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.
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.
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.
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.
A great example of the problem.
You lost a debate that was unloseable.
How could they have won? They have 0 evidence.
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.
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.