I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Sunday, September 14, 2008

Top UK educator opposes hard-sell teaching of evolution


WOULD YOU BUY A USED SCIENTIFIC THEORY FROM THIS MAN?

==============================================

Update #2: Prof. Reiss resigns from position of Royal Society's director of education.

Update: Prof. Reiss's proposal divides the Royal Society -- two Nobel laureates, other senior fellows call for his removal as education director.

The repercussions of Darwin's theory are finally coming home to roost in Darwin's home country. A news article says,

Creationism and intelligent design should be taught in school science lessons, according to a leading expert in science education.

The Rev Prof Michael Reiss, director of education at the Royal Society, said that excluding alternatives to scientific explanations for the origin of life and the universe from science lessons was counterproductive and would alienate some children from science altogether.
.
He said that around one in 10 children comes from a family with creationist beliefs. "My experience after having tried to teach biology for 20 years is if one simply gives the impression that such children are wrong, then they are not likely to learn much about the science," he said . . . .

. . . . Reiss said he used to be an "evangelist" for evolution in the classroom, but that the approach had backfired. "I realised that simply banging on about evolution and natural selection didn't lead some pupils to change their minds at all. Now I would be more content simply for them to understand it as one way of understanding the universe," he said.

Reiss, who is an ordained Church of England minister, told the British Association Festival of Science in Liverpool that science teachers should not see creationism as a "misconception" but as an alternative "world view". He added that he was not advocating devoting the same time to teaching creationism or intelligent design as to evolution.

There are also those who have non-religious reasons for opposing hard-sell teaching of evolution.

We all know what hard-sell teaching of evolution is like: dogmatic teaching of evolution, constantly in-your-face, no-ifs-ands-buts-or-maybes, the evolution-is-central-to-biology nonsense, no weaknesses, no evolution disclaimer statements, brainwashing, spoon-feeding, no critical thinking allowed, the-only-criticisms-of-evolution-are-unconstitutional-creationist-criticisms, no compromises, if-you-don't-like-it-you-can-go-to-hell, those kinds of things. And it is an unfortunate coincidence in the USA that Darwinists can misuse the Constitution's establishment clause to attack the teaching of scientific (pseudoscientific to them) ideas that they don't like, and I doubt that Thomas Jefferson and the other Founders would approve of such misuse. There is no constitutional principle of separation of pseudoscience and state, and it is this misuse of the establishment clause that has enabled the Darwinist tail to wag the dog.

A recent national survey of science teachers in the USA showed that approximately 25% of respondents spend some time teaching creationism or intelligent design, but many or most of them teach those things just for the purpose of disparaging them.

Why can't evolution just be taught as a sort of imaginary or hokey idea that may be wholly or partly untrue but is nonetheless useful in organizing and conceptualizing biology? As an engineer, I know that engineers are comfortable using analysis methods that are not intuitively correct or accurate, e.g.: (1) the use of complex-plane vectors in the analysis of AC circuits and (2) using rotating-cylinder aerodynamics to analyze fixed-wing airfoil aerodynamics by means of the Joukowski transformation of conformal mapping.

Suggested further reading:

An op-ed written by Prof. Reiss.

A good overview of UK evolution education in the international context.

The Discovery Institute's take on the UK controversy.
.

Labels: ,

5 Comments:

Blogger Nada Platonico said...

Larry wrote, Why can't evolution just be taught as a sort of imaginary or hokey idea that may be wholly or partly untrue but is nonetheless useful in organizing and conceptualizing biology?

Because it is the best and only scientific explanation for the data. Suggesting that some designer intervened at different times in natural history is absurd and a religious view since it cannot be tested. For this reason it is banned and should be. Also, Thomas Jefferson would not have any problems with this.

Sunday, September 14, 2008 5:30:00 PM  
Anonymous hey nonny nonny said...

What's with all the Nazi imagery used to demonize people on this blog? I thought that Larry felt that the Nazis got a bum rap and weren't actually all that bad. Seems like kind of a waste of time to put together a MSPaint (can't really call them Photoshops) showing that (X) is just as bad as, uh, this other, uh, not-so-bad guy.

Sunday, September 14, 2008 8:45:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Nada Platonico said,
>>>>>> Larry wrote, Why can't evolution just be taught as a sort of imaginary or hokey idea that may be wholly or partly untrue but is nonetheless useful in organizing and conceptualizing biology?

Suggesting that some designer intervened at different times in natural history is absurd and a religious view since it cannot be tested. <<<<<<<

Where does my above statement say anything about a designer or design? You Darwinists are so obsessed with this "designer" idea that you see a designer under every bush and behind every tree. I was only pointing out that evolution theory can be useful even if it is not assumed to be true. Do you disagree with that statement?

>>>>>>> Thomas Jefferson would not have any problems with this. <<<<<<

He would have a big problem with misuse of the establishment clause.

Also, so far as Thomas Jefferson's views on ID are concerned, John West said in an article in Evolution News & Views,

Jefferson not only believed in intelligent design, he insisted it was based on the plain evidence of nature, not religion. Ironically, the critics of intelligent design think they are defending the principles of Thomas Jefferson.

To prove his point, West then cited Jefferson's writings.

hey nonny nonny said,
>>>>> What's with all the Nazi imagery used to demonize people on this blog? <<<<<<

I am just mocking Darwinists' denial of the Darwin-to-Hitler connection. In attacking the "Expelled" movie and the "Darwin's Deadly Legacy" TV program, Anti-defamation League national director Abraham Foxman even went so far as to say that Hitler did not "need" Darwin because he couldn't show that Darwin did not influence Hitler.

MS Paint is limited but it has done the job for me. My results don't have to look professional but sometimes do look professional. I have been painstaking in most of my artwork. Most blogs do not have any original artwork so I think it is unfair to criticize the technical quality of my artwork.

Sunday, September 14, 2008 11:18:00 PM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> I was only pointing out that evolution theory can be useful even if it is not assumed to be true. <

Just like claiming that 2+2=4 can be useful even if it is not assumed to be true.

> Where does my above statement say anything about a designer or design? <

So you are not supporting creationism or ID?

> I am just mocking Darwinists' denial of the Darwin-to-Hitler connection.

Those silly Darwinists keep denying things just because they don't exist.

> My results don't have to look professional but sometimes do look professional. <

Where has that been? We have only seen this amateurish crap you have put on this blog.

> I think it is unfair to criticize the technical quality of my artwork. <

Nobody did. He was just criticizing the childishness of it.

Monday, September 15, 2008 7:03:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Breaking news -- Prof. Reiss resigns from position of Royal Society's director of education.

Tuesday, September 16, 2008 12:40:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home