England/Wales:Third of science teachers want creationism taught in school

I agree that what you say is a proper goal, I disagree by stating that the teacher of 7th grade nat sci should be forced to teach evolution when his kids dont even know that there is a scientific method, or what are the very characteristics of life.

First things first.

ANyway, my state grants a large amount of discretion to the teachers in the middle schools . As long as they stick to the goals and reach the points that they must teach, I wouldnt like to see a court case like Dover occur in a lower grade unless the teacher were openly teaching Creationism and ID .There is a point where we make too much of an issue (IMHO). I know many who feel like you do and many are colleagues and we argue this very point (At what point do we demand strict adherence to Aguillard and Kitzmiller?).

At all points I should think. I didn't think effemm was iffy about it.

Although "clear secular intent" is pretty clear to me. I wonder if effemm is iffy on the "clear secular intent" the USSC meant in Aguillard. As long as there was clear secular intent" then any scientific theory can be taught about the origins of "humankind." Not chiclids.

Why quote Aguillard and then switch to chichlids.

Back to lingerie shops eh? I bet they have them in China now. Spreading like wildfire. Being selected in.

And it says "whenever evolution is taught." Not that it should be taught.

Doesn't it mean only atheists can teach science? Asuming you're not playing with words to spin your self-importance out a bit longer. Which is self-evidently the case in the main.

So--no--not only atheists can teach science. It's a question of "at what point". Like I said all along-- "half-baked." Just a word game. A parental thing. Nothing to do with kids. Like Christmas. Nothing to do with Amercan science which can take good care of itself anyway.

Kitzmiller was not in the USSC. Just a little local difficulty in some hick town few people had heard of before.

They are mantra words. effemm chants them. They are meant to impress us.

He says strict adherence to Aguillard and Kitzmiller and we are all supposed to swoon away and defer to his legal expertise. Oh yeah!

He may be good at communicating subjects and being a good all-around teacher, but he's failing when it comes to teaching science if that's true.

Hopefully, since it's a 7th-grade science teacher, his nonsense will be challenged by the students or forgotten.

farmerman, I'll have to disagree with you this time. Much of evolution is rather straightforward and easy to teach and learn, even with creationist misconceptions impeding learning the correct thing the first time. However, given the public's general unfamiliarity with it, including public school science teachers, I can see how making it a good chunk of an 8th-grade science curriculum could serve only to confuse the students.

But he has been appointed and presumably those who placed him in the post are satisfied they chose the best person and with his performance.

Who are you to declare that he is failing?

Your duty is to write to the authorities about the matter or admit that you are prepared to allow his students to be failed by their teacher because you are too lazy.

If the kids don't know that there's a scientific method by the 7th grade, that curriculum is already pretty messed up. Introducing science by example (without the formalizations of the method, etc) is great at first, but by the 7th grade they should have had at least four years of science education.

I definitely agree that you have the order in which the concepts should be learned right. If the curriculum is that slow, 7th grade is not the time for commenting on evolution. I'd still demand that they understand the basics of what I consider a relatively straightforward and easily-evidenced idea, if they want to consider themselves a teacher.

And agreed on making too much of little incidents like this. That teacher's actions are likely hurting science education, but if their science class experience in the 7th grade was anything like mine, it will pale in comparison to the required courses in high school, which will pale in comparison to university classes. The way to deal with it is to let the kids (and parents, if it gets bad enough) criticize the ideas presented and his choices.

However, the guy probably needs to either educate himself or stop teaching like that. That much is what I would demand if I were a parent, if only in a tiny personal struggle for higher standards.

Someone who understands the science, simple as that. To make my conclusion, I am assuming that the offered description of him is generally accurate.

I doubt an email message from a non-local would get much consideration. The best way to effect change would be for littlek to make suggestions, for her to meet with an administrator if he's unwilling to *consider* not teaching them his personal religious convictions, or for students/parents to call him on it.

And the students will survive, they have much more required science education ahead of them. This teacher may make it harder for the more-qualified ones, but I had a crap 7th-grade science teacher and turned out just fine.

I think it should be taught because there is more evidence to show that creation is true than there is to show evolution is true.

There are a lot of prophecies that have been fulfilled and a lot of science supports it. There are a lot of thing in the Bible that people didn't know back then, that scientist have just figured out like that the earth is round, that the sea bed is not flat, and that stars are all unique. There are a lot more, and if that much of the Bible is true than I don't know why the rest wouldn't be.

. You seem to indicate the by "evidence" you mean the Bible?. Your reasoning is circular. "If the Bible is true, then whatever it says is true also"
Do you see anything wrong in that statement?

You think, for starters, that he should be told that the ancient Egyptians discovered the Earth surface was curved and basically figured out the circumference of the globe almost spot on? I'm sure you are aware that AM is strafing all the evolution threads to market his inane controversy?

Nothing new. We welcome all kinds > ALLLL WELCOME. COME TO THE LIGHT.

To be fair it was not Egyptians but Greeks who had taken over Egypt by way of Alexandra the Great who found out the size of the earth.

Can not think of the gentleman name at the moment shame on me.

AM does not read like he would ever be convinced to "see the light" (at least until he passes) -- his cockeyed ideas are etched in stone from constant brainwashing, either by reading the anti-evolution blogs or by clergy. Actually, my experience with many clerics is much more pliable towards evolution and they've reconciled it with their religious beliefs (well, I do live in California!). One can disagree that that isn't possible but it is, after all, their right. One has the right to be inquisitive, imaginative, logical, skeptical and reasonable and also the right to be fooled, misinformed, intimidated, and ignorant (actually committing to it in writing). No scientist or science advocate has ever burned the uninformed at the stake. Can't state the same for vice versa.

Eratosthenes was the Greek who performed the mathematical calculations confirming that the Earth's surface was curved and calculated the size of the globe. He was in Alexandria when he made his observations using stades (an unknown measure today) and the position of the Sun overhead but it's been established that he was within 5 to 10% correct. Predating his discovery was Aristotle who was convinced of a spherical Earth in his philosophy and Pythagoras who advocated that observable celestial bodies are all spherical. It is likely that the Mesopotamians who originated the idea of a flat circular Earth (a direct correlation to the Bible's "circle") was partly based on observing the Moon which, of course, does not revolve and looks like a flat cut-out in the sky.

Earlier than Eratosthenes, Egyptian astronomers performed an experiment by placing stanchions at calculated intervals in line with the path of the sun at Summer solstice and observing that the shadow of each pole was a different length. They concluded that the Earth's surface was curved and also performed calculations of the circumference, however, the historical proof is scant and was likely burned in the Library of Alexandria fire. It's in three volumes of Egyptology I have from college textbooks and my personal library purchases since so I'm going by memory and would have to look it up. One of the volumes, or on the video, of Carl Sagan's "Cosmos," there is a recreation of the experiment. Can't seem to find it through Google, but on my first tries, the algorithms were coming up with thousands of matches and I'll have to figure out what words to enter to narrow it down.

But, then, ancient Muslim, Indian and Chinese astronomers also came up with the concept of a spherical Earth. I'm guessing that some must believe the writers (that's stenographers, you know) of the Bible were all in contact with all of them.

Apparently a third of science teachers in England/Wales need a good conk in the head with a board.

(sorry, just thought I would strafe the thread with something as simplistic as AnswerMan's)

Now don't you start trolling -- besides, all you will catch is little fish. Oopps, sorry, that's trawling and there is a lot of difference.

Also, it's really difficult to pick up a school board and conk teachers on their heads.