The front page of todays Telegraph(not the main headline but still front page worthy) reads: "Put Creationism and evolution on equal footing, say teachers". Allegedly "One in three[British]teachers[believe]that creationism should have the same status as evolution, a survery found". So, it is assumed that of the 407,800 UK primary and secondary school teachers(which is conservative as the total was sourced from a 2004 report and by all accounts the numbers are steadily rising) one in three of them hold this opinion. The chief executive of Teachers TV,the station that conducted the survey, Andrew Bethell said of the findings: "This poll data confirms that the debate on whether there is a place for the teaching of creationism in the classroom is still fierce". Fierce indeed Andrew, considering the fact that 135,933 of our nations teachers sympathises with creationism. The Telegraph goes on to state that the findings clearly "support the views of Rev Prof Michael Reiss, who lost his job as director of education at the Royal Society...after calling for creationism to be included in school science lessons". I guess old Reverend Mick was right, kids. It's finally arrived in full force. It has embarked on a trans-atlantic odyssey, slithered it's way on to our shores and has settled into the consciousness of our childrens educators. At least, that is what The Telegraph would have us believe. In reality the survey was of a mere 1,200 teachers, less than the total number of teachers in the Greater London area. Fierce? So 0.2942618930848455% of our teachers holds such views. This is cheap, dishonest reporting. To the credit of The Telegraph the number of teachers involved in the survey was mentioned, however with that in mind by broadsheet standards this is hardly front page news. Taking into the account the fact that on page 22 of the 40 page publication tucked away in the corner is a brief expose on how Pakistan is implementing the death penalty for what it deems "cyber crimes", a piddling survey by a group of demics which claims that 0.2942618930848455% percent of British teachers are fuelling an educational and cultural revolution is obviously and transparently a display of creationist bias. The insignificance of this support cannot be expressed strongly enough. Creationism just ain't gonna fly in British comprehensive schools!
I need to point out that instead of "support" I meant to write "report" in the penultimate sentence.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/...esign-religion
If this is the same story, I think the phrase self-selecting puts it in context.
Teachers TV emailed 10,600 education professionals, of which 1,210 responded. Because the sample is self-selecting, only those teachers with the strongest views might have replied.
Indeed, but the problem I have is with the way the story was reported.
Chaz,
Since you can't yet post a link to the Telegraph article, here is one:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...evolution.html
FWIW, I agree with what I take to be your criticism. There is nothing to report here, save that a few crackpots have got together to pretend that there is controversy where there is in fact none.
And Bethell's use of the word still in
is a remarkable piece of bluster.This poll data confirms that the debate on whether there is a place for the teaching of creationism in the classroom is still fierce
Much obliged
Extract from telegraph:
Nearly half of teachers also agreed with Professor Michael Reiss' sentiment that excluding alternative explanations to evolution is counter-productive and alienates pupils from science.
"Perhaps most telling is the fact that, almost nine out of 10 teachers take the pragmatic view that they should be allowed to discuss creationism or intelligent design in science, if pupils raise the question."
Now I understand that every one is being hypersensitive about the creationism lobby groups, and that the Telegraph is allowing misrepresentation of the quality of the survey to push its right wing religious agenda - but what is wrong with acknowledging that there are different views and some are supported by evidence some are not.
When I was being taught about evolution, Lamarck's theory was discussed in detail as well, then the evidence presented to show why evolution became the accepted theory.
I have no problem with creationism being 'dealt' with in science classes. So long as it is only presented as a theory without evidence - and it is used to illustrate why religion can contribute nothing to real knowledge. I suspect that given the survey questions - I would have been among the 90% who supported a pragmatic view - allowing nutters to sell this story, but with no intention of letting a creationist view survive a single classroom outing.
Comparing teaching Evolution with Lamarckism and Evolution with Creationism is gifting the latter an honour of which is thoroughly undeserved. Lamarcks theories of soft inheritance, although now known to be false, were at the time a reasonable explanation for the complexity of life given the then current scientific zeitgeist. Modern Evolutionary Synthesis only came about after the advent of Mendelian Genetics, coined initially in the mid-1860's but only rising into prominence by the dawn of the new century. So with what research was available and feesible and what information was known at the time his theories are obviously primitive but ,put into context, reasonable. Post Darwin, Lamarck's ideas were laid down gently in the wider scientific community and are still regarded as the pathway to Darwin. Darwin even dedicated a chapter in his book 'Variation in Plants and Animals under Domestication' to Lamarckism or what he called Pangenesis and not discounting it as an auxillary mechanism for variation.
Creationism however has failed to capture the imagination of serious scientists at any point, and for good reason. It is grossly dogmatic, subjective and(most importantly) is based on nothing but gap theory, dated logical and scientific fallacies and biblical accounts. The claims of Intelligent Design are forever being debunked. It's strongest claim was that of the nature of the bacterial flagellum which despite being disproven is still cited by Creationists as the "smoking gun" . Take the time to examine the Discovery Institute's agenda and you will see the whole movement for what it is:bad scientists(the term used as loosely as possible) clutching at the threads of a dying faith. It is no different to Stalinist Genetics and Nazi Eugenics. Pseudo-science's spawned to further the creators objectives and further indoctrinate their loyal subjects. The technical philosophical term for this, and I don't intend to be fascicious, is 'bullshit'. Tis the propagation of an idea with no regard for it's truth value, rather it's rhetorical value and this is blatantly obvious in the case of ID and Creationism. Put the whole movement into context and it is even more hilariously ridiculous.
