Saturday, 12 May 2007

How can I find out if my school is using this material?

Quite simply, ask them.

The material itself comes in two DVD cases entitled;" Unlocking the mystery of Life" and "Where does the evidence lead?". This is what the pack looks like;



I wrote to the head of science of my son's school with this letter;

Dear Dr XXXX,
I am the father of XXXXXX XXXXXX who is currently in year XX and who is studying for his GCSE XXXXXXphysics, chemistry and biology exams, amongst others.
I am a great fan of science and I try to keep up with developments as much as I can. I have been very disturbed by the recent news articles regarding the activities of the pressure group “Truth In Science” who as far as I can tell have little to do with either. If you are not aware they are a group of fundamentalist Christians who are attempting to push their faith in science classes.
In September 2006 they issued a TiS Resource pack. The purported scientific evidence included in this pack has been refuted by the scientific authorities in this field. A key local supporter, and regular preacher of, creationism in local churches is Prof. Andy McIntosh of Leeds university.
A recent DfES spokesperson said on the BBC this week; “Neither creationism nor intelligent design are taught as a subject in schools, and are not specified in the science curriculum.”, and from the same BBC article; "The National Curriculum for science clearly sets down that pupils should be taught that the fossil record is evidence for evolution, and how variation and selection may lead to evolution or extinction." The chairman of the parliamentary science and technology committee, Phil Willis, said using the packs in science classes "elevated creationism" to the same level of debate as Darwinism and that there was no justification for that. He added: "There's little enough time with the school curriculum to deal with real science like climate change, energy and the weather. "This is quite frankly a distraction that science teachers can well do without." Dr Evan Harris, honorary associate of the National Secular Society and Liberal Democrat science spokesman, said it was worrying that some schools were giving "this nonsense" any credence. Many leading scientists argue that ideas about intelligent design should not be allowed in school because they are simply not scientific. Back in April, the Royal Society warned against allowing creationism in school saying that pupils must understand that science backs Darwin's theory of evolution. The society's statement said: "Young people are poorly served by deliberate attempts to withhold, distort or misrepresent scientific knowledge and understanding in order to promote particular religious beliefs."

I personally have no objection to religion being taught in RE classes.
Please can you advise me if you have received the pack and if you intend to use it.
If you do have it and don’t want it I would be grateful to borrow it or take a copy at your own convenience.
Thank you for your help, I look forward to your reply,
Yours faithfully,


Clearly you will need to adapt the text to suit your own circumstances, feel free to use as little or as much of this letter as suits you.

In my case the head of science rang me in response to the letter and explained that he would not dream of using the material and had already passed it on to the RE department.

He did in fact recover the pack from them and handed it over to me saying;

"It is difficult enough to teach evolution to the children, without this nonsense material, which appears to be designed to confuse them."

8 comments:

Biby Cletus said...

Nice post, its a really cool blog that you have here, keep up the good work, will be back.

Warm Regards

Biby Cletus - Blog

CoralPoetry said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
CoralPoetry said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
CoralPoetry said...

Hi,

Thanks for your reply at my blog.

http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/217/63
.
.
Twelve senior academics (including Professor Terry Hamblin of
Southampton University) have written to the Prime Minister and Education Secretary in support of Truth in Science.

The Dept of Education in the UK has received the nuclear fall-out
from the Seattle-based Discovery Institute in the shape of thousands of CD’s and work-packs, which have been circulated to every high school, called “Truth in Science”. This is just another version of carefully construed re-branding, repackaged (evolved) form of creationism. But the damage has already been wreaked upon developing minds. The information packs have been used in the classroom, have been evaluated and feedback has been received and processed by the “Truth in Science” proponents.

This quote from Caroline Crocker (the second proponent of ID emanating from the University of Southampton - the most vociferous ID pusher being Professor Terry Hamblin of Southampton Uni) who has been barred by her Department from teaching Evolution and Intelligent Design in the USA.

"There really is not a lot of evidence for evolution,"
"Without the accountability of Judgment Day and Hell, why would people follow the Ten Commandments?"
.
.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7037/box/4341062a_bx1.html
.
.
The Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at George Mason University said:

"I'm a Buddhist, but I don't think we should teach reincarnation in biology classes."

Science operates on academic integrity. “Truth in Science” is based on lies. The authors distort scientific facts and libel dead people.
.
.
http://thesquire.blogspot.com/2005/03/being-nice-takes-longer.html
.
.
TAKE BACTERIAL ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE. EVOLUTION DESCRIBES THE MECHANISM FOR ITS DEVELOPMENT AND THE SAME THEORY SUGGESTS MEANS TO SLOW DOWN THE DEVELOPMENT OF ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE. HOW DOES INTELLIGENT DESIGN, WHICH DENIES THAT MUTATIONS CAN BE BENEFICIAL TO AN ORGANISM, DEAL WITH ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE?

Intelligent Design is just as valid as the Time Cube, which is not scientifically valid. ID is an attempt to force Fundamentalist
Christian beliefs into the public discourse by means of suppressing
rational, evidence-based science.
Once RNA machinery, and then proteins, got going, all that was
needed to create the most primitive cell would be to enclose a ribosome, some other RNAs, some amino acids, and some free
nucleotides in a lipid bilayer (most likely formed from a bubble in the sea where this all occurred).

Who's to say that God did not use
this method to create a cell, over spans of geologic time? Remember, God has all the time in the world. He can be patient. Since God is not necessarily excluded from creation, even though evolution exists, there is no moral vacuum. Science is not atheistic, and neither is evolution. SCIENCE IS AGNOSTIC, BECAUSE THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF GOD CANNOT (currently, and likely for some time) BE PROVEN FROM DIRECT, RE-CREATABLE OBSERVATION.

Regards,
Coral

psiloiordinary said...

Thanks for this Coral,

You have inspired me to start a news and views post/label type thingy - obviously will need to think about this a bit - including news clippings and quotes from various people and organisations regarding ID. I am aware of a wide range of opposition within the "religious community" as well as the political and scientific opposition.

Thanks again

PS I like your blog

CoralPoetry said...

Hi,

Thank you for your comments about my blog. I feel that it is becoming a little unwieldy. Folks are very reluctant to peruse through the archives, so I’m going to start splitting it three ways, maybe four, now that Tony and Gordon have made their way into the blog.

http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18503

Vatican Director said:

Science is and should be seen as “completely neutral” on the issue of the theistic or atheistic implications of scientific results, says Father George V.Coyne, Director of the Vatican Observatory, while noting that “science and religion are totally separate pursuits”.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/18/ap/world/mainD8F7BDS03.shtml

(AP) The Vatican newspaper has published an article saying "intelligent design" is not science and that teaching it alongside evolutionary theory in school classrooms only creates confusion.


A more up-to-date report from The Telegraph (12 April 2007)

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ukcorrespondents/holysmoke/april07/flaws.htm

“Supporters of ID are now desperately spinning to suggest that the Pope implicitly supports the idea of an interventionist designer, but the truth is that if he had decided to back Intelligent Design he would have said so. And he didn't.”

Regards,
Coral

CoralPoetry said...

OOps

The Telegraph link broke.

/holysmoke/april07/flaws.htm


holysmokeflaws

CoralPoetry said...

cbsnews_id