Teachers fear evolution lessons

Lightkeeper · #1 (**permalink**) 10th October 2007, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Teachers 'fear evolution lessons'

Creationism is not taught as a subject in schools
The teaching of evolution is becoming increasingly difficult in UK schools because of the rise of creationism, a leading scientist is warning.
Head of science at London's Institute of Education Professor Michael Reiss says some teachers, fearful of entering the debate, avoid the subject totally.

This could leave pupils with gaps in their scientific knowledge, he says.

Prof Reiss says the rise of creationism is partly down to the large increase in Muslim pupils in UK schools.

The days have long gone when science teachers could ignore creationism when teaching about origins

Professor Reiss

He said: "The number of Muslim students has grown considerably in the last 10 to 20 years and a higher proportion of Muslim families do not accept evolutionary theory compared with Christian families.

"That's one reason why it's more of an issue in schools."

Prof Reiss estimates that one in 10 people in the UK now believes in literal interpretations of religious creation stories - whether they are based on the Bible or the Koran.

Many more teachers he met at scientific meetings were telling him they encountered more pupils with creationist views, he said.

"The days have long gone when science teachers could ignore creationism when teaching about origins."

Instead, teachers should tackle the issue head-on, whilst trying not to alienate students, he argues in a new book.

'Not equally valid'

"By not dismissing their beliefs, we can ensure that these students learn what evolutionary theory really says - and give everyone the understanding to respect the views of others," he added.

His book; Teaching about Scientific Origins: Taking Account of Creationism, gives science teachers advice on how to deal with the "dilemma".

Further discussion of creationism should occur in religious education as it is a belief system, not one based on science

Hilary Leevers
Campaign for Science and Engineering

He supports new government guidelines which say creationism should not be discussed in science classes unless it is raised by pupils.

But Prof Reiss argues that there is an educational value in comparing creationist ideas with scientific theories like Darwin's theory of evolution because they demonstrate how science, unlike religious beliefs, can be tested.

The scientist, who is also a Church of England priest, adds that any teaching should not give the impression that creationism and the theory of evolution are equally valid scientifically.

Dr Hilary Leevers, of the Campaign for Science and Engineering, said science teachers would be teaching evolution not creationism and so should not need a book to tell them how to "delicately handle controversy between a scientific theory and a belief".

"The author suggests that science teachers cannot ignore creationism when teaching origins, but the opposite is true," she said.

Teachers could discuss how creationism differed from scientific theory if a student brought up the subject, but any further discussion should occur in religious education lessons, she said.

A Department for Children, Schools and Families spokesman said it had recently published guidelines to teachers on the issue.

"Creationism and intelligent design are not scientific theories nor testable as scientific fact - and have no place in the science curriculum. "But we advise science teachers that when questions about creationism come up in lessons, it provides an opportunity to explain or explore what makes a scientific theory.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...on/7028639.stm

Nick_A · #2 (**permalink**) 11th October 2007, 05:24 AM

How much do you want to bet that when a student asks "What is a human being," science class will not say we don't know and refer you the the religion dept. They will answer this religion question with meaningless theories of evolution. Science will not stick to the provable but attempt to define the creation of Man through expressions of imagination.

aged hippy · #3 (**permalink**) 11th October 2007, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Creationism is a potential threat to human rights and any attempts to incorporate it into science must be resisted, says the Council of Europe. The council is an intergovernmental body that is responsible for, among other things, the European Convention on Human Rights.

On 4 October, the council's Parliamentary Assembly voted in favour of its member states promoting evolution as “a fundamental scientific theory” and to “firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution”. The motion is not binding on the council's 47 member states.

Emphasis mine.
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/0710...l/449649c.html

Quote:

Doc. 11375
17 September 2007

The dangers of creationism in education

Report
Committee on Culture, Science and Education
Rapporteur: Mrs Anne BRASSEUR, Luxembourg, ALDE

Summary

Creationism in any of its forms, such as “intelligent design”, is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning and its contents are definitely inappropriate for science classes.

