Cretinism
Oh sorry, I meant creationism
(via The Guardian):
Pupils in England will be required to discuss creationist theories as part of a new GCSE biology course being introduced in September.
Why can't we keep the scientific theories in the science classrooms, and the religious counter-arguments in the religious education classrooms?
NP: He Has Left Us Alone, but Shafts of Light Sometimes Grace The Corners Of Our Rooms, A Silver Mt Zion
Posted by HE at Fri Mar 10 15:07:29 2006:
Isn't this just yet another example of Blair prostrating himself before Bush? Dawkins need to rub his face in gravel.
Posted by Dan at Fri Mar 10 15:20:36 2006:
Can I add some ground glass and iron filings?
Creationism is funny... "Lets take the second law of thermodynamics, remove the bit about closed systems and then tell the rest of the world evoluition doesn't exist"
Personally, I prefer evidence.
Posted by Renato at Fri Mar 10 15:56:53 2006:
Creationism is funny... "Lets take the second law of thermodynamics, remove the bit about closed systems and then tell the rest of the world evoluition doesn't exist"
Personally, I prefer evidence.
I guess because for some reason the english speaking countries will go to any length to be politically correct just to please a tiny minority.
Try to say with a straight face that they'll teach creationism (or even consider it) in the science classes in italy. They'll laugh at you.
No, seriously :-)
And we are che country of the Vatican city!
Posted by HE at Fri Mar 10 16:13:50 2006:
Try to say with a straight face that they'll teach creationism (or even consider it) in the science classes in italy. They'll laugh at you.
No, seriously :-)
And we are che country of the Vatican city!
Renato: That's because creationism is a protestant disease. Even the pope has accepted evolution, which ought to tell you something about the backwardedness of the proponents of creationism.
Posted by Geoff at Fri Mar 10 16:43:54 2006:
Why do we use maths in physics? Why can't we just keep maths out of physics and do maths in the maths classroom and physics in the lab? Because much of physics depends on maths.
Likewise our understanding of the origin of the universe (and science itself) depends upon the ontological assumptions that we make - such as whether there is a God and, if so, what that God is like - that being the realm of religious theory. Unless it is consistently recognised throughout the education system, we will turn out young people who fail to critically examine their most basic epistemological presuppositions - and thus find themselves ill-equiped to have any meaningful dialogue with people from other backgrounds and cultures who have inherited alternative preconceptions about the nature, shape and origin of the world.
Also bear in mind that creationism, per se, is not "simple" religious indoctrination, but a consideration of scientific evidence which might point towards intelligent design, ie the involvement of a creator. To recognise the flaws in evolutionary theory and to recognise both the merits and the flaws of competing theories is surely only good science? To do anything else would be to distinguish between Scientific Truth(TM) and Scientific Heresy(TM), but based not on the content, but upon the context of the theory. Rational objectivity must rule, rather than a knee-jerk exclusion of anything because it's origins are insufficiently atheistic.
Posted by Ross at Fri Mar 10 16:54:35 2006:
Likewise our understanding of the origin of the universe (and science itself) depends upon the ontological assumptions that we make - such as whether there is a God and, if so, what that God is like - that being the realm of religious theory. Unless it is consistently recognised throughout the education system, we will turn out young people who fail to critically examine their most basic epistemological presuppositions - and thus find themselves ill-equiped to have any meaningful dialogue with people from other backgrounds and cultures who have inherited alternative preconceptions about the nature, shape and origin of the world.
Also bear in mind that creationism, per se, is not "simple" religious indoctrination, but a consideration of scientific evidence which might point towards intelligent design, ie the involvement of a creator. To recognise the flaws in evolutionary theory and to recognise both the merits and the flaws of competing theories is surely only good science? To do anything else would be to distinguish between Scientific Truth(TM) and Scientific Heresy(TM), but based not on the content, but upon the context of the theory. Rational objectivity must rule, rather than a knee-jerk exclusion of anything because it's origins are insufficiently atheistic.
There is an important difference between Darwin's Theory of Evolution, Big Bang theory, etc, and Creationism/ID/etc: the former all say that they are theories, we don't know everything, but we're making progress. For example, the Big Bang theory explains up to a fraction of a second before The Event, and then says quite plainly, "our current laws of physics break down here, no idea".
Creationism says "God did it", leaving out the questions of why God did it, how God did it, and where did God come from.
Calling beings that cannot be demonstrated to exist into creation to explain problems isn't science, it's religion. As I said, feel free to discuss Creationism and ID in the religion class, just mention it alongside the Hinduism and Islam.
Posted by Geoff at Fri Mar 10 17:52:54 2006:
Creationism says "God did it", leaving out the questions of why God did it, how God did it, and where did God come from.
Calling beings that cannot be demonstrated to exist into creation to explain problems isn't science, it's religion. As I said, feel free to discuss Creationism and ID in the religion class, just mention it alongside the Hinduism and Islam.
The assumption that a creator would precludes any honest scientific investigation of the origin of the universe is not one that a creationist would accept. (Some argue that western science as we know it today came originally from a belief in a rational God who made an ordered - ie. rational - universe which is susceptible to scientific investigation).
In so far as creationism recognises that some aspects of the origin universe are impenetrable, it (practically speaking) goes no further than evolutionary theory.
Creationism should not and does not answer the questions you list above (concerning God's purpose, power and presence) because they are, by definition, theological. (Although Christianity does).
