Some British schools reportedly teaching intelligent design theory
|
|
|
| Posted
:
Tue, 28 Nov 2006 06:32:00 GMT |
| Author
:
Anne Roberts |
| Category
:
Education |
| News Alerts by
Email ( click
here ) |
|
Education News |
Home
|
|
|
|
LONDON: Correction: Several British schools are teaching intelligent design in science classes using creationist instruction packs devised by a group called Trust in Science, newspaper the Guardian has revealed in a report.
The group has sent the instruction packs, containing two DVDs and a manual, which it claims gives details about a creationist alternative to Darwinian Theory of evolution, to practically every secondary school in the country in September. According to feedback received from some 89 schools, the group claims 59 were positive about the method, 15 did not find it suitable, and 15 have negative opinion about it.
The government does not appreciate the efforts of the group. Jim Knight, a minister in the education and skills department, said neither intelligent design nor creationism is recognized scientific theories and they are not included in the science curriculum.
Several leading scientists say theories about intelligent design should not be allowed in school because they are simply not scientific. Sometime back, the Royal Society had warned against allowing creationism in schools insisting that it is necessary students understand that science supports Darwin's theory of evolution.
Lewis Wolpert, a development biologist at the University of London, said intelligent design has nothing to do with science. It is pure religion and it should be banned from schools.
A spokesperson for Truth in Science said the group does not intend to attack the teaching of Darwinian Theory. Instead, it is just saying criticisms of Darwin's theory should also be taught. The group contends that evolution cannot explain certain things in this universe and hence universe must have had an intelligent creator.
Chairman of the parliamentary science and technology select committee Phil Willis said he was horrified that the packs were being used in schools. "I am flabbergasted that any head of science would give credence to this creationist theory and be prepared to put it alongside Darwinism. Treating it as an alternative centralist theory alongside Darwinism in science lessons is deeply worrying."
Several education officials said the method is not recognized as science. One of them said 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.
However, some teachers like Nick Cowan of Blue Coat School of Liverpool feel the instruction packs are useful in debating Darwinist evolution. Cowan, a former head of the school's chemistry department, says the packs are very scholarly and should help children in understanding the importance of scientific debate. He claims the material provided by the group does not mention creationism or even God.
The DVDs sent by the group reportedly came from the United States. Incidentally, a U.S. judge had ruled in 2005 that intelligent design cannot be taught in science lessons, saying it is a religious view, a mere relabelling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.
Proponents of intelligent design say it is a scientific alternative to evolution -- which explains the way that life got evolved on earth, being guided by an intelligence, a force that many would call God. They say it is a more sophisticated explanation than creationism, which is the biblical way of seeing things.
Copyright,
respective author or news agency
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Intelligent design
By:
easeeduzit ,
Fri, 08 Dec 2006 09:08:40 GMT
|
|
ID says some things are so complex they must have been created by a god. Any scientist who subscribes to this nonsense surrenders his credentials as a scientist. He is no better informed than some ancient who quits at trying to explain thunder. He throws his hands up and says, "It must be the gods!" When investigation stops, so does learning. Intelligent Design asks us to stay ignorant.
|
|
if daowin was right
By:
tamosu ,
Thu, 30 Nov 2006 18:57:03 GMT
|
|
how do science explain about ghost.
what is it and do it exist.
|
|
intelligent design
By:
Ash ,
Wed, 29 Nov 2006 21:35:23 GMT
|
|
science is a concept in which theories are thought up and proven using observations in life in experiments which have a possibility of failing, in which case the theory is proven wrong . If a theory cannot be proved or disproved, is it science, NO, its philosophy.
|
|
ID is not science.
By:
Kris ,
Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:58:33 GMT
|
|
This is very simple. Science is based on the premise that you "Observe" something. Then you create a "hypothesis" based on that observation. In this case Darwin or anyone can observe that there are indeed people on this earth, plants animals etc. How did they come to be here? There were several theories of how things evolved. One even suggested that if you were to stretch your own arm out, your children would also have long stretched out arms. (This theory was quickly proven false). Another was Evolution. It is a hypothesis that can be tested and measured constantly and that is possible to disprove (the actual theory involves complex parts being made of less complex parts etc). Intelligent design is not science because it simply says that Darwin is wrong and since he is wrong the only other explanation must be God. This is not a hypothesis that can be tested or proven wrong. Not only that it is a completely ridiculous leap in logic. This is akin to looking up and wondering why it rains and since you don't know the reason you assume it must be the rain gods. This kind of close minded idiocy has hampered human development for centuries and the quicker it goes away the faster we can progress as a people and move forward.
|
|
Disguised religion
By:
Davey ,
Tue, 28 Nov 2006 17:57:31 GMT
|
|
The matter is actually very simple. ID is disguised religious belief with no basis in science. People are entitled to their religious beliefs, but the place for ID must be in religious studies, not in science classes. Evolution is a scientifically based understanding for the differentiation and adaptation of species over large time scales and consequently belongs in science lessons. ID and creationism are religion. Religion should not be mixed with science. What's next? Alchemy in chemistry lessons? Teaching of flat earth in Geography? Witchcraft in cookery? Welcome to the middle ages. Just because evolution is too complicated for the average person to understand (including some science teachers) doesn't mean the students should be taught rubbish instead.
|
|
Unproven theory
By:
fieberling ,
Tue, 28 Nov 2006 16:23:09 GMT
|
|
As Darwins theory is only a theory, why should it be taught as the only theory in science? People do easily accept that life came into existence out of nothing, but that God breathed life into all beings is absolutely unacceptable!!! (HaHa)
A concept of intelligent design should be fully incorporated in the syllabus.
