Slashdot Mirror
UK Government Mandates the Teaching of Evolution As Scientific Fact
An anonymous reader writes "A story at the BBC explains how the UK government has put an extra clause into a funding bill to ensure that any new 'free schools' (independent schools run by groups of parents or organizations, but publicly-funded) must teach evolution rather than creationism or potentially lose their funding. 'The new rules state that from 2013, all free schools in England must teach evolution as a 'comprehensive and coherent scientific theory.' The move follows scientists's concerns that free schools run by creationists might avoid teaching evolution. Sir Paul Nurse, president of the Royal Society, said it was 'delighted.' Sir Paul told BBC News the previous rules on free schools and the teaching of evolution versus creationism had been 'not tight enough.'"
good
Speak for yourself.
Seriously, when you have to pass a law to ensure fairy tales aren't taught as facts in school, something is horribly wrong with society.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
I agree. Life is too complex to have evolved by chance. Only a Giant and a Cow can explain it. (http://www.thepaincomics.com/Science%20vs.%20Norse.jpg)
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
I'm a creationist, and I have no problem with this. School systems' curriculum has to be governed by science first. I likely don't have a problem with this, because I don't claim to know how God created everything. From a faith-based point of view, I have some problems with Evolution, but I don't see how that should govern the curriculum in schools. I see Science as our way of understanding God's power, we may not understand everything yet, but if we don't endeavor to learn everything we can through Science, we will only block our own growth.
~theCzar
Most educated christians and muslims and Jews have no problem with evolution, despite the stereotypes thrown about on slashdot by people obsessed with a certain minority. While establishing his theory of evolution, and for many years after Charles Darwni himself continued to be a practicing Christian
People should be taught both and then left alone to decide which one makes more sense.
Should they be taught all the other creation myths around the world also?
There is one hell of a difference between creationism and evolution. Evolution is a proven scientific fact, observed and documented independently many times. Teaching about the bibles view in religious education (which British school has as far as I know)? Yes, it is part of the religious education.
But it is NOT part of science education, as little as turning water into wine by magic is in a brewers course.
Assembling etherkillers for fun an profit
Last time I checked, the educational process does not involve the presentation of scientific falsehoods as if they were truth, then expecting students to determine for themselves which is which. That would be fundamentally intellectually dishonest. "Teach the controversy/debate/both sides" is nothing more than a naked attempt at putting creationism on equal footing with science.
They're free in the sense that you don't have to pay (at the point of service) for your child to go to them. Not free as in they can choose what to teach whatever they want.
Which form of creationism would you like them to teach?
Young-Earth creationism
Old Earth creationism
Gap creationism
Day-Age creationism
Progressive creationism
Neo-Creationism
Intelligent design
Creation science
Theistic evolution (evolutionary creation)
Omphalos hypothesis
The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
Yeah, you can prevent creationism and lose the "free" part, or allow it and lose the "school" part.
that view makes God a liar, deceiver and prankster. Especially the bit where light from stars that never existed have light waves from their explosions hitting earth right now.
If they wish to have a class teaching creation myths around the world, go for it.
If they want to teach creationism as a scientifically valid theory, that's wrong. It is inherently religious and thus should not receive support from government. Let privately-funded schools teach it to their heart's content. But it isn't the business of government to fund religion.
And yes, official state religions in European countries are anachronisms that need to go, too.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
What will the Government decide must be taught in schools?
In my country, it already does. It's called "the national curriculum".
I had a teacher split the class into 2 sides, those who believe in God and those who believe in evolution. There was me and a very nervous oriental student on the evolution side. I didn't win the debate, but I put up a good fight.
You don't believe in evolution - you accept it, just as you accept the map of the Solar system and the periodic table. There's no place for believing.
Ezekiel 23:20
that view makes God a liar, deceiver and prankster..
Oh, so you have read the old testament.
What the fuck? You can't believe in God and also believe in evolution now? What was your teacher trying to prove?
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
That is a great summary of the basic issue.
