INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: Peter on October 07, 2007, 01:47:57 PM
-
Teachers 'fear evolution lessons'
The teaching of evolution is becoming increasingly difficult in UK schools because of the rise of creationism, a leading scientist is warning.
Head of science at London's Institute of Education Professor Michael Reiss says some teachers, fearful of entering the debate, avoid the subject totally.
This could leave pupils with gaps in their scientific knowledge, he says.
Prof Reiss says the rise of creationism is partly down to the large increase in Muslim pupils in UK schools.
The days have long gone when science teachers could ignore creationism when teaching about origins
Professor Reiss
He said: "The number of Muslim students has grown considerably in the last 10 to 20 years and a higher proportion of Muslim families do not accept evolutionary theory compared with Christian families.
"That's one reason why it's more of an issue in schools."
Prof Reiss estimates that one in 10 people in the UK now believes in literal interpretations of religious creation stories - whether they are based on the Bible or the Koran.
Many more teachers he met at scientific meetings were telling him they encountered more pupils with creationist views, he said.
"The days have long gone when science teachers could ignore creationism when teaching about origins."
Instead, teachers should tackle the issue head-on, whilst trying not to alienate students, he argues in a new book.
'Not equally valid'
"By not dismissing their beliefs, we can ensure that these students learn what evolutionary theory really says - and give everyone the understanding to respect the views of others," he added.
His book; Teaching about Scientific Origins: Taking Account of Creationism, gives science teachers advice on how to deal with the "dilemma".
Further discussion of creationism should occur in religious education as it is a belief system, not one based on science
Hilary Leevers
Campaign for Science and Engineering
He supports new government guidelines which say creationism should not be discussed in science classes unless it is raised by pupils.
But Prof Reiss argues that there is an educational value in comparing creationist ideas with scientific theories like Darwin's theory of evolution because they demonstrate how science, unlike religious beliefs, can be tested.
The scientist, who is also a Church of England priest, adds that any teaching should not give the impression that creationism and the theory of evolution are equally valid scientifically.
Dr Hilary Leevers, of the Campaign for Science and Engineering, said science teachers would be teaching evolution not creationism and so should not need a book to tell them how to "delicately handle controversy between a scientific theory and a belief".
"The author suggests that science teachers cannot ignore creationism when teaching origins, but the opposite is true," she said.
Teachers could discuss how creationism differed from scientific theory if a student brought up the subject, but any further discussion should occur in religious education lessons, she said.
A Department for Children, Schools and Families spokesman said it had recently published guidelines to teachers on the issue.
"Creationism and intelligent design are not scientific theories nor testable as scientific fact - and have no place in the science curriculum. "But we advise science teachers that when questions about creationism come up in lessons, it provides an opportunity to explain or explore what makes a scientific theory."
There was a girl in my biology class at school who didn't accept evolution, and had fucked up ideas about what the theory of evolution stated.
-
never had a problem with teaching muslim pupils evolution, only christians. another instance of racial shit-stirring, by the looks of it. :grrr:
-
The creationist girl in my biology class was Christian.
-
the students should choose what to learn.
-
EEK :o it's spreading from the US you need to kick it in the butt quick before it get a toehold or suffer our fate >:(
-
too late.
-
too late.
Then you must adopt a scorched earth policy and eliminate them and quickly there is no helping us save yourself :P
-
i live in Ireland. :green: not my problem.
-
the students should choose what to learn.
And if they choose to learn that 2+2 = mystical flying monkeys?
-
the students should choose what to learn.
And if they choose to learn that 2+2 = mystical flying monkeys?
You can choose to laugh at them I guess. Really there is no justification to teaching stuff you can't prove at all. At least you can prove evolution, there is no hard proof of creationism really. I wouldn't equate creationism to a specific creator, but people will choose their own obviously (of course from the most popular religions). It isn't worth the effort for me anymore, thankfully I am past where I would be subjected to really learning about that in school.
-
the students should choose what to learn.
And if they choose to learn that 2+2 = mystical flying monkeys?
i don't give a monkey's butt what they learn. i never learned much there.
-
the students should choose what to learn.
