Slashdot Mirror
Jewish School Removes Evolution Questions From Exams
Alain Williams writes "Religious sponsored ignorance is not just in the USA, a school in Hackney, England is trying to hide the idea of evolution from its pupils. Maybe they fear that their creation story will be seen for what it is if pupils get to learn ideas supported evidence. The girls are also disadvantaged since they can't answer the redacted questions, thus making it harder to get good marks."
Then don't send your kids to a Jewish school. Religious freedom is part of that whole "freedom" idea that some folks are pretty fond of.
"Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes." - Mahatma Gandhi
Wait, so the school decides what questions they want on their exam, and people are complaining?
All the students are sitting exactly the same are they not?
"The examinations body, OCR, says it was satisfied that the girls did not have an unfair advantage. It now plans to allow the practice, saying it has come to an agreement with the school to protect the future integrity of the exams."
"The Department of Education meanwhile has asked for assurances that the children will be taught the full curriculum."
If they're still being taught the stuff, what's the problem. No exam that I've ever done has every single sentence that a teacher has ever said on the exam paper in question form.
That's not mainstream Judaism. That's a Haredi institution. They're not just anti-evolution. They're anti-TV, anti-Internet, anti-movies, anti-newspaper reading, anti birth control, anti public library usage, anti knowing the language of the country they're in, anti wearing colors, anti female equality... The sect is set up to give kids no option other than to stay in the Haredi community and overdose on religion for their entire lives.
It's a lot like Shia Islam, down to the beards. There's even a Haredi group in Canada that wants to move to Iran because Canada won't let them abuse their kids.
The question: what makes evolution split the species into these two clearly distinctive species, instead of, say a hundred different species which are something between RockMonster ant and BigAss RockMonster ant?
Who says it doesn't split the ant into 100 different species? The term species is a human invention to help us classify the different forms of life on the planet. It doesn't define the forms of life on the planet, but instead is defined by the forms of life on the planet. This is a subtle but necessary distinction.
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
Don't they know wikipedia exists?
Maybe not - quoting said wikipedia:
The school primarily serves the Charedi Jewish community of Stamford Hill. The Charedi community do not have access to television, the internet or other media, and members of the community aim to lead modest lives governed by the codes of Torah observance.
At the core of evolution is survival of the fittest. The theory of evolution also implies that "man", as in created by God in his own image, is nothing special, only a series of fortunate mutations, migrations and accidents. The Christian Bible basically starts out with a huge lie.
What is really perplexing is the fact that the Catholic Pope has conceded that man is descended from the apes, and there really isn't anywhere else in the first world where this "creationism vs evolution" is even a thing (to my knowledge at least).
... whatever
After some time, we describe both populations as different species.
Some experiments of speciations were already performed. For instance, there was a long running experiment with E.coli (the wellknown bacterium from our indestines). As bacteria don't mate, there are other methods to difference between species, and one specificum of E.coli compared with similar bacteria is that E.coli doesn't metabolize Citric acid. But experimentators were putting some E.coli bacteria in an artificial environment which was rich with Citric acid. After many generations (about 40,000) they found that this strain of E.coli indeed had started to metabolize Citric acid. So from a classification point of view, this strain is no longer E.coli, but a new species of bacteria.
They were caught in October.
http://www.secularism.org.uk/n...
There are lots of whats that speciation could occur -- one obvious one is that the population gets split into two which then evolves away from each other. If you had 100 different high related species then they would likely compete with each other or interbred. The end result of either is that you end up with fewer populations -- one wipes out the other, or the two interbred till they become one.
I find it amusing that through the decades and centuries some fundamentalists, religious groups etc simply do everything they can no to not change.
Resisting change in new and interesting ways. They come up with new counter arguments, new legislation proposals, new interpretations of the same old texts.
That very same behaviour is evolutionary in nature. We need no other explanation to demonstrate that evolution as a fact is quite well grounded in fact.Sure there are gaps in our ability to explain everything but every time we have stepped forward and discovered something, solved what was thought to be impossible etc the arguments against evolution then evolved with the discovery. Much like the "Irreducibly complex" malarkey.
So some sect/faction/aspect/cult of Judaism or some other belief want X removed or have removed it from their school. Good. Evolution at work, they are one step closer to removing themselves from the gene pool. While some religious groups may have 11 - 15 kids per family religion overall is in decline.
We can argue these points on slashdot, religious people can counter argue and millions will read and judge for themselves -all very evolved.
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
In most religions its a womans "duty" to have as many kids as possible regardless of the effects upon her health. "Go forth and multiply" was one of the biggest pieces of social propaganda ever divised.
And seriously what the fuck up with the UK and this stupid policy? They could learn a thing or two from the French on this - education should be secular. There should be no religious dress, no segregation by sexes, no exemptions from subjects on religious grounds, no indoctrination into religion and no pandering to the sensibilities of religion in any way shape or form. In the long term this will mean far less religious whackaloons which can only be a good thing.
