1. Comment #393905 by Wosret on July 6, 2009 at 5:49 pm

Thousands of teenagers sitting a test last month were required to outline how the controversial theory is used to explain the origins of life.

Hope someone fills me in when they figure it out.

Other Comments by Wosret

2. Comment #393906 by abbadd0n on July 6, 2009 at 5:49 pm

would this be the same American company that we out sourced our school exam results to??

Other Comments by abbadd0n

3. Comment #393910 by j.mills on July 6, 2009 at 5:54 pm

How can an exam board be so dumb? These papers are supposed to be carefully vetted. If they can see now that it was the wrong thing to do, why couldn't they see it a fortnight ago? One might almost suspect an agenda.

First up against the wall when the revolution comes, BAM BAM BAM!

Other Comments by j.mills

4. Comment #393918 by Border Collie on July 6, 2009 at 6:12 pm

'However, it opens the door to discussion of the subject if it is raised by pupils during debates about evolution.'

No it doesn't.

'A spokesman for AQA said: "Merely asking a question about creationism and intelligent design does not imply support for these ideas.'

Yes it does.

Other Comments by Border Collie

5. Comment #393919 by phasmagigas on July 6, 2009 at 6:15 pm

according to the report

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".

the observation that what£ fossils dont just appear suddenly of course, this is very confusing for kids learning biology.

i wonder if a question on intelligent bread rising was included in home economics, the theory based on the 'way a loaf of bread amazingly rises all on its own'£

every biol teacher (and science teacher) reading that on exam day should have had alarm bells ringing.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

6. Comment #393921 by corvis_9 on July 6, 2009 at 6:20 pm

After doing a very brief search on the GCSE and its director general Dr. Mike Cresswell, it looks to me like they are dumbing down the tests all around.

Part of a wider issue of making the academic experience more idiot/ideologue friendly. If you don't weed a garden the majority of its produce will be weeds.

Other Comments by corvis_9

7. Comment #393940 by Sonic on July 6, 2009 at 7:22 pm

The article says the GCSE required the students to identify the difference between creationism versus intelligent design. Where did the Assessment and Qualifications Alliance get the "correct" answer to that?

EDIT: I mean, I only know the difference between creationism versus intelligent design by reading RD.net and by Googling the Dover Pennsylvania case and the Wedge Document. I would be very interested to see any references the AQA can cite as the source of their definitions of creationism and intelligent design.

I'm further disturbed by the AQA spokesman saying,

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.

In the context of the GCSE biology exam,

Merely asking a question about creationism and intelligent design does imply support for these ideas.

There, I fixed it.

Other Comments by Sonic

8. Comment #393963 by Raiko on July 6, 2009 at 10:16 pm

The notion expressed that putting a question about creationism on a test does not mean endorsing it is really annoying. Unless the question requires the answer that creationism is unscientific nonsense, implying a scientific value is EXACTLY what you do by putting it onto a SCIENCE test for children. What a lame and dishonest little excuse.

Other Comments by Raiko

9. Comment #393967 by robotaholic on July 6, 2009 at 10:40 pm

at first I thought the test was showing how freakin' stupid creationism is just by grouping it with it's definition that fossils just 'appear'- how unlikely that is-

then I realized they're trying to posit creationism as a viable and competing theory to evolution

then I got mad - I swear creaping creationism never stops! It really is a constant battle on all fronts in every country and in every scientific organization just to keep the religiofanatics at bay GRR!

Other Comments by robotaholic

10. Comment #393972 by epeeist on July 6, 2009 at 11:40 pm

From the article I note:

But Mr Williams insisted only two of the theories were scientific.

Which is in itself misleading, only two of the alternatives are actually theories.

Other Comments by epeeist

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.

They will love this, I see a piece on Lifebite coming...

Other Comments by Slippy

12. Comment #393981 by hungarianelephant on July 7, 2009 at 1:18 am

3. Comment #393910 by j.mills

First up against the wall when the revolution comes, BAM BAM BAM!

Really? Before estate agents?

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

13. Comment #393983 by thereisnodog on July 7, 2009 at 1:20 am

this is a disgraceful oversight....at least i hope it is...

