The article quotes Alastair Noble: Alastair Noble, director of C4ID, said his organisation believed the petition was based on imposing a particular world view and would inhibit legitimate discussion in science lessons. He acknowledged the idea of teaching for and against evolution would be controversial, but claimed it was consistent with scientific method. By all means discuss IDcreationism at university level, or even in religious education or philosophy classes at secondary school level. But in science lessons pupils should be taught accepted mainstream science. Thats why they are attending science lessons. How much time do biology lessons devote to explaining the principles of the four humours, or the stork theory of procreation? How much time do physics lessons devote to explaining the astrological influences of the planets on the financial and romantic lives of humans? How much time do maths lessons devote to the numerological significance of particular numbers? The problem with ID is that its proponents claim it is scientific, yet they never do any science to show how it is scientific. Speculations about the origins of biological life are all very well, but if you have a hypothesis that life was caused by X — do some experiments to establish whether or not that is the case. Until the IDists do that, IDcreationism remains unscientific and therefore inappropriate to be taught in school science lessons.
Posted on: Sun, 02 Nov 2014 11:21:00 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015