"So yea, if a jewish community who denied evolution would only breed within the jewish community they may eventually split off from the rest of humanity" - the orthodox jewish community are already suffering the consequences of breeding within a small community. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
The differentiation between species is still being defined, but within a species there are many variations and sub-species. It's only when those differences become significant enough do biologists consider it a separate species. Even then, yes, there may be hundreds of descendant species from a single ancestor species, and the more time that passes, the more diversify from their progenitors.
Of course, nature is a total bitch, and a lot of species go extinct for various reasons, including competition from their related species. Of the many species alive now, some have no closely related species that we know of, and others have tons of them.
Now if you're upset about not knowing about the intermediate ones, you're worried over nothing. The fossil record has shown a clear progression of those in many different animals, so it's not like it's some big mystery as the creationists claim, rather it's their ignorance of evolutionary and paleontological studies. In fast replication species, we have a lot more experience with this, and samples of the intermediate forms are stored. Mostly this is bacterial for the simple reason that those suckers multiply faster than Bugs Bunny locked in a room full of viagra with Jessica Rabbit. There are of course other studies with non microbial life, but those have far fewer generations to work with and so aren't as advanced.
Evolution has been observed, tracked, and even experimented with. It's existence is not in doubt among biologists, though they are constantly refining and testing it.
They are against evolution, and in general science, because science is all at odds with one of the most important fundamental "virtue" of Christian: faith.
This post isn't about Christianity, as can be inferred from the title.
Yes, it's a government-required standardised test. Administered by the exam board OCR. I'm guessing OCRs agreement is something along the lines of OCR turning a blind eye and the school not starting legal action that could run for years and embarrass everyone involved.
Don't they know wikipedia exists?
Do you know that conservapedia exists?
http://www.conservapedia.com/
Which one is correct? Teach the controversy!
No sig today...
Indeed not. I've only had a little rather indirect contact with those sorts of communities in London, but as I understand it they also tend to shun proper education - university level especially because that's where a lot of people leave their communities - have low income levels and be dependent on state benefits in one of the most expensive cities in the world. Personally, I have no problem funding appropriately limited benefits for people who are unlucky, disabled, not educated properly by their parents and so on....but when a whole community is dependent on forced charity in a self-perpetuating cultural cycle but the problem is considered untouchable because 'religion' then I think it needs to be dealt with a little better. Requiring a proper education would be a good start (and being prepared to help children who want to go to university against their parents' wishes could be a good second thing).
Because science is about doubting, learning and knowing, religion is about faith and believe. They're mutually exclusive.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
School children should be taught *facts*.
If it's a religious owned/operated school, save the mythology for the theology class. Be fair, make it a honest comparative religions class, so they can see how their stories compare with the rest.
For public schools, leave the mythology out entirely, except in the historical context.
Teaching kids the mythology encourages them to grow up to be adults that believe the mythology. They fail to grow up and learn in the real world there is a cause and effect relationship.
The last thing I need is someone coming into my office asking for help, and then praying to their deity to solve it. When I fix their problem, they'll thank their deity, who didn't have a thing to do with it.
I swear, if one more person prays for a fix, I'm going to stop working. Let the deity of their choice fix it, and I'll go helping other people.
Ya buddy, your deity works in mysterious ways, that's why you still can't log into your email, and your application server is still down. Keep praying, maybe it will miraculously recover. Ha.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Why don't you try to misunderstand the scientific definition of the word "theory" some more?
A theory is the most accepted, most rigorous, best description of facts that we have that fits in with all evidential proof. It is *proven*. Like "Pythagoras' theory" (which is what we call it, and has been proven beyond doubt countless millions of times).
What you're implying is that evolution is a "hypothesis". A hypothesis is, quite literally, our "best guess" at what the truth is. It's not proven.
If you were taught evolution was a theory, you were taught correctly. Maybe you should have a word with your English and science teachers, though, to establish which definition of "theory" was referred to in a science lesson.
We don't have "laws" by the way. It''s an old-fashioned way of saying theory (in the scientific sense), e.g. Newton's Third Law of Motion, or the Law of Conservation of Energy. Both of which, by the way, are proven theories (subject to the terms of Newtonian descriptions of motion which do not act on the quantum scale, but still - they are proven theories at the levels that they apply to).
And neither are "facts". Facts are indisputable items of information. They do not, in themselves, form an explanation. The explanation of the facts can be a hypothesis or theory, but a fact is just a datum.
Nobody gives a shit what you teach, so long as it's what is required by law. Unfortunately, the Department of Education take a dim view of failing to teach an area of the National Curriculum. If you don't want to teach it, don't run a school. Run a religious group. Or an after-school club. Or a church. Not a school.
