Intelligent Design Added to Primary School in Britain
| December 31, 2006 | Posted by Dave S. under Intelligent Design |
Creationism gains foothold in schools
THE government has cleared the way for a form of creationism to be taught in Britain’s schools as part of the religious syllabus.
Lord Adonis, an education minister, is to issue guidelines within two months for the teaching of “intelligent design†(ID), a theory being promoted by the religious right in America.
Until now the government has not approved the teaching of the controversial theory, which contradicts Darwinian evolutionary theory, the basis of modern biology.
1/1/07 Update: Additional information from Truth in Science
As a side note, the famous Keele/Reading atheist philosopher Professor Antony Flew, who last year sparked a huge controversy by giving up atheism for deism, a move that was fitfully argued as untrue by the alarmed atheist movement, is one of the eggheads who encouraged the British government to start teaching ID.
It has emerged that 12 prominent academics wrote to Tony Blair and Alan Johnson, the education secretary, last month arguing that ID should be taught as part of science on the national curriculum.
They included Antony Flew, formerly professor of philosophy at Reading University; Terry Hamblin, professor of immunohaemotology at Southampton University; and John Walton, professor of chemistry at St Andrews University. In October Truth in Science was criticised for sending education packs to hundreds of schools across Britain explaining ID.
The packs  which included books and DVDs  were used by some unwary science teachers as teaching aids.
But Truth in Science in turn accuses Dawkins of pressuring ministers into promoting atheism through schools.
McIntosh said: “People like Dawkins are pushing atheism through schools, which is a religious view, and not a scientific one. Atheism is not the natural state of a scientist, since there have been scientists who have been theists both before and after Darwin.â€Â
Lord Pearson, a Tory peer and supporter of ID, who asked the question that prompted Adonis’s statement, said: “Advances in DNA science show that the DNA molecule is so complicated that it could not have happened by accident. It shows there is a design behind it.â€Â
Quick, call Judge John Jones and let him know. Obviously the Brits haven’t heard of his majesty’s ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover and how ID died as a result. ROFLMAO
34 Responses to Intelligent Design Added to Primary School in Britain
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Barrett1
“Believe me, parents will lose their cool if ID is taught in the public schools. People in this country do not want God discussed in the classroom for obvious reasons. I will go out on a limb and suggest that Darwin has kept the peace in the classroom.”
This illistrates the point about what will be taught when ID is permitted in school and who will teach it.
ID theory is simply that some evidence (particulay types of patterns) strongly points to intelligence being involved in biological history and development. ID does not bring God into the classroom.
Presumably religion is discussed in the context of social and political history. Is the Ireland conflict banned from school? Are students unable to discuss the Israel question and why US supports Israel? Is it not mentioned that hitler killed Jews?
ID will not create problems for teaches with religious conflict. ID, presented fairly, may possibly enable theistic children to maintain a sense of dignity in the biology class where their perspectives have been ridiculed for so long. It may also enable those from atheistic backgrounds to think for themselves.
The “peace” that Darwin imposes in the US classroom is a tyrantial peace where there is no dissent allowed.
^
“ID will not create problems for teaches with religious conflict.”
Two words: Remember Dover
Roland:
Two words: Remember Dover
The Dover decision would have been different with a school board that
A) was not religiously motivated and
B) actually knew something about ID.
Barret1,
“First on the list of reasons why Darwin is taught in the public schools is that Darwinism is non-controversial and thus easy to teach. ”
Your statement is wrong, reality contradicts you. It should sound like “First on the list of reasons why ONLY Darwin is taught…”
Darwin is non-controversial ?… Easy to teach ?… How about “is Darwin true or not” ?… Shouldn’t that be the first reason – the truth behind a theory – when adding it in curricula’s ?!… How about some proofs ?… How about presenting the multitude of the problems of that theory ?… Common, guys, do you live in a parallel universe ?!?!?