should creationism be on the science syllabus

[zippitippitoes]

\link{http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2078747,00.html\ Interesting article}

I'm glad everyone else is horrified by dd1's story -- I thought I might be overreacting. Think I will take a detour past the deputy head's office at pickup time today and have a little word.

The teacher concerned (who is mercifully not their main class teacher) is not the brightest bulb in the packet, and her grasp of basic scientific principles is tenuous dd1 has previously complained about her telling them that magnetism was caused by electricity. It's a Catholic school, but creationism forms absolutely no part of Catholic teaching I think said teacher is just a bit of a loon as well as scientifically illiterate. But those kind of statements really shouldn't go unchallenged.

It's one of dd1's pet parp topics, interestingly. I overheard her explaining evolution to the teenage kids of a very pleasant but mad fundamentalist family we met on holiday. There was lots of: "But it says in the Bible..."; "But what about Adam and Eve...". Cue dd1 in full eye-rolling Lisa Simpson mode: "But Adam and Eve is metaphoricaaaaallll... Duh...."

Ten years old and flying the flag for Darwin. How proud am I.

I have a friend who is a vicar, an Evangelical Christian, and his take on fossils is that God isn't trying to deceive; God has put fossils, geographical strata and so on into the Earth as a test of faith - to see whether we are able to believe in a Creator God despite what looks like hard evidence against the Creation, and despite the dating of them going against the Biblical theory of the age of the Earth. And the problem is that you can't argue with that kind of logic - science can be reduced to facts and provable theories, but faith can't, and his answer to every question always comes down to belief, not science.

No aspect of religious belief has a place in Science lessons. In RE by all means, but science isn't about matters of belief.

(frogs I think you have posted about your dd before, was she challenging the teacher? I think she sounds absolutely delightful and I will say again - she is welcome at my house any time. no wonder you are proud.)

mention creatinism yes, teach it as a scientisic theory no.

Teach it in RE as a religious belief yes.

Intellegent design doesn't hold up to scientific analysis.

Teach it in RE by all means but it will be an endothermic reaction day in hades before I will teach it as science

I think the exam board is putting it in the exam curriculum rather than teaching it as science

putting it in the science exam curriculum that is

Good on yer Frogs!

If it is in the exam. it meansi ti would have to be taught.

I wouldn;'t teach it as science, ever.

Apparently, the Pope (JPII, I think) asked science via Stephen Hawking not to look into the first few seconds of the big bang. Can anyone confirm or deny this?

I have just had a flash-back to my A-Level text, Edmund Gosse, Father and Son. Time was when espousing Darwin's theories could mean estrangement from everything and everyone you loved :( (Gosse's learned, doting, parents insisted on sticking with Creationism, he knew Darwin was right, it is a beautifully written, deeply sad memoir on the damage fundamentalism can cause).
Anyone else read this?

Yes, but can hardly remember it! it's upstairs will read it again.

@ frogs!

Agree with martianbishop

Apparently, the Pope (JPII, I think) asked science via Stephen Hawking not to look into the first few seconds of the big bang.

I remember that as well.
If you read his work he is very specific about how you can model the early universe so that it is cyclical requiring no divine creator at all.
Also hordes of physicists are looking at the BB, the idea that a credulous old arts graduate might have any role in inspiring people to do this, is more than faintly ridiculous.

But there may have been some kernel of thought in the old perverts head.
Christians fought against science long and hard, and lost. In the end their position became so ridiculous that even Queen Victoria just laughed at their posturing.
Some realise that this was not only a political error, but a rejection of a major aspect of God.
If he created the universe, then the assertion of false views of it, is not a good thing, and what better to try and understand God than to look at his works ?

Of course creationism shouldn't be in the science curriculum. Vardy gives the reason why not himself: " One is a theory, the other is a faith position. It is up to the children.”
I thought that the whole point of faith was that it isn't put up for question or proof - i.e is a completely opposite process to empirical science. Giving it names like 'intelligent design' is just a muddying of those waters, and trying to make creationism sound scientific.

Keep it in the RE syllabus, yes, but out of science.

[gets out Popper and Kuhn and relives her student days - aah!]

Frogs I have just read what happened to your dd. Good grief, that is appalling.

O frogs, extra rib! Long time I have heard such a joke.

Definately not, they get enough religion at school as it is.

Last night my son (5) asked me why when he talks to god God NEVER REPLIES MUMMY!!

only just resisted the urge to say 'thats because he doesnt exist..'

Frogs, the last pope, (IIRC) stated that belief in evolution was not contrary to catholisism.

reminds me of a conversation with a medical doctor about how people used to live longer in the past. I thought he meant the other way round but he then referred to Methuselah who was many hundred years old....

Er....in a word, no.

Of course it shouldn't.

I don't think so. I find it so scary that the US is teaching this - I bet Darwin thought it would be taught as fact in every bloomin school around the globe by now......scary scary scary.

And this doesn't just affect the teaching of Biology. The 'young' earth faction of the crationist persuasion, don't explain how light gets to us from stars that a many many light years away from us.....the stars would have to be very close to us if teir light gets to us in 6000 years. So not only do they diss Darwin, they are dissing Einstein as well!

And they keep saying' 'But evolution is just a theory' as if a scietific theory is somehow a fairy tale or myth. Gravity is a theory as well, but if you fall our a window the bugger will get you every time!

Marina, I am nearly cross! I finally found my way to this thread to tell the world about the wonderfulness of Father and Son [now that I come to think of it, of course that's why that's the title] and there you are ahead of me. I discovered it by accident as a book-engulfing teenager and it is one of my all-time bests. I think frogs's dd1 should read it.

Gosse's dad called it The Omphalos Theory - and it was laughed out of court by the 19th c establishment, after which the poor man declined.