I would've taken some pretty lame classes then.
-
i'd have taken classes on TV watching, where you just watch TV and then rate it, and UFOlogy where aliens would come and tell about their jobs.
-
I'd take facials 101.
-
me too. that'd be cool.
you appear to have nice skin. the part you can see anyway.
-
I owe it to covering my face in semen
when young. :laugh:
-
i hear that's good for the skin.
they made facials of it
on Nip/Tuck. >:D
said it was secret recipe.
-
Yeah. There was a mexican company that made one
out of bull's semen. It's pretty much EXACTLY what
one needs.
Plus, it's fun to apply on others.
-
you could use your own.
-
I did. Still do, occasionally.
Something special about waking up
next to someone whose face smells like
you though.
-
hmm.
dunno what semen
smells like...is it a fresh smell
or yucky?
-
Are those the only options?
Kinda tangy and bitter, and
a bit musty, all at the same time.
Food effects it heavily though.
-
odd. food comes out of one place. why does it need to chime into the urethra?
-
garlic, coffee, beer. All make the
bells of the urinary tract ring aloud.
-
those aren't food. it's spice and drink.
-
I EAT garlic (there go any illusions of me being a vampire).
Also coffee grinds.
Meat does it too - more subtle. Yogurt seems to help
though.
-
women put yogurt into their vagina.
you can eat garlic if you've been invited.
-
Yuck, I don't like Garlic!
-
women put yogurt into their vagina.
THAT'S an awful idea. Even if it looks like cum.
you can eat garlic if you've been invited.
hmm...never heard that one.
I like just chewing it. Relieves
my teeth from itching. Probably
should take it up, rather than smoking.
-
Yuck, I don't like Garlic!
some humans don't like garlic.
you strike me as a werewolf though. :twitch:
women put yogurt into their vagina.
THAT'S an awful idea. Even if it looks like cum.
you can eat garlic if you've been invited.
hmm...never heard that one.
I like just chewing it. Relieves
my teeth from itching. Probably
should take it up, rather than smoking.
a friend of mine said 'tis supposed to cure a yeast infection. :P
you also show up in the mirror
and can drink holy water
when you're invited.
watch Lost Boys.
-
the students should choose what to learn.
And if they choose to learn that 2+2 = mystical flying monkeys?
It's true for very apelike and aerodynamic values of two.
-
Yuck, I don't like Garlic!
some humans don't like garlic.
you strike me as a werewolf though. :twitch:
women put yogurt into their vagina.
THAT'S an awful idea. Even if it looks like cum.
you can eat garlic if you've been invited.
hmm...never heard that one.
I like just chewing it. Relieves
my teeth from itching. Probably
should take it up, rather than smoking.
a friend of mine said 'tis supposed to cure a yeast infection. :P
you also show up in the mirror
and can drink holy water
when you're invited.
watch Lost Boys.
**ozymandias lopes thru the wood in search of prey**
-
a friend of mine said 'tis supposed to cure a yeast infection. :P
Cause, more likely.
you also show up in the mirror
And wander INTO them.
and can drink holy water
Guzzle the stuff. Get a kick out of
it, actually.
when you're invited.
watch Lost Boys.
No. Though I DO have to be invited
to enter someone's home, if not other
things.
-
you ARE a vampire! a calpire.
**ozymandias lopes thru the wood in search of prey**
pick me! pick me!
-
the students should choose what to learn.
they tried that in summerhill decades ago. it didn't work.
-
they should at least get to decline the "offer" to learn about something not proven. like creationism.
-
in that case, evolution couldn't be taught either, as it's still only a theory.
-
aha! so it isn't proven!
-
Nothing's provable in natural science.
-
aha! so it isn't proven!
nope. not conclusively. you'd be surprised how many candidates trip over that one in their exams.
Nothing's provable in natural science.
that's cos a lot of it involves chaotic systems.
-
that's cos a lot of it involves chaotic systems.
I'd go further. It's the very nature of natural
science to be unprovable. All that there are are
theories, open for revision, or overturning.
-
er, not so. there are inumerable instances of definite cause and effect.
-
er, not so. there are inumerable instances of definite cause and effect.
Indeed? Please enlighten me as to ANY scientific 'fact' which is
not subject to the rule of being falsifiable. Of course, staying out
of the realm of axiomatized subjects, such as pure mathematics
and logic, and within the natural sciences. If you find one, I do
believe that you'll turn that subject into the laughingstock
of the scientific world.
-
Christian Creationism in schools is not as bad people say it is, lot more better than changing what is taught in schools to please Muslim' s. Like treating the pre-islamic history of various societies as time of ingorance or not teaching the holocaust (I've heard some British schools aren't teaching it anymore not to offend Muslim students).
Interesting fact America won a lot of nobel prizes for science when they were teaching just christian creationism in the school systems, which was from the 1920's to supreme court decision banning the teaching of Christian Creationism in the 1980's.
-
not teaching the holocaust (I've heard some British schools aren't teaching it anymore not to offend Muslim students).
Bollocks.
-
not teaching the holocaust (I've heard some British schools aren't teaching it anymore not to offend Muslim students).
Bollocks.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=445979&in_page_id=1770
-
you ARE a vampire! a calpire.
**ozymandias lopes thru the wood in search of prey**
pick me! pick me!
mmmmmmmmmmmmmm..........tangy ;)
-
not teaching the holocaust (I've heard some British schools aren't teaching it anymore not to offend Muslim students).
Bollocks.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=445979&in_page_id=1770
why doesn't the source (The Daily Bigot) surprise me? ::) anything to whip up a bit of hysteria for clowns like you to lap up. I fail to see why it is less moronic to teach creationism for Christian fundamentalists than for Muslim ones. Stupid is stupid. And if the selectively presented data is correct the schools in question are staffed by fucking cowards.
Religion is not science - its about exploring the bits science can't, or won't, cover. Science is about applying testable, falsifiable methods to understanding the universe - which creationism cannot possibly be. If generations of scientists and mathematicians were able to make scientific theories and rules without contradicting their Christian or Muslim faith, where's the contradiction? It only appears to be a problem if you believe that your holy books, scribed down as they were in the distant past, represent the complete and literal truth/word of God despite their being interpreted by generations of scholars according to their best ability to interpret in whatever era. Which makes you a crank. So regardless of the variant of uberconservative retard, schools shouldn't be kowtowing to anyone's religious sensibilities - save that for RE lessons. Adding the 'it must be the Muslims' angle without it being necessary just makes you look like a racist twat.
-
mainly.
-
er, not so. there are inumerable instances of definite cause and effect.
Indeed? Please enlighten me as to ANY scientific 'fact' which is
not subject to the rule of being falsifiable. Of course, staying out
of the realm of axiomatized subjects, such as pure mathematics
and logic, and within the natural sciences. If you find one, I do
believe that you'll turn that subject into the laughingstock
of the scientific world.
all science has to be falsifiable, as you well know, from kuhnian theory. (or is it popper? i can never remeber which one said which). however, i'm thinking of causative agents in the field of microbiology - you want to tell me that Treponema pallidum is not the causative agent for syphilis?
-
Humans created "Gods" to explain natural phenomena around them, lightning, storms, earthquakes, volcanoes, any disasters that occured. It was the best way to bring order out of a chaotic (or seemingly chaotic) world. After awhile you would do things to appease the "Gods" or court them for favors......good weather, protection, etc. Next thing you know, you have priests, kings, queens, priestesses, etc, who recognize a good thing when they see it and want a piece of the action. So they start being the "divine interpreters", oracles, representative of the gods on earth, blah blah blah. They get power, control information, and hate competition....sort of like what you see today with ANY religious extremists. ::)
-
all science has to be falsifiable, as you well know, from kuhnian theory. (or is it popper? i can never remeber which one said which). however, i'm thinking of causative agents in the field of microbiology - you want to tell me that Treponema pallidum is not the causative agent for syphilis?
I'm NOT going to argue against something which
is clearly so. But, it's unproven. This is the point that
is made about evolution. ALL natural science's findings
work their way towards being established theory. But,
that's all that they are. The possibility of them being
wrong is inherent in the methodology.
