Creationism in UK schools

[8236]

Despair.... It's sweeping the UK now aswell.

Revealed: rise of creationism in UK schools

Dozens of schools are using creationist teaching materials condemned by the government as "not appropriate to support the science curriculum", the Guardian has learned.
The packs promote the creationist alternative to Darwinian evolution called intelligent design and the group behind them said 59 schools are using the information as "a useful classroom resource".

A teacher at one of the schools said it intended to use the DVDs to present intelligent design as an alternative to Darwinism. Nick Cowan, head of chemistry at Bluecoat school, in Liverpool, said: "Just because it takes a negative look at Darwinism doesn't mean it is not science. I think to critique Darwinism is quite appropriate."

But the government has made it clear that "neither intelligent design nor creationism are recognised scientific theories". The chairman of the parliamentary science and technology select committee, the Lib Dem MP Phil Willis, said he was horrified that the packs were being used in schools.

"I am flabbergasted that any head of science would give credence to this creationist theory and be prepared to put it alongside Darwinism," he said. "Treating it as an alternative centralist theory alongside Darwinism in science lessons is deeply worrying."​

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1957858,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1

 

[Nienna]

They are presenting both creationism AND Darwinism. If Darwinism is so irrefutable, what are they afraid of?

 

[jillian]

They are presenting both creationism AND Darwinism. If Darwinism is so irrefutable, what are they afraid of?

Because it isn't science... it belongs in a theology class. Public school classes are not for proselytizing.

 

[8236]

Because it isn't science... it belongs in a theology class.

Touche (with an accent)

 

[dilloduck]

People look to science and religion for answers. If you are not allowed to teach religion in schools, are kids getting a fair shot? Some of the most highly regarded Universities in the world teach theology. If you dont'y want them taught in the same class, at least allow kids the opportunity to learn it in school somewhere.

Not everyone wants thier kid brainwashed with silly science either.

 

[Avatar4321]

Because it isn't science... it belongs in a theology class. Public school classes are not for proselytizing.

Maybe not, but its truth. and truth, regardless of the source, is valuable.

 

[MissileMan]

Maybe not, but its truth. and truth, regardless of the source, is valuable.

Is there truth in Islam, Bhuddism, Hinduism, or any other religion?

 

[Nienna]

Because it isn't science... it belongs in a theology class. Public school classes are not for proselytizing.

When you talk about carbon dating, is that science or religion? When you talk about the geologic column, is that science or religion? When you talk about the effects of volcanic undersea activity, massive strata deposits, genetics, evidence of an ice age--is that science or religion?

All of these are a part of the creation model.

 

[Nienna]

Harvard is bringing back religion.

Confronting Reality
Religion and Higher Education


November 27, 2006


You may know that Harvard University was founded to train men for the clergy. And you surely know that Harvard has long since abandoned its religious roots. But if a faculty panel has its way, religion will once again play a role in the education of Harvard students.

The faculty panel has issued a report calling for a "faith and reason" requirement at Harvard, concluding that some knowledge about religion is a necessary part of being educated. The panel noted that while "Harvard is no longer an institution with a religious mission . . . religion is a fact that Harvard's graduates will [have to] confront in their lives."

And confront it they will. We live in a world today in which religious forces are creating a titanic clash of civilizations, one which threatens the very existence of the free structures of the West. People cannot understand why it is that Islam wants to destroy us if we do not understand the teachings of Muhammad or the history of the 1,000-year-old conflict between Islam and the West.

Closer to home, how could we possibly understand the economic development of America without understanding the work ethic of the Protestant Reformation? How could we understand the abolition of the slave trade without knowing the story of William Wilberforce, the great Christian reformer—the film of whose life, titled Amazing Grace, will be released in February? How could anyone understand the roots of Western civilization without understanding the formative influence of Christianity, brilliantly documented in Rodney Stark's book The Victory of Reason?

Predictably, there were those who objected to Harvard's "faith and reason" requirement. A Harvard Crimson editorial said that the requirement gives "religious ideas" a "preeminence incommensurate with their proper place in understanding the modern world." In other words, while religion is important, it's just not that important, so says the postmodernist.

Besides, the Crimson argued, students can learn enough about religion from the general education requirements. Oh sure! Just as they learned what they needed to know about history from such requirements. That's why 65 percent of seniors at elite colleges like Harvard flunked a high-school level history test, and 23 percent of them thought it was John F. Kennedy who said, "I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country."

Also writing in the Crimson were two Harvard students who got it. They articulated what the editorialists could not or would not understand: "Studying religion," they said, "involves coping with unanswerable questions, confronting humanity's limitations, and thinking beyond oneself. No literature or science course can teach these skills." Nor can ethics be taught without a religious base. Remember Mr. Skilling of Enron, who is heading off to prison, was a Harvard graduate.