Other Comments by thereisnodog

14. Comment #393991 by irate_atheist on July 7, 2009 at 1:53 am

I give up. The idiots are multiplying. Where do I get off?

Other Comments by irate_atheist

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.

Other Comments by jonjermey

16. Comment #394004 by Roger Stanyard on July 7, 2009 at 2:55 am

This is a very serious matter, indeed.

It is illegal to teach creationism in science lessons in state schools. It's also not in the curriculum.

In other words, students are being asked to complete questions on a subject that they can't be taught.

My question is who sneaked this into science exam papers and who was behind them.

We at the BCSE have long suspected that the creationists have at least one mole in the curriculm setting system. It now looks as if they have a mole in setting exam questions.

Basically the position is that students are being forced to learn creationism in order to pass their exams.

The one outfit that won't admit any involvement is Truth in Science. It (specifically Andy McIntosh) has already told BCSE that it has "gone underground".

BTW there is a nasty attack on Prof Michael Reiss that has just appeared on its web site. Apparently reiss does not believe in Intelligent design and is therefore "flawed".

Needless to say Truth in Science doesn't believe in Intelligent Design either (they are all young earth creationists).

For the record, I will remind everyone that there is nothing "straight" about creationists. Their whole scam is based on dishonesty and deception. They lie, out of necessity, habitually and repeatedly.

The matter now requires some serious letters to the head of AQA asking what the hell is going on in his organisation. It's not an "accident" that this got into the exam system.

Roger Stanyard

British Centre for Science Education

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

17. Comment #394013 by Brokendoll on July 7, 2009 at 3:14 am

*Punches the wall repeatedly*

Bloody morons... Creationism should never be brought up in relation to science except perhaps as an example of how gullible and stupid people can be, and how even today there are groups of idiots clinging to bronze age myths... >_<

Other Comments by Brokendoll

18. Comment #394023 by Stewart Cowan on July 7, 2009 at 3:58 am

"They were asked to place the strict Biblical theory alongside Charles Darwin's theory of evolution."

I would have thought evolutionists should approve:

a) It encourages critical thinking (as opposed to the usual listen and repeat).

b) Surely when put side by side, the strengths of the TofE will be so obvious that the pupils will see through Creationism?

Other Comments by Stewart Cowan

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.

Other Comments by Tintern

20. Comment #394028 by Quetzalcoatl on July 7, 2009 at 4:08 am

Stewart Cowan-

Religion has no place in science class. Just as in Religious Studies, the curriculum would not include scientific critiques of the claims made by the various religions.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

21. Comment #394037 by Mark Jones on July 7, 2009 at 4:22 am

Comment #394023 by Stewart Cowan

Surely when put side by side, the strengths of the TofE will be so obvious that the pupils will see through Creationism?

Surely when put side by side, the strengths of the spherical earth will be so obvious that the pupils will see through flat-earthism?

The job is to *educate*, not to sidetrack our children with every misconception that the human race has suffered from.

Other Comments by Mark Jones

22. Comment #394039 by Follow Peter Egan on July 7, 2009 at 4:25 am

This has really, really depressed me. From the incompetence of the article itself to the story it's reporting.

What will it take to put creationism to bed once and for all (question mark)

Other Comments by Follow Peter Egan

23. Comment #394040 by PMartin on July 7, 2009 at 4:26 am

#394023 Stewart Cowan

Point taken, but it depends how the subject is (or is not) taught, and on how the questions are phrased. I don't know much about either except what is discussed here.

In the Chemistry exam, are kids asked to compare the currently understood processes of oxidation with the behaviour of phlogiston?

If they are, I'm willing to bet the question would run along the lines of "What experiment might have been used to disprove the theory of Phlogiston, positing a substance that is driven out of something that is burnt?"

Other Comments by PMartin

24. Comment #394042 by hungarianelephant on July 7, 2009 at 4:27 am

20. Comment #394028 by Quetzalcoatl

Just as in Religious Studies, the curriculum would not include scientific critiques of the claims made by the various religions.

Mine did. It included a demolition of the literal story of the feeding of the 5000, followed by a demonstration of how he thought it was probably done. This basically involved sharing a couple of KitKats around the class, who responded by surreptitiously getting out parts of their lunches. The teacher knew this was going on, of course, and let it develop to make his point.