-
I believe that religions aren't necessarly equal to each other and some like Islam, in it's current form is a danger to our western societies because of it's core teaching of the supremacy of sharia law and notions in the quran that women and non-muslims aren't equal to muslim males. Modern Christianity, even the Protestant fundies or any other religion for that matter does not teach those ideas and respect secular law and equality of all before the law.
I support the teaching of Christian Creationism in schools, that is if the majority of the voters want. We are a democracy after all and even Fundamentalist Christians do not challenge secular law or the equality of all before the law. On the other hand large number of Muslims do.
-
Given that scientific beliefs are the modern religion,
it seems odd how much we discriminate against
older ones. :laugh:
-
I believe that religions aren't necessarly equal to each other and some like Islam, in it's current form is a danger to our western societies because of it's core teaching of the supremacy of sharia law and notions in the quran that women and non-muslims aren't equal to muslim males. Modern Christianity, even the Protestant fundies or any other religion for that matter does not teach those ideas and respect secular law and equality of all before the law.
I support the teaching of Christian Creationism in schools, that is if the majority of the voters want. We are a democracy after all and even Fundamentalist Christians do not challenge secular law or the equality of all before the law. On the other hand large number of Muslims do.
What about the bombing of abortion clinics. Or their push to get their morality into law to be able to for example banning some books ,art of course everyones favorite porn. All fundamentalists are bad in my book muslin and Cristian
-
I support the teaching of Christian Creationism in schools, that is if the majority of the voters want. We are a democracy after all and even Fundamentalist Christians do not challenge secular law or the equality of all before the law. On the other hand large number of Muslims do.
I would never support the teaching of biblical creationism regardless of how popular it was at the polls.
Religious mythology should never be substituted for the latest scientific theories, even if those theories later prove to be incorrect.
-
The point is, our current society is heavily BASED
on science as the faith of our times. It defines it's
own rules, and treats other means of knowledge
as inferior.
-
all science has to be falsifiable, as you well know, from kuhnian theory. (or is it popper? i can never remeber which one said which). however, i'm thinking of causative agents in the field of microbiology - you want to tell me that Treponema pallidum is not the causative agent for syphilis?
I'm NOT going to argue against something which
is clearly so. But, it's unproven. This is the point that
is made about evolution. ALL natural science's findings
work their way towards being established theory. But,
that's all that they are. The possibility of them being
wrong is inherent in the methodology.
i have no idea what you're on about. you say it's not proven, and yet offer no evidence other than standard "has to have the possibility of being wrong", which is about the testing of hypotheses, and not about established cause and effect.
care to make sense?
-
i have no idea what you're on about. you say it's not proven, and yet offer no evidence other than standard "has to have the possibility of being wrong", which is about the testing of hypotheses, and not about established cause and effect.
care to make sense?
Uhm...God's existence (or otherwise) is unproven, and
NO evidence could be convincing in either way. By your
argument, both are then the case? The standard of the
scientific method PRECLUDES proof. That simple. A counterexample
could break any theory.
-
since when has "god's" existence been part of natural science?
wtf are you on about, you numpty?
-
since when has "god's" existence been part of natural science?
wtf are you on about, you numpty?
That happens when you use the Bible as you science textbook :P
-
since when has "god's" existence been part of natural science?
It WOULD be, if there were a means of
showing the opposite. What I was saying,
which has NOTHING to do with your question,
was that your supposition about a lack of evidence
against being a sign of some sort of 'proof'. There
are NO proofs in science. Well established THEORY
is as good as it gets.
-
since when has "god's" existence been part of natural science?
It WOULD be, if there were a means of
showing the opposite. What I was saying,
which has NOTHING to do with your question,
was that your supposition about a lack of evidence
against being a sign of some sort of 'proof'. There
are NO proofs in science. Well established THEORY
is as good as it gets.
flo? is that you?
-
since when has "god's" existence been part of natural science?
THIS question. No wonder you can't make sense of me.
You're always looking for the cheap humor point.
-
What about the bombing of abortion clinics. Or their push to get their morality into law to be able to for example banning some books ,art of course everyones favourite porn. All fundamentalists are bad in my book muslin and Christian
The bombing of abortion clinics is commended by a lot of Christian fundamentalists, even if they do believe in banning abortion outright. Christian Fundamentalists at worst are self righteous pacifists.
To me banning of certain books, arts and porn is pretty mild, compared to say putting women under the chador or hijab.
-
What about the bombing of abortion clinics. Or their push to get their morality into law to be able to for example banning some books ,art of course everyones favourite porn. All fundamentalists are bad in my book muslin and Christian
The bombing of abortion clinics is commended by a lot of Christian fundamentalists, even if they do believe in banning abortion outright. Christian Fundamentalists at worst are self righteous pacifists.
To me banning of certain books, arts and porn is pretty mild, compared to say putting women under the chador or hijab.
Condemned in public yes but for many thats as far as it goes. You may look at them as self righteous pacifists but their law taken as far as many of them would want it goes beyond just banning books into controlling lives the banning of the books is just the beginning. I know of several churches in my area that treat women as second class citizens with dress codes and the men making all the decisions and I am in a very liberal part of the country. If you look at what many of them want it is similar maybe not as harsh but bad still.
-
since when has "god's" existence been part of natural science?
THIS question. No wonder you can't make sense of me.
You're always looking for the cheap humor point.
what utter bollocks. you were talking crap, and now you're trying to wriggle out of it by pointing at me.
didn't work. try again.
::)
-
since when has "god's" existence been part of natural science?
THIS question. No wonder you can't make sense of me.
You're always looking for the cheap humor point.
what utter bollocks. you were talking crap, and now you're trying to wriggle out of it by pointing at me.
didn't work. try again.
::)
No. But you seem incapable of making sense of me.
I'll leave it be, I suppose. That sentence is EXACTLY
what I meant, and I don't want to continue this with
someone accusing me of lying, which is what you are
effectively doing with your statement.
-
since when has "god's" existence been part of natural science?
THIS question. No wonder you can't make sense of me.
You're always looking for the cheap humor point.
QFT :agreed: :minusevil:
-
since when has "god's" existence been part of natural science?
THIS question. No wonder you can't make sense of me.
You're always looking for the cheap humor point.
what utter bollocks. you were talking crap, and now you're trying to wriggle out of it by pointing at me.
didn't work. try again.
::)
No. But you seem incapable of making sense of me.
you say this a lot, to a wide range of people on here. doesn't this tell you something? if so many people haven't a clue what you're on about, perhaps it's not that they're "incapable of understanding you", but that you're incapable of making sense.
I'll leave it be, I suppose.
cop out.
That sentence is EXACTLY
what I meant, and I don't want to continue this with
someone accusing me of lying, which is what you are
effectively doing with your statement.
no, i don't think you're lying - i think you're doing a poor (and unsubtle) job of trying to wriggle out of it.
-
you say this a lot, to a wide range of people on here. doesn't this tell you something? if so many people haven't a clue what you're on about, perhaps it's not that they're "incapable of understanding you", but that you're incapable of making sense.
It's pretty much always the same people. Now, I have NO doubt
whatsoever that this is a matter of my own communication skills,
at least as much as your ability to decipher them. But, given that
there are those who have no difficulty getting my meaning, I somehow
doubt that it's a matter of just me. Call it incompatibilities. My own
way of putting it didn't assume that you were the whole cause of
the problem in our communication. You, of course, turn to blaming
me entirely. Clearly NOT the case, as my points DO make sense to
some.
I'll leave it be, I suppose.
cop out.
Why? We really don't seem to be able to
communicate. I know that you actually
believe the point that I'm trying to make.
That sentence is EXACTLY
what I meant, and I don't want to continue this with
someone accusing me of lying, which is what you are
effectively doing with your statement.
no, i don't think you're lying - i think you're doing a poor (and unsubtle) job of trying to wriggle out of it.
This is bs. There was not one bit of wriggling.
By saying that, you ARE accusing me of lying,
as I've stated that is not what I was doing.
If you trust me to not lie, then let me assure
you that I'm NOT doing that.