theistic oppression throughout history reads like a list of modern nobel prize winners to me.

This is nothing like those examples, or your previous examples.

Those were examples of REAL science being hampered by the church, of having progress slowed by dogma.

This is not REAL science. This is Religon, and as such should be taught in religous studies. I don't see why a science lesson would have this as a part of it, other then to show what 'bad' science is.

I am not really sure that teaching people the wrong way to do things is a good idea. We don't teach kids the wrong spellings of words, we teach them the right spellings, we don't teach them that 4 + 4 = 9.

So why should we teach them anything about religous dogma that is entirely incorrect? Why teach them a style of psuedo-science that is nothing more then a charade played out for people that understand little of 'real' science but the terms they heard on programmes like Tomorrow's World.

 

[Fong]

was just about to post saying that y'all right and maybe it should be left to RE

then i read tangentlama's post and i guess i agree with that

to compare creationism to holocaust denial is nonsense, holocaust deniers represent a tiny clique of muppets whove been around for the last 50 years or so, creationism has been the dominant (and i didnt say scienitifc) paradigm in almost all cultures since the dawn of history

to teach kids about the origins of science and the enlightenment then you simply cant ignore creationsim, particualrly with relevance to the rejection of creationsim infavour of empiricism

theres also an argument to be made that creationism is relevent to psychology which may/may not be a science depending on your point of view.

and creationism IS a theory, what else is it, it may not be a scientific theory but it is most defintely a theory

philosophy and science are beginning to overlap more and ore with quantum theory, string theory etc, and more than one scientist is signing up to the idea of intelligent design (which is just contemporary creationism in many ways of 'tiny academic elites' - only they aren't really that tiny are they? The majority of people in the west would subscribe to evolution over creationism

i think youd be surpised, and whilst the catholic church and others may be coming round to evolution I find the idea thats there is a dominant, omniprescent patriarchal deity watching our every move and then judging us to eternal damnation should he see fit far more damaging psychologically to children then the idea that some kind of intelligence may have been involved in our development (was aliens innit), and they get that crap in assembly everyday in a lot of schools

Yes but what has teaching our kids an historical or socialogical background have to do with a science lesson?

To me this should be debated in Religous lessons, so that people can understand it, it should be taught in political lesson so that people can understand its context, it can be taught in psychology if its deemed worthy.

But it isn't science. It doesn't belong in a science lesson.

 

[tangentlama]

Why? Do you claim that Belief in The Spaghetti Monster should be part of a school's curriculum? If not, why not? What more value has "ID/Creationism over the Spaghetti Monster?

LOL urban's Spaghetti Monster rides again!

" academic elite" in "the West"?
I'm "academic elite" in the Middle East and I find it no less then disgusting that an idea of merely fanatic Christian origin is treated by the some part of the "academic elite" in "the West" as if it could rely on support of and value in science.

"Creationism" isn't supported or valued by science or academia in the West as i understand it. in my experience, and this is how Scientists who taught me presented "it", the Early Western Church's attitudes " signified the "Dark Age" - suppressed scientific progression - murdered it's brightest and best, and since they actively destroyed or removed from circulation, mankinds' past storehouse of knowledge of science and-knowledge, then yes, it's important to understand the effect religion has had on science.
and then there's a pressing need to discuss bio-ethics too, even at GCSE Biology level.

Did Islam have a similar effect on Arabic sciences, or did it help that scientific knowledge to spread? i'm interested to hear the tale.

*settles down, Arabian Night-style*

 

[Aldebaran]

to compare creationism to holocaust denial is nonsense, holocaust deniers represent a tiny clique of muppets whove been around for the last 50 years or so

There are litteraly millions of Holocaust deniers. So why should Holocaust Denial not be part of a school curriculum?

to teach kids about the origins of science and the enlightenment then you simply cant ignore creationsim, particualrly with relevance to the rejection of creationsim infavour of empiricism

I was educated wiithouth some vaguely Christianity based nonsense thrown at me as "scientific" or even as an "idea". I didn't even know this ridiculous idea existed until I frequented US based message boards.
Do you claim my education had some very substantial gaps in it?

theres also an argument to be made that creationism is relevent to psychology which may/may not be a science depending on your point of view.