However, some people call for creationist theories to be taught in European schools alongside or even in place of the theory of evolution. From a scientific view point, there is absolutely no doubt that evolution is a central theory for our understanding of life on Earth.

The Assembly calls on education authorities in member states to promote scientific knowledge and the teaching of evolution and to oppose firmly any attempts at teaching creationism as a scientific discipline.

A. Draft resolution

1. For some people the Creation, as a matter of religious belief, gives a meaning to life. Nevertheless, the Parliamentary Assembly is worried about the possible ill-effects of the spread of creationist ideas within our education systems and about the consequences for our democracies. If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights which are a key concern of the Council of Europe.

2. Creationism, born of the denial of the evolution of species through natural selection, was for a long time an almost exclusively American phenomenon. Today creationist ideas are tending to find their way into Europe and their spread is affecting quite a few Council of Europe member states.

3. The prime target of present-day creationists, most of whom are Christian or Muslim, is education. Creationists are bent on ensuring that their ideas are included in the school science syllabus. Creationism cannot, however, lay claim to being a scientific discipline.

4. Creationists question the scientific character of certain items of knowledge and argue that the theory of evolution is only one interpretation among others. They accuse scientists of not providing enough evidence to establish the theory of evolution as scientifically valid. On the contrary, they defend their own statements as scientific. None of this stands up to objective analysis.

5. We are witnessing a growth of modes of thought which, the better to impose religious dogma, are attacking the very core of the knowledge that we have patiently built up on nature, evolution, our origins and our place in the universe.

6. There is a real risk of a serious confusion being introduced into our children’s minds between what has to do with convictions, beliefs, ideals of all sorts and what has to do with science, and of the advent of an “all things are equal” attitude, which may seem appealing and tolerant but is actually disastrous.

7. Creationism has many contradictory aspects. The “intelligent design” idea, which is the latest, more refined version of creationism, does not deny a certain degree of evolution but claims that this is the work of a superior intelligence. Though more subtle in its presentation, the doctrine of intelligent design is no less dangerous.

8. The Assembly has constantly insisted that science is of fundamental importance. Science has made possible considerable improvements in living and working conditions and is a not insignificant factor in economic, technological and social development. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with divine revelation but is built on facts.

9. Creationism claims to be based on scientific rigour. In actual fact the methods employed by creationists are of three types: purely dogmatic assertions; distorted use of scientific quotations, sometimes illustrated with magnificent photographs; and backing from more or less well-known scientists, most of whom are not specialists in these matters. By these means creationists seek to appeal to non-specialists and sow doubt and confusion in their minds.

10. Evolution is not simply a matter of the evolution of humans and of populations. Denying it could have serious consequences for the development of our societies. Advances in medical research with the aim of effectively combating infectious diseases such as AIDS are impossible if every principle of evolution is denied. One cannot be fully aware of the risks involved in the significant decline in biodiversity and climate change if the mechanisms of evolution are not understood.

11. Our modern world is based on a long history, of which the development of science and technology forms an important part. However, the scientific approach is still not well understood and this is liable to encourage the development of all manner of fundamentalism and extremism. The total rejection of science is definitely one of the most serious threats to human rights and civic rights.

12. The war on the theory of evolution and on its proponents most often originates in forms of religious extremism which are closely allied to extreme right-wing political movements. The creationist movements possess real political power. The fact of the matter, and this has been exposed on several occasions, is that some advocates of strict creationism are out to replace democracy by theocracy.

13. All leading representatives of the main monotheistic religions have adopted a much more moderate attitude. Pope Benedict XVI, for example, as his predecessor Pope John-Paul II, today praises the role of the sciences in the evolution of humanity and recognises that the theory of evolution is “more than a hypothesis”.

14. The teaching of all phenomena concerning evolution as a fundamental scientific theory is therefore crucial to the future of our societies and our democracies. For that reason it must occupy a central position in the curriculum, and especially in the science syllabus. Evolution is present everywhere, from medical overprescription of antibiotics that encourages the emergence of resistant bacteria to agricultural overuse of pesticides that causes insect mutations on which pesticides no longer have any effect.

