Instead of picking on the utterly lovely Governor of Alaska, have a look at this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...nism.education
The "Director of Education" at the Royal Society (and who exactly would he be educating there?) Rev Prof Michael Reiss said he used to be an "evangelist" for evolution in the classroom, but that the approach had backfired.
"I realised that simply banging on about evolution and natural selection didn't lead some pupils to change their minds at all. Now I would be more content simply for them to understand it as one way of understanding the universe," he said.
Reiss said further that, although creationism and intelligent design are not scientific theories, this did not automatically exclude them from science lessons.
"Just because something lacks scientific support doesn't seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from the science lesson … there is much to be said for allowing students to raise any doubts they have – hardly a revolutionary idea in science teaching – and doing one's best to have a genuine discussion."
So give the wonderful Governor Palin a break - there is perhaps a problem a little closer to home...
Excellent, so the Director of Education doesn't understand the meaning of the words 'reason' and 'scientific'.Originally Posted by Jack of Kent
Could it be because he happens to believe in a mythical monstrosity? Just wondering.
It's bad enough thet they still have RE lessons in school but you can't start bringing it into science lessons, except of course to ridicule and poke fun at it for a brief diversion from real lessons...
It's like trying to combine maths and drama lessons...
Director of education at the Institute of Education: with a Royal Charter.
Lookin at their courses this is not exactly mainstream science. The mean age of their students is 30 - 40, mainly distance part-time learning.
http://ioewebserver.ioe.ac.uk/ioe/cms/get.asp?cid=54
Academic Departments
From September 2007 the Institute has restructured its academic departments to streamline support for its teaching and research. More about restructuring
Faculty of Children and Health
Dept of Early Childhood and Primary Education
Dept of Psychology and Human Development
Social Science Research Unit
Thomas Coram Research Unit
Faculty of Culture and Pedagogy
Dept of Arts and Humanities
Dept of Learning, Curriculum and Communication
Dept of Geography, Enterprise, Mathematics
and Science
London Knowledge Lab
Faculty of Policy and Society
Centre for Longitudinal Studies
Dept of Continuing and Professional Education
Dept of Education and International Development
Dept of Educational Foundations and Policy Studies
Dept of Lifelong and Comparative Education
London Centre for Leadership in Learning
National Research and Development Centre
for Adult Literacy and Numeracy (NRDC)
Dept of Quantitative Social Science
I suggest we not get too worried.
Sounds entertaining - and why not? Bit like Sesame Street for grown ups?It's like trying to combine maths and drama lessons...
Are you trying to imply I'm to old to learn?
OK you're probably correct.
Professor Reiss has issued the following clarification. "Some of my comments about the teaching of creationism have been misinterpreted as suggesting that creationism should be taught in science classes. Creationism has no scientific basis. However, when young people ask questions about creationism in science classes, teachers need to be able to explain to them why evolution and the Big Bang are scientific theories but they should also take the time to explain how science works and why creationism has no scientific basis. I have referred to science teachers discussing creationism as a worldview'; this is not the same as lending it any scientific credibility."
The Press release was dated September 12th.
http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?id=8004
But according to "Timesonline",http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...fset=12&page=2Professor Reiss, a Church of England clergyman, said: “Just because something lacks scientific support doesn’t seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson.”
I am muddled.
Perhaps the Rev Prof Reiss is not very good at communication. A startling lack for a Director of Education.
Looks like a Sir Humphrey Clarification ( not to make things clear, but to put the speaker in the clear).
I'm just wondering how this in anyway stops Sarah Palin from being an absolute raving lunatic.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks