Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8749 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-24-2017 9:20 PM
410 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: kmastes01
Happy Birthday: Roshankumar1234
Post Volume:
Total: 808,976 Year: 13,582/21,208 Month: 3,064/3,605 Week: 406/933 Day: 51/97 Hour: 0/4

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
9Next
Author Topic:   Opening the doors to creationism in British Schools?
Asking
Junior Member (Idle past 2448 days)
Posts: 19
Joined: 05-19-2010


Message 1 of 129 (562407)
05-28-2010 12:51 PM


Apparantly the new British government is planning to give parents, teachers and charities powers to open their own schools and (as far as I can tell) set their own curriculum. Is this not just a way of giving religious groups via charitable status a means of setting up religious schools and teaching creationism/IB and other such dubious beliefs under whatever title they want, mainly science? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8597572.stm)

Even where those intending to open schools have no such ambitions I have little faith in the ability of parents, charities and even some teachers to give children a comprehensive education without a governing body inplace to ensure that basic minumum standards are met. Personally I'm not suprised that this is being proposed by the Conservative and that the Lib Dems (Who I supported partly because there more secular stance on education) aren't particually happy with this.

This will not address the real problem which is poor parenting resulting in children with behavioural problems and little ambitionswhen it comes to educating and ultimately bettering themselves.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by tesla, posted 05-31-2010 11:04 AM Asking has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 06-01-2010 10:09 AM Asking has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12504
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 2 of 129 (562433)
05-28-2010 6:12 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Opening the doors to creationism in British Schools? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 3 of 129 (562600)
05-31-2010 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Asking
05-28-2010 12:51 PM


examine
quote:
But Mr Gove said all the evidence from Sweden - where non-profit and profit-making groups can set up schools funded by the government, but free from its control - showed free schools raised attainment.

WHY?

I would examine Sweden to determine what made the difference is raising attainment. If the source of this attainment can be discerned, then maybe some middle ground can be reached on the issue. perhaps one that wouldn't open the door to potential abuse.

Simply saying its because they are out of government regulation is not good enough.

Those against or for this proposal should research the Swedish schools in depth before making any decision of such magnitude.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Asking, posted 05-28-2010 12:51 PM Asking has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Wounded King, posted 05-31-2010 2:15 PM tesla has responded

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 1505 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 4 of 129 (562624)
05-31-2010 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by tesla
05-31-2010 11:04 AM


Re: examine
Channel 4's FACTCHECK blog has some background sources on these claims.

As you say, the real question is what exactly is it that causes the improvement's associated with the Swedish free schools.

One recent study the blog mentions, from 2008, suggested that the improvements were short term and not reflected by subsequent achievement in further higher education, i.e. University/college. So maybe exam results are improving but does that reflect a genuine improvement in education (whatever that really means)?

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by tesla, posted 05-31-2010 11:04 AM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by tesla, posted 05-31-2010 3:49 PM Wounded King has not yet responded
 Message 28 by Trae, posted 06-04-2011 6:29 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 5 of 129 (562633)
05-31-2010 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Wounded King
05-31-2010 2:15 PM


Re: examine
quote:
So maybe exam results are improving but does that reflect a genuine improvement in education (whatever that really means)?

That's a very good question. I'm concerned myself with American education over the Internet. Most students i know of online educations are simply googling data or paying for answers. I'm afraid its just for colleges to increase profits and test results so cheated that our so called "educated" are actually just good with google and have no hands on training for their degrees.

i don't think that unregulated schooling is any more appropriate. we'll end up with several spectrum's of education that may be based on bias opinions so much that cooperation and legitimate knoledge will be lost.

Edited by tesla, : removed an a.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Wounded King, posted 05-31-2010 2:15 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 2352 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 6 of 129 (562755)
06-01-2010 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Asking
05-28-2010 12:51 PM


Even where those intending to open schools have no such ambitions I have little faith in the ability of parents, charities and even some teachers to give children a comprehensive education without a governing body inplace to ensure that basic minumum standards are met.

I don't know much detail about these schools, but I don't think they'll be allowed complete freedom with the curriculum. Furthermore, I'm sure that they will still be subject to government inspections to ensure they meet certain standards.

My understanding is that they will have some freedom of curriculum, and the main difference is that they won't be under local government control. Whether that's good or bad I don't really know.

