That's also my perspective. I grew up in Mexico, a very Catholic country and I went to a private Catholic school and we had religious classes and science classes. The content of both wasn't mixed, we had "brothers" giving the religious ones, and real scientists (Chemists, Biologists) giving the science ones. Even priests conceded that the Genesis story was a metaphor.
I had similar experiences in Hungary: I grew up in a very religious community (mostly Catholic) and went to a Catholic high school. Many of our teachers (including biology, geology and physics) were Catholic priests, yet I never heard anybody arguing against evolution.
I was 17 years old when I first met a young-earth creationist: he was an American missionary... I am still Christian and I know lots of people in various religious groups, but 14 years later I have only met one person who believes in Intelligent Design, and I know about 2 other people from mailing lists / blogs who are creationists.
The sad part is, young-earth creationists are such a vocal group that whenever somebody learns that I am a Christian, I am usually asked how I can believe in such nonsense as a 6000-year old Earth :)
To be clear, despite the current story, it's not really a thing in Scotland or the UK either. I think this was prompted by some American faith groups getting involved in some schools in Scotland. The reason they weren't previously banned is because no-one thought it would come up.
This is interesting. I would have thought this was one of the factors dragging down math and science test scores in many western countries. The latest OECD rankings of 15 year olds in math and science put the UK at 20th and US at 28th. Seems pretty poor considering a country like Vietnam which was ravaged by war only a generation ago ranks 12th.
FYI Top 10 [1]:
1.Singapore
2.Hong Kong
3.South Korea
4.Japan (joint)
5.Taiwan (joint)
6.Finland
7.Estonia
8.Switzerland
9.Netherlands
10.Canada
I think the Western poor performance is a result of (a) terrible disorganisation in the education bureaucracy and (b) a lack of belief by people at the low end in the value of education for social mobility.
It's very easy for someone who didn't get educational opportunities to believe that making their kids do well will go better for them. In the West, there are a noticeable minority of people who did OK in the standard education, did badly in the search for work, and now have kids.
There are claims that sampling errors for the best known one hurt the US. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_Stu... for more.) I have heard anecdotes that suggest some Asian countries (notably Singapore) pick unrealistically good students for their sample to make themselves look good. And also there is a question about mismatch between the test and the curriculum - certainly the US does better on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trends_in_International_Mathema... than on PISA.
None of this is to say that the US actually has a good education system. But it is not necessarily as bad as people think.
Not so much homeschooling specifically as Christian, mostly Protestant, political conservatives (often theologically fundamentalist, but not exclusively). Sometimes they also homesick as a reaction to content in public schools, but in many places in the US they've been fairly successful in dominating school authorities at the local and even state level and directing the curriculum.
But American religious/political activist groups often work to expiry their views overseas as well and implement similar policies -- there's been some attention to that on anti-gay policies, but pro-creationism features some of the same tactics.
In the SE US it's also common to find a lot of (non-Catholic [0]) Christian schools where this is prominent as well. I haven't, in recent years, spent enough time in any other US regions to know if they're similarly common elsewhere. It seems like a new one pops up every year or two in this county.
[0] I make this distinction because, IME, Catholic schools are generally better about separating science and religion courses. There are still more fundamentalist Catholics, but the Church (and thus most of the schools) has pulled away from that over the years.
Creationism is a huge thing in the USA. At the state and local levels, where elementary and high school curriculum is mostly decided, there are fights over it all the time. Evolution is enough of a hot-button-issue that it's mostly glossed over in public schools, to the detriment of biology classes. People set up charter schools all the time in order to teach creationism outright.
There was a case last year in England where a religious school removed questions on evolution from exam papers: "The examinations body, OCR, says it was satisfied that the girls did not have an unfair advantage. It now plans to allow the practice" [0].
I find it funny and sad that in 21st century we still have to explicitly prohibit such thing. Up next -- "Tooth faery theory banned from dental schools".
It was not banned. It was never permitted in the first place, or more accurately, the issue was never even raised before this. A special interest group asked the government to ban it, the government answered that of course it's not allowed in science class as it's not science, there's nothong that has to be done, the group decided to interpret the matter-of-factly reply as "banning". There was no administrative action involved.
There's nothing in the article to suggest they actually did have to (quite the contrary -- the government had been replying for ages that there wasn't a need for a ban).
Perhaps I'm cynical, but it seems to have gone like this...
"Minister, when will the Government ban bandersnatches from school cupboards?"
"Um, I'm pretty sure there aren't any bandersnatches in the school cupboards..."
"Minister refuses to ban bandersnatches from school cupboards! Everyone, sign our petition to insist that school cupboards are no place for a bandersnatch, and join our team!"
"I really don't think we have any..."
"The government is still refusing to institute a proper ban on keeping them in school cupboards, and putting our children's education at risk! Like us on Facebook! Tweet our campaign link! With your help we can make them move on this!"
"But we really... oh, forget it, fine, we hereby ban bandersnatches from school cupboards, will you go away now please?"
"Hooray! Thanks to our campaign, the government has finally banned bandersnatches from school broom cupboards. This is why you should donate to us -- remember, we're the organisation that finally made the government ban bandersnatches from school cupboards, and you can make your donation to us at this address..."
The government argued there was no need for a ban because it trusted teachers' judgement, but in at least one primary school, that trust was misplaced: the principal invited an evangelical group in to preach to the children and hand out books that taught creationism as scientific fact.
They might not allowed to teach creationism as part of the national curriculum but there are creationists in English schools and it's probably useful to have laws preventin them fromteaching creationism as science.
