SD on 10/3/2006 at 21:50
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear:
Quote:
Creationist theories about how the world was made are to be debated in GCSE science lessons in mainstream secondary schools in England.
The subject has been included in a new syllabus for biology produced by the OCR exam board, due out in September
(
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4793198.stm) Story here.
What is the deal with an exam board including it on their
biology syllabus? It's bad enough that religious education is compulsory in our schools without this barmy nonsense getting into our science classes :nono:.
Para?noid on 10/3/2006 at 22:11
This intelligent design fad is going a bit too far. Behind all the sinister "WE ARE PRESENTING MANY FACETS OF THE SAME GLITTERING JEWEL THAT IS HUMAN UNDERSTANDING", I wonder what OCR's reasoning behind this is; probably pressure from the QCA to be more... uh, politically correct?
SubJeff on 10/3/2006 at 22:13
Tis a good thing imho. I remember the "but the fossil record is a lie/conspiracy" discussion (sponanteous) in A level Biology class. I was v :bored: and wished the teachers had addressed it earlier.
Risquit on 10/3/2006 at 22:16
Wow, first Kansas, then England?
jay pettitt on 10/3/2006 at 22:19
Bring me my letter writing pen!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:
Printer's Devil on 10/3/2006 at 22:29
Quote Posted by Para?noid
...probably pressure from the QCA to be more... uh, politically correct?
Is that the same squad of Don Quixotes who were advocating the revisionist nursery rhyme: "Ba Ba Rainbow Sheep, Have You Any Wool?"
Headphones on 10/3/2006 at 22:29
My Biology GCSE was AQA, as were those of every school in my area as far as I can recall. Do schools have autonomy over which board they choose for each exam? The only OCR GCSEs I did were English and History, I think. The rest are all AQA.
I just always got the impression that OCR were Garfunkle to AQA's Simon. But OCR may be huge elsewhere in the country, I don't really know how it works.
Nicker on 10/3/2006 at 23:10
"The National Curriculum Online website says for science at Key Stage 4 (GCSE level): "Students should be taught how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting empirical evidence (for example Darwin's theory of evolution)."
Bollocks! Can't they think of better examples that demonstrate abuse of the scientific process? How about the struggle to have plate tectonics accepted, the famous ‘rocks can’t fall from the sky’ controversy or how Galileo’s contemporaries wouldn’t even look at the moons of Jupiter since they ‘knew’ they weren’t there?
Learning critical and rational thinking is surely an important aspect of education, not just in science. Using this neglected skill as a pale excuse for dragging creationist propaganda into science class demonstrates a lack of just such skill within the NCO. Of course I might be misinterpreting the empirical evidence…
D'Juhn Keep on 10/3/2006 at 23:11
Quote Posted by Printer's Devil
Is that the same squad of Don Quixotes who were advocating the revisionist nursery rhyme: "Ba Ba Rainbow Sheep, Have You Any Wool?"
Thanks for that, living avatar of the Daily Mail.
Paz on 10/3/2006 at 23:22
I did a wacky mix of AQA and .. uh .. another one. As far as I know, schools can go with whichever exam board they prefer--but it might be slightly dependant upon geographical location too.
Reading the story, it's less worrying than I thought it might be:
"Its new "Gateway to Science" curriculum asks pupils to examine how organisms become fossilised.
Teachers are asked to "explain that the fossil record has been interpreted differently over time (e.g. creationist interpretation)"."I'm possibly being overly optimistic, but to me this sounds pretty much the same as hearing about the development of techniques when you're learning about oil extraction, or going over some of the older and more hilarious theories behind earthquakes.
"A spokesperson for the exam board said candidates needed to understand the social and historical context to scientific ideas both pre and post Darwin's theory of evolution."As someone who gets hard for cross-mingling of subjects, I actually like the sound of that in a broad sense. When studying "light", why not also have a look at Newton's theory and why it was incorrect, etc? That would help general understanding, wouldn't it? Obviously there's an issue here with time (you still want the core subject to be biology or whatever, so there's no point adding some history stuff and shoving out the crucial week on cell membranes).
So yeah, why not. If some kid wants to argue that the world is 6,000 years old, let him try to debate that.
I'm sort of lost as to what they mean by 'creationism' anyway. Is it referring to the batshit insane FOSSILS ARE HERE TO TRICK US branch, or the philosophical 'so what made the big bang then, ahhhhhh?' school? The former is easily dismissed whereas the other is potentially a highly relevant MIGHTY PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION OF MIGHTINESS. Not *necessarily* relevant to biology either, but possibly worth a mention in the proper context (if you're doing a module on THE UNIVERSE or whatever).
Quote Posted by Nicker
Can't they think of better examples that demonstrate abuse of the scientific process? How about the struggle to have plate tectonics accepted, the famous ‘rocks can't fall from the sky' controversy or how Galileo's contemporaries wouldn't even look at the moons of Jupiter since they ‘knew' they weren't there?
I got the impression that all of that (AND MORE!) was what they were aiming to introduce. The creationism section gets picked up on because it's a HOT POTATO, but from what I understood it's just part of the whole 'let's teach kiddies about the historical development of the scientific process' idea. Which, as I said, seems fine to me.
However, that could be an internal misunderstanding on my part.
