Let us test Darwin

[GTI]

Brilliant article :thumbup

Let us test Darwin, teacher says

BBC News
27 November 2006

Science teaching materials deemed "not appropriate" by the government should be allowed in class, Education Secretary Alan Johnson has been told.

Ex-head of chemistry at Liverpool's Blue Coat School, Nick Cowan, says the packs promoting intelligent design are useful for debating Darwinist theories.

He urged Mr Johnson to view packs from lobby group Truth in Science for himself, before condemning them.

Education officials insist intelligent design is not recognised as science.
Advocates of intelligent design say there are things that cannot be explained by evolution and so argue for the existence of a supernatural intelligence behind the creation of the universe.

The Department for Education and Skills recently condemned the teaching packs, sent out to 5,000 secondary schools by the group of academics and clerics, as inappropriate and not supportive of the science curriculum.

Reacting to Mr Cowan's letter, a DfES spokesman said: "Neither creationism nor intelligent design are taught as a subject in schools, and are not specified in the science curriculum.

"The National Curriculum for science clearly sets down that pupils should be taught that the fossil record is evidence for evolution, and how variation and selection may lead to evolution or extinction."

Mr Cowan's call comes as the Guardian reported that the Truth in Science materials were being used in 59 schools.

Mr Cowan says they are "very scholarly" and could be extremely useful in helping children understand the importance of scientific debate

He told the BBC: "Darwin has for many people become a sacred cow. "There's a sense that if you criticise Darwin you must be some kind of religious nut case.

"We might has well have said Einstein shouldn't have said what he did because it criticised Newton."

Mr Cowan argues that science only moves forward by reviewing and reworking previous theories and that these materials foster an understanding of this.

He also points out that the Truth in Science materials, which he describes as outstanding, do not mention creationism or even God.

He says the GCSE syllabus requires children to appreciate how science works and understand the nature of scientific controversy.

"The government wants children to be exposed to scientific debate at the age of 14 or 15.
"All the Truth in Science stuff does is put forward stuff that says here's a controversy. This is exactly the kind of thing that young people should be exposed to," Mr Cowan added.

The chairman of the parliamentary science and technology committee, Phil Willis, said using the packs in science classes "elevated creationism" to the same level of debate as Darwinism and that there was no justification for that.

He added: "There's little enough time with the school curriculum to deal with real science like climate change, energy and the weather.

"This is quite frankly a distraction that science teachers can well do without."
Dr Evan Harris, honorary associate of the National Secular Society and Liberal Democrat science spokesman, said it was worrying that some schools were giving "this nonsense" any credence.

Many leading scientists argue that theories about intelligent design should not be allowed in school because they are simply not scientific.

Back in April, the Royal Society warned against allowing creationism in school saying that pupils must understand that science backs Darwin's theory of evolution.

The society's statement said: "Young people are poorly served by deliberate attempts to withhold, distort or misrepresent scientific knowledge and understanding in order to promote particular religious beliefs."

Recently the British Humanist Association asked Mr Johnson for greater clarity on the teaching of creationism in schools.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/h...on/6187534.stm

[BBK]

I don't see what the harm is in having open discussions in schools and letting the children see both sides of the argument, and then making up their own mind. Surely we should be encouraging the child to be free thinking individuals. If they choose to believe in God then it does no harm, if they choose not to believe in God then that also does no harm. Its when they get religiously brainwashed from birth that the problems begin.

[TwoPlAnKs]

i have to say, despite being about as far against any sort of organised religion and a firm disbeliever in intellegent creation (both that and darwinism are theories but darwinism is based on evidence and intellegent creation seems to be based on making things up and saying that they are true, but thats beside the point), that i agree that kids should get both sides of the argument

i agree with BBK too, letting children choose religious beliefs based on unbiased facts given in schools is much better than them just following their parents

however, in practice, i cant see this working. its not science and shouldnt be taught by science teachers for a start. its somewhere that the science teachers need to let pupils know about alternatives but these should be taught in religious education classes (RME as its often known). also, i can see biased teachers and head teachers annoyed by being forced into teaching the darwin side using this as a way to avoid teaching the darwin side as much

what i agree with less is that a very religious girl at school refused to be in a class whilst homosexuality was discussed, using arguments that they are evil, will go to hell, and that they started aids. that sort of thing needs to be wiped out of schools completely

[Over Carl]

its not science and shouldnt be taught by science teachers for a start. its somewhere that the science teachers need to let pupils know about alternatives but these should be taught in religious education classes (RME as its often known).

Exactly what I was going to post.

what i agree with less is that a very religious girl at school refused to be in a class whilst homosexuality was discussed, using arguments that they are evil, will go to hell, and that they started aids. that sort of thing needs to be wiped out of schools completely

Ok I think blatant lies like they started aids have no place in school, but the other part is what the religion says, if they don't want these kind of comments, religion should not be taught or allowed in school at all. Personally I think it's terrible the way that these days homosexuality is being shown as ok or even trendy.