This from a reverend, no less.

(Your point is well made, though.)

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

25. Comment #394043 by irate_atheist on July 7, 2009 at 4:27 am

And now for the lunchtime comedy interlude:

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.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

26. Comment #394044 by epeeist on July 7, 2009 at 4:28 am

Comment #394023 by Stewart Cowan:

"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

How about providing us with some actual evidence for the Noachic flood? Or are you going to do the usual creationist trick of pretending the questions were never asked?

Other Comments by epeeist

27. Comment #394045 by Tyler Durden on July 7, 2009 at 4:29 am

Comment #394023 by Stewart Cowan

D'oh!

Stewart, have you read "Jack and the Beanstalk", or "The Three Little Pigs", or perhaps the story of "Rapunzel"?

Please compare and contrast "Rapunzel" with Newton's law of universal gravitation making direct mention of gravitational acceleration, Newton's Shell theorem and all vector equations.

Extra points will be awarded if you also evaluate Einstein's theory of general relativity in conjunction with your reference to "Rapunzel". Please keep your answers brief.

You have two hours. No talking. You may begin now...

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

28. Comment #394046 by irate_atheist on July 7, 2009 at 4:30 am

And now for the punchline:

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.

Nice bloke.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

29. Comment #394048 by ColdFusionLazarus on July 7, 2009 at 4:39 am

Stewart Cowan, do you really want trainee Doctors and Nurses to spend time learning how, historically, it was thought that balancing the humours was important to good health or do you want them to learn real medicine?

The question in the exam didn't even have a "right" answer! A student matching the creationism "theory" to Animals in Fossils is just the student doing the best they can do when faced with a crap question with crap answers. Since when is the fossil record at all evidence of creationism?

Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus

30. Comment #394050 by Stewart Cowan on July 7, 2009 at 4:46 am

"Nice bloke."

Take my hand and walk down Real Street with me! R. Dawkins doesn't know everything. I'd wager that he knows less than 1% of less than 1% of what there is to be known.

Do you really think this is a "clear-thinking oasis"?

Does Tyler Durden's comment suggest it is?

Some of you seem very far gone down the 'Russell's Teapot' road of irrational over-simplification.

Other Comments by Stewart Cowan

31. Comment #394051 by Quetzalcoatl on July 7, 2009 at 4:48 am

Take my hand and walk down Real Street with me!

Oh I'm already there, Stewart. Still awaiting your next comment where you explain how 7/7 was a government conspiracy.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

32. Comment #394052 by Stewart Cowan on July 7, 2009 at 4:51 am

ColdFusionLazarus - no offence, but that has nowt to do with it.

"Since when is the fossil record at all evidence of creationism?"

Good question and one I am delighted to answer.

The fossil record shows that billions of animals - land and sea - were buried rapidly as the result of catastrophe.

epeeist - I hope this counts as a reply to you as well, but there's much more.

Other Comments by Stewart Cowan

33. Comment #394053 by Tyler Durden on July 7, 2009 at 4:52 am

Comment #394050 by Stewart Cowan

Some of you seem very far gone down the 'Russell's Teapot' road of irrational over-simplification.

Over-simplification? Excuse me?

And the Genesis account of all creation taking only six days is, what, "just analogy" or quantum mechanics gone awry?

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

34. Comment #394054 by Quetzalcoatl on July 7, 2009 at 4:54 am

Stewart Cowan-

The fossil record shows that billions of animals - land and sea - were buried rapidly as the result of catastrophe

It shows nothing of the kind.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

35. Comment #394055 by ColdFusionLazarus on July 7, 2009 at 4:54 am

Stewart Cowan, so it comes down to everyone not knowing everything that can be known. I'll accept your point. In a game of cards it's not possible for me to know what everyone is holding in their hands, but it's a good assumption that the other players won't be holding domino pieces, and it's also a good assumption that they will not be holding the 3-of-clubs that I've got (and if they have I can call them out for cheating). I can even rate the hand I've got and calculate the odds of other people having better hands than I've got. If all you can say is that we know so little, it's best to put it in God's hands because we simply cannot know what will happen next ... then pull up a chair at the poker table. I bet when significant amounts of good money are at risk you'll think differently and work out who are the best poker players, or even who the best scientific thinkers are.

Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus

36. Comment #394056 by Stewart Cowan on July 7, 2009 at 4:54 am

PMartin - I think it's pertinent to remember that Creationism is still a very valid theory.

(Cue frenzied typing in reply...)

Quetz - I know, matey. I shall return to my own blog later!

Other Comments by Stewart Cowan

37. Comment #394057 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2009 at 4:56 am

Comment #394052 by Stewart Cowan

I am afraid I am a bit confused. You are talking about 'the fossil record'.

But that's science...

Why do you need science to back up what is said in your Holy Book? That's a bit odd, isn't it?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

38. Comment #394058 by Tyler Durden on July 7, 2009 at 4:57 am

Comment #394052 by Stewart Cowan

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.

You'll need evidence for your spurious claim.

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

39. Comment #394059 by irate_atheist on July 7, 2009 at 4:58 am

32. Comment #394052 by Stewart Cowan -

The fossil record shows that billions of animals - land and sea - were buried rapidly as the result of catastrophe.

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).

Other Comments by irate_atheist

40. Comment #394060 by Stewart Cowan on July 7, 2009 at 4:59 am

ColdFusionLazarus - but life isn't a game - we don't know all the likely outcomes, even when we think we do.

How many folk have won the Lottery and thought it would improve their life? A couple of years later some find themselves divorced and penniless, for example.

Other Comments by Stewart Cowan

41. Comment #394061 by ColdFusionLazarus on July 7, 2009 at 4:59 am

For the fossil record ... what Irate said

Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus

42. Comment #394062 by irate_atheist on July 7, 2009 at 5:01 am

36. Comment #394056 by Stewart Cowan -

PMartin - I think it's pertinent to remember that Creationism is still a very valid theory.

More bullshit. See http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/intelligentdesigncase/dovertrialtranscripts.htm and http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8178

Other Comments by irate_atheist

43. Comment #394063 by ColdFusionLazarus on July 7, 2009 at 5:02 am

Stewart, do you trust getting on a plane? Those scientific minds that can calculate why it flies and even the probabilities of catastrophes. All you've got is unscientific thinking. Man (or woman) alone cannot know all these things, so we'll have tro trust to angels keeping it in the air? You might not have prayed enough last week. Your plane might be going down. Don't trust it.

Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus

44. Comment #394064 by irate_atheist on July 7, 2009 at 5:03 am

40. Comment #394060 by Stewart Cowan -

And that is related to the fossil record precisely how?

Other Comments by irate_atheist

45. Comment #394065 by Stewart Cowan on July 7, 2009 at 5:03 am

Re. rapid burial of animals:

The evidence is, well, self-evident, really.

Barring a very sudden catastrophic burial, you wouldn't have so many well-preserved fossils because the elements and scavengers would get there first.

Other Comments by Stewart Cowan

46. Comment #394066 by CaptainMandate on July 7, 2009 at 5:03 am

But Mr Williams insisted only two of the theories were scientific.

yeah epeeist beat me to it but jeeeezus!

if there were more than one scientific theory available there'd be more than one scientific theort taught at school

Other Comments by CaptainMandate

47. Comment #394067 by Steve Zara on July 7, 2009 at 5:04 am

Comment #394065 by Stewart Cowan

The evidence is, well, self-evident, really.

Sorry, but 'evidence' is a science thing. Why do you need that when you have your Book?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

48. Comment #394068 by Stewart Cowan on July 7, 2009 at 5:05 am

Dougal - why are you swearing? Calm down dear.

Take deep breaths; put your brain into first and gently take her away.

Other Comments by Stewart Cowan

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.

just to put this into perspective. how much do you know£

[edit]

sorry, just saw some of your other posts. no need to answer

Other Comments by CaptainMandate

50. Comment #394070 by bendigeidfran on July 7, 2009 at 5:05 am

I think what Stewart is trying to say is that we are on space-ark Earth adrift in a sea of temptation and that Jesus is the lighthouse guiding us from the rocks of sin.

Other Comments by bendigeidfran