Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

ID in the UK

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I’d like to encourage people on the ground in the UK to comment on this and what it is likely to mean.

Senior academics support Truth in Science
Monday, 01 January 2007

As reported yesterday in the Sunday Times, twelve senior academics have written to the Prime Minister and Education Secretary in support of Truth in Science.

The group was lead by Norman Nevin OBE, Professor Emeritus of Medical Genetics, Queen’s University of Belfast and included Antony Flew, former Professor of Philosophy at Reading University and a distinguished supporter of humanism.

“We write to applaud the Truth in Science initiative,” the letter said. Empirical science has “severe limitations concerning origins” and Darwinism is not necessarily “the best scientific model to fit the data that we observe”.

They concluded: “We ask therefore that, where schools so choose, you ensure an open and honest approach to this subject under the National Curriculum, at the same time ensuring that the necessary criteria are maintained to deliver a rigorous education.”

The other signatories were: David Back, Professor of Pharmacology at the University of Liverpool; Steve Fuller, Professor of Sociology at Warwick University; Mart de Groot, Director, Retired, Armagh Astronomical Observatory; Terry Hamblin, Professor of Immunohaematology, University of Southampton; Colin Reeves, Professor of Operational Research at Coventry University and John Walton, Professor of Chemistry, St Andrews University, as well as the three University Professors who are members of the TiS Board and Council.

Professor Norman Nevin has authored over 300 peer-reviewed publications on various aspects of genetics, especially single gene disorders and congenital abnormalities. In his distinguished career he has held the posts: Head of the Northern Regional Genetics Service, President of the UK Clinical Genetics Society, member of the Human Genetics Advisory Commission and of the subsequent Human Genetics Commission, member of the European Concerted Action for Congenital Abnormalities, Chairman of the UK Gene Therapy Advisory Committee (GTAC). In 2003 he received an OBE for his services to gene therapy.

On 11 December, Professor Nevin received a response from the Department for Education and Skills’ Public Communications Unit on behalf of both the Prime Minster and the Education Secretary. The support for Truth in Science had been “noted by the Department” but the “vast majority” of enquiries that the DfES received had “expressed concern” about the Truth in Science resource pack.

“Intelligent design is not a recognised scientific theory” the Department claimed “and is therefore not included in the science curriculum. The Truth in Science information pack is not therefore an appropriate resource to support the science curriculum.”

However, intelligent design could discussed in science classes in response to pupil’s questions: “During a science lesson on evolution it is possible that pupils may ask about creationism and intelligent design. In this situation, the Department would expect teachers to answer pupil’s questions about this and other beliefs in a balanced way.”

