British "teacher" encourages challenging Darwin

[Lord Zentei]

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

Chemistry teacher at Liverpool's Blue Coat School, Nick Cowan, says the packs promoting intelligent design are useful in debating Darwinist evolution.

Education officials insist intelligent design is not recognised as science.

It argues that evolution cannot explain some things so the universe must have had an intelligent creator.

The packs were sent out to 5,000 secondary schools by a group of academics and clerics known as Truth in Science.

The Department for Education and Skills said they were 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."

The call from Mr Cowan - former head of the school's chemistry department - comes as the Guardian reported that the Truth in Science materials were being used in 59 schools.

'Sacred cow'

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."

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

'Controversy'

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.

'Poorly served'

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.

Just in case people thought retardation of this particular kind was limited to the US of A. These fools seem to think that any challenges to existing theories are equally valid, comparing ID's challenge to Darwin with Einstein's challenge to Newton. Its as if they think that when people dismiss stupid bullshit out of hand they are stifling scientific discourse or something: apparently all ideas are equally valid in science as well, now. Philosophical relativism has come home to roost with the fundies and fringe nuts. I have no words to describe my contempt for such silliness.

Fortunately they seem to have been slammed down on the issue. Long may that continue.

[Admiral Valdemar]

The irony about common sense is, it's not so common.

[Rye]

It's a shame that open inquiry and free thought can be cited as a mere veneer to try and sneak in what is plainly religious and scientifically queer. At least people are seeing through it.

[Surlethe]

You know, if I were teaching a biology class and had the time, I would gladly accept the pamphlets, and set a class period aside to rip the arguments to shreds to help the class understand by contrast the scientific philosophy and way of looking at the universe. Of course, biology curricula is packed, and so I probably wouldn't have time, but there are contexts where exposing students to these ideas is not bad, I think.

[Frank Hipper]

The irony about common sense is, it's not so common.

When you realise that "common sense" is defined as "sound reasoning", the irony evaporates.

People are fucking stupid as shit, always have been, always will be.

[Magus]

You know, if I were teaching a biology class and had the time, I would gladly accept the pamphlets, and set a class period aside to rip the arguments to shreds to help the class understand by contrast the scientific philosophy and way of looking at the universe. Of course, biology curricula is packed, and so I probably wouldn't have time, but there are contexts where exposing students to these ideas is not bad, I think.

I would do the same. Really, a lot of what he is saying about "introducing controversial ideas," and "encouraging scientific debate" is quite commendable. However, that he believes these debates do not have a forgone conclusion shows his intellectual level. Of course, he really shoots himself in the foot with his "Science doesn't know all so God explains everything else" crap. Introduce the pamphlets by all means - let the kids debate, and then show the flaws and logical errors. Nothing feeds an idea quite like denying it exists.

[Velthuijsen]

Geez kids aged 10-18 (age category for said school) should get the basics of the currently accepted theory not some (unverifiable) hypothesis trying to replace it. That is the kind of stuff for the university and once it gets tested (which might present a problem due to the concept of God not available for testing) then and only then should it replace the old theory in the curriculum.

The reasons of how and why science works the way it does can be taught seperately and it would be a lot clearer to the kids then compared something during the biology classes that goes like: see this is evolution and this is a contending theory, discuss.

[Isana Kadeb]

Students already learn about intelligent design in RE classes (comparative religion) which are mandatory for everyone (at least it was the case when I was in school) .

[brianeyci]

Waste of time to introduce any pamphlets. What the creationists want is to plant a seed of doubt in children. Children debating over science? Please. There is no debate, no discussion, because children are not qualified to judge whether science is right or wrong. The only possible use of this would be as a counter example, with children being told this is wrong and why, but then it would just waste time and perhaps offend religious people, which is what the creationists want. As long as religion's treated as a separate topic, they have zero credibility. If it's discussed in science class, in the eyes of children it will have credibility.

[General Zod]

Waste of time to introduce any pamphlets. What the creationists want is to plant a seed of doubt in children. Children debating over science? Please. There is no debate, no discussion, because children are not qualified to judge whether science is right or wrong. The only possible use of this would be as a counter example, with children being told this is wrong and why, but then it would just waste time and perhaps offend religious people, which is what the creationists want. As long as religion's treated as a separate topic, they have zero credibility. If it's discussed in science class, in the eyes of children it will have credibility.

Frankly, tossing it to children to discuss and tell them to make up their minds on whether or not it's a science is like telling children to discuss the pros and cons of qi gong vs open heart surgery and having them make up their minds on which one is real medicine. It's stupid and shouldn't be done since classrooms aren't there to decide what constitutes a valid science or not.

[Enforcer Talen]

These children arent qualified to be determining what does and does not make good scientific theory. Let it be questioned at the graduate level; kids get the facts as currently known.

[Darth Wong]

Precisely. The scientific community encourages any and all challenges to its theories, but they have to be take place under the conditions of properly qualified participants, and high-school kids are so grossly unqualified that it isn't funny.

If someone was doing open-heart surgery and asked a high-school kid to determine the best way to suture up the aorta by looking it up on Google, people would scream bloody murder. It's no different here. They're just not qualified. Period.

[Magus]

This idea is starting to run away with itself... I didn't suggest that the students decide for themselves what to believe. I just suggested spending 5 minutes in class letting them mull over both "ideas" and trying to determine on their own which is the scientifically sound one. Then, the teacher explains which one actually is more scientifically sound, why, and proceeds to point out some of the more common errors of logic that may have led to the students coming to the wrong conclusion.

It's merely an exercise in critical thinking skills - the ability to differentiate between science and unfounded pseudo-science. Surely that's an important lesson to teach in science class at any level?

[Darth Servo]

Chemistry teacher at Liverpool's Blue Coat School, Nick Cowan, says the packs promoting intelligent design are useful in debating Darwinist evolution.

They are in that they prepare the students on what bullshit to expect from ID morons.

It argues that evolution cannot explain some things so the universe must have had an intelligent creator.

You can't argue from logical fallacies dumbasses.

The packs were sent out to 5,000 secondary schools by a group of academics and clerics known as Truth in Science.

Acacemics by whose standards?

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

Again, by what standards? Kindergarten?

He told the BBC: "Darwin has for many people become a sacred cow.

No more than thermodynamics or genetics or cell theroy.

"There's a sense that if you criticise Darwin you must be some kind of religious nut case.

The fact that every person who DOES criticize Darwin just happens to BE a religious nutcase is completely lost on them.

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

Einstein could mathematically back up his ideas. ID proponents cannot.

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

True, but saying, "duh, its too complicated so it must be God" is a step BACKWARDS.

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

No, but only a complete dumbass doesn't realize that this is PRECISELY what is meant by "an intelligent designer". Do these idiots really think they're fooling anyone?

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

Too bad that "criticism" based on appeals to ignorance are NOT legitimate controversy.

"The government wants children to be exposed to scientific debate at the age of 14 or 15.

And step one should be teaching them logic, not creationist bullshit.

"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.

But children should only be exposed to ID nonsense as an example of why its all bullshit.

"This is quite frankly a distraction that science teachers can well do without."

Thats putting it mildly.

[brianeyci]

This idea is starting to run away with itself... I didn't suggest that the students decide for themselves what to believe. I just suggested spending 5 minutes in class letting them mull over both "ideas" and trying to determine on their own which is the scientifically sound one. Then, the teacher explains which one actually is more scientifically sound, why, and proceeds to point out some of the more common errors of logic that may have led to the students coming to the wrong conclusion.

It's merely an exercise in critical thinking skills - the ability to differentiate between science and unfounded pseudo-science. Surely that's an important lesson to teach in science class at any level?

You have a really nasty habit of backpedaling, and backpedaling just one post later at that too. I suggest for your own good that you stop that if you want to last here, especially in the most serious subforum in the board. You said this,

Really, a lot of what he is saying about "introducing controversial ideas," and "encouraging scientific debate" is quite commendable

indicating that you support the introduction of controversal ideas into the science classroom and encourage scientific debate in the classroom, which is a waste of time. This is not one thousand years ago, rhetoric is taught in after school debate clubs and not in science class. And you ignore my point that in children's minds, even the discussion of psuedoscience in the classroom gives it credibility. You cannot give one inch or it will seep in, with certain teachers not "smacking down" the psuedoscience as hard as others and therefore leaving an impression that it is legitimate science in children's minds. And I do mean children.

[B5B7]

I have to disagree with Surleth and Magus - if expose children to these ideas, even if you do a rebuttal, there is a high chance that at least one of them will ignore the rebuttal and become enamoured of the alternate idea - after all that is how much new age and religious conversion works.

If there was a separate subject that covered critical thinking, that the children had been studying for 3 years, then it might be possible - but I would bring up the pamphlet in the "clear thinking" class not biology class.
Incidentally, by coincidence, I found out just yesterday that Lorne Greene (Adama in oBSG) was an advocate of critical thinking and was co-author of a game called 'The Propaganda Game'.

Also Einstein didn't rebut/repeal Newton - he just refined Newton's ideas - an analogy would be the difference between extreme low temperature physics compared with everyday physics.

[Magus]

Indeed, I did say "introducing controversial ideas" and "encouraging scientific debate" are commendable. I did not, however, say that introducing controversial ideas as credible ones or encouraging scientific debate and accepting children's conclusions as true were good ideas. Those are additions that others attributed to me later.

I'll repeat it one more time. Nowhere does this contradict anything I've said before in this topic:

1. Teacher X brings in some creationist/intelligent design pamphlets, after the class has finished the unit on evolution. He has them read over the pamphlets.

2. Teacher X tells them to try to determine by themselves what is more scientifically founded: the pamphlets or the science book. Why? What principles of science does each utilize?

3. After a short while, Teacher X takes the pamphlets back, and proceeds to systematically tear them to shreds, pointing out logical flaws, inconsistencies, and fallacies. In conclusion, he says, the lab is a demonstration that Creationism and/or Intelligent Design are not scientifically viable theories. Therefor, they cannot be considered "equal theories" to evolution. The students' Bull-Shit-ometer is upgraded.

If you'll notice, this outline:

a) Introduces a controversial idea (from my first post)
b) Encourages scientific debate (from my first post)
c) Does not allow the students to "decide what to believe" (from my second post)

You disagree that children are capable of detecting bullshit, which may be true. But I did not contradict myself.

[SirNitram]

Indeed, I did say "introducing controversial ideas" and "encouraging scientific debate" are commendable.

....Among qualified individuals. The whole point of classes and education is to get them there, not pretend they already are.

[Magus]

I have to disagree with Surleth and Magus - if expose children to these ideas, even if you do a rebuttal, there is a high chance that at least one of them will ignore the rebuttal and become enamoured of the alternate idea - after all that is how much new age and religious conversion works.

I suppose this is true. But it's not like they won't hear about creationism from somewhere else. I'd rather take preventative measures and control the initial exposure than try to have teachers in later grades run "damage control."

[Darth Servo]

I have to disagree with Surleth and Magus - if expose children to these ideas, even if you do a rebuttal, there is a high chance that at least one of them will ignore the rebuttal and become enamoured of the alternate idea - after all that is how much new age and religious conversion works.

But then the kids probably hear all that crap at church already so the teacher wouldn't be introducing anything new. Just showing how and why its a bunch of BS.

[Hillary]

Also Einstein didn't rebut/repeal Newton - he just refined Newton's ideas - an analogy would be the difference between extreme low temperature physics compared with everyday physics.

More to the point, where Einstein's ideas did contradict or refine Newton's he used the scientific method to show why and how these ideas were valid.

ID does not and will never do so. The whole point is that we should not grant unscientific theories any space in a science class. It really is that straightforward.

[B5B7]

I have to disagree with Surleth and Magus - if expose children to these ideas, even if you do a rebuttal, there is a high chance that at least one of them will ignore the rebuttal and become enamoured of the alternate idea - after all that is how much new age and religious conversion works.

I suppose this is true. But it's not like they won't hear about creationism from somewhere else. I'd rather take preventative measures and control the initial exposure than try to have teachers in later grades run "damage control."

Like a vaccine - that may have potential - I see merit in this concept - it supports the idea of having "clear thinking" be an actual subject [this would include critical analysis, skepticism, etc - of course there would be powerful special interests who would oppose any anti-brainwashing]. It can replace religious class and goes hand in hand with English class.
Another possibility is to have a "Clear Thinking" club just as can have Chess Club, History Club, etc.

[Velthuijsen]

Also Einstein didn't rebut/repeal Newton - he just refined Newton's ideas - an analogy would be the difference between extreme low temperature physics compared with everyday physics.