15. The Council of Europe has highlighted the importance of teaching about culture and religion. In the name of freedom of expression and individual belief, creationist ideas, as any other theological position, could possibly be presented as an addition to cultural and religious education, but they cannot claim scientific respectability.

16. Science provides irreplaceable training in intellectual rigour. It seeks not to explain “why things are” but to understand how they work.

17. Investigation of the creationists’ growing influence shows that the arguments between creationism and evolution go well beyond intellectual debate. If we are not careful, the values that are the very essence of the Council of Europe will be under direct threat from creationist fundamentalists. It is part of the role of the Council’s parliamentarians to react before it is too late.

18. The Parliamentary Assembly therefore urges the member states, and especially their education authorities:

18.1. to defend and promote scientific knowledge;

18.2. strengthen the teaching of the foundations of science, its history, its epistemology and its methods alongside the teaching of objective scientific knowledge;

18.3. to make science more comprehensible, more attractive and closer to the realities of the contemporary world;

18.4. to firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution and in general resist presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion;

18.5. to promote the teaching of evolution as a fundamental scientific theory in the school curriculum.

19. The Assembly welcomes the fact that 27 Academies of Science of Council of Europe member states signed, in June 2006, a declaration on the teaching of evolution and calls on academies of science that have not yet done so to sign the declaration.

http://assembly.coe.int/main.asp?Lin.../edoc11375.htm

... and there is another one here: http://www.assembly.coe.int/Main.asp.../EDOC11297.htm

Unfortunately, the findings of the Assembly aren't binding on the member countries....

Peace, Love, & Light

Nick_A · #4 (**permalink**) 11th October 2007, 02:49 PM

What is it in egotism that captivates a human being so that it will even sacrifice the psychological well being of its own children in order to support the blinders of its dominance? Where do they find so many narrow minded people to form such committees? How easily they discount what they have no comprehension of.

http://www.allaboutscience.org/intelligent-design.htm

Quote:

An excellent example of intelligent design is the DNA molecule. Since its discovery by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953, evolutionists have faced an insurmountable hurdle. Anyone who truly investigates the mystery of the DNA molecule -- this incredible micro, digital, error-correcting, redundant, self duplicating, information storage and retrieval system, with its own inherent language convention, that has the potential to develop any organism from raw biological material -- understands that life is the result of Intelligent Design. In light of recent discoveries such as the DNA molecule, the absurdity of the evolution argument is readily apparent when its basic formula is compared with that of the creation model of origins. Creation states that matter + energy + information = incredibly complex life. Evolution states that matter + energy + random chance = incredibly complex life. The theory of evolution is merely a religion that serves to discredit the Intelligent Designer Himself.

**metis** · #5 (**permalink**) 11th October 2007, 03:58 PM

After teaching anthropology for several years, at the beginning of a new semester, a student told me that he heard that by the end of my course students would no longer believe in G-d. My reaction was something on the order of "say what???". I asked how many heard much the same, and quite a few students raised their hands.

What I told them was that evolution is a process that cannot and does not determine what ultimately caused the universe. However, that still ran into problems because there's still a substantial difference between the creation accounts and what is know about the evolution of our universe, our earth, and ourselves.

So what I began to do was to teach different ways of dealing with the creationist accounts, all the way from the literalistic approach to the atheistic approach, with steps in between. I mentioned the approach of seeing them as allegory, and I also gave them the Lubavich approach of seeing the accounts in reference to being G-d's 7th creation, which shows up in the Talmud.

Students, with help from others I'm sure, will ultimately decide what they believe or think. I did not perceive it to be my role to insist that they had to see things exclusively from a scientific perspective. When I was a teenager, I went through this painstaking process myself since I was brought up in a creationist church. After visiting several museums with my parents, I pretty much felt that there must be some evolutionary process, but that conflicted with my religious beliefs. When I talked with my pastor, he said that I had to choose one or the other and that believing in both was not possible. This eventually led me away from the church that I had so much loved, and I eventually switched to a different denomination about 15 years later.

