Creationism question in 'misleading' science GCSE2. Comment #393906 by abbadd0n on July 6, 2009 at 5:49 pm
3. Comment #393910 by j.mills on July 6, 2009 at 5:54 pm
4. Comment #393918 by Border Collie on July 6, 2009 at 6:12 pm
5. Comment #393919 by phasmagigas on July 6, 2009 at 6:15 pm
They were then asked to match each theory with a sentence.
Pupils were supposed to place creationism with the observation that "fossils of all the different kinds of animals appear suddenly in the rocks, with no evidence of ancestors".
They should also have identified intelligent design as theory based on the "complicated way in which cells work".
6. Comment #393921 by corvis_9 on July 6, 2009 at 6:20 pm
7. Comment #393940 by Sonic on July 6, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Merely asking a question about creationism and intelligent design does not imply support for these ideas.The AQA spokesman is still wrong -- If the GCSE biology exam asked, "Who was the drummer for The Beatles before Ringo?", the "correct" answer would be Pete Best, but it would be glaringly incongruous to have a question about music trivia on a biology test. So the appearance of the question on the biology exam was a judgment by the AQA that creationism and intelligent design are science.
Merely asking a question about creationism and intelligent design does imply support for these ideas.There, I fixed it.
8. Comment #393963 by Raiko on July 6, 2009 at 10:16 pm
9. Comment #393967 by robotaholic on July 6, 2009 at 10:40 pm
10. Comment #393972 by epeeist on July 6, 2009 at 11:40 pm
But Mr Williams insisted only two of the theories were scientific.Which is in itself misleading, only two of the alternatives are actually theories.
11. Comment #393973 by Slippy on July 6, 2009 at 11:44 pm
This piece, along with the feedback it gets will now slot straight into the gattling gun of shite fired off everyday about how science is running scared and will not even entertain the question of ID blah blah bloody blah.12. Comment #393981 by hungarianelephant on July 7, 2009 at 1:18 am
First up against the wall when the revolution comes, BAM BAM BAM!
13. Comment #393983 by thereisnodog on July 7, 2009 at 1:20 am
14. Comment #393991 by irate_atheist on July 7, 2009 at 1:53 am
15. Comment #394002 by jonjermey on July 7, 2009 at 2:44 am
Creationism is a theory in the same way that bald is a hairstyle.16. Comment #394004 by Roger Stanyard on July 7, 2009 at 2:55 am
17. Comment #394013 by Brokendoll on July 7, 2009 at 3:14 am
18. Comment #394023 by Stewart Cowan on July 7, 2009 at 3:58 am
19. Comment #394025 by Tintern on July 7, 2009 at 4:05 am
Clearly, this AQA board needs to be abolished and the staff of the exam watchdog fired and replaced. Time to stop apologising for calling nonsense out for what it is.20. Comment #394028 by Quetzalcoatl on July 7, 2009 at 4:08 am
21. Comment #394037 by Mark Jones on July 7, 2009 at 4:22 am
Surely when put side by side, the strengths of the TofE will be so obvious that the pupils will see through Creationism?
22. Comment #394039 by Follow Peter Egan on July 7, 2009 at 4:25 am
23. Comment #394040 by PMartin on July 7, 2009 at 4:26 am
#394023 Stewart Cowan24. Comment #394042 by hungarianelephant on July 7, 2009 at 4:27 am
Just as in Religious Studies, the curriculum would not include scientific critiques of the claims made by the various religions.
25. Comment #394043 by irate_atheist on July 7, 2009 at 4:27 am
10. [UPDATED] There'll be no tent for God at Camp Dawkins
Comment #391914 by Stewart Cowan on June 28, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Wosret - I'm not just talking about this - http://www.livescience.com/environment/070228_beijing_anomoly.html
"How did he, an ignorant bronze age man, build a massive ship, capable of housing hundreds of thousands of animals, as well as the food to feed them for months, with no ship building knowledge, or known viable design of a wooden ship of that size?"
The blueprint was given him by the Almighty as recorded in Genesis. Korean naval experts discovered that the Ark would have been stable in the roughest seas.
If Noah was 'ignorant' then he could obviously follow instructions.
The Ark was half the length of the Titanic, had three decks and could hold over 100,000 animals the size of sheep.
