sittingrelaxing Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Creationism to be in GCSE papers Creationist theories about how the world was made are to be debated in GCSE science lessons in mainstream secondary schools in England. The subject has been included in a new syllabus for biology produced by the OCR exam board, due out in September. Critics say the matter should only be discussed in R.E. because there is a danger of elevating religious theories to the status of scientific ones. The government insists creationism is not being taught as a subject. The exam board says students need to understand the background to theories. Its new "Gateway to Science" curriculum asks pupils to examine how organisms become fossilised. Teachers are asked to "explain that the fossil record has been interpreted differently over time (e.g. creationist interpretation)". Contentious OCR, one of the three main exam boards in England, said that the syllabus was intended to make students aware of scientific controversy. A spokesperson for the exam board said candidates needed to understand the social and historical context to scientific ideas both pre and post Darwin's theory of evolution. "Candidates are asked to discuss why the opponents of Darwinism thought the way they did and how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting empirical evidence," he said. "Creationism and 'intelligent design' are not regarded by OCR as scientific theories. They are beliefs that do not lie within scientific understanding." The area is contentious, with critics claiming that inclusion of creationist or intelligent design theories in science syllabuses unduly elevates them. James Williams, science course leader at Sussex University's school of education, told the Times Educational Supplement: "This opens a legitimate gate for the inclusion of creationism or intelligent design in science classes as if they were legitimate theories on a par with evolution fact and theory. "I'm happy for religious theories to be considered in religious education, but not in science where consideration could lead to a false verification of their status as being equal to scientific theories." The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, which oversees the development of the national curriculum, in effect guiding exam boards, said discussions of "intelligent design" or "creationism" could take place in science classes. The National Curriculum Online website says for science at Key Stage 4 (GCSE level): "Students should be taught how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting empirical evidence (for example Darwin's theory of evolution)." Classes should also cover "ways in which scientific work may be affected by the context in which it takes place (for example, social, historical, moral, spiritual), and how these contexts may affect whether or not ideas are accepted." A spokesperson for the Department for Education and Skills said: "Neither creationism nor intelligent design are taught as a subject in schools and are not specified in the science curriculum". In the United States, there have been court cases over what schools should teach. Last month scientists there protested against a movement to teach intelligent design - the theory that life is so complex that it must be the work of a supernatural designer. In December, a judge in Pennsylvania said it was unconstitutional to make teachers feature the concept of intelligent design in science lessons. In England, the Emmanuel Schools Foundation, sponsored by Christian car dealer Sir Peter Vardy, has been criticised for featuring creationist theories in lessons in the three comprehensives it runs. Sir Peter has said the schools present both Darwin's evolutionary theory and creationism. In 2003, he said: "One is a theory, the other is a faith position. It is up to the children." Story from BBC NEWS: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Father McPot Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Don't see that as beinh bad, just opens your mind to more ideas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Percy Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Creation myths of all cultures make good subjects for debate. I like the idea that we are made from the residual salts from the Poo Fairie's tears. But thats just me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twosheds Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Yes .....o.k. to be to taught as a "belief" in say R.E. alongside all other religions & their beliefs too.... BUT No.....No way should it be taught in the scientific field,its Aliens, now that is a different matter if my dad is to be believed too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HvyFuel Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 It's not being taught though, it's being debated. As long as the tutor gives the students all available evidence without bias it can only be a good thing. As with anything it can be open to abuse but I think most tutors would remain impartial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morefire Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Its not . [Just to add some credibility to the post, i'm finishing up my MSci in Physics and my specialist subjects are quantum mechanics, nanotechnology and astrobiology.] If you don't believe in a greater power then fine, lets quantify your belief that the world exists because it just does, here’s some science for you: The Number N= 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 measures the strength of the quantum electroweak force divided by gravity. If that number changed by as little as 100 this universe would not even exist. That is one of a dozen ‘natural’ numbers which mathematically describe the laws of our universe. How or why these numbers are the values that they are is incomprehensible (physicists have not even dared to try and explain it), to imagine that the numbers merely defined themselves by 'the way the world is' to more accuracy than we can even comprehend - thats just plain unscientific. Let me introduce you to the fundamental Drake equation of astrobiology: Number of Civilisations in existence = The rate of star formation x The fraction of stars with planets x The number of Habitable