Science is the process by which we expand and refine our knowledge. It is not a system of belief. The debate has been framed in such a way that you have two sets of beliefs--science and religion--and they are in conflict, but on equal ground. Applied more broadly, this is an illustration of "my opinions are just as good as your facts." It comes from people who fundamentally misunderstand what science is and how it works.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
So, it seems these are not such "free" schools after all. They are not forced to follow the national curriculum, so the government makes an additional set of curriculum rules to tell them what to teach.
Pay more attention to the summary--they are "free" as in beer, not speech. They are government funded, and so should expect the government to impose reasonable criteria on the use of those taxpayer funds. Apparently the purpose was to allow broad discretion in the curricula, but now the government is deciding that teaching creationism as "science" is out of bounds for use of public funds.
People should be taught both and then left alone to decide which one makes more sense.
Should they be taught all the other creation myths around the world also?
Yes, but instead of it being taught in science class, it should be done in a history/world culture class. So that way the context of what is being taught is correct. Creationism == Old tradition and cultural history. Evolution == science. I figure if you make this separation and teach it in the appropriate PLACE, the confusion would be set aside and we'd understand this old concept just like we understand ancient history.
You don't have to just accept it. Challenge it, test it, prove it invalid if you can. That is called science.
And the theory of evolution has been placed in that crucible and come out the other side intact, even if it is shaped a bit differently than it started.
In my country, it already does. It's called "the national curriculum".
That doesn't mean it's a good idea. A government that controls what you learn is perfectly capable of controlling how you think. If you don't believe me, explain North Korea.
You don't believe in evolution - you accept it, just as you accept the map of the Solar system and the periodic table. There's no place for believing.
There's no place for belief in any scientific endeavor, nor is it appropriate to simply tell kids to "accept this, it is fact." You either have evidence that supports an idea, or you don't. Ideas that have evidence supporting them should not require the preaching you're giving us. No teacher that tells kids "this is fact, accept it" is worth listening to.
I swear they give me mod points to shut me up.
People should be taught both and then left alone to decide which one makes more sense.
That's frankly, the stupidest solution possible.
If this reasoning were applied:
1. Physics classes would teach "the 4 elements", and all the other crap the Greeks believe just because Aristotle said it.
2. Chemistry would teach the "grand arcana" and how you can live longer by drinking mercury.
3. Astronomy would teach the "crystal spheres" theory, the "circular orbits with epicycles" theory, and the "the gods just move things around at their discretion" theory.
4. Any student could derail any class at will by making some shit up and demanding that the class dedicate time to teaching it and letting everyone make up their mind.
The truth is that Creationism is not a valid theory (it's a story from a book that was probably fiction when it was written*), and if you want it to be taken seriously as a competitor to evolution by natural selection the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that it 1) explains observed behavior at least as well as evolution and 2) makes falsifiable predictions which conflict with evolution that are verified by experimentation.
*No historical evidence exists to corroborate the events aside from the text who's authenticity is in question, and many of the events are believed to by physically impossible. Occam's Razor indicates it's more likely those events never actually happened, than that there is an as yet not understood mechanism that allows them to be true.
BTW, as to the Communist states under Stalin and Mao - they also explicitly rejected neo-Darwinian evolution and embraced (and enforced) Lysenkoism instead. The resulting crop failures when reality failed to match up to "worker's science" killed a huge fraction - possibly the majority - of the millions who died under those regimes.
Ironically, the people under Hitler, Stalin, and Mao would have been better off if their leaders had accepted neo-Darwinian evolution.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
My Lord! If they've done this, what could be next? National socialized health care?
Three Squirrels
1. We Britons have decided we want to purchase education through collective taxation as a society. If we're going to buy education, it makes sense for our legislature to have some say over the content of what we buy, just as other purchasers would. Blah blah slippery slope doesn't really cut it, ya know. Not when you don't acknowledge that there are downsides to the *non*involvement of government in education, including lack of access, no standards guarantor, costs going through the roof, the private biases of proprietors affecting the content of what is taught, etc etc.
2. Science teachers don't merely teach pupils to accept evolution as fact. They explain how it's been tested and why it stands. That said, you wouldn't be able to do very much science teaching (or science) if you have to explain the tests applied to absolutely every aspect of science.