Creationism essentially takes issue with the cosmic accident theory of origins and postulates that it is more credible to believe that there is/was a designer. It is not rational to suggest that because the theory comes with no complete definition of the specifics of supernatural interaction and creation in terms of material science, it can have no bearing on science. The distinction only appears to work by defining an ontological framework which presupposes that the laws of nature as we know them governed the whole process from the moment of the big bang onwards.
The problem is that unless you can disprove the supernatural, then the grounds for dismissing it must either be prejudice or probability. If probability, then it's an admission that we'll never know for sure, so feel free to doubt, or consider the alternatives (hence creationism). If prejudice, then it is an irrational opposition.
Why should a discussion about the origin everything be divided on the basis of such an arbitrary decision? Personally I think it would make more sense to teach evolution and creationism /ID/whatever religious theory side by side in a religious education/philosophy class with some serious consideration of the presuppositions that we have to make in order to seriously consider the question at all. But what is most dishonest is to present creationism as subjective myth (hence religious education class) and evolutionary theory as objective reality - because such a judgement is made on the basis of ontological and epistemological prejudice.
Posted by Tim at Fri Mar 10 20:02:19 2006:
In so far as creationism recognises that some aspects of the origin universe are impenetrable, it (practically speaking) goes no further than evolutionary theory.
Creationism should not and does not answer the questions you list above (concerning God's purpose, power and presence) because they are, by definition, theological. (Although Christianity does).
Creationism essentially takes issue with the cosmic accident theory of origins and postulates that it is more credible to believe that there is/was a designer. It is not rational to suggest that because the theory comes with no complete definition of the specifics of supernatural interaction and creation in terms of material science, it can have no bearing on science. The distinction only appears to work by defining an ontological framework which presupposes that the laws of nature as we know them governed the whole process from the moment of the big bang onwards.
The problem is that unless you can disprove the supernatural, then the grounds for dismissing it must either be prejudice or probability. If probability, then it's an admission that we'll never know for sure, so feel free to doubt, or consider the alternatives (hence creationism). If prejudice, then it is an irrational opposition.
Why should a discussion about the origin everything be divided on the basis of such an arbitrary decision? Personally I think it would make more sense to teach evolution and creationism /ID/whatever religious theory side by side in a religious education/philosophy class with some serious consideration of the presuppositions that we have to make in order to seriously consider the question at all. But what is most dishonest is to present creationism as subjective myth (hence religious education class) and evolutionary theory as objective reality - because such a judgement is made on the basis of ontological and epistemological prejudice.
It doesn't say teachers are obliged to present (or pupils are required to discuss) creationism as a scientific theory, it just says it's going to be part of the curriculum, doesn't it?
Even though I personally think of creationism more as somewhat of a joke (both as a scientific theory and a personal belief), I don't see anything wrong with it being discussed in class.
Discussion about what science is and why certain theories are regarded as science and others are not, where one should draw the line, how these things changed historically, and the nature of 'objectivity', 'empiricism' and scientific enquiry belong into science classes. Why wouldn't they?
Posted by Tim F at Fri Mar 10 20:45:11 2006:
Even though I personally think of creationism more as somewhat of a joke (both as a scientific theory and a personal belief), I don't see anything wrong with it being discussed in class.
Discussion about what science is and why certain theories are regarded as science and others are not, where one should draw the line, how these things changed historically, and the nature of 'objectivity', 'empiricism' and scientific enquiry belong into science classes. Why wouldn't they?
It's a bit hard to tell from that Guardian article what actually is going to be taught. I certainly wouldn't have a problem with science classes where students were taught that creationism was false.
Posted by CameronH at Fri Mar 10 22:28:34 2006:
What would one discuss about creationism in a science class anyway?
I suppose science doesn't say what's definitely right, but rather what hasn't yet been disproven scientifically; so there's not really much room for debate on whether it's true or false in a science class, but just a debate on whether it's been disproven scientifically yet... taking sides on things that have no hard evidence either way is more of a philosophy thing.
I don't think that it's really a science topic, since it doesn't affect how predictions are made and there are no known, even theoretical methods for disproving it, and it doesn't seem to be based on any logical foundation. (Though some claim that the improbability of life forming other ways means it must have happened...)
Occasionally in science classes there are crackpot theories and other weird theories mentioned, but they're only breifly touched on or explained why they're believed to be false.
Something quite weird I saw was "Explain how natural selection forms different species". In the markscheme it said 6 marks for reasoned explanation or 3 marks for discussion in terms of God.
I suppose science doesn't say what's definitely right, but rather what hasn't yet been disproven scientifically; so there's not really much room for debate on whether it's true or false in a science class, but just a debate on whether it's been disproven scientifically yet... taking sides on things that have no hard evidence either way is more of a philosophy thing.
I don't think that it's really a science topic, since it doesn't affect how predictions are made and there are no known, even theoretical methods for disproving it, and it doesn't seem to be based on any logical foundation. (Though some claim that the improbability of life forming other ways means it must have happened...)
Occasionally in science classes there are crackpot theories and other weird theories mentioned, but they're only breifly touched on or explained why they're believed to be false.
Something quite weird I saw was "Explain how natural selection forms different species". In the markscheme it said 6 marks for reasoned explanation or 3 marks for discussion in terms of God.
