OTish: Creationism sneaking into GCSE science

"Creationist theories about how the world was made are to be debated in GCSE
science lessons in mainstream secondary schools in England."

"James Williams, science course leader at Sussex University's school of
education, told the Times Educational Supplement: "This opens a legitimate
gate for the inclusion of creationism or intelligent design in science
classes as if they were legitimate theories on a par with evolution fact and
theory."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4793198.stm

Absolutely fantastic.

--
Paul Smith,
Yeovil, UK.
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User.
http://www.windowsresource.net/

*Replace 'nospam' with 'smirnov' to reply by e-mail*

As I understand it pre-Darwin beliefs are to be covered for comparison to
show why Darwin's theory was an improvement. That is a "history of science"
issue on a par with covering the geocentric model of the planets in physics
to show why the heliocentric model was an improvement.

"Paul Smith" wrote in message
...
"Creationist theories about how the world was made are to be debated in
GCSE
science lessons in mainstream secondary schools in England."

"James Williams, science course leader at Sussex University's school of
education, told the Times Educational Supplement: "This opens a legitimate
gate for the inclusion of creationism or intelligent design in science
classes as if they were legitimate theories on a par with evolution fact
and
theory."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4793198.stm

Absolutely fantastic.

--
Paul Smith,
Yeovil, UK.
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User.
http://www.windowsresource.net/

*Replace 'nospam' with 'smirnov' to reply by e-mail*

Charles Gilman wrote:
As I understand it pre-Darwin beliefs are to be covered for comparison to
show why Darwin's theory was an improvement.

Exactly so. There is a great benefit, IMNSVHO, in teaching sciences in
an historical manner. I do this when I teach astronomy; i.e. I start
with experiences of primal phenomena and develop it from there. It is
very much more preferable to show *why* and *how* modern ideas have
developed than to merely teach *what* they are. The latter has no
context and does not equip the pupils to evaluate competing ideas.

I go even further and assert that the teaching of the *what* only is
what has given the openings for pseudo-sciences like ID, creationism or
the sort of astrocrud one gets from the likes of Hancock, Bauval,
Flem-Ath, Jenkins, etc. to gain some sort of currency. The orthodox
ideas are just plonked down without a context, and this is cynically
exploited by the purveyors of pseudoscience, who cleverly create a
context for their drivel -- the context makes it more appealing.

Best,
Stephen

Remove footfrommouth to reply

--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astro Books +
+ (N51.162 E0.995) | http://astunit.com +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Paul Smith wrote in message
...
"Creationist theories about how the world was made are to be debated in
GCSE
science lessons in mainstream secondary schools in England."

"James Williams, science course leader at Sussex University's school of
education, told the Times Educational Supplement: "This opens a legitimate
gate for the inclusion of creationism or intelligent design in science
classes as if they were legitimate theories on a par with evolution fact
and
theory."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4793198.stm

Absolutely fantastic.

--
Paul Smith,
Yeovil, UK.
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User.
http://www.windowsresource.net/

*Replace 'nospam' with 'smirnov' to reply by e-mail*



Creationism / Intelligent Design is nothing to
do with science.
If it must be covered then it should be in psychology
or mythology or whatever is appropriate.


What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles
and what Special Branch don't want you to know.
http://www.oldbury.chat.ru/dnapr.htm
or nutteingd in a search engine.