You keep using that word, but I do not think you know what it means.
Belief: "An acceptance that a statement is true ..."
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
No. There is no scientific rational for biblical creation. It should not be taught outside a comparative religion class that also mentions elephants standing on turtles, the aboriginal dream time, and the incestuous bestiality that is the ancient greek/roman religion.
A great example of the problem.
You lost a debate that was unloseable.
How could they have won? They have 0 evidence.
Okay, but what is the scientific evidence that life was created by an intelligent being? "It looks too complex to me" is not very scientific.
And, pointing out gaps and ambiguous areas in the fossil record is one thing, but that doesn't necessarily mean Creationism is the only alternative. That's almost like saying, "Since we don't know why Saturn has rings, we'll theorize a magic man did it." A mystery is a mystery, not an Insert-Magic-For-Free card.
The default of a mystery (knowledge gap) is not a supernatural explanation. This is the most common conceptual mistake made by Creationists. You cannot just bash evolution to make your case; you need to present evidence for an intelligence involved and describe how to test and measure such.
I'm open to the idea of presenting both sides, but first you need a real side to join. Let's see it....
Table-ized A.I.
Of course a few god loving and brave physics teachers will state the obvious and state the infinite is reserved only for the devine, that math and science has never accepted infinity as result. Therefore, black holes indicate the foolishness of General Relativity and alternative theories must be put forth. So-called black holes are clearly part of the divine plan to cause the ultimate rapture as prophesied in the bible. This result from Relativity, like radio carbon dating, clearly indicates the ultimate inability of science to characterize the godly world, and therefore ultimate irrelevance to godly life.
Any physics teachers out there, and any parents who want their kids to have hope for their souls, must teach the controversy. This is the only way to ensure that salvation and proper science wins.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Both?
There are probably thousands of creation myths and I can make up thousands more in a couple weeks. All are as equally invalid.
If you want to have a class on creation myths go for it, but none of them belong in a science classroom.
Gah,
I can't stand it when evolution and religion are even mentioned in the same paragraph. They don't belong together in anyway and any question that compares them is the wrong question. Evolution is, like all scientific theories, the theory that best fits the facts we have. We then use the theory to make predictions and explanations. With a theory as proven as evolution those predictions usually turn out to be correct, but if they didn't we would add the new facts into the consideration and attempt to build a revised theory that accounted for them.
There is no belief anywhere in that process. It doesn't matter if you believe that evolution represents some kind of absolute truth or not. The only valid question is whether there is a better explanation for the facts that we have, and so far there most certainly isn't. If we start ignoring the facts because we believe we know something more that the facts on the ground indicate we stop being able to progress in our understanding of how the world works; we stop being able to do science.
Is this a conflict with a religious belief? I suppose that depends on whether your religious belief requires that you stop trying to understand the world around you. A well thought out religion would make no such requirement, but would instead stick to moral behavior and ways to live life to enhance personal happiness. Believing that helping out a recently laid-off neighbor will enhance your personal happiness in no way contradicts being able to function as a working scientist.
Any question that involves whether you 'believe' in a scientific theory is the wrong question. You don't believe in them, you simply evaluate their accuracy and use them to answer questions going forward.
Florida is still verifying that equation, and is in the 2nd recount phase
Table-ized A.I.
Actually there are scientific facts. A really simple example would be in measuring gravity. If you drop a ball off a tower, the fact that it fell and the time it took to reach the ground are facts. The formula describing how it falls and the values of the various constants in it would be a theory, and how well the formula fits the observed facts is a measure of how good the theory is, but the facts still stand on their own independent of any theory.
Similarly with evolution. We can take critters with very short lifespans (which allows us to effectively compress time and see the effects of hundreds of generations in months) and observe that speciation does in fact occur. Evolution is a theory explaining how and why it occurs and giving us a framework for predicting when and how it'll occur outside the lab, but the fact that speciation did occur is just that: an observed fact. And one that can be repeatably observed, confirming that it's not a fluke.