I gave the above information because I can relate to the turmoil that can be injected into a young person's mind with this and some other issues and, therefore I do believe we need to be sensitive to at least a certain degree. However, that shouldn't go as far as the government, whether it be national, state, or local, mandating the teaching of i.d.

Shalom,
Vern

**angeleyes** · #6 (**permalink**) 12th October 2007, 05:03 AM

I think all sides should be presented along with the evidence, or lack thereof. As metis said, the next generation will make up their minds.

To me, the bigger issue is why do people get so worked up about it? Phrases like this are a little over the top, if you ask me:

Quote:

If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights....

There is a real risk of a serious confusion being introduced into our children’s minds between what has to do with convictions, beliefs, ideals of all sorts and what has to do with science, and of the advent of an “all things are equal” attitude, which may seem appealing and tolerant but is actually disastrous.

Evolution is not simply a matter of the evolution of humans and of populations. Denying it could have serious consequences for the development of our societies.

Ironically, this kind of rhetoric is quite similar to some of the more fundamentalist kind of religious statements.

Nick_A · #7 (**permalink**) 12th October 2007, 06:20 AM

Angeleyes

Quote:

Ironically, this kind of rhetoric is quite similar to some of the more fundamentalist kind of religious statements.

Quite true. I really feel bad for all these students trapped within this environment called "education." It's no wonder how many students want to get stoned. I would too if I were subjected to it now. As usual Simone hits it on the head:

Quote:

Weil lamented that education had become no more than "an instrument manipulated by teachers for manufacturing more teachers, who in their turn will manufacture more teachers." rather than a guide to getting out of the cave.

Being that this is the case, science and religion cannot be reconciled in public education and to the detriment of these poor students, they will be denied common sense as both sides struggle for prestige.

The sad part is that there is what I believe to be meaningful education out there but only in private schools. The techniques that allow for the reconciliation of science and religion are years ahead of their time which is why they are so little known.

Simone died in 1943 and a lot of what is coming out now which allowed knowledge to be put into the context of getting out of the cave, I doubt she could have been aware of at least in the way it has been organized by some truly brilliant men.

Simone's 100th birthday will be 2/3/09. Hopefully by then some of Simone's ideas on education can be vivified by these new concepts in education which can give some freedom from cave life. For the sake of the deeper students and as an alternative to getting stoned, I hope they can be more known in private education since politics would never allow it in public education.

**metis** · #8 (**permalink**) 12th October 2007, 02:45 PM

Angeleyes, I do feel that students need to be exposed to differing concepts in many areas, but I do oppose any governmental mandated teaching of religion or religious dogma, which i.d. is. I think you probably would agree with this, no?

It is not only the legal question of separation of church and state that's being challenged, but also the question as to whether we're going to allow specifically religious dogma to be forced upon our children. I have no difficulty if people believe this as part of their faith, but I do have difficulty when some attempt to push their faith onto others. Certainly there are other issues dealing with education that probably are more important, so I certainly am in agreement with you here.

The attempt by various religious groups to ramrod their beliefs into government and schools is not a new problem. But nor, imo, should it be ignored.

Shalom & have a nice weekend,
Vern

**angeleyes** · #9 (**permalink**) 13th October 2007, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by metis

Angeleyes, I do feel that students need to be exposed to differing concepts in many areas, but I do oppose any governmental mandated teaching of religion or religious dogma, which i.d. is. I think you probably would agree with this, no?

I agree totally on that point. My hope (idealist as it is) is that someday, studying religion will be from a point of view that is objective, much like we study culture/sociology. I think it could go a long way towards getting rid of some of the prejudice that comes from ignorance. For example, the Hindu gods seem very bizarre to the West until you learn a little about them and then they can be seen as quite wonderful in their symbolism. If we are exposed to a wide variety of ideas while we're young, my feeling is that the beliefs of others would be less fearful. But as far as indotrination goes, no way no how........

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode