Kicked into touch: Genesis booted back out of the classroom
Alexander
p.8 of todays (Dec 7th) Grauniad here's the latest in the TiS saga:
http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1965987,00.html
>From the article:
"The government has already stated that the Truth in Science materials
should not be used in science lessons. On November 1, the education
minister, Jim Knight, wrote: "Neither intelligent design nor
creationism are recognised scientific theories and they are not
included in the science curriculum. The Truth in Science information
pack is therefore not an appropriate resource to support the science
curriculum." The Department for Education said it was working with the
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, the public body that oversees
the national curriculum, to communicate this message directly to
schools."
As Nelson Muntz might say - 'Ha! Ha!'
TiS appears to be in denial about the whole issue:
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/blogcategory/51/63/
Nary a mention of the article - but perhaps even DI would have problems
spinning the outright refusal to peddle ID in science classes by the
government itself. Brace yourself for the usual accusations of 'close
minded' academics and the intolerance shown toward 'alternative'
scientific viewpoints, Darwinist mafia etc and so forth.
Bobby Bryant
"Alexander" <alexand...@btinternet.com> writes:
> If you haven't seen it already or picked up on the smaller article on
> p.8 of todays (Dec 7th) Grauniad here's the latest in the TiS saga:
>
> http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1965987,00.html
>
>>From the article:
>
> "The government has already stated that the Truth in Science materials
> should not be used in science lessons. On November 1, the education
> minister, Jim Knight, wrote: "Neither intelligent design nor
> creationism are recognised scientific theories and they are not
> included in the science curriculum. The Truth in Science information
> pack is therefore not an appropriate resource to support the science
> curriculum." The Department for Education said it was working with the
> Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, the public body that oversees
> the national curriculum, to communicate this message directly to
> schools."
>
> As Nelson Muntz might say - 'Ha! Ha!'
>
> TiS appears to be in denial about the whole issue:
Yeah, well, as soon as you hear that their name is "truth in science",
you know they're out of touch with either reality or honesty.
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
Richard Clayton
Is it just me or is the UK press more willing to call it like it is on
issues related to creationism? It often seems to me that the US press
treats creationists and ID proponents with kid gloves, though I don't
know whether that's due to ignorance of the science behind the issue or
a desire not to offend readers.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"Remember, always be yourself. Unless you suck." — Joss Whedon
Robin Levett
The fact that the prominent religious figures reject creationism outright
probably helps - the Rt Rev Richard Harries (Anglican Bishop of Oxford)
usually rides out with Richard Dawkins when creationism comes over the
horizon. There is a fundangelical wing, represented by people like the
"Christian" Institute and "Christian" Voice, but they represent, and are
seen to represent, nothing but a pretty far-out bunch of nutters.
It's worth pointing out that ordination of women to the Church of England
priesthood to women was backed by the Archbishop of Canterbury at the time,
and the biggest majority on the crucial vote was in the House of Bishops;
the Church of England, within limits (some of them crucial, such as
acceptance of homosexuality) is pretty liberal and rational.
Another reason why creationism isn't the default position here is of course
that Darwin was British; the battle with creationism was fought here, and
largely won, in the 19th century. When in the early 20th century
Fundamentalism (strictu sensu) raised its ugly little head and fathered
creationism (to generalise wildly and probably inaccurately) as now
practised, it was in the USA. Hence the theory of evolution, being
British, is accepted, and creationism, being foreign, has difficulty
finding any real intellectual purchase with the general public.
--
Robin Levett
rle...@rlevett.ibmuklunix.net (unmunge by removing big blue - don't yahoo)
Alexander
On Dec 8, 8:48 pm, Richard Clayton <pockZIGetnZIG...@verizon.net>
wrote:
Most of the reportage is coming from the Grauniad which is quite a
liberal rag (liberal as in european liberal - not the US sense) but has
been picked up by more conservative heavies like the Times.
Religion in the UK is a very personal thing it seems. The US
anti-abortionist tactics didn't cut it over here either, neither does
the kind of Harry Potter book burning fraternity make much kind of an
impact.
The DI style tactics and attempt to influence political capital for
purely religious means is something the UK is deeply suspicious of.
This is why I think it gets treated with such scepticism. Cuts both
ways though - some rags have picked up on what is seen as the PC 'War
on Christmas' (you know - renaming Christmas 'winterval', preventing
people from putting up Xmas lights - that sort of thing) with a rabid
ferocity - despite the fact that it is a complete urban myth.
We like status quo it seems - mess with a couple of fir trees and house
decorations you're going down ...
> --
> [The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
> Richard Clayton
> "Remember, always be yourself. Unless you suck." - Joss Whedon
Alexander
> > a desire not to offend readers.The fact that the prominent religious figures reject creationism outright
> probably helps - the Rt Rev Richard Harries (Anglican Bishop of Oxford)
> usually rides out with Richard Dawkins when creationism comes over the
> horizon. There is a fundangelical wing, represented by people like the
> "Christian" Institute and "Christian" Voice, but they represent, and are
> seen to represent, nothing but a pretty far-out bunch of nutters.
>
> It's worth pointing out that ordination of women to the Church of England
> priesthood to women was backed by the Archbishop of Canterbury at the time,
> and the biggest majority on the crucial vote was in the House of Bishops;
> the Church of England, within limits (some of them crucial, such as
> acceptance of homosexuality) is pretty liberal and rational.
>
> Another reason why creationism isn't the default position here is of course
> that Darwin was British; the battle with creationism was fought here, and
> largely won, in the 19th century. When in the early 20th century
> Fundamentalism (strictu sensu) raised its ugly little head and fathered
> creationism (to generalise wildly and probably inaccurately) as now
> practised, it was in the USA.
No - that's pretty accurate. 'The Fundamentals' was a US publication
and seen as a general reaction to the Higher Critics of Germany and
Europe at the time. The core arguments of the YEC stance as compared
to contemporary reactions are pretty much the same. They've had to
introduce a vast range of new tactics to cope with the degree of
dissonance modern science generates but it hasn't shifted a great deal
from the time of Scopes.
Hence the theory of evolution, being
> British, is accepted, and creationism, being foreign, has difficulty
> finding any real intellectual purchase with the general public.
>
> --
> Robin Levett
> rlev...@rlevett.ibmuklunix.net (unmunge by removing big blue - don't yahoo)