I would argue the biggest problem is the perception that 'faith' is a good thing - faith, by definition, is believing in something without a good reason to do so. That is literally insane and is the worst thing we could teach our children, however, if you look at children's films (and often adult's films), they are packed with it. The idea that 'faith' is a good thing has become engrained in culture. I'm sure this is part of the reason why people get scammed so often too.
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
...mandating that students should be able to add fractions? My college students can't even manage that. Can 'we as a culture' devote a little less time to the creationism/evolution circus, and at least make sure that basic scientific proficiency is getting through?
My primary 7 (~10yrs old) teacher went one further - she would ask us to say which side of a debate we were on to start with, and regularly had us argue for the opposite side. Brilliant exercise in thinking properly and one I still practice today, it's lead to at least one bar fight. Totally worth it.
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
It isn't precisely the same thing but it is a variant of an accusation sometimes leveled against people professing faith: that because they believe in something without a rational explanation, they cannot be relied upon to think rationally about anything. On more than one occasion, I have had somebody tell me that because I profess a belief in God that I shouldn't be trusted to work as an engineer.
Virtue finds and chooses the mean.
Aristotle, Ethica Nichomachea
If you believe science leads to facts or to truth - the real truth if you will - then you are making assumptions for which you have no proof. First, you assume that there is no intelligent guiding hand who happens to choose to make things behave in a mathematically coherent way most of the time (but who may change things a bit when a point needs to be made). You're assuming that your brain is functioning properly and that you're sense of logic is correct - that If a implies b and b implies c, that a does imply c. Perhaps it does, or perhaps you believe it so fervently that anytime something contradicts it you refuse to see it and come up with some other excuse. Perhaps the logic of the universe is incredibly simple and the only reason we keep having to invent new smaller particles and weird forms of matter is that our brains have a fundamental flaw that doesn't let us see the logic. Of course, none of these other ideas can be proven, but neither can your idea that science reveals the real truth.
Instead we find that science seems to work for us so we use it, and it has been very reliable. That's good enough to make it part of our curriculum. That's good enough for us to trust our lives to it when we get surgery or fly through the sky at Mach 1. But we go too far if we declare that science is therefor the only truth. Looking at it logically, we just can't be sure. So people who try to push science are fine, but people who try to push science to the exclusion of everything else are indeed promoting a religious belief.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Yes, and dinosaurs coexisted with man c. 5000 B.C. Stone tablets were found recently found near the La Brea tar pits, in Los Angeles, California. Exposure to the elements all but eradicated the writing carved into the 8" x 12" x 2" rectangular blocks of limestone. As carbon dating is a work of Satan, no verifiable age for the tablets could be established (though logically they sure as hell aren't older then 5000 B.C.).
Of the five tablets discovered, the writing of only one could be partially deciphered. The characters are thought to be derived from an early Aramaic script, though Bible scholars have not arrived at a consensus. The writing is reproduced* below:
YAB-A DAB-A DOO!!!
No word yet on the actual meaning of the characters.
*the "-" represents a missing or unintelligible character
Ideas that have evidence supporting them should not require the preaching you're giving us.
You can say that again. There is an overwhelming mountain of evidence for evolution, not to mention basic common sense about how the world works. It's definitely a mystery why so many people simply refuse to look at the evidence and accept the conclusions. It really shouldn't require all of this preaching, but for some reason it does. I wonder if society was this fragmented 150 years after the heliocentric model of the solar system was demonstrated.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
If you believe science leads to facts or to truth - the real truth if you will - then you are making assumptions for which you have no proof.
That is not the purpose of science. The purpose of science is to improve our understanding of the universe and how it works. The ultimate truth about how everything works is likely to be unknowable, always limited by the tools available to us and our ability to mentally grasp and understand them. However, it does produce a clearer and clearer picture over time. Sometimes it is wrong, and we later learn better. It is not perfect, but it is the best method we have for exploring and understanding our universe.
First, you assume that there is no intelligent guiding hand who happens to choose to make things behave in a mathematically coherent way most of the time (but who may change things a bit when a point needs to be made).
Science does not assume this, it simply fails to a) find evidence of such an "intelligent guiding hand" and b) has encountered no situations which require an "intelligent guiding hand" to explain them.
You're assuming that your brain is functioning properly and that you're sense of logic is correct - that If a implies b and b implies c, that a does imply c.
Which is why science is not advanced by the conclusions of any one scientist, but of many who work independently and review each other's work. It is a group effort, never relying solely on the research or conclusions of any one individual, who may have taken a flawed approach.
Perhaps it does, or perhaps you believe it so fervently that anytime something contradicts it you refuse to see it and come up with some other excuse. Perhaps the logic of the universe is incredibly simple and the only reason we keep having to invent new smaller particles and weird forms of matter is that our brains have a fundamental flaw that doesn't let us see the logic. Of course, none of these other ideas can be proven, but neither can your idea that science reveals the real truth.
There is no evidence that this is the case. You are essentially implying that your "intelligent guiding hand" deliberately plays tricks on all of us. If it does, it does so in a completely consistent manner, which means the science is still valid. But such an agent is not required in our explanation.
Instead we find that science seems to work for us so we use it, and it has been very reliable. That's good enough to make it part of our curriculum. That's good enough for us to trust our lives to it when we get surgery or fly through the sky at Mach 1. But we go too far if we declare that science is therefor the only truth. Looking at it logically, we just can't be sure. So people who try to push science are fine, but people who try to push science to the exclusion of everything else are indeed promoting a religious belief.
"Knowledge" and "truth" are not the same thing, nor did I equate them. That was all you.
As I like to say, science tells us the "how," but does not care about the "why." The "why" is left for philosophy and religion. Where the latter overstep their bounds is in saying science is wrong because it contradicts them.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
What is well established is the scientific discovery process, and the difference it makes between a scientific theory and beliefs. The theory of evolution is a great illustration of that difference, and making sure that it is taught is especially timely.
"In our tactical decisions, we are operating contrary to our strategic interest."
Like I said, it's the "best model" that gets to be at the top of the hill. If neither side can fully reproduce the process due to time etc., you still go with the best model based on observation.
And the "tree-ness" of complex life strongly favors evolution. A creator doesn't have to stick to tree-based trait sharing but can mix and match as needed. He can put an octopus butt on a bear, for example. We don't see such broad cross-mixing. (Convergent evolution happens, but usually there is a plausible tree path to such cases.)
Further, relatively small amounts of evolution have been directly observed; and "macro" evolution has been simulated in computers (using a simplified universe). Thus, it's been proven that the process of fitness selection CAN lead to complex behavior and design, at least in some circumstances. Evolution has proven it CAN create "complexity".
If you lay all the evidence on the table, natural selection wins hands-down, even with gaps. Lebron James with a broken arm can still completely beat a whole Warren Buffett on the B.B. court.
Table-ized A.I.
No. The word you are looking for is "epistemology."
A method for determining truth is not itself a truth. Facts, or beliefs, are the result of this process.
Further, science is an empirical epistemology, as opposed to (e.g.) a rational one. So your appeal to logical principles is actually unfounded.
The above statements should not be construed to imply that rational epistemologies are "wrong." More to point out that the truths produced by each process are not equal. You may have a rational truth that "the sky is blue," and a thought experiment which proves this. You may also have an empirical truth that "the sky is blue", and empirical measurements that suggest that the light emitted is such-and-such a wavelength on average.
Both systems have problems. Rational systems can prove anything, depending on the axioms chosen. This can include things that are not empirically true: the sky is green, the Earth is flat, etc. Empirical systems cannot deliver exact results; nothing is ever entirely "true." Both systems cannot fully describe the universe -- in point of fact, nothing can, since that book would have to contain all information about every part of the universe.
The relative value of each system is mostly not measurable. Most systems make both rational and empirical claims. However, taking empiricism to extremes means not believing in anything but data. The opposite course involves believing anything that you can construct a rational explanation for. Philosophically, these things are equal. I don't presume to inform the reader which may be preferred.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.