Another example I'll give, for years of my life I was a drug abuser. It was a lifestyle choice of mine that didn't affect others, yet all the way along, I knew it to be wrong, and accordingly didn't promote drug use, talk about it openly in front of people who didn't take drugs, or try to seriously say it was right (apart from tongue in cheek conversations while off my head). The gays should know their place as well.

[GTI]

The problem is that Darwinism has been elevated to quasi-religious status where as Cowan says, you are perceived as a religious nut if you even doubt its validity. This is a form of brainwashing where by associatiation religion is cast as fantastical myth and Darwinism is linked with science, reason and progress. But I personally don't believe that science and religon are mutually exclusive. I admit its true that Darwinian evolution can be explained within the framework of science and God cannot, but whether you believe in a sequence of trillion to one events is an entirely different matter.
Evolution is rather like a hurricane moving through a junkyard - its entirely possible that pieces of scrap metal will come together to form a Ferrari... but highly improbable.

[CzarJunkie]

The problem is there isn't 2 sides to this argument. There may be some holes in the science and if the subject is taught correctly children should realise that answers simply don't exist for some aspects of our physical world. That doesn't mean we have to plug those holes with the idea of intelligent design.

To infer there is a 'Supernatural Being' involved in the creation of the Universe is clearly fukin bonkers and a very slippery slope. Before we know it we'll be adopting the 'Kansas State' model and within a generation we'll be thumbless and marrying animals we usually milk.

[CzarJunkie]

Personally I think it's terrible the way that these days homosexuality is being shown as ok or even trendy.

Another example I'll give, for years of my life I was a drug abuser. It was a lifestyle choice of mine that didn't affect others, yet all the way along, I knew it to be wrong, and accordingly didn't promote drug use, talk about it openly in front of people who didn't take drugs, or try to seriously say it was right (apart from tongue in cheek conversations while off my head). The gays should know their place as well.

Words fucking fail me. If some cunt posted similar thoughts on the ethnic minorities you'd go fukin bananas. And you'd be right to.

So change your attitude or stop posting bollocks like that. Ignorant fucker.

[Roach-Rampino]

Another example I'll give, for years of my life I was a drug abuser. It was a lifestyle choice of mine that didn't affect others, yet all the way along, I knew it to be wrong, and accordingly didn't promote drug use, talk about it openly in front of people who didn't take drugs, or try to seriously say it was right (apart from tongue in cheek conversations while off my head). The gays should know their place as well.

This reminds me of an episode in this last series of Sopranos, where Vito has run away because the fact that he is gay has come out amongst the crew, his family and friends. At one point Vito makes a call home and his wife pleads with him to come back, she says "Please come home, we can get you help..they can cure you". Shocking but the fact is there's folk out there that think like this.

[beansontoast]

Here's an interesting site by a group called "Science, Just Science" that I've been reading about in the education supplements.

http://www.justscience.org.uk/tikiwi...tiki-index.php

[GTI]

Before we know it we'll be adopting the 'Kansas State' model and within a generation we'll be thumbless and marrying animals we usually milk.

Well we've managed pretty well thus far. But the real question is, would you want to live in a world of pure aetheism? Even Marx was moved to write 'religion is the heart in a heartless world'. For all the bad none in the name of religion there is still an awful lot of good.

[BBK]

Well we've managed pretty well thus far. But the real question is, would you want to live in a world of pure aetheism? Even Marx was moved to write 'religion is the heart in a heartless world'. For all the bad none in the name of religion there is still an awful lot of good.

Parts of me would like to try. Personally, I believe religion has served its purpose and its time for society to break free on the constraints, and start to realise that they themselves are responsible for their actions and the consequences. Even on an ethical level, which many seem to state is a good thing that religion has brought us, it still very much boils down to the person reading those ethics. In the Bible (and I read it a couple of years ago, despite being a confirmed atheist for many a year, in an attempt to understand some of what my then wife believed) you can find excuses to perform just about any horrific act you can think of - including the aforementioned casting of homosexuals as evil. We now have laws in place to stop people breaking the ethical boundaries put in place, so I struggle to see any real harm in an atheistic society.

[beansontoast]

I think good things would still happen GTI but people wouldn't be compelled to do them by guilt or fear of satisfying/breaking some ancient rules.

I really hope this topic stays open it's brilliant.

p.s. my mate pulled into a hard shoulder & hopped over the fence to lay a cable. 5 minutes later when he got back to the pick-up someone had left him a pack of promotional material for a church for transport workers, including tea coffee & sugar, and of course lots of pamphlets. They work in mysterious ways

[CzarJunkie]

Would you want to live in a world of pure aetheism?

