If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
you know me for posting against creationism in science
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4793198.stm
anyway i actually agree the exam board here, i checked their site out as all the newspapers were giving a grilling about it, and no exam board could be that stupid
anyfrom looking at their site and the syllabus - it does mention creationist ideas however only to provide a background to the sort of society darwin was introducing his theory to which is why it was generally disregarded for quite a long time.
which for teaching purposes is a good idea in providing a brief context
here's the sections relating to it
http://www.ocr.org.uk/ - gateway science specification
on the whole this actually seems like a good section of the course for getting students to think about things, rather than just remember things which must surely be a good thing
anyway i actually agree the exam board here, i checked their site out as all the newspapers were giving a grilling about it, and no exam board could be that stupid
anyfrom looking at their site and the syllabus - it does mention creationist ideas however only to provide a background to the sort of society darwin was introducing his theory to which is why it was generally disregarded for quite a long time.
which for teaching purposes is a good idea in providing a brief context
here's the sections relating to it
http://www.ocr.org.uk/ - gateway science specification
Explain that the fossil record has been interpreted
differently over time (e.g. creationist interpretation)
Describe examples of change by natural selection
occurring today:
• occurrence of dark or pale forms of the
peppered moth in areas with different levels
of pollution;
• bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics;
• rats that are resistant to the rat poison
warfarin.
Explain the main steps in Darwin’s theory of natural
selection leading to the evolution or extinction of
organisms:
• presence of natural variation;
• competition for limited resources;
• ’survival of the fittest’;
• inheritance of ’successful’ adaptations;
• extinction of species unable to compete.
Explain the reasons why the theory of evolution by
natural selection met with an initially hostile
response (social and historical context).
Explain how Lamarck’s idea of evolution by the
inheritance of acquired characteristics was
different from Darwin’s theory and why it was
discredited:
• acquired characteristics do not have a
genetic basis.
Explain that over long periods of time the changes
brought about by natural selection may result in the
formation of new species.
on the whole this actually seems like a good section of the course for getting students to think about things, rather than just remember things which must surely be a good thing
0
Comments
Apart from being completely pointless it allows the possibility for the slow creep of fundamentalism into our education system.....
everyone came to the same conclusion pretty much though. if anything, it helps rationalise it all and so you can see why creationism isnt likely to be the true cause of everything.
evolution is a theory and techincally a new one can come along and disprove it or give an alternate view onc reation. However, evolution was evidence for it and so is the theory I belive in.
And it actually contains science, biology, chemistry, physics. So it fits in science.
Is that the measurement you should use then?
Surely science is just theory too and all outcomes (i.e. gravity) could just as easily be by Design...
Like world in 7 days and all this business. Flash boom bang and here we are, peferctly formed humans etc.
Beliefs like that carry no proof and aren't measured empricailly, unlike evolution so creationsim isn't a science, its a faith and evolution is a science.
Just because evolution is real and provable, doesn't discount the existance of a creator..
Evolution and scientifc theory can prove the earth is older then 4000 years and that man we didn't arrive slap bang wallop perfectly formed, but rather, like all life, through evolution.
Carbon dating, fossils, transitional species, god knows how many techincal scientific techniques to determine age and method and so on.
However, like all scientific theory, there is a chance it can be disproven. Science accepts that one day somone could come up with a new thoery to explain it all.
Science can also adapt with new factual knowledge i.e science used to belive the solar system was in orbit around the earth, then science learned it is the earth adn the rest of the solar system that orbits the sun.
Religion doesn't adapt so well.
science is based upon methodology not its outcomes :thumb:
you cannot prove design and thus it will never be a scientific theory
Those who already god bother are going to reject evolution and those who aren't insane or mentally damaged will accept the more rational solution that evolution provides.
Still disturbing though. How people older then 5 can accept it as truth and so denounce evolution
of course
if you see my school science thread, youll see how young people are like 'leave it to the experts'
Allowing them to teach a tissue of misguided, downright lies can't help anyone can it? I mean we all got the adam and eve, world in 6/7 days story in primary school RS but thats where it should end.
To give it credibility along with the theory of evolution, to say its science is just wrong.
It is also encourages funadmental thinking, and an unquestioning midnset based on material that can be manipulated and misused by clever individuals who then gain influnce and power over the young and old alike, and misuse and abuse it.
That doesn't make any sense.
The basics of thought is that you must discover what is true for yourself, based on evidence. Relying on someone elses supposed authority in any area without realising that is what you are doing isn't thought, it's belief.
I dunno. It's like the lesson of Santa Claus - you can't trust even those close to you to tell the truth.
Well of course! Why else would they be in school, if not to have rubbish installed in them to make them obedient and broken?
No you don't. You can use things without believing in them at all. I can use maths as an example, but I know it doesn't really describe the real world, it is just a useful lie.
In the real world there is no "2", everything is individual, unique and unrepeatable. My brain can understand this intellectually but it's not of great use to get me to the shops, so I build a model (a lie) that will let me operate usefully.
It took us thousands of years to work out how light works. You can show how it works and prove it in an afternoon, so this isn't right either.
If your taking it on blind faith that the experiments have been done then it;s much the same thing. there is also the problem of conclusion versus data. The data might show a conclusion that wasn't thought of by the original researcher.
Creationism has no science and hence shouldnt be in a science lesson.
Klintock - It does make sense and you are right but I don't many kids that teach school classes. Its the setting of the school. The teacher, teaches the set curriculum and evolution is an accepted idea with evidence and based in science so it is taught.
No one is teling the students they must believe it or die, of course you choose in the end what you believe and what you don't, but evolution should be taught.
You could teah creationsim and people can choose to believe it or not, but I don't think it should be given the same credibility as evolution and certainly shouldn't be put in a science lesson.
I am loving this decade!
you don't, you cite the original scientists work and provide enough information for the person to find it themselves :thumb:
at school though this would be a challenge, and thus some things have to be taken as a given, however reasonable explanation should be given as to how this comes about
i was taught so much crap at school in regards to what i know now about chemistry, it weren't the teachers were wrong - it was just they used huge generalisations - for example those dot and cross diagrams
scientific theories are either the result of mathematical modelling combined with empirical fair results i.e newtonian physics, or sheer modelling that is REALLY well done i.e. relativistic physics
exactly what i mean, provide an explanation of what's going on and most kids will grasp it
okay they quite won't get the wave-particle duality part, well a couple might but most won't