A Slippery Slope? [purplecthulhu]

You're viewing

purplecthulhu's journal
Create a Dreamwidth Account Learn More

Reload page in style: site light

←

→

Creationism is going to be brought into science classes under a plan by a UK Exam Board:

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1728235,00.html?gusrc=rss

The words in the article expand on the headline to suggest that this is just to allow scientific exploration (and refutation) of creationist and ID ideas. But is this really just the start of a slippery slope towards Kansas-style education?

Bare in mind that Tony Blair is a crypto-Catholic, the Eeucation Secretary is a staunchly religious Catholic, and there is an increasing push to invovle religious groups in education, with at least one school already teaching an avowedly Creationist sylabus...

Mood::

worried

←

→

There are 14 comments on this entry. (Reply.)

I don't think you're over-reacting. Religion plays far too great a part in Our Tone's decisions already. (At one time Richard Dawkins was advising him on matters-biological. I really would have liked to have sat in on some of those conversations, though I suspect they consisted of RD talking and TB looking blank.)

[link] [reply]

Please Note, the catholic Church supports neither young-earth creationism nor "ID" except in the broadest sense (they believe that God was responsible for the developement of man, but are perfectly open to the possibility that said developement was evolutionary in nature).

[link] [reply]

Indeed - and I have a friend who is a Jesuit monk astronomer with whom I was joking about the ID lunacy.

However, not everyone is up to that, and there are 'litealist' catholics out there. I was mroe implying that these two especially will not go out of their way (and haven't in the past) to disabuse others of their religious prejudices.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I first thought that would just be explaining that a creationist view is not a scientific interpretation of the evidence and going on into "what is a scientific approach?" type talking.

Then I read the article.

I'm up one notch from worried.

The approach "taking a belief and either denying or ignoring any evidence that suggests a simpler more rational state of affairs" isn't one I want justified in any science class.

[link] [reply]

I'm okay with it. Teaching about the public reception (or lack of it) of science is an important part of the subject, in my opinion. I also find it a bit distasteful to call Blair a crypto-Catholic; firstly, it makes it sound as if being Catholic was something to be ashamed of, and secondly, he's been quite open about the nature of his relationship with the Catholic Church. I do hope we're not heading back to the days of rampant anti-Catholicism in Britain; we've got enough to do tackling Islamophobia without regressing on our acceptance of other faiths.

[link] [reply]

I don't think this has anything to do with Catholicism, per se, but rather Christians who push their private beliefs into the public and political light. It wouldn't matter if Blair was Catholic, Anglican, Unitarian or Christian Scientist; the problem is religious belief being aloowed to dictate governmental policy.

[link] [parent] [reply]

The public reception of science is certainly an important matter but not in a science lesson or GCSE. The place for that is somewhere else - civics perhaps, or sociology (not sure how the curriculum is structured these days).

I made the comment about Blair's religion not in an anti-Catholic way (I have good friends who are catholic, including the Jesuit Astronomer listed above) but as an indication of how he has a tendency to bring his private beliefs into public, as

anthraxia says below, and with the implication that he and Ruth Kelly might not be to unhappy about the blurring of the boundaries between religion and science in schools.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I think a science lesson is absolutely where this issue belongs - it should not be possible to study science without also studying its social context (and I think the same is true of all other subjects, too). I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

It seems to me that based on your comments, Blair is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't on the religious issue - if he's open about it, he's "bringing his religious beliefs into public", and if he's not, he's "crypto-Catholic". Any minister is bound to bring their ethics into their job, and if they happen to be religious, those will be religious ethics. If they happen to be humanist, they will be humanist ethics. There's no reason to single out religious ethics as somehow more problematic than any others.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Sorry, I do disagree. ID is not about science in a social context, it's about using pseudo-science to prove God, by trying to deny that evolution is possible without a controlling force.
And when people start saying 'we should be teaching ID because science needs to be set in a social context', funny how no one talks about the social context of nuclear fission, quantum theory, thermodynamics, the Krebs cycle, the side effects of industrial manufacture of sulphuric acid (the name for which escapes me), organic chemistry, or plate tectonics. All of which have been or are currently worthy of social context discussion. (And I don't see too many people claiming that "Gravity is jut a theory")

But evolution/ID, genetics and con/contra-ception are all deemed neccesary to be discussed with reference to ethics, etc. Not because of any real interest in expanding scientific and social awareness, but becase these touch on the hot spots of some (in the West, mainly Christian) religious beliefs.

As to the ethics comment - it is not ethical to steal, to injure others, to wantonly destroy relationships though infidelity and lying. These are ethical statements most people support. Christians have a habit of talking about them as Christian ethics, as though no one else held them. I am not a Christian. I do not want my governments decisions based on what a religious text based on the opinions of people alive from 1,800 to 5,000 years ago thought was 'right'. I want it determined on what is most appropriate for today's society, with today's understanding of the world and where we fit in it.

[link] [parent] [reply]

ID is not about science in a social context, it's about using pseudo-science to prove God, by trying to deny that evolution is possible without a controlling force.

Yes, it is. And teaching that it is is part of putting science in context.

funny how no one talks about the social context of nuclear fission, quantum theory, thermodynamics, the Krebs cycle, the side effects of industrial manufacture of sulphuric acid (the name for which escapes me), organic chemistry, or plate tectonics. All of which have been or are currently worthy of social context discussion.

I would be in favour of teaching the social context of all of those. I've been taught the social context of several of them, come to that, so someone must have talked about it at some stage.

I'm afraid I don't understand how your response to my comment on ethics addresses my point.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Time to start demanding equal space for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism!

[link] [reply]

Why bnot go the whole tentacly hog and demand equal space for Cthulhism! I'd approve of that, as would

fluffcthulhu!

[link] [parent] [reply]

Oooo! Quick, bring back religious instruction!

[link] [parent] [reply]

Blair did - it's called religious studies, and it's compulsory to 16. They 'study the six main world religions, and what we can learn from them' to almost-quote an RS teacher from my school.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18 1	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30	31

purplecthulhu

A Slippery Slope?

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

December