If you're comparing creationism to the tooth fairy, it's fair to point out that the alternate scientific theory is that we magically appeared out of nothing, like Dr. Who's telephone box. I'm not arguing for either theory, and certainly not arguing for the teaching of creationism in schools.
I assume that when you say "I'm not arguing for either theory" that you're attempting to come across as balanced in some way. Which is sad, because not arguing for the theory with a massive weight of evidence behind it is completely ridiculous.
I'm not sure whether you're referring to the Big Bang or abiogenesis when you say "magically appeared out of nothing," but either way, there's a great deal of evidence that these events did actually happen, even if the exact mechanism for how it happened is not known. In contrast, creationism is outright fiction, like Star Wars or Harry Potter.
> If you're comparing creationism to the tooth fairy, it's fair to point out that the alternate scientific theory is that we magically appeared out of nothing, like Dr. Who's telephone box.
If that's your understanding of evolution, it's fair to point out that maybe if you hadn't been taught creationist lies, that time could have been spent teaching you evolution, which you clearly needed more time learning, since you don't understand it.
I'm divided on these sorts of things (I didn't used to be). Sure science classes shouldn't be teaching religion, but having governments decide what's an approved view for its population is bothersome. People should be allowed to make mistakes and when the parents realise that their kids are at a disadvantage then the parents should learn to gather together and fix it themselves. Encourage people to be active in their community rather than sitting back and expecting someone from the top to take the initiative.
Kids do get taught about religion in Scottish schools in Religious, Moral and Philosophical Studies - where they can learn about lots of different religions and their different beliefs. My son has just done this course at National 5 and found it very interesting and he's not in the slightest bit religious:
This move, more likely, is aimed to protect children against idiot parents. Much like vaccination is being enforced. People do have right to be ignorant and believe whatever bullshit they want, but forcing stupid/harmful believes on children should not be allowed as it may damage them for the rest of their lives. If I were in charge, I would ban all religion related matters on children under 18.
>having governments decide what's an approved view for its population
I don't think it's about governments deciding on an approved view, so much as government removing the teaching of obvious nonsense from schools.
Religious schools - which still exist, unfortunately - have no problem with forcing their approved views on kids, even after those views have proven to be harmful: as in - say - abstinence education instead of useful sex ed.
Why is it bothersome that the goverment decides that it is illegal for schools to teach a lie?
Schools are a social(ist) institution put in place by the goverment to ensure people have an equal access to knowledge - a foundation.
Schools also have to follow a certain curriculum which would give this foundation. A school cannot simply choose to not teach reading or writing, or teach that the earth is flat because they beleive this is the right thing to do.
This has come up previously with different topics over the years. In many countries it is explicitly illegal for schools to teach that the Holocaust ever happened, or use text books that alledge this.
Because banning gives a government the power to hide the truth. Who gets to decide something is a lie? The majority may all be in favor this time, but what gets banned next?
There is no issue with schools deciding it is not in their interest to teach a subject; however, not being allowed to discus a subject is same as book burning.
How about letting schools teach the subject along with skills on how to do proper investigation and scientific research and logical reasoning. In other words, how about teaching the kids how to logically reason through fact or fiction so they are prepared to analyze other subjects appropriately.
By that line of reasoning schools should no teach anything at all. 2+2=5 is just as valid math as 2+2=4, anything else would be allowing the government to hide the truth!
That is not what I stated. Banning is saying that we can't discuss why 2+2 is not 5, because that subject is banned.
If a lot of people come often come to a wrong conclusion, you should be able to teach and discuss why that happens.
Banning subjects is running away from debate and discussion. It fails to teach logical analysis and investigation.
If any of my math classes had wasted a bunch of time on, "While we know that 2+2=4, there are a bunch of people who believe that 2+2=5, here's why they're wrong," I would have been rather annoyed.
The space of things that are wrong is too vast to explore thoroughly. Stick to what's right.
I didn't expect anyone to take the example as a literal. The example was only a concept in response to the original poster who used it as a concept prop for their argument.
"Stick to what's right" lol, that's the point. Who decides what is right? The government? The teachers? Education should be more about how to learn and how to discover truth, not about force feeding what some bureaucrat thinks is right or wrong or important. The greatest period of geniuses per capita in history were during time of when the socratic method was used for teaching.
Sure golden age Athens had many brilliant minds, but the relation to the Socratic method is dubious. The Socratic method was pioneered by Socrates in opposition to contemporary education, which is the environment where all these minds grew up.
So it is absolutely not the case that everyone in golden age Athens was educated through the Socratic method. It seems to have been more of a fringe school. After all, Socrates was controversial enough to be executed for corrupting the young! If the satire in Aristophanes "The Clouds" represents the mainstream view, Socrates was considered kind of a nutcase.
In any case, the Socratic method might be useful for teaching critical thinking and philosophy, but it has pretty limited use for the natural science, since it doesn't help you to discover new facts about the world, only to think logically about the facts you already know.
The Socratic method will not help you decide if the earth is round or flat, and neither will it help you decide if evolution or creationism is the most correct theory. You need observations and experiments in addition to logic to discern that.
"relation to the Socratic method is dubious". Possibly, but what a coincidence that at least 4 such notables were his students. Xenophon, Plato, Aristotle, and Aristophanes
"The Socratic method will not help you decide if the earth is round or flat, and neither will it help you decide if evolution or creationism is the most correct theory. You need observations and experiments in addition to logic to discern that."
Yet the information we are talking about is readily available to make such decisions. Therefore it is precisely the critical thinking process which is important to how the information is consumed and utilized. Most people don't error because the knowledge isn't available. They error because they can't accept or evaluate new knowledge.
The final article I listed I think makes a good case that the concepts behind this method improve discovery and learning through experimentation as well.