Are we to believe that the scientific community rejects Creationism and ID on account of being stubborn, ignorant and cold to evidence. Do you think the idea of a theory of everything doesn't make every scientist salivate? The pure fact is that the theories(or rather fantasies)don't hold any water and don't stand up to the scientific standards. To deprive our children of ID and Creationism is tantamount to depriving our children lessons in Alchemy (but even that had the hay-day not afforded to the Creation movement, after all Isaac Newton was an avid Alchemist). It has NO place in a science class. Indeed the only ever case in which it should be mentioned in a science class is to parade and exemplify it as a prime case of politicised, bullshit science. But even this is unnecessary. Even a child can see through the blatant fallacies of Creationism and ID.
Essentially we hold the same view but I clearly take a stronger stance on the issue than yourself Pebble(If that's your real name!).
Last edited by Chaz; 8th November 2008 at 10:09 AM. Reason: Grammar
I wonder how many of the 400 teachers out of the 10,600 approached, who took it upon themselve to be selected for this survey and answer in favour of creationism actually taught biology.
Any of the 1,200 who responded who don't teach science have opinions I don't much care about. Any who do should be sacked for incompetance.
Indeed Matt. I would not go as far as dismissals though. Those who hold exceptionally extreme and stultifying beliefs ought to be heavily scrutinised before being let into a classroom full of children (and thereafter also to ascertain whether they are fit to teach the curriculum objectively). This goes for any and all examples of non-thinking. I appreciate that the teachers surveyed were merely stating that Creationism should be aired openly and that this doesn't necessitate that they hold such beliefs but any reasonable person has to admit that it is impossible to draw a line between a sympathiser for a bonkers idea and a Bona Fide exponent.
Last edited by Chaz; 8th November 2008 at 11:10 AM.
Beware of dogmatism on either side of the argument.Originally Posted by Chaz
It is easy to dismiss creationism/ID now, but Darwin certainly took it seriously himself. So while most scientists have no real time for ID now, that is a position that was earned. So as with Galen's theory of blood tides, we teach the fallacies of past times to help the next generation understand first how people could have been so 'stupid' for many centuries and second to illustrate how failure to appreciate errors in methodology leads to grossly inaccurate conclusions.
Eugenics interestingly owes much to Darwin - though a bastardisation of his principles - and would have been wholly opposed by the ID crowd.
So the difference is that I believe we should use the mistakes (including where the whole premise is flawed) of others to educate, but am keenly aware that one must not by this process give the appearance of support for the misguided.
I have long thought that creationism cannot be taught as a credible concept/theory. There is no harm in allowing that the belief exists, and no value in denying that some people believe it.
What needs to be taught is why young earth creationism is actually so ludicrous, and why old creationism/id are such flawed theories.
An issue remains that rationalists and scientists still cannot explain how the universe and life began, but the argument that there is a creator/creative force is so poor, and the fact that science has gradually started to unravel facts must hold sway in the classroom. Unfortunately, while those gaps remain almost any wacky/misguided theories can fill the vacuum.
Of course, if one thinks that the Telegraph has any credibility, one is deluded, and luckily they are probably only preaching to the converted.
Pebble you misinterpret me on an astonioshing level. My mention of Nazi Eugenics is merely a comparison. I am comparing the two as they are both types of bullshit and subjective science(see my prior definition of bullshit). I did not claim a link between the two ideologically or methodologically. Furthermore Intelligent Design as a scientific method has been postulated upon on only philosophical levels. Nothing other than gap theory had ever been used as its sole basis. Darwin took it seriously in ignorance(not in a derogatory sense) initially but, rightly, gave it some small acknowledgement later on. My point is that no mechanisms were ever brought to the table which made people generally consider the possibility. Only religious indoctrination and ignorance gave it precedence in the minds of scientists. In terms of teaching Creationism I do agree that it needs to be discussed, but under no circumstances should this be done in a science class room. Science lessons are too short and there are more important issues to cover. It hasn't shaken the foundations of science in a profound enough way to be included. Sociology and Psychology classes are the perfect environment to air Creationism and I.D.. So being that none of the two are currently on the curriculum at the lower echelons of the education system the subject need not be discussed. It is of no intrinsic value.
Sorry I was hasty with my previous post:
Galen's theories are of no relevance. They predate modern science and could fit in an ancient history lesson at best. We might aswell discuss aboriginal notions of sunrise and sunset and asses their flaws in a science class by your logic.
But Galen's errors are taught as part of cardiovascular physiology. So it depends on what you are trying to achieve in science. If teaching the current state of knowledge and nothing more, your approach is fine. If you want to teach about scientific method, why it is important, and the dangers of not being a rigourous empiricist, then use of previous misconceptions is a very valid way of achieving this. Utilising currently popular misconceptions makes even more sense, since this provides the student with armour in the real world to deal with wooly thinking that he/she is likely to encounter.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks