Evolution fight moves to Britain

LONDON, March 10 (UPI) -- The fights over evolution have moved to Britain with a new biology syllabus that includes discussion of alternatives to evolution.

The syllabus for the General Certificate of Secondary Education exam does not require teachers to explain creationism or intelligent design, The Guardian reports. But it does ask students to "explain that the fossil record has been interpreted differently over time (e.g. creationist interpretation)."

School Standards Minister Jacqui Smith, in an answer to a parliamentary question, said that the curriculum encourages students to explore different views in many subjects.

"Creationism is one of many differing beliefs which pupils might discuss and consider, perhaps when they learn about another aspect of science," she said.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060310-022602-3079r

Sad to see a what hs become of a once proud news organization.

that has Darwin on its currency.

Oy vey!

Cathedral, even though his discoveries destroyed his faith (he became an agnostic).

seems fine, if this defangs the brain0washed psudo-fundemnetalists that's fine, this seems reasonable.

but only as part of the required Religious Education part of the UK national curriculum. It's touched on briefly, and then they move on. It's not hammered into them, nor is it taught as part of the science curriculum and as such I don't have a problem with it.

If and when they move it into biology classes, then I will start to make noise about it. Come to think of it, so will my 14-year old son: he's in Catholic school and has already argued a pro-choice position during a discussion about abortion in his Religious Education class, so I can see him really kicking up a fuss if they try to bring ID into his biology class!

This is definitely not something I can see catching on for long in the UK.

First it will be creationism, next it will be NASCAR, then of course, shitty american style beer.

Bud is quite popular in some circles, according to several of my British friends.

:yoiks:

who gives a flying hootie-hoo what they think?

If you mean creationists, then those of us who are seriously commited to fighting them and believe in knowing thy enemy give "a flying hootie-hoo what they think".

If you mean the British, then people who aren't narrow-minded xenophobes and actually give a shit about the rest of the world - and who realise that the fundy/neo-con project is profoundly internationalist in scope - give "a flying hootie-hoo what they think".

about the Sun orbiting the Earth while we are at it.

:sarcasm:

ladjf posted this on DU the other day:

Post #52: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2153480#2153595

Part of our problem is that we are unable to fathom the profoundness of the ignorance in America. Another study showed that 25% of Americans think that the Sun orbits the Earth.


From the overall thread, Gallup: More Than Half of Americans Reject Evolution, Back Bible
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2153480

See the excellent book "Terrible Lizard: The First Dinosaur Hunters and the Birth of a New Science" by Deborah Cadbury. from http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805067728/qid=1142110269/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/t/104-4457745-1262328?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
In this comprehensive narrative, Cadbury (Altering Eden) tells the story of the first fossilists, whose discoveries challenged the religious convictions of their day as they struggled with the implications of new science. It begins with Mary Anning, who unearthed the skeleton of a monstrous creature beneath the cliffs of Dorset in 1812; Anning would earn the respect of her male peers, but not entry into their exclusive societies. Men like the eccentric Oxford don William Buckland sought to reconcile the biblical account of Noah's flood with the fossil record, while the brilliant Georges Cuvier posited a theory of "catastrophes" to explain the progression of life while still holding true to scripture. The ambitious Richard Owen, who coined the term dinosaur and claimed credit for the discovery of dinosaurs, used his prestige to discount early evolutionary theories in favor of his own backward-looking notions about a biblical past. Unlike his rival Gideon Mantell, whose studies in geology and paleontology laid the foundation for the new science, Owen rarely set foot in a quarry or dig, but he did, according to Cadbury, mine his share of fellow scientists' works for ideas he then claimed as his own. Cadbury makes much of the rivalry between the two men, and to good effect. Her focus on Owen's injustices against Mantell, Owen's corresponding rise to fame, and Mantell's ultimately tragic end lends momentum to her narrative, culminating in the advent of the evolutionary idea with Darwin's On the Origin of Species. This is a must-read book for dinosaur enthusiasts, and for anyone who has ever wondered about the source of our present-day assumptions and unanswered questions about human origins. (June 6)Forecast: In its inevitable sales duel with Christopher McGowan's Dragon Seekers (see review p. 231), Cadbury's more three-dimensional account is sure to win hands down.

Copyright 2001 Cahners Business Information, Inc.

comment: This would make an excellent text for any class discussing this subject!

Back in the '70s. We spent as much time on the ways the archeological record had been interpreted as on evolution. Nary a smidgeon of fundamentalism involved, either. You can't say Darwin revolutionized biological thinking in his day (any more than you can say the same about Leeuwenhoek or Pasteur) without having kids understand what preceded them.

It's unclear if this is merely the traditional way of looking at scientific development, or is an imposition by those who actually believe in creationism today.