Many people attach themselves to whatever theory they were first taught. They accepted it as true because in their learning process they accepted their educators as a source of truth. Instead, if they were taught to continually evaluate what they know and that through continuous evaluation is the only process for truth, they could accept new information and more readily evaluate and resolve conflicts with what they already know.
> the information we are talking about is readily available
This is sidestepping the whole issue under discussion. The purpose of science education is to teach students about the theories in the field, what evidence is available, how it was obtained, how to reproduce the evidence and so on. Creationism is not even a theory since it makes no falsifiable claims so it doesn't make sense in any way to treat in a science class. It belongs in religion or in philosophy classes
Proponents of creationism do use science, although it is selective science. I think it is important part of critical thinking to analyze a theory in respect to whether it takes into account all evidence or selective evidence.
As far as falsifiable criteria, I think string theory would also have a problem under those restrictions.
I've not seen anyone treat string theory as "this is true" though. At best it's "this is a cool idea and it might maybe possibly explain some stuff if anybody can ever figure it out."
Interesting point on the perspective of "this is true". Does that mean creationism would be an acceptable topic if not presented in the context of "this is true"?
I think the problem with creationism is that even though there may be some select science used as part of the theory, it quickly tends to then be used to state that because "this is true" (assumed but unproven truth) therefore this religious doctrine must also be true. I think that is somewhat implied even if not stated and that becomes an issue.
Otherwise, there really isn't much of a distinction between creationism and theories that the entire universe is a sophisticated computer simulation. They are both forms of intelligent design.
The computer simulation theory is a philosophical thought experiment, where the point is that you can't really tell the difference. Creationism is different because it states a theory (the species did not originate over time from a common ancestor) which is flatly contradicted by evidence. Neither theory does of course belong in biology classes, but one is more wrong and stupid than the other.
I'm pretty sure that neither "Tatties last trendings: tasty scran or cancerous shite? nor "10 things that doctors don't want you to know about wrinkles" are or will be in the curriculum of the scottish students, never, ever... You can trust me with this.
Who is talking about banning subjects? It is just a question of keeping science in science classes, and the study of religious ideas in classes about the study of religions ideas. For example the change from the geocentric to a heliocentric model and the Galileo controversy are important parts of the history of ideas and should be studied as such. But obviously the Ptolemaic model should not be thought in astronomy classes as if it was valid science.
> however, not being allowed to discus a subject is same as book burning
They are allowed to discuss a subject, but not on the science class because it is not science. Or do you think that it has to be allowed to teach that the Earth is flat in science class?
"Why is it bothersome that the goverment decides that it is illegal for schools to teach a lie?" Creationism is not a lie. It is just not science. But then again, the same holds true for evolutionism, which is also not a lie. It is just also not science.
I don't like the word "lie," because it implies too much about people's motivations. A lie is a statement that the person believes to be false but says anyway. Creationists usually believe their own proclamations, so it's not a lie. It is, however, false. Creationism is false, both in large and in detail, in that it makes a great deal of claims that are demonstrably untrue.
What is "evolutionism"? I've never heard that word before.
Ah, Wikipedia has the answer: "In the creation-evolution controversy, creationists often call those who accept the validity of the modern evolutionary synthesis "evolutionists" and the theory itself as "evolutionism." Some creationists and creationist organizations, such as the Institute of Creation Research, use these terms in an effort to make it appear that evolutionary biology is a form of secular religion.[8][9]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionism
This is not that, though; it's a question of what's taught in schools. There has to be a curriculum. By necessity of the limits of time and effort, this can only include a finite number of things. For administrative efficiency, this is centralised in Scotland (and separately in England&Wales). Teaching creationism as science is simply a category error. Teaching it as fact is a factual error.
You're still free to take your children to Sunday school and teach them whatever you want there.(+)
(+) well, apart from the banned sectarian football songs
What do you suppose a government is, if not people "gather[ing] together [to] fix it themselves"?
I'll also note that if parents feel strongly about their children learning creationism, nothing prevents them from teaching it themselves, or buying books that teach it, or even inviting "learned" lecturers to present the topic. This is just about taxpayers not paying for the teaching of nonsense.
> People should be allowed to make mistakes and when the parents realise that their kids are at a disadvantage then the parents should learn to gather together and fix it themselves.
Fix it themselves, perhaps by electing government officials who represent their views on what should be taught in schools and can outlaw obvious lies from curriculum? I really don't see the problem here.
Most of the UK and Ireland are arguably secular (but not technically) with most people holding reasonable scientifically literate beliefs.
Northern Ireland however is the last bastion of open religious bigotry and nonsense in the UK. Classic example. Republic of Ireland passed a Gay Marriage referendum last week while at the same time in NI a confectionary baker "Ashers" in Northern Ireland refused to serve a gay man who requested a cake that had support for gay marriage iced on the cake. The controversy showed that many in NI are at worst openly hostile or at best completely indifferent to gay people. This kind of attitude is carried in to classrooms in NI as well.
I support this move by Scotland but Northern Ireland has some crazy creationists nonsense still happening and these kind of measures are need much more in NI than the rest of the UK.
Actually no, not in the younger generation but absolutely in the older generations. Ireland is one of the most rapidly secularising/atheist countries in the world at the moment with the UK close behind.
Only two states in the US that explicitly bans creationism have above average NAEP scores. Nearly every state with above average NAEP scores allows some form of creationism in the science room. Sure kids should learn evolution, and creationism belongs in the religion class, but there are many other things to fix in education before this.