|
|
Evolution/Religion
By:
Rational Man ,
Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:53:58 GMT
|
|
Religion and science were, it seems, once one-and-the-same. Cambridge Astrophysics's recent announcement that there were many Bangs (rather than one), as poses Rig Veda, Bhagavad-Gita, and several dozen others of similar ilk, is thus no surprise, nor does it conflict with sacred texts that offer cosmogony and cosmology. Likewise, little more than one year ago, multiple physics authorities - all unrelated to one another - brought forth evidence that THIS Universe, Eternity, and Infinitude began from a black, viscous liquid substance of non-motion and without light. I fail to see how this scientific fact they offer differs in any respect to the below cosmologies, many of which admittedly have philological and linguistic relations, but many others do not:
|
|
Appaling
By:
Szymon ,
Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:15:58 GMT
|
|
It's not even a question of "science" and "honest scientific debate". A very important quote from these Truth of Science people is : The group contends that evolution cannot explain certain things in this universe and hence universe must have had an intelligent creator.
SO whatever we don't know yet, is the work of God. Quite comfortable position. Yet they don't have any hard proof of God's existence.
Faith and science should be kept wide apart. Didn't the church start burining texts of scholars in the Middle Ages? Hmm...makes you wonder of their intentions.
|
|
Intelligent Design
By:
Gautam ,
Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:55:32 GMT
|
|
I prefer darwinism to any other prevalent theory. That is because, although not perfect, it offers the only logical explanation to the origin (probably) and diversity (more certainly) of biological life on earth. I don't say I believe in darwinism, because true science does not need to be believed. It is based on conclusions, based on arguments, based on facts. There are few conclusions that are irrefutable, but scientifically, we go by the most reasonable explanation. Any alternate theory should only be taught in schools as a scientific theory, only if it is a recognized scientific theory, and not an alternate opinion (which is more than welcome). School science curriculums have room only for the most established thoughts in science. The ideas and alternate opinions should be left to philosophers. Science does not and should not depend on consensus or propanganda, which is exactly what this attempt of introducing the idea of intelligent design into school science curriculum appears to be.
|
|
Intelligent
By:
Andy ,
Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:32:21 GMT
|
|
I am a product of the U.S. Public School system and it is alarming that the Darwinism
|
|
ID
By:
John J ,
Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:22:38 GMT
|
|
Quote "You can hold religious beliefs or you can hold the truth. But you cannot hold both at the same time." Anon.
|
|
Ignorance of basic science
By:
Jay ,
Tue, 28 Nov 2006 12:29:32 GMT
|
|
The problem is clearly spelled out by Vijay. The majority of people have little knowledge of the principles of science and evolution. Under certain religions it is also forbidden for them to learn! Such people often use the well worn but wholly unrelated principle of the random letters into a book argument. This is not the place for me to correct such ignorance and teach the principles of evolution. However, such ignorance of the science involved should not be allowed to propagate itself into science classes. As for the argument that it "spoils religious belief" then all I can say is so much the better - or we would still all be forced to believe the Sun revolved around the Earth - with those who disagreed facing torture or execution!
|
|
Assumption theory should not be taught.
By:
Vijay ,
Tue, 28 Nov 2006 12:00:08 GMT
|
|
You know the Darwin's theory is full and full of assumptions.
It states the whole perfect world is created from chaos..
But one should think how could we create a perfect world from chaos.
I remember, While discussing this one of my friend asks,
if the words in a big book are scattered,whats the probability of arranging it
correctly if you collect those in random fashion.
This type of theory should not be teached for 2 reasons.
1. Theory based fully on assumption. Not enough evidence to say.
2. spoiling the religious belief.
|
|
to Tim
By:
Amadeke ,
Tue, 28 Nov 2006 09:51:17 GMT
|
|
Hope it does you more good than English class, realLy
LOL
If there was a creator, where was his "workbench of creation" standing?
|
|
Science
By:
Tim ,
Tue, 28 Nov 2006 09:36:47 GMT
|
|
Go Mr Cowan!!! He teaches at my school, and he realy knows his stuff!!
|
|
Creationism/ID
By:
Jenny in Wales ,
Tue, 28 Nov 2006 09:33:36 GMT
|
|
I'm a Christian, and even I see the dangers inherent in creationist ideas. Disproven as far as every single scrap of concrete evidence goes, creationism is a malignancy that threatens the future ability of our children, and their children, to carry the torch of human progress forward. People who see the bible as inerrant are sadly deluding themselves as to the actual writing of said holy book. Men wrote it, and men cannot copy without prejudice. Human frailty means that even the bible has innaccuracies in it, and one of those is the analogous story of creation. We have to approach the bible in the same way as we approach anything written down by the hand of men, with utmost caution and an open mind. As for intelligent design, I'd love to see proof! It would explain an awful lot about my family... And Davey, ID does have a place in science, science fiction.
|
|
Intelligent Design - The thin end of the wedge
By:
Dilbert ,
Tue, 28 Nov 2006 09:29:24 GMT
|
|
I think the teachers who are using these materials in class are either unwitting pawns, being successfully manipulated by the "Truth in Science" religious cult, or they have similar religious beliefs themselves and are using this as an excuse to push those beliefs into a science class.
What comes next? Packs for schools from other religious groups? How about one from Islamic fundamentalists saying those who study evolution are infidels and will burn in hell? How about a pack from the Jehovah's Witnesses to biology classes saying blood is sacred and it is wrong to have blood transfusions. How about a sex education class with packs from the Mormons promoting polygamy. Where does this stop? Packs from third party pressure groups and religions have no place in schools.
|
|
intelligent design
By:
Davey ,
Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:45:44 GMT
|
|
The so called "science teachers" teaching this rubbish should be dismissed. Religious beliefs have no place in a science class - save "intelligent design" for the religious studies class!
|
|
|
|
|