There is no value for psychology in this ridiculous idea then as case example of gullibility of masses leading to mass brain washing leading to defence of a ridiculous idea by gullible brainwashed and under- or wrongly educated people.
You can elevate every single one of such ideas to that level. So where do you put the limit on how many of them should be part of a school's curriculum?
For example: Do you think every single US Made Sect should be part of school curriculum? They pop up like mushrooms... How do you select which ones to study and which not?

and creationism IS a theory, what else is it, it may not be a scientific theory but it is most defintely a theory

Then the Pink Unicorn is also a theory. Same for the Spaghetti Monster. Same for me being God. Same for Hitler having absolutely correct policies and ideas.

I find the idea thats there is a dominant, omniprescent patriarchal deity watching our every move and then judging us to eternal damnation should he see fit far more damaging psychologically to children then the idea that some kind of intelligence may have been involved in our development (was aliens innit), and they get that crap in assembly everyday in a lot of schools

1. ID/Scientology is nothing else then covert religion and a very twisted, incorrect version of it at that.
2. Is religion part of science curriculum in the education system of your country?

salaam.

 

[nino_savatte]

Originally Posted by smokedout
and creationism IS a theory, what else is it, it may not be a scientific theory but it is most defintely a theory

Creationism is not a theory as it is not based on a knowledge or understanding of science. It is a matter of faith alone.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

It might be very useful though, to introduce a specific element into the school curriculum teaching children to recognise when they're being subjected to *any* propaganda techniques.

 

[tangentlama]

It might be very useful though, to introduce a specific element into the school curriculum teaching children to recognise when they're being subjected to *any* propaganda techniques.

i agree. i learnt about propaganda that in english literature - a small amount mainly on media and advertising at O-level, and more in depth about - rhetoric, polemic, religious, war, political etc at A-level. isn't it part of the curriculum anymore?

i guess my education was only as brilliant as my teachers' ingeniuity and lesson-planning ability. (thanks to mrs. hubbard - i'll remember her forever)
i guess english literature was one lesson where senstitive socio-sexual politics had a chance to be openly discussed. i remember one debate on the pros and cons of contraception where i had to speak 'for', and could get away with saying 'fucking' in the classroom in context *g*

 

[Aldebaran]

LOL urban's Spaghetti Monster rides again!

And even brought in by a (former) US Message Board Reader I once offered to help develop the Theology of the Religion of the Spaghetti Monster.

"Creationism" isn't supported or valued by science or academia in the West as i understand it.

It is by some in the USA, most certainly. As for Europe, at my EU Alma Mater (which is Catholic) there is no way anyone would "support" this nonsense.

A lot can be written (and is written) aout the influence of Rome on the European scientists, especially in the Middle Ages (which was my major when I studied European history.) Yet despite this sometimes direct intervention the scientists still undertook their studies and wrote their thesis and conclusions down and hence passed it on.

and then there's a pressing need to discuss bio-ethics too, even at GCSE Biology level.

A completely unrelated discussion. You can approach that from religious point of view or from purely ethical point of view, while "creationism" has no "view" but its own.

Islam encourages every form of study and declares that "studying is better then praying".
Nevertheless there are within the wide rage of what is Islam in practice some who have some weird, self-serving ideas. For example you could hear some parents (even supported by an imam) declare that it is prohibited for girls to follow biology lessons at school.
While some of these misled parent might honestly think it is "religion" it has nothing to see with that. It is nothing but a cultural aspect of patriarchism. (If girls learn that the Y chromosone is responsible for the gender of a child, how can men continue to blame women for not having sons and hence use that argument to divorce or to take a second wife?)

*settles down, Arabian Night-style*

You should read Arabic (including pre-Islam) poetry to come in the right mood

salaam.

 

[In Bloom]

There definately needs to be more philosophy and history of science taught in schools (how theories develop, what is a theory, stuff like that) and you can't leave creationism out of something like that, it is too significant, both historically and as a contemporary example of bad science.