Creationism has obviously no foundation in science but neither has evolutionism. Where are the repeatable experiments required in order to be able to look for counterexamples for evolutionism? Has anybody ever "evolved" a species from another? If yes, how can we repeat that experiment? It is clear that evolutionism has no scientific status either.
They may indeed try to evolve a species out of another. In all examples in your link, they stay within the same species, however. There is simply no convincing experiment in which they evolve one species out of another. It does not exist.
"Species" is an artificial distinction that human biologists use to make it easier to talk about what's going on. There is no objective distinction between species. The idea that the universe somehow permits evolution within a species but does not permit evolution from one species to another is nonsensical, on roughly the same level as thinking that it's possible to walk one mile but not possible to walk ten miles.
Indeed, the first problem starts already with just the title of that notorious book: On the origin of species. What exactly is a species? If we cannot etch a reasonable definition for that term in stone, then all statements that make use of that term are questionable, on that basis alone. Evolutionism then becomes a theory about things that we cannot define that evolve into other things that we cannot define ... How could that ever be science?
"Evolutionism was a common 19th century belief that organisms inherently improve themselves through progressive inherited change over time, and increase in complexity through evolution. The belief went on to include cultural evolution and social evolution."
And more to the point:
"In modern times, the term evolution is widely used, but the terms evolutionism and evolutionist are seldom used in the scientific community to refer to the biological discipline as the term is considered both redundant and anachronistic, though it has been used by creationists in discussing the creation-evolution controversy. Apart from the use of the word by creationists, it is also often used by theists to imply a worldview that is essentially naturalistic."
You are not correct. Evolution have been observed in nature and artificially reproduced many many times. Just look at dogs. Separate species of fruit flies have been evolved in a laboratory setting.
An experiment must be conducted in a controlled environment. Merely staring at iguanas that they found on an island, does not constitute an experiment. What are the inputs, the outputs and the function that they have unleashed during their experiment in order to transform input into output? Furthermore, into what did they try to transform their iguanas? Into cats or dogs?
> Field experiments are so named in order to draw a contrast with laboratory experiments, which enforce scientific control by testing a hypothesis in the artificial and highly controlled setting of a laboratory. Often used in the social sciences, and especially in economic analyses of education and health interventions, field experiments have the advantage that outcomes are observed in a natural setting rather than in a contrived laboratory environment.
It sounds too much like you are requesting an exemption from the governing anti-alchemy policy that you would like to see suspended -- as a matter of exception -- in order to let through the gates some questionable things that we should not qualify as science. Just staring at things during a 'field experiment' will never be science. You must modify them, and we should be able to repeat your modifications. So, no thanks but no. No exemption.
Not sure what you are getting at, field observations are an important part of many sciences like biology, geology, meteorology etc. Just as an example, if you want to study animal behavior it is much more valid to study it in the natural habitat than in an artificially created environment. Sure, lab experiments area also used in these sciences, but they are really complementary to the field observations.
In any case, your comment about evolving iguanas into cats and dogs indicate that you have a strange idea about about how evolution works. If a bad teacher gave you some wrong ideas then I can understand you skepticism. But you should probably try to understand evolution first before trying to criticize the theory as unscientific.
You don't understand what evolution is. It really a name, and needs no proof.
Basically, there are a few known facts: (1) organisms die, (2) organisms reproduce, (3) the offspring are different from each other and from the parents, (4) the differences are more or less random, (5) dying is not random but a consequence of external forces, and (6) external forces are relatively constant. From these facts, it logically follows that over generations (or ofganisms reproducing ans dying), the living organisms will become more and more adapted to the environment. To avoid this long and detailed explanation, we just call this process evolution.
It's completely the same as e.g. the word "evaporate" - instead of saying that kinetic energy causes H2O molecules to become more and more excited, and slowly breaks the H bonds between molecules, so that they can move freely inspace (gas), we just say "water evaporates".
It's fine to teach creationism... just not in a science class.
What the majority of the creation supporters don't get is that creationism isn't a science, it's a philosophy. There's nothing constructive or tangible about the theory. You can't test it in a lab, you can't observe it in nature--unless you think irreducible complexity (aka "we don't understand how this could come about, therefore it must be divinely created") is a sound scientific theory. (BTW most of Behe's original examples of "irreducibly complex" biological phenomena have since been reduced.)
I went to a very Christian liberal arts college and creationism was only taught in particular classes like Theories of Origins or theology courses. Biology classes only taught evolution. There might be one day that included a broader survey of creation theories, but that was it.
That being said, both the biology and theology departments were majority evolutionist. Go figure.
In my experience (of which I unfortunately have far too much), creationists fundamentally don't understand what science is, which is why they think their ideas qualify. They simply don't grasp the depth or the quantitative nature that underlies statements like "the universe is 13 billion years old" or "humans evolved from single-celled organisms."
It's basically cargo-culting popular science articles. They see something like "continental drift is demonstrated by how the coastlines of Africa and the Americas fit so neatly together." They then come up with something that sounds similar, like, "the Grand Canyon could have been carved by a huge and sudden deluge, demonstrating Noah's Flood." The fact that the Africa/Americas thing is just a brief summary of mountains (sometimes literally so) of data is completely lost.
Its worse than that. They're deliberately hijacking the catchphrases of science to appear legitimate, so they can insert their religious message into classrooms. Its as cynical as can be. No need to impute goodwill or mistaken good intentions; they have an agenda.
They truly believe that their opposition is doing the exact same thing. They're being underhanded because they believe that evil scientists (no doubt guided by Satan) make up clever-sounding non-God theories of the world to appear legitimate and thus push their non-religious message into classrooms.
We see this as people pushing fairy tales over truth. They see their actions as a small battle in a great war between God and the Devil.