More to the point, where Einstein's ideas did contradict or refine Newton's he used the scientific method to show why and how these ideas were valid.

ID does not and will never do so. The whole point is that we should not grant unscientific theories any space in a science class. It really is that straightforward.

Suggest to refine this a bit to: Only let the currently accepted theories (with holes and all) be taught in this level of school and replace it with the new theory when that one is properly tested even if this can result in a 'gap' of several years between acceptance in the scientific community and when it gets to schools.

[General Zod]

I have to disagree with Surleth and Magus - if expose children to these ideas, even if you do a rebuttal, there is a high chance that at least one of them will ignore the rebuttal and become enamoured of the alternate idea - after all that is how much new age and religious conversion works.

If there was a separate subject that covered critical thinking, that the children had been studying for 3 years, then it might be possible - but I would bring up the pamphlet in the "clear thinking" class not biology class.
Incidentally, by coincidence, I found out just yesterday that Lorne Greene (Adama in oBSG) was an advocate of critical thinking and was co-author of a game called 'The Propaganda Game'.

Also Einstein didn't rebut/repeal Newton - he just refined Newton's ideas - an analogy would be the difference between extreme low temperature physics compared with everyday physics.

Then they can be failed in class. If they're so stupid as to buy into ID in a science class, chances are they would've b ought it anyways outside of class. It's not as though the school is required to give them a passing grade.

[brianeyci]

Indeed, I did say "introducing controversial ideas" and "encouraging scientific debate" are commendable. I did not, however, say that introducing controversial ideas as credible ones or encouraging scientific debate and accepting children's conclusions as true were good ideas. Those are additions that others attributed to me later

Do you know what debate means? Do you know what a debate is? Have you ever been to one? A debate means whoever most persuasively argues his point wins you lamer. Sometimes that means evidence, but most of the time it means charisma, public speaking skills, and dirty tricks. Real life is not the Internet. The quiet little geek who doesn't like public speaking but likes doing math problems versus the loudmouth with a nice ass and perfect tits who knows all the rhetorical tricks and who more persuasively argues her argument, who do you think wins? The whore. You want to whore out science. A load of bullshit. A debate is like an essay, it doesn't really matter who's right, just who argued better. Rhetoric is the art of arguing and has no place in a science classroom. Public speaking has no place in a science classroom. Debate has no place in a science classroom. Go to a university science class lecture some time. Why do you think it's called lecture? You sit there and absorb what the professor has to say. There is no debate, no questioning, no discussion, you take what he has to say and accept it, because he has the training and you don't.

I'll repeat it one more time. Nowhere does this contradict anything I've said before in this topic:

1. Teacher X brings in some creationist/intelligent design pamphlets, after the class has finished the unit on evolution. He has them read over the pamphlets.

Whereby the seed of doubt of creationist lies are planted in children.

2. Teacher X tells them to try to determine by themselves what is more scientifically founded: the pamphlets or the science book. Why? What principles of science does each utilize?

Whereby children believe themselves qualified to judge the validity of science. The only people who can do this are da da dum scientists.

3. After a short while, Teacher X takes the pamphlets back, and proceeds to systematically tear them to shreds, pointing out logical flaws, inconsistencies, and fallacies. In conclusion, he says, the lab is a demonstration that Creationism and/or Intelligent Design are not scientifically viable theories. Therefor, they cannot be considered "equal theories" to evolution. The students' Bull-Shit-ometer is upgraded.

Bull-shot-o-meter is not the job of science class, and some teachers will smack down the creationist lies less than others or might not at all. Then the teacher has planted the hint that creationist lies have equal footing with other real science.

If you'll notice, this outline:

a) Introduces a controversial idea (from my first post)
b) Encourages scientific debate (from my first post)
c) Does not allow the students to "decide what to believe" (from my second post)

You disagree that children are capable of detecting bullshit, which may be true. But I did not contradict myself.

Children are not capable of detecting bullshit which makes your whole idea fall flat on its face. Your definition of debate is a bullshit definition--in a debate, whoever wins is not always who's right, but who has the most tricks up her sleeve. Finally your "second post" is a backpedal from the first post, you make no mention of not allowing the students to decide what to believe in your first post, and even if you meant it in your first post you didn't say it so guess what, you lose this debate you dick, it's called moving the goalposts. How's that feel.