A better question would be, do human's need religion in order to foster a sense of morality? The answer has got to be no, unless of course, the morality was passed down directly from a higher being to the authors of the bible (or whatever religious text you favour). And you know my thoughts on that.

So I would say a world of pure aetheism in theory would be ideal. But the inability of the human mind to comprehend death makes that world impossible.

[Over Carl]

To infer there is a 'Supernatural Being' involved in the creation of the Universe is clearly fukin bonkers and a very slippery slope.

Hmm, how come my comments which could be offensive to some members of society was an infraction offense, yet the above comments are fine? I reckon if the world was to be surveyed, more people would be offended by the above than by my comments (note, I'm not saying my previous comment was right or wrong, and I'm not shit stirring cos CJ gave me the infraction, I just noticed this, and I feel this comment is easily as out of line as mine - both showing no respect to people with different beliefs).

Edit: I promise to never post anything homophobic as this is not getting me too far, but I think then equal standards should be applyed across the board.

[BBK]

But the inability of the human mind to comprehend death makes that world impossible.

How so? Personally I really don't understand what all the fuss is about over death. Its sad when someone dies, but I have no belief that "they're going to a better place". I see that when I die its just like the light switches going off and then all I am is a husk for people to do with what they want. I've said many a time that when I die I should just be put out with the bins, much easier that way. Harvest what they need and let the rats have the rest. I personally think its because religion is there that people fear death. Without the worry of heaven (or whatever it is in any religion), and whether you're going to get there or not, death itself poses no worry.

[CzarJunkie]

Hmm, how come my comments which could be offensive to some members of society was an infraction offense, yet the above comments are fine? I reckon if the world was to be surveyed, more people would be offended by the above than by my comments (note, I'm not saying my previous comment was right or wrong, and I'm not shit stirring cos CJ gave me the infraction, I just noticed this, and I feel this comment is easily as out of line as mine - both showing no respect to people with different beliefs).

Edit: I promise to never post anything homophobic as this is not getting me too far, but I think then equal standards should be applyed across the board.

I find the fact you are even comparing the 2 comments offensive and again, total ignorance on your part.

You even recognise it as homophobia, as you've mentioned above, so you can't even use the fuckwit excuse although you are obviously lacking any real intelligence to post bollocks like that.

And stop fukin pming questioning my decisions. If you don't like it you know where the door is.

[CzarJunkie]

I personally think its because religion is there that people fear death.

There would be no religion without death. Humans constructed religion as a rationale for death.

[John-Of-Ireland]

Wanna post my 2 cent worth on this topic.

All religion is induced by fear of the unknown. Two pointsd stand out for me:
(1) All big time religions operate as commercial entities and therefore tend to be self-generating.
(2) There's never been a society discovered anwhere in all human history that didn't have some form of belief whether it be in clouds in the sky, mountains, rivers, animals, other beings or mystical nonpersons.

Ergo, there's something in the makeup of man that requires deference to an order of things outside of his control and in regard to which, if he be respectful, he will be given an eternal reward.
John-Of-Ireland:emot83:

[BBK]

So are we all basically agreeing that the sole purpose of religion is to combat the fear of the unknown, be it death, how we got here etc.?

[GTI]

There would be no religion without death. Humans constructed religion as a rationale for death.

Once again we are confusing religion with theism. I am a theist in that I believe in a creator without following any particular religion, so if you like I belong to the 3rd way that believes in a God figure without necesserily believing in the Sweet baby Jesus and the 3 wise men.
I don't need the comfort of religion to help me die or live my life, in fact the thought of a God scares me because it throws up more questions than it answers e.g. why are we here, why doesn't God reveal himself etc.. I wish I had the certainty and conviction of a believer but I'm not quite there yet.

In my life I've gone through 3 main phases. Believing in the Sunday school version of God like any other child, believing in nothing during my teenage years i.e. you're born, there's a boring bit in the middle and then the lights are turned out, and now I'm onto my current phase of believing in an intelligent designer - I won't bore people again with my derivations, those can be found in this thread.

But all I wanted to discuss with this article is the hegemony Darwinism enjoys in the classroom whereby it is being taught as if a foregone conclusion without the checks and balances that a counter (intelligent design) argument could pose. I'm the first to admit that we are hamstrung by not having empirical proof of God's existence. But look at it this way, if we did then you would all be believers. Imagine if God came down from the heavens every Sunday to speak to his creation it would be pretty hard to still be an aetheist but he doesn't so we are simply left with faith. However through basic principles we can prove that evolution as a theory for the origin of species is deeply flawed, it not only contradicts established laws of physics but it is also statistically impossible. Like a tornado in a junkyard, you cannot categorcally disprove that junk would come together to form gleaming cars but reason tells you otherwise.