It's spreading, Id rather hoped this kind of shit was going to stay on the other side of the pond :(
Lifesigns: Present Hair: Escaped Age: Increasing
Of course they're going to ignore the 500 madrassas in England which do precisely the same thing and seek out the only Jewish school they could find than shriek and moan and predict the Evil Jew Menace (tm, BBC) is going to destroy all of civilization. This is what they do every day.
In the mean time the Muslims teach their kids much worse things than creationism. Like children as young as 11 learning that Hindus have ‘no intellect’ and that they ‘drink cow piss, and hatred of Jews and Christians.
But of course it's the one Jewish school that they pick on.
These days, science and religion are mutually exclusive.
I'm not sure I'd go that far... but science and The Bible certainly are.
No sig today...
As long as all their examination pupils forfeit the marks from those questions, and if the school's reputation suffers as it slips down the league table, and if the government withdraws all public funding from the school for failing to follow the national curriculum.
The school is supported by a small religious community that is comfortable in its separation from the modern world ---
or more precisely, the modern world as the geek chooses to define it.
I am profoundly wary of using the power of the state bring everyone around to a uniform secularist world-view. In perfect confidence that world-view will be the same as your own world-view.
It has been tried before, after all.
This.
People seem to be able to reconcile their religion with scientific fact.
In my opinion it's intellectually dishonest since you basically have to ignore some critical things on one or the other side of the fence to make it work.
What usually happens is people cherry pick from whatever holy text they subscribe to. Which is a big difference between science and religion.
Science/scientists can admit when they're wrong (most of the time) and adapt and move on. Religion on the other hand..
There are religions where one of the central tenets is that the beliefs must adapt to advances in science.
eg. Bahá'í
They really do it, too. It's not just lip service.
No sig today...
Different species can often interbreed:
Horses/donkeys
Lions/Tigers
etc.
The offspring aren't always sterile, either. Mules are usually sterile but ligers can often be fertile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Bengal cats are an artificially created crossbreed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The original ("rather stupid") answer assumed the parent was simply a troll who was trying a variant of the creationist's "Irreducible complexity" argument.
No sig today...
Wait, so the school decides what questions they want on their exam, and people are complaining?
Yes because in the UK the exams are not written by the schools but written by a central exam board so that the standard is consistent across the country. The same happens here in Alberta, Canada. By redacting the questions the school is preventing the students from being able to get any marks for those questions. I the exam board produced a paper where sufficient questions were "objectionable" then every pupil at that school would automatically fail the exam.
While the exam board might be ok with it because it offers zero advantage to the students the school inspectors ought to be all over this since it is grossly unfair to the students and may prevent them getting into university. We already have laws which limit religious freedom when it comes to refusing medical treatment for children because it harms them and frankly we should have similar ones when it comes to science education for exactly the same reason.
Those are after school institutions, not instead of school institutions, you Daily Mail reader.
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
The Telegraph has a nice one right now about the madrassas discriminating by gender in hiring teachers. The BBC, however, has had a history of being soft on Islam.
Umm not. Nice link but what you are hiding from the community is the extensive pre-engagement genetic testing that is done in the community. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
form the article " a New York neurologist who credits the near-total disappearance of the condition (Tay-Sachs disease) from the ultra-orthodox community due to Dor Yeshorim's involvement"
Sanity is the trademark of a weak mind. -- Mark Harrold
An obligatory disclaimer as an observant Jew, I can think of no one in my social or academic circles who would support or condone such a move. Sadly, the extremists ruin things for everyone.
Keep the faith, share the code
Jewish teaching is all about asking questions. The entire religion is asking questions and challenging the answers. What this school is doing is wrong.
No one has seen what you have seen, and until that happens, we're all going to think that you're nuts. - Jack O'Neil
>It's the one Jewish school that they pick on.
No, it isn't.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-e...
However, one Jewish reference gets the propaganda industry into full swing.
'evolution facists' (facist as in trying to control other people's thoughts)
Eh? Teaching evolution in a *science* class is now controlling other people's thoughts? The whole reason this is an issue is because hardcore theists want to prevent it from being taught because they think it conflicts with one cultures interpretation of a creation story. Is that not attempting to control people's thoughts?
Actually, only a literal interpretation of the Bible conflicts with science. If you read it as metaphor trying to give the gist of things to people who had not yet developed arithmetic, it works reasonably well.
Meanwhile, with no way to prove or disprove God, science really doesn't have anything to say about the subject. For that reason, it must not (and does not) admit God as an explanation of anything.
First, what on earth are you on about?
Second, how about we draw a line between "education" (which I'll define as evidence-based teaching, and a good thing) and "indoctrination" (which I'll define as belief-based teaching; not automatically bad, unless it conflicts with evidence).
Third, evidence is evidence. You can ignore it if you like, but it won't go away. And you can make whatever tenuous speculative connections you wish to any bizarro conclusion of your choice, but do keep them out of reach of impressionable children.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?