 

[smokedout]

I was educated wiithouth some vaguely Christianity based nonsense thrown at me as "scientific" or even as an "idea". I didn't even know this ridiculous idea existed until I frequented US based message boards.

what youd never heard of creationism until you read some US message boards, had no-one ever mentioned the idea of god before, didnt you study classical greek, persian, roman, vedic, islamic, jewish, christian texts at all

Do you think every single US Made Sect should be part of school curriculum?

of course not, but creationsim in one form or another is pretty universal

i note no-ones picked up on the point of intelligent design

and what about jungian analysis, modern quantum physics and classical mysticism are beginning to diverge in surpising ways

im not a sceintologist by any means, the aliens quip was a gag, although i think its just as believable as the bible or any other creationist theories - and yes the spaghetti mionster is a theory, not a particulalrly strong one, but its still a theory (tho lets not get caught up in semantics)

having said that maybe tangentlama's mrs hubbard could shed some light on things!

 

[Aldebaran]

Can you explain to this historian what is "historical" about this ID/Creationism nonsense but the fact that it is clear nonsense and gets swallowed by some gullible US Made who fell for the US Made PR machine including some US Made Movie "stars" supporting it?

If that is "history" I must go back to school and review my whole education.

salaam.

 

[nino_savatte]

i note no-ones picked up on the point of intelligent design

Actually, I have but you must have skipped past my post.

 

[In Bloom]

Can you explain to this historian what is "historical" about this ID/Creationism nonsense but the fact that it is clear nonsense and gets swallowed by some gullible US Made who fell for the US Made PR machine including some US Made Movie "stars" supporting it?

If that is "history" I must go back to school and review my whole education.

salaam.

Because it didn't start in the US, for a start. Creationism as it exists today emerged as a reaction to the perceived "Godlessness" of science, it's an example of how new theories (such as evolution) that come into conflict with established ideas (such as the then dominant "gap theory" multiple creationism) are often bitterly opposed without any good reason.

 

[tangentlama]

i note no-ones picked up on the point of intelligent design....
having said that maybe tangentlama's mrs hubbard could shed some light

lots probably. she was brilliant

Actually, I have but you must have skipped past my post.

actually, i have too, in darwin's words: "insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular case* i thought that was what ID was

 

[nino_savatte]

actually, i have too, in darwin's words: "insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular case* i thought that was what ID was

That's pretty much it.

Wikipedia expands on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

 

[Fong]

what youd never heard of creationism until you read some US message boards, had no-one ever mentioned the idea of god before, didnt you study classical greek, persian, roman, vedic, islamic, jewish, christian texts at all



of course not, but creationsim in one form or another is pretty universal

i note no-ones picked up on the point of intelligent design

and what about jungian analysis, modern quantum physics and classical mysticism are beginning to diverge in surpising ways

im not a sceintologist by any means, the aliens quip was a gag, although i think its just as believable as the bible or any other creationist theories - and yes the spaghetti mionster is a theory, not a particulalrly strong one, but its still a theory (tho lets not get caught up in semantics)

having said that maybe tangentlama's mrs hubbard could shed some light on things!

Didn't you just defeat your own argument?

"Creationism in one form or another is pretty universal.

What you actually mean is, a belief in a god that created us is universal.

Yes, its called religon. Naming it something else and pretending that its science, is rubbish, it is religon.

This entire idea only exists because in America education and religon are supposedly seperate, and there are christian groups that know indoctrination at an early age is the best way to continue a religon. They have never liked the fact that the schools have kept religon out and thus allowed generations to grow up without being brainwashed all day long at home and school.

What that has to do with what we teach our children in the UK is something that needs to be asked of those that think it should.

 

[Aldebaran]

what youd never heard of creationism until you read some US message boards

No. Had no clue about this weird US Creation.

had no-one ever mentioned the idea of god before, didnt you study classical greek, persian, roman, vedic, islamic, jewish, christian texts at all

1. What on earth is the relation between this and the first part of your sentence?
2. What on earth is its relation with the ID/Creationism nonsense?
3. Yes, with exclusion of the vedic, I am familiar with all that. What has that to do with the ID/Creationism nonsense?

creationsim in one form or another is pretty universal

No it is not. The nonsense spread by the ID/Creationism believers is not "universal". It is a created nonsense of their creation.

note no-ones picked up on the point of intelligent design

They should. It is exactly the same in an other dress (or suit, we are not getting sexist here).

and what about jungian analysis, modern quantum physics and classical mysticism are beginning to diverge in surpising ways

In science there is nothing surprising, as one alsways expect new discoveries, insights, views and theories to devellop.

i think its just as believable as the bible or any other creationist theories

Ignoring the fact that you it seems to escape you completely that when reading teh Bible you do not read "creationism"... Where do you place the Bible in a science class?