planets in each solar system x fraction of planets that ‘’evolve’’ life x fraction of such life that becomes intelligent… The list goes on, but to cut it short, you’re looking at our existence in the universe coming down to chance at a rate of 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,00. Optimistically. So, supposing the Universe spontaneously existed, and we then ‘evolved’ out of chance, you’re looking at odds of: 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 That’s 1 in a hundred billion billion billion billion billion billion. And thats not taking into account the fact that the Big Bang remains a THEORY with more evidence (hidden mass problems) against it than for it. The only reason it is taught is because it is th eonly theory which stands up to basic testing (unless you wanna go superstring - a little too complex for this post) I have to say, those are pretty slim odds. I think its not just a good idea to teach creationism, it HAS to be taught, because its alot more probable than anything else. Thats if you want to teach them the truth. IMHO, people these days are too scared to beleive in god. So they put their blind faith into another illusion: science. In a recent poll, 90% of the students and Lecturers in my department beleive in God, that includes all the astrophysicists - the supposed 'big bang' supporters. Seems to me like all the people who don't understand science but understand the conept of God want to beleive in science, wheras all the people that understand the science beleive in God. yinyang.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DANZIG Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 That is one of a dozen ‘natural’ numbers which mathematically describe the laws of our universe. How or why these numbers are the values that they are is incomprehensible (physicists have not even dared to try and explain it), What makes you 'think' this is the only universe ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morefire Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 I don't, but it's irrelevent, even if other universes existed, we would not be able to interact with them, or even be aware of them. To assume that the numbers differ for every universe would be an even greater assumption, purely guesswork, without logical reasoning and without proof. Indeed, superstring theory suggests the existance of many universes, but they are too complex to discuss here as they involve another 12 dimensions and M-theory. The many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics also suggests that more universes exist, but that they would be identical in structure to our own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HvyFuel Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Throw all the statistics at it you like morefire, in the concept of understanding creation humans do not, yet, have the mental capacity to do so. Any humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daisy Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 What makes you 'think' this is the only universe ? I thought there were infinite number of universes... but thats just me. will they invite in some lovely buddhist chaps and chappettes to encourage a free debate based around another religions and their creation theories... I just LOVE the Indian concept of time in the Vedas... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punky Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 religion and science should definately not be mixed. in my opinion, science is accurate, and religion is bullshit, no matter which one you choose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morefire Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Agreed, it is like trying to teach maths to dogs, they just won't get it, even if its right in front of them. However, the 'statistics' are needed, because if you don't understand it, and if you don't know the answer, why lie to everyone else? and why force feed people bullshit theories and expect them to beleive it. I'm merely trying to demonstrate that theres an eqaully more logical and more valid arguament for the teching of creationism as against. So far I've heard that creationsim should not be taught because compared to science its . Well, those 'statistics' prove otherwise. in the concept of understanding creation humans do not, yet, have the mental capacity to do so If we keep on teaching our kids what we think we will keep repressing their creative imagination and brain power. we should teach them the options, the evidence and maybe then we'll see some progress. Kids should be taught the truth, that as much as everyone these days seems to think religion is a load of , science is no different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daisy Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 (edited) religion and science should definately not be mixed. in my opinion, science is accurate, and religion is bullshit, no matter which one you choose. science is only accurate until a radical new discovery is made tho... I aint bashing it too much, I find it pretty interesting subject, all them disappearing atoms and invisible dark matter knocking about. Edited March 10, 2006 by daisy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morefire Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 religion and science should definately not be mixed. in my opinion, science is accurate, and religion is bullshit, no matter which one you choose. The deeper you delve into science, the more questions arise. It becomes philosophy, debate, blind beleif and assumption. And when was the last time anything in science was accurate? theres always the bullshit +/- factor on the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HvyFuel Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 religion and science should definately not be mixed. in my opinion, science is accurate, and religion is bullshit, no matter which one you choose. How can students determine that without debating the information available? Do we just say 'you must believe this'? We will regularly fail but we must always attempt to accept that our opinion may be wrong and should not be taught as fact. imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now