I'm naturally concerned that religious and particularly creationist groups might try and influence the curriculum, but what does it say about all other types of groups, including industry and science foundations, that they don't seem to be interested in education - or are they?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Asking, posted 05-28-2010 12:51 PM Asking has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by CogitoErgoSum, posted 05-12-2011 6:42 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not yet responded

CogitoErgoSum
Junior Member (Idle past 2046 days)
Posts: 13
From: Manchester, England
Joined: 04-15-2011


Message 7 of 129 (615406)
05-12-2011 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
06-01-2010 10:09 AM


Free schools
If the free schools are open to inspection by OFSTED, and have league tables published then they will have the same pressures imposed on them as any other. This will result in them limiting the curriculum to ridiculous qualifications like Btecs so their grades look good.

Also the new English Baccalaureate doesn't have RE as one of its essential elements. If they have to stick to this, the same as the other schools, then they will simply push RE to the background, and many would argue that is where it deserves to be.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 06-01-2010 10:09 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not yet responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 1778 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 8 of 129 (617122)
05-26-2011 1:18 AM


excellent. Freedom of speech, thought, and enquiry are what education is about.
Its about learning the truth on things.
For too long false ideas and censorship of those ideas or of better ones on origin issues has gotten away with it in Britain.
The times are changing and creationism is being more desired by the people and generally the freedom to discuss the great issues is desired by most people.
censoring creationism has always been a immoral, illegal, and unintellectual stance.
Let the truth prevail and so don't ban opinions.
Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by bluescat48, posted 05-26-2011 1:36 AM Robert Byers has responded
 Message 10 by CogitoErgoSum, posted 05-26-2011 4:42 AM Robert Byers has responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 1599 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 9 of 129 (617126)
05-26-2011 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Robert Byers
05-26-2011 1:18 AM


Which version of creationism? There are over 1000


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Robert Byers, posted 05-26-2011 1:18 AM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Robert Byers, posted 05-27-2011 2:36 AM bluescat48 has responded

  
CogitoErgoSum
Junior Member (Idle past 2046 days)
Posts: 13
From: Manchester, England
Joined: 04-15-2011


Message 10 of 129 (617137)
05-26-2011 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Robert Byers
05-26-2011 1:18 AM


excellent. Freedom of speech, thought, and enquiry are what education is about.
Its about learning the truth on things.
For too long false ideas and censorship of those ideas or of better ones on origin issues has gotten away with it in Britain.
The times are changing and creationism is being more desired by the people and generally the freedom to discuss the great issues is desired by most people.
censoring creationism has always been a immoral, illegal, and unintellectual stance.
Let the truth prevail and so don't ban opinions

Yes, sorry to burst your bubble but Gove has banned creationist movements from opening free schools in this country.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...reationism-is-not-science.html

and it's not about censorship, creationism is not desired in a science classroom. As a science teacher I couldn't even think about where to start teaching it as viable science. Just one more question, and please answer it honestly, would you advocate teaching flat earth theory in Geography lessons ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Robert Byers, posted 05-26-2011 1:18 AM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Robert Byers, posted 05-27-2011 2:41 AM CogitoErgoSum has responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 1778 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 11 of 129 (617266)
05-27-2011 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by bluescat48
05-26-2011 1:36 AM


bluescat48 writes:

Which version of creationism? There are over 1000

let the people through the legislature decide. Its their right.
Otherwise who is deciding?
In reality as on this forum only one creationism matters.
The historic acceptance amongst the most intelligent people and civilization in history. The Anglo-American one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by bluescat48, posted 05-26-2011 1:36 AM bluescat48 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by bluescat48, posted 05-27-2011 8:28 AM Robert Byers has responded

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 1778 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 12 of 129 (617267)
05-27-2011 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by CogitoErgoSum
05-26-2011 4:42 AM


CogitoErgoSum writes:

excellent. Freedom of speech, thought, and enquiry are what education is about.
Its about learning the truth on things.
For too long false ideas and censorship of those ideas or of better ones on origin issues has gotten away with it in Britain.
The times are changing and creationism is being more desired by the people and generally the freedom to discuss the great issues is desired by most people.
censoring creationism has always been a immoral, illegal, and unintellectual stance.
Let the truth prevail and so don't ban opinions

Yes, sorry to burst your bubble but Gove has banned creationist movements from opening free schools in this country.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...reationism-is-not-science.html

and it's not about censorship, creationism is not desired in a science classroom. As a science teacher I couldn't even think about where to start teaching it as viable science. Just one more question, and please answer it honestly, would you advocate teaching flat earth theory in Geography lessons ?