Evolution has recently been shown to operate much quicker than was previously thought, so now there are many times more species than would have been taken on the Ark. There would have been plenty of room for food as well and pre-Flood, all creatures were vegetarian acc. to Genesis.
"Don't you see how just plain silly the flood story is?"
Tell that to the Korean Navy!
Anyway, there are global Flood legends in every part of the world. Strange coincidence.
26. Comment #394044 by epeeist on July 7, 2009 at 4:28 am
"They were asked to place the strict Biblical theory alongside Charles Darwin's theory of evolution."Before you start on another thread you have some questions to answer, here - http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,3974,Petition-for-guarding-against-creationism-in-Hong-Kong,Concern-Group-for-Hong-Kong-Science-Education,page1#390271 and here - http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,3974,Petition-for-guarding-against-creationism-in-Hong-Kong,Concern-Group-for-Hong-Kong-Science-Education,page1#390279
27. Comment #394045 by Tyler Durden on July 7, 2009 at 4:29 am
28. Comment #394046 by irate_atheist on July 7, 2009 at 4:30 am
Nice bloke.
5. [UPDATED] There'll be no tent for God at Camp Dawkins
Comment #392025 by Stewart Cowan on June 29, 2009 at 3:48 am
Tyler (115) - "foul genocide on all species on the planet, including children"
That's because there is a price to pay for sin, the wages of which is death.
Them's the rules. Dawkins is leading you to a similar fate.
29. Comment #394048 by ColdFusionLazarus on July 7, 2009 at 4:39 am
30. Comment #394050 by Stewart Cowan on July 7, 2009 at 4:46 am
31. Comment #394051 by Quetzalcoatl on July 7, 2009 at 4:48 am
Take my hand and walk down Real Street with me!
32. Comment #394052 by Stewart Cowan on July 7, 2009 at 4:51 am
33. Comment #394053 by Tyler Durden on July 7, 2009 at 4:52 am
Some of you seem very far gone down the 'Russell's Teapot' road of irrational over-simplification.Over-simplification? Excuse me?
34. Comment #394054 by Quetzalcoatl on July 7, 2009 at 4:54 am
The fossil record shows that billions of animals - land and sea - were buried rapidly as the result of catastrophe
35. Comment #394055 by ColdFusionLazarus on July 7, 2009 at 4:54 am
36. Comment #394056 by Stewart Cowan on July 7, 2009 at 4:54 am
37. Comment #394057 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2009 at 4:56 am
38. Comment #394058 by Tyler Durden on July 7, 2009 at 4:57 am
The fossil record shows that billions of animals - land and sea - were buried rapidly as the result of catastrophe.Stewie, you can't just make stuff up. This is the real world, not storytime in primary school.
39. Comment #394059 by irate_atheist on July 7, 2009 at 4:58 am
Fucking bollocks. They range from fossils of cyanobacteria found in the Archaeic (3.8bn to 2.5bn years ago), to fossils found in the Neogen (up to 23m years ago).
The fossil record shows that billions of animals - land and sea - were buried rapidly as the result of catastrophe.
40. Comment #394060 by Stewart Cowan on July 7, 2009 at 4:59 am
41. Comment #394061 by ColdFusionLazarus on July 7, 2009 at 4:59 am
42. Comment #394062 by irate_atheist on July 7, 2009 at 5:01 am
More bullshit. See http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/intelligentdesigncase/dovertrialtranscripts.htm and http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8178
PMartin - I think it's pertinent to remember that Creationism is still a very valid theory.
43. Comment #394063 by ColdFusionLazarus on July 7, 2009 at 5:02 am
44. Comment #394064 by irate_atheist on July 7, 2009 at 5:03 am
45. Comment #394065 by Stewart Cowan on July 7, 2009 at 5:03 am
46. Comment #394066 by CaptainMandate on July 7, 2009 at 5:03 am
But Mr Williams insisted only two of the theories were scientific.
47. Comment #394067 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2009 at 5:04 am
The evidence is, well, self-evident, really.
48. Comment #394068 by Stewart Cowan on July 7, 2009 at 5:05 am
49. Comment #394069 by CaptainMandate on July 7, 2009 at 5:05 am
I'd wager that he knows less than 1% of less than 1% of what there is to be known.
50. Comment #394070 by bendigeidfran on July 7, 2009 at 5:05 am
1. Comment #393905 by Wosret on July 6, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Hope someone fills me in when they figure it out.
Other Comments by Wosret