And no, the Spaghetty Monster is not a theory at all. It is a - quite sympathetic, amusing and witty - IDEA.

salaam.

 

[tangentlama]

You should read Arabic (including pre-Islam) poetry to come in the right mood

salaam

a quick tangent then
this is from Al-Abbas

My heart has become capable of every form:
it is a pasture for gazelles and a convent for Christian monks,
And a temple for idols and the pilgrim’s Ka’ba and the
tables of the Tora and the book of the Koran.
I follow the religion of Love: whatever way Love’s
camels take, that is my religion and my faith.

ahh, me!. *sighs*

shalom

 

[smokedout]

i think were at crossed purposes here, to my mind, and i sincerely hope the mind of those involved in plqanning GCSE science creationism is simply the belief that we were 'created' by something other than evolution, be that allah, jehova, space aliens, cronos or gaia

didn't almost all major belief systems begin under the assupmtion that we were created by a god (or gods and godesses), and isnt that from where the gods derived their power over man

the jungian analysis would suggest that the greek/sumarian/babylonian gods are aspects of human archetypes, representing different models of behaviour/civilisation etc and that creationist myths are metephors for attempting to under human history/pre-history

in other words an attempt by primitive cultures to explain the workings of the world around them

which is in many ways pre-science, because surely science is an attempt to explain the world around us

the hteologians were the carriers of knoweldge largely until the enlightment and the birth of empirical science, but the study of science didnt begin with newton et al, they were just continuing an attempt at understanding the world that had been going on forever

they took it in a new, more logical direction, and devised empiricism as a way to accurately measure what was going on, but should science dismiss all thought before that, or should it acknowledge it as part of how science came to mean what it is today

the more i think about it the more i think it should be taught in science, purely to stimulate debate about what is the nature of science itsself

largely because its an interesting debate as the fact were sitting here on a saturday afternoon discussing it proves

anything that engages kids and encourages them to think and analyse things can only be a good thing, science bored the shit out of me at school, and i really regret not paying not paying more attention because now it fascinates me

but all we got was periodic tabels and dissected frogs

 

[Bernie Gunther]

1) A debate about the nature of science isn't science, it's philosophy. A debate about the history of science isn't science, it's history.

2) There is a distinction between religious creation theories and the specific and fairly recent movement orginating in the US which is pushing intelligent design and other ideologies generally described as 'creationist' as part of a concerted programme explicitly designed to instill cultural conservatism.

 

[smokedout]

There is a distinction between religious creation theories and the specific and fairly recent movement orginating in the US which is pushing intelligent design and other ideologies generally described as 'creationist' as part of a concerted programme explicitly designed to instill cultural conservatism.

thats true, but it remains to be seen which particular brand of creationsim is being referred to

A debate about the nature of science isn't science, it's philosophy. A debate about the history of science isn't science, it's history

aslo true, but to my knowledge they don't teach philosophy in most schools, and could you really claim to have a rounded knowledge of science without debating what it actually means

A debate about the history of science isn't science, it's history.

same applies really, to gain an understanding of a subject then shouldnt it be placed in its historical context, and isnt the most appropriate and logical place to do this on the science syllabus?

as a (crass) example, would you wish kids to only study the equations of eimstein, or would you rather they were taught something of the man, his opinions and the history of the time in which he lived, purely as a way of rounding out the subject and placing his scientific ideas in context (and also perhaps just to make it a bit more interesting and relevent)

 

[Aldebaran]

Because it didn't start in the US, for a start. Creationism as it exists today emerged as a reaction to the perceived "Godlessness" of science, it's an example of how new theories (such as evolution) that come into conflict with established ideas (such as the then dominant "gap theory" multiple creationism) are often bitterly opposed without any good reason.

1. Yes it is a US invention to push this nonsense as "science" and a "scientific theory" with the aim to make it and accepted standard practice to indoctrinate children with this nonsense.
2. All the rest is irrelevant. If you wish you can lead every single component of every single idea back to other, formerly existing ideas since nothing is created in a vacuum (= evolution of the brain in using its ability to reason in action, isn't it).

salaam.