The truth should be taught.
If there is a contention in the nation then likewise school should represent this in its teachings.
Its not about science.
its about the truth on conclusions in some matters of origins.
if the conclusions are from science and then this is questioned in its competence or better ideas from other investigations then why not accept criticism.
Creationism is all about taking on conclusaions and with that any claims of high standards of investigation behind the wrong conclusions.
Its about the merits of the evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by CogitoErgoSum, posted 05-26-2011 4:42 AM CogitoErgoSum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by CogitoErgoSum, posted 05-27-2011 4:41 AM Robert Byers has responded
 Message 14 by Modulous, posted 05-27-2011 7:28 AM Robert Byers has responded

  
CogitoErgoSum
Junior Member (Idle past 2046 days)
Posts: 13
From: Manchester, England
Joined: 04-15-2011


Message 13 of 129 (617273)
05-27-2011 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Robert Byers
05-27-2011 2:41 AM


Truth ?
Scientifically there is no evidence for creationism. That is why school leaders in the US and UK will not accept it being taught as science. They will not even allow free schools to have it as part of their curriculum.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...-banned-from-free-schools.html

Teach it in RE, but keep it out of the science classroom.

You did not answer my question, would you advocate teaching flat earth theory in Geography lessons ? Yes or No.

There is plenty of "evidence" for a flat earth.

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/flatrth1.pdf
http://www.errantskeptics.org/Flat-Earth-Theory.htm

So should it be taught ? Yes or No.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Robert Byers, posted 05-27-2011 2:41 AM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Robert Byers, posted 06-01-2011 1:29 AM CogitoErgoSum has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7407
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 14 of 129 (617281)
05-27-2011 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Robert Byers
05-27-2011 2:41 AM


The truth should be taught.

Agreed.

If there is a contention in the nation then likewise school should represent this in its teachings.

Agreed again. In Britain this is how it is done

source

quote:
Darwin's ideas caused a lot of controversy, and this continues to this day, because the ideas can be seen as conflicting with religious views about the creation of the world and creatures in it

Or, a couple of years later in the curriculum:
source

quote:
17th Century

Most people believed in Creationism, which considered that all life was created just as it is now. This was not based on any evidence, but was instead a belief.

18th Century

Naturalists began systematic classification systems (especially Linnaeus 1707-1778) and noticed that groups of living things had similar characteristics and appeared to be related. So their classifications looked a bit like a family tree.

European naturalists travelled more widely and discovered more fossils, which clearly showed that living things had changed over time, so were not always the same. Extinctions were also observed (e.g. dodo), so species were not fixed.

19th Century

Lamark (1809) proposed a theory that living things changed by inheriting acquired characteristics. e.g. giraffes stretched their necks to reach food, and their offspring inherited stretched necks. This is now known to be wrong, since many experiments (and experience) have shown that acquired characteristics are not inherited, but nevertheless Lamark's theory was the first to admit that species changed, and to try to explain it.

Charles Darwin (1859) published "On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life", which has been recognised as one of the most important books ever written. A very similar theory was also proposed by Alfred Wallace, and Darwin and Wallace agreed to publish at the same time.


That is the truth, yes?

Its not about science.

Science curricula should be though, yes?

if the conclusions are from science and then this is questioned in its competence or better ideas from other investigations then why not accept criticism.

But not just any criticism, right?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Robert Byers, posted 05-27-2011 2:41 AM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Robert Byers, posted 06-01-2011 1:42 AM Modulous has responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 1599 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 15 of 129 (617285)
05-27-2011 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Robert Byers
05-27-2011 2:36 AM


let the people through the legislature decide. Its their right.

So if people through the legislature decided that murder was acceptable, you would run with it? Just because people accept an idea doesn't make it truth. Truth requires evidence, give me some evidence for any of the ~1000 creation stories. Science is not based on people's beliefs, it is based on physical not hearsay evidence.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Robert Byers, posted 05-27-2011 2:36 AM Robert Byers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Robert Byers, posted 06-01-2011 1:46 AM bluescat48 has responded

  
1
23456
...
9Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017