The best remedy to this that I've found is simply more education. The majority of the freshman class were creationists in my college, but the majority of the senior class ended up evolutionists. It just takes thinking and exposure, especially from other Christians. Someone might grow up in a small world where to be Christian is to be creationist. Then he meets thoughtful, well-educated devoted Christians that aren't creationists and it opens his mind to other possibilities.
You really can't argue with creationists. I've gotten to the point where I don't argue with anyone that doesn't have a sufficient scientific background and shift the discussion toward whether they're knowledgeable enough to have such opinions. Then I challenge them to take some basic biology 101 coursework so we can actually have a real discussion.
The funny thing is, it was actually creationists that convinced me that evolution was true. I grew up in a fundamentalist Baptist church. Used to drive my biology teachers nuts regurgitating the arguments I'd read against evolution. Then toward the end of high school I went to a "Science Class" at my church. It was lead by some church dude that had little to no college education in the sciences. He started reading through some creation arguments from a book and it occurred to me how flimsy they were. So I started debating with him (I was just an argumentative kid and loved to play devil's advocate) and his reasoning just fell apart. I left that class immensely perturbed by my church's attempt to masquerade creationist propaganda as a "science" class. Clearly they didn't know what "science" actually entailed.
My biggest takeaway was that most of the people preaching against evolution are not even qualified to have an informed opinion on the subject. By college I had flipped camps.
Creationism isn't even a philosophy. Its a cynical attempt to inject religion into the classroom by masquerading as another subject. Its not 'fine to teach'; its deliberate quackery that should be rejected.
Although I'm an atheist, I find this to be somewhat disturbing.
Creationism, regardless of its mythological background, still is part of Humanity and any conclusions about it should be drawn by the individual, not the State or teachers.
They'd be better off spending more time with Critical Thinking, Scientific Method and Logic, powerful tools to genuinely understand Religion and not just take "facts" for granted.
Kids in Scotland can study Religious, Moral and Philosophical Studies if they want - which is, I believe, a far more appropriate context for religious beliefs than a science class.
Would you say this about other subjects, or just the origins of life and the universe?
Would you say that schools should not exclusively teach that 2+2=4, but give the students tools and allow them to draw their own conclusions? Should schools allow students to reach their own conclusions as to whether the Earth is flat, or whether the Sun is pulled across the sky by chariots?
Schools should absolutely teach creationism, in the same classes where they teach Greek mythology, Hindu gods, Native American creation stories, etc. And that is exactly what happens here. To quote the article, "...creationism can be taught in religious and moral education...."
Going back to the Greeks(e.g Essentialism) all the way to Modern Evolution would foster a much stronger intellectual background and avoid most future indoctrination. Understanding fallacies in theories is better than just taking them for granted.
But why be so picky on this matter? Unlike other concepts, Religion/Indoctrination can have a serious impact on one's life and true critical thinking is the only weapon against it.
I'm not sure I understand what you're proposing here or what your problem is with what's currently being done.
Are you saying there should be a single class that teaches both Essentialism and evolution? It seems reasonable for the same school to teach both, but they belong in different classes. The former would be in a philosophy class, while the latter would be in a science class. Are you saying that facts shouldn't be taught at all, merely the history of thought? Or, again, is it just evolution?
You say that religion is of particular importance here, but the whole point of this is that evolution is not religion. It's just science, like any other science, and belongs in school just as much as Newton's Laws or Maxwell's Equations. What's disturbing about a governing body saying that school science classes should only teach science and not religion?
The real irony is, the Creationist are so sure science can't be the right explanation. Why? The clear implication is, God was not smart enough to create a Universe that would evolve us. No, he had to cheat and Bang! here we are. Their God is as dumb as they are.
I'm currently teaching computing at a independent fundamentalist Christian 'young Earth' creationist school - in London, UK.
It's surreal at times. The kids (~20 altogether!) are wonderful: well mannered, eager to learn. So my frustration is extreme when I see the material they're being force-fed. The school follows the ACE ('Accelerated Christian Education') curriculum. It's imported from the USA, and teaches that the Earth is 6000 years old, that there was a Great Flood, and that evolution is evil. The textbooks are seething with pseudoscience - from illustrations of humans coexisting with dinosaurs, to articles connecting snakes to the serpent from the Garden of Eden, and so much more...
The real problem is that Ofsted - the UK government's regulator for standards in education - has consistently given the school a 'good' rating. (WTF???) Worse yet, the accreditation offered by the school - the ICCE (International Certificate of Christian Education) - is actually considered by UK NARIC (the 'designated National Agency responsible for providing information, advice and expert opinion on qualifications worldwide') to be "comparable to the overall Cambridge International O and A Level standard respectively." (Again, WTF???)
Since the government has utterly failed these student victims, I figured that perhaps an appeal to rationality might get somewhere. So, a few weeks back I had a 9 hour(!) meeting with the school principal and her husband. It failed, and perhaps I came close to being asked to leave. But I'm diplomatic (and valuable), so I'm still there.
Since then I've devoted many hours to Bible study, and research into the arguments of Creationists. (Remember: one can't engage with these people using reason or rationality. Know your opponent.) I strongly feel it's possible to convey to them the vitality of Science - that it's one of the holiest of human endeavors, to be blessed rather than reviled. And it's backed by solid religious arguments, supported completely by Scripture, and by Christian luminaries from Augustine of Hippo to John Calvin. I'm preparing a presentation to the school management (and, hopefully, parents)...
Incidentally, the article is wrong on one important point: "The teaching of creationism as a scientific fact and evidence-based theory is prohibited in schools in England and Wales."
This only applies to government-funded schools. Independent schools can get away with anything.
112 comments
[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 203 ms ] threadI was 17 years old when I first met a young-earth creationist: he was an American missionary... I am still Christian and I know lots of people in various religious groups, but 14 years later I have only met one person who believes in Intelligent Design, and I know about 2 other people from mailing lists / blogs who are creationists.
The sad part is, young-earth creationists are such a vocal group that whenever somebody learns that I am a Christian, I am usually asked how I can believe in such nonsense as a 6000-year old Earth :)
FYI Top 10 [1]: 1.Singapore 2.Hong Kong 3.South Korea 4.Japan (joint) 5.Taiwan (joint) 6.Finland 7.Estonia 8.Switzerland 9.Netherlands 10.Canada
[1]http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/singapore-tops...
It's very easy for someone who didn't get educational opportunities to believe that making their kids do well will go better for them. In the West, there are a noticeable minority of people who did OK in the standard education, did badly in the search for work, and now have kids.
None of this is to say that the US actually has a good education system. But it is not necessarily as bad as people think.
But American religious/political activist groups often work to expiry their views overseas as well and implement similar policies -- there's been some attention to that on anti-gay policies, but pro-creationism features some of the same tactics.
[0] I make this distinction because, IME, Catholic schools are generally better about separating science and religion courses. There are still more fundamentalist Catholics, but the Church (and thus most of the schools) has pulled away from that over the years.
[0] "Jewish school redacts exam to remove evolution questions" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-26437882
It would be a good thing to argument why creationism is an scientific material and should be allowed in an Science class after voting
Perhaps I'm cynical, but it seems to have gone like this...
"Minister, when will the Government ban bandersnatches from school cupboards?"
"Um, I'm pretty sure there aren't any bandersnatches in the school cupboards..."
"Minister refuses to ban bandersnatches from school cupboards! Everyone, sign our petition to insist that school cupboards are no place for a bandersnatch, and join our team!"
"I really don't think we have any..."
"The government is still refusing to institute a proper ban on keeping them in school cupboards, and putting our children's education at risk! Like us on Facebook! Tweet our campaign link! With your help we can make them move on this!"
"But we really... oh, forget it, fine, we hereby ban bandersnatches from school cupboards, will you go away now please?"
"Hooray! Thanks to our campaign, the government has finally banned bandersnatches from school broom cupboards. This is why you should donate to us -- remember, we're the organisation that finally made the government ban bandersnatches from school cupboards, and you can make your donation to us at this address..."
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/parents-outr...
Here's a clip of him talking to Dawkins.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xdlfm8_creationist-teacher-...
They might not allowed to teach creationism as part of the national curriculum but there are creationists in English schools and it's probably useful to have laws preventin them fromteaching creationism as science.
I'm not sure whether you're referring to the Big Bang or abiogenesis when you say "magically appeared out of nothing," but either way, there's a great deal of evidence that these events did actually happen, even if the exact mechanism for how it happened is not known. In contrast, creationism is outright fiction, like Star Wars or Harry Potter.
There really is not any middle ground here.
Evolution doesn't have anything to do with the origin of life
If that's your understanding of evolution, it's fair to point out that maybe if you hadn't been taught creationist lies, that time could have been spent teaching you evolution, which you clearly needed more time learning, since you don't understand it.
http://www.sqa.org.uk/sqa/47421.html
[Edit: I got Standard Grades and National 5s mixed up!]
I don't think it's about governments deciding on an approved view, so much as government removing the teaching of obvious nonsense from schools.
Religious schools - which still exist, unfortunately - have no problem with forcing their approved views on kids, even after those views have proven to be harmful: as in - say - abstinence education instead of useful sex ed.
Schools are a social(ist) institution put in place by the goverment to ensure people have an equal access to knowledge - a foundation. Schools also have to follow a certain curriculum which would give this foundation. A school cannot simply choose to not teach reading or writing, or teach that the earth is flat because they beleive this is the right thing to do.
This has come up previously with different topics over the years. In many countries it is explicitly illegal for schools to teach that the Holocaust ever happened, or use text books that alledge this.
And, this is probably a good thing.
There is no issue with schools deciding it is not in their interest to teach a subject; however, not being allowed to discus a subject is same as book burning.
How about letting schools teach the subject along with skills on how to do proper investigation and scientific research and logical reasoning. In other words, how about teaching the kids how to logically reason through fact or fiction so they are prepared to analyze other subjects appropriately.
If a lot of people come often come to a wrong conclusion, you should be able to teach and discuss why that happens. Banning subjects is running away from debate and discussion. It fails to teach logical analysis and investigation.
The space of things that are wrong is too vast to explore thoroughly. Stick to what's right.
"Stick to what's right" lol, that's the point. Who decides what is right? The government? The teachers? Education should be more about how to learn and how to discover truth, not about force feeding what some bureaucrat thinks is right or wrong or important. The greatest period of geniuses per capita in history were during time of when the socratic method was used for teaching.
However, this one does describe how probably such an estimate has been derived and used. http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2007/09/mysteri...
And as an additional FYI. Some more modern related research. http://www.wired.com/2013/10/free-thinkers/
So it is absolutely not the case that everyone in golden age Athens was educated through the Socratic method. It seems to have been more of a fringe school. After all, Socrates was controversial enough to be executed for corrupting the young! If the satire in Aristophanes "The Clouds" represents the mainstream view, Socrates was considered kind of a nutcase.
In any case, the Socratic method might be useful for teaching critical thinking and philosophy, but it has pretty limited use for the natural science, since it doesn't help you to discover new facts about the world, only to think logically about the facts you already know.