Happily, Harvard is waking up to the reality that you can't provide a decent education or even understand the modern world without understanding religion. Culture, after all, springs from "cult," that is, a belief system.

And while many Christians might worry just what a university like Harvard might teach about faith and reason, we ought to welcome the opportunity for an open, free debate. Then we Christians can present the evidence of our faith's positive effect on building the greatest civilization the world has ever known.




Get links to further information on today's topic



For printer-friendly version, simply visit www.breakpoint.org and click on Today's Commentary. The printer-friendly link is on the left-hand column.

Copyright (c) 2006 Prison Fellowship

 

[jillian]

Maybe not, but its truth. and truth, regardless of the source, is valuable.

But there's the conundrum... it only has "truth" to those who have "faith". I'm all for comparative religion classes. I think, particularly in the world as it's currently configured, it's important for us to know what other people believe.

But a comparative religion class, which gives information about what each group believes, is far different from proselytizing.... and my objection is to using government funds to proselytize or indoctrinate in any religion. Luckily the constitution sees it the same way.

But knowledge about different beliefs .... I'm all for that. But we both know that these things aren't about knowledge, they're about conversion.

 

[no1tovote4]

Gawd... I remember the sactimonious Brits all laughing about lawsuits in Kansas over Intelligent Design... LOL. This is so fricking hilarious!

 

[Nienna]

But there's the conundrum... it only has "truth" to those who have "faith". I'm all for comparative religion classes. I think, particularly in the world as it's currently configured, it's important for us to know what other people believe.

But a comparative religion class, which gives information about what each group believes, is far different from proselytizing.... and my objection is to using government funds to proselytize or indoctrinate in any religion. Luckily the constitution sees it the same way.

But knowledge about different beliefs .... I'm all for that. But we both know that these things aren't about knowledge, they're about conversion.

When you talk about carbon dating, is that science or religion? When you talk about the geologic column, is that science or religion? When you talk about the effects of volcanic undersea activity, massive strata deposits, genetics, evidence of an ice age--is that science or religion?

All of these are a part of the creation model.

 

[Avatar4321]

Is there truth in Islam, Bhuddism, Hinduism, or any other religion?

There is truth in all religions, but not everything every religion teaches is true.

 

[Avatar4321]

Harvard is bringing back religion.

Kudos for them. I think understanding lots of different religions is very important. I find the comments by the postmodernist amusing. Religion isnt important enough to teach but its obviously important enough to ridicule? Its important enough to deface religious icons with piss in a jar and calling it art?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Despair.... It's sweeping the UK now aswell.

Revealed: rise of creationism in UK schools

Dozens of schools are using creationist teaching materials condemned by the government as "not appropriate to support the science curriculum", the Guardian has learned.
The packs promote the creationist alternative to Darwinian evolution called intelligent design and the group behind them said 59 schools are using the information as "a useful classroom resource".

A teacher at one of the schools said it intended to use the DVDs to present intelligent design as an alternative to Darwinism. Nick Cowan, head of chemistry at Bluecoat school, in Liverpool, said: "Just because it takes a negative look at Darwinism doesn't mean it is not science. I think to critique Darwinism is quite appropriate."

But the government has made it clear that "neither intelligent design nor creationism are recognised scientific theories". The chairman of the parliamentary science and technology select committee, the Lib Dem MP Phil Willis, said he was horrified that the packs were being used in schools.

"I am flabbergasted that any head of science would give credence to this creationist theory and be prepared to put it alongside Darwinism," he said. "Treating it as an alternative centralist theory alongside Darwinism in science lessons is deeply worrying."​

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1957858,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1

Well at least one of the other world science leaders, other than us, is also on the road to losing its lead.

 

[glockmail]

Is there truth in Islam, Bhuddism, Hinduism, or any other religion?

I dunno, but there is proof that God exists: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/269

 

[liberalogic]

When you talk about carbon dating, is that science or religion? When you talk about the geologic column, is that science or religion? When you talk about the effects of volcanic undersea activity, massive strata deposits, genetics, evidence of an ice age--is that science or religion?

All of these are a part of the creation model.

Which is exactly why the creation model is NOT science. Read up on Karl Popper's conclusions regarding the scientific model. Science needs to be something that we can test-- creationism is untestable. It encompasses the "explanatory power," meaning it can explain anything in the world without reasonable scientific data behind it. The Earth is round because God made it that way. We are human beings because God made us in his image. How can you test or refute this?

Evolution is testable, which is why it is categorized as a science, and is a theory subject to criticism. But at least that criticism can be conducted through a scientific venue.