The Socratic method will not help you decide if the earth is round or flat, and neither will it help you decide if evolution or creationism is the most correct theory. You need observations and experiments in addition to logic to discern that.
"The Socratic method will not help you decide if the earth is round or flat, and neither will it help you decide if evolution or creationism is the most correct theory. You need observations and experiments in addition to logic to discern that."
Yet the information we are talking about is readily available to make such decisions. Therefore it is precisely the critical thinking process which is important to how the information is consumed and utilized. Most people don't error because the knowledge isn't available. They error because they can't accept or evaluate new knowledge.
The final article I listed I think makes a good case that the concepts behind this method improve discovery and learning through experimentation as well.
Many people attach themselves to whatever theory they were first taught. They accepted it as true because in their learning process they accepted their educators as a source of truth. Instead, if they were taught to continually evaluate what they know and that through continuous evaluation is the only process for truth, they could accept new information and more readily evaluate and resolve conflicts with what they already know.
This is sidestepping the whole issue under discussion. The purpose of science education is to teach students about the theories in the field, what evidence is available, how it was obtained, how to reproduce the evidence and so on. Creationism is not even a theory since it makes no falsifiable claims so it doesn't make sense in any way to treat in a science class. It belongs in religion or in philosophy classes
As far as falsifiable criteria, I think string theory would also have a problem under those restrictions.
I think the problem with creationism is that even though there may be some select science used as part of the theory, it quickly tends to then be used to state that because "this is true" (assumed but unproven truth) therefore this religious doctrine must also be true. I think that is somewhat implied even if not stated and that becomes an issue.
Otherwise, there really isn't much of a distinction between creationism and theories that the entire universe is a sophisticated computer simulation. They are both forms of intelligent design.
The scientific method. This is what we call it 'science' and not just 'opinion' or 'novel'.
But still, even if you constrain yourself to such a definition of what is right, in reality you still may be wrong.
For example: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/odds-are-its-wrong and https://plus.google.com/+ChrisReeveOnlineScientificDiscourse... and http://www.vox.com/2015/5/13/8591837/how-science-is-broken
I'm pretty sure that neither "Tatties last trendings: tasty scran or cancerous shite? nor "10 things that doctors don't want you to know about wrinkles" are or will be in the curriculum of the scottish students, never, ever... You can trust me with this.
They are allowed to discuss a subject, but not on the science class because it is not science. Or do you think that it has to be allowed to teach that the Earth is flat in science class?
Ah, Wikipedia has the answer: "In the creation-evolution controversy, creationists often call those who accept the validity of the modern evolutionary synthesis "evolutionists" and the theory itself as "evolutionism." Some creationists and creationist organizations, such as the Institute of Creation Research, use these terms in an effort to make it appear that evolutionary biology is a form of secular religion.[8][9]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionism
This is not that, though; it's a question of what's taught in schools. There has to be a curriculum. By necessity of the limits of time and effort, this can only include a finite number of things. For administrative efficiency, this is centralised in Scotland (and separately in England&Wales). Teaching creationism as science is simply a category error. Teaching it as fact is a factual error.
You're still free to take your children to Sunday school and teach them whatever you want there.(+)
(+) well, apart from the banned sectarian football songs
I'll also note that if parents feel strongly about their children learning creationism, nothing prevents them from teaching it themselves, or buying books that teach it, or even inviting "learned" lecturers to present the topic. This is just about taxpayers not paying for the teaching of nonsense.
Fix it themselves, perhaps by electing government officials who represent their views on what should be taught in schools and can outlaw obvious lies from curriculum? I really don't see the problem here.
Northern Ireland however is the last bastion of open religious bigotry and nonsense in the UK. Classic example. Republic of Ireland passed a Gay Marriage referendum last week while at the same time in NI a confectionary baker "Ashers" in Northern Ireland refused to serve a gay man who requested a cake that had support for gay marriage iced on the cake. The controversy showed that many in NI are at worst openly hostile or at best completely indifferent to gay people. This kind of attitude is carried in to classrooms in NI as well.
I support this move by Scotland but Northern Ireland has some crazy creationists nonsense still happening and these kind of measures are need much more in NI than the rest of the UK.
You don't need a definition of "species" to understand or work with evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_exp...
"Evolutionism was a common 19th century belief that organisms inherently improve themselves through progressive inherited change over time, and increase in complexity through evolution. The belief went on to include cultural evolution and social evolution."
And more to the point:
"In modern times, the term evolution is widely used, but the terms evolutionism and evolutionist are seldom used in the scientific community to refer to the biological discipline as the term is considered both redundant and anachronistic, though it has been used by creationists in discussing the creation-evolution controversy. Apart from the use of the word by creationists, it is also often used by theists to imply a worldview that is essentially naturalistic."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_experiment
In any case, your comment about evolving iguanas into cats and dogs indicate that you have a strange idea about about how evolution works. If a bad teacher gave you some wrong ideas then I can understand you skepticism. But you should probably try to understand evolution first before trying to criticize the theory as unscientific.
Basically, there are a few known facts: (1) organisms die, (2) organisms reproduce, (3) the offspring are different from each other and from the parents, (4) the differences are more or less random, (5) dying is not random but a consequence of external forces, and (6) external forces are relatively constant. From these facts, it logically follows that over generations (or ofganisms reproducing ans dying), the living organisms will become more and more adapted to the environment. To avoid this long and detailed explanation, we just call this process evolution.
It's completely the same as e.g. the word "evaporate" - instead of saying that kinetic energy causes H2O molecules to become more and more excited, and slowly breaks the H bonds between molecules, so that they can move freely inspace (gas), we just say "water evaporates".
Does point (5) needs any experiments? While point (6) just needs a more extensive definition.
These 6 points are giving you the proof that you are asking for evolution to be proven in a scientific method.
Edit: fixed typos.
What the majority of the creation supporters don't get is that creationism isn't a science, it's a philosophy. There's nothing constructive or tangible about the theory. You can't test it in a lab, you can't observe it in nature--unless you think irreducible complexity (aka "we don't understand how this could come about, therefore it must be divinely created") is a sound scientific theory. (BTW most of Behe's original examples of "irreducibly complex" biological phenomena have since been reduced.)
I went to a very Christian liberal arts college and creationism was only taught in particular classes like Theories of Origins or theology courses. Biology classes only taught evolution. There might be one day that included a broader survey of creation theories, but that was it.
That being said, both the biology and theology departments were majority evolutionist. Go figure.
It's basically cargo-culting popular science articles. They see something like "continental drift is demonstrated by how the coastlines of Africa and the Americas fit so neatly together." They then come up with something that sounds similar, like, "the Grand Canyon could have been carved by a huge and sudden deluge, demonstrating Noah's Flood." The fact that the Africa/Americas thing is just a brief summary of mountains (sometimes literally so) of data is completely lost.
We see this as people pushing fairy tales over truth. They see their actions as a small battle in a great war between God and the Devil.
The best remedy to this that I've found is simply more education. The majority of the freshman class were creationists in my college, but the majority of the senior class ended up evolutionists. It just takes thinking and exposure, especially from other Christians. Someone might grow up in a small world where to be Christian is to be creationist. Then he meets thoughtful, well-educated devoted Christians that aren't creationists and it opens his mind to other possibilities.
You really can't argue with creationists. I've gotten to the point where I don't argue with anyone that doesn't have a sufficient scientific background and shift the discussion toward whether they're knowledgeable enough to have such opinions. Then I challenge them to take some basic biology 101 coursework so we can actually have a real discussion.
My biggest takeaway was that most of the people preaching against evolution are not even qualified to have an informed opinion on the subject. By college I had flipped camps.
Freudian psychology is a bunch of unsubstantiated BS, but there are still entire classes devoted to it. There are still people that specialize in it.
If by "teach" you mean anything resembling "present a subject as if it were factual, and rooted in evidence", then no.
It's okay to inform students about creationism.
Creationism, regardless of its mythological background, still is part of Humanity and any conclusions about it should be drawn by the individual, not the State or teachers.
They'd be better off spending more time with Critical Thinking, Scientific Method and Logic, powerful tools to genuinely understand Religion and not just take "facts" for granted.
Kids in Scotland can study Religious, Moral and Philosophical Studies if they want - which is, I believe, a far more appropriate context for religious beliefs than a science class.
Would you say that schools should not exclusively teach that 2+2=4, but give the students tools and allow them to draw their own conclusions? Should schools allow students to reach their own conclusions as to whether the Earth is flat, or whether the Sun is pulled across the sky by chariots?
Schools should absolutely teach creationism, in the same classes where they teach Greek mythology, Hindu gods, Native American creation stories, etc. And that is exactly what happens here. To quote the article, "...creationism can be taught in religious and moral education...."
But why be so picky on this matter? Unlike other concepts, Religion/Indoctrination can have a serious impact on one's life and true critical thinking is the only weapon against it.
Are you saying there should be a single class that teaches both Essentialism and evolution? It seems reasonable for the same school to teach both, but they belong in different classes. The former would be in a philosophy class, while the latter would be in a science class. Are you saying that facts shouldn't be taught at all, merely the history of thought? Or, again, is it just evolution?
You say that religion is of particular importance here, but the whole point of this is that evolution is not religion. It's just science, like any other science, and belongs in school just as much as Newton's Laws or Maxwell's Equations. What's disturbing about a governing body saying that school science classes should only teach science and not religion?
What's disturbing in this? It's not like they are going to hang everyone who mentions anything about creationism....
It's not part of that sphere of humanity that we call science.
It's surreal at times. The kids (~20 altogether!) are wonderful: well mannered, eager to learn. So my frustration is extreme when I see the material they're being force-fed. The school follows the ACE ('Accelerated Christian Education') curriculum. It's imported from the USA, and teaches that the Earth is 6000 years old, that there was a Great Flood, and that evolution is evil. The textbooks are seething with pseudoscience - from illustrations of humans coexisting with dinosaurs, to articles connecting snakes to the serpent from the Garden of Eden, and so much more...
The real problem is that Ofsted - the UK government's regulator for standards in education - has consistently given the school a 'good' rating. (WTF???) Worse yet, the accreditation offered by the school - the ICCE (International Certificate of Christian Education) - is actually considered by UK NARIC (the 'designated National Agency responsible for providing information, advice and expert opinion on qualifications worldwide') to be "comparable to the overall Cambridge International O and A Level standard respectively." (Again, WTF???)
Since the government has utterly failed these student victims, I figured that perhaps an appeal to rationality might get somewhere. So, a few weeks back I had a 9 hour(!) meeting with the school principal and her husband. It failed, and perhaps I came close to being asked to leave. But I'm diplomatic (and valuable), so I'm still there.
Since then I've devoted many hours to Bible study, and research into the arguments of Creationists. (Remember: one can't engage with these people using reason or rationality. Know your opponent.) I strongly feel it's possible to convey to them the vitality of Science - that it's one of the holiest of human endeavors, to be blessed rather than reviled. And it's backed by solid religious arguments, supported completely by Scripture, and by Christian luminaries from Augustine of Hippo to John Calvin. I'm preparing a presentation to the school management (and, hopefully, parents)...
This only applies to government-funded schools. Independent schools can get away with anything.