SOURCE: http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/217/63

Comments
I wish Sir Fred Hoyle was still with us. I bet he would have signed it.tribune7
January 3, 2007
January
01
Jan
3
03
2007
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT
How does the ToE deal with OOL questions? Let me guess... Poof? ID has the much stronger argument for sure... or I'll be a monkey's uncle! And with important works coming out from Dr. Behe and Dr. Dembski pushing the SCIENCE of ID farther than it has even already gone, it won't be long before the science establishment opens up chinks in their armor and we can swoop in for the take-down. Changing the way children view the world is the first step to changing the world. Yeay for the UK!Doug
January 3, 2007
January
01
Jan
3
03
2007
04:16 AM
4
04
16
AM
PDT
I have two points of view, regarding introducing ID in schools... 1) TOE & NDE has been thought in schools for many years, even if does not provide answers for two basic questions when talking about life and origin of life: - there is no scientific explanation for the abiogenesis (no bio-chemical model, testable in labs, that shows HOW a being may came into existence by chance from non living matter); - there is no scientific explanation about HOW all the life forms came into existence (there is no model that can be tested into laboratory, that will show a living creature transforming into another type of living creature when randomly some genes mutates). Taking that into consideration, I believe TOE & NDE has no scientific value - when it comes to OOL - so it should be excluded from teaching in schools. Lets not hide anymore behind a finger: only if a theory is atheistic, is not enough to be thought in schools! 2) ID approach may infer a conscious Designer, that may have a purpose for creating the Universe and/or life. It has religious implications ?... So what!... Why is this a concern ?... And for whom ?... And why this approach should be considered unscientific and unconstitutional ?Sladjo
January 3, 2007
January
01
Jan
3
03
2007
03:42 AM
3
03
42
AM
PDT
In the Darwinian mind, criticizing Darwinism is presenting an alternative. Remember: "critical analysis" means "Creationism".Mats
January 3, 2007
January
01
Jan
3
03
2007
02:53 AM
2
02
53
AM
PDT
Wormherder, don't forget to add to your list that other theist (or at least deist), Charles Darwin...antg
January 3, 2007
January
01
Jan
3
03
2007
12:45 AM
12
12
45
AM
PDT
Hi bFast, Your right pointing out the flaws in Naturalistic neo Darwinian theory does not mean an alternataive must be offered.Theres nothing wrong with a negative argument except it will never produce an alternative-model.WormHerder
January 2, 2007
January
01
Jan
2
02
2007
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT
I have spent some time on the truth in science website. I think that something needs to be separated in this discussion. For the most part, the truth in science website presents a good case for the fact that there are major unsettled issues in the field of evolutionary biology. This must be held quite separate from supporting an alternate theory. If we say, "science currently has no adequate explanation for ...." that is much different than saying that "there is an adequate alternative theory."bFast
January 2, 2007
January
01
Jan
2
02
2007
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT
Hi Antg, I aggree with you, in order for any momentum so far gained to continue ID needs to do research -that is wet science not just some kind of meta science. Another problem is that the implications of design are clearly theistic -there's a reluctance to accept this I think,whenever origins are discussed implications loom large,like a large pink elephant sitting on the sofa -that everyone pretends isn't there.Admit the implications, admit the associations ie theism and move on. Don't forget the most ground breaking research was done by theists. Carolus Linnaeus, Gregor Mendel, John Dalton, Charles Bell, Francis Bacon, Charles Babbage, James Joule, Johannes Kepler, Louis Pasteur, James Clerk Maxwell-not forgetting Farady and Newton.What basis for discovery is there for a materialistic atheistic worldview ?WormHerder
January 2, 2007
January
01
Jan
2
02
2007
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT
I think that as we teach students that "we don't know, here's our theories" rather than "here's how it is, there's no other way it can be", it will stir up our best students to rise and perhaps do some research, out of sheer curiousity. Maybe we can start teaching students how to think rather than what to think.country6925
January 2, 2007
January
01
Jan
2
02
2007
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT
I understand there is a new emphasis in UK science eductation to discuss current issues in science that are controversial or have an impact on everyday life. Issues like stem cell research and global warming have been cited as examples. On that basis there is no reason why evolution could not be treated in a similar way, although there will be the inevitable and predictable resistance from certain quarters. I have two reservations, though: 1) ID still needs to develop further in academia and putting it in school curriculums is just premature and ultimately counterproductive 2) from what I can tell the people most vocal in promoting ID in the UK are creationists. I have no doubt they are well meaning, and in itself there is nothing wrong with that but there is a risk that ID will be loaded with all the religious/creationism baggage from the start. (I see Antony Flew and Steve Fuller are involved, though) I personally long to see ID being discussed on its scientific merits without reference to atheism/theism. The UK is pretty much a blank slate and I hope those that feel they need to promote ID do so thoughtfully.antg
January 2, 2007
January
01
Jan
2
02
2007
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT
You can not keep a good theory down -the most that any one should hope for is, to dispell the monolithic belief that Naturalistic Neo Darwinian explanation of origins and diversity is the only game in town. From the TiS site,heres the national curriculum guidlines which teachers SHOULD follow,instructing teachers that : 'Pupils should be taught… how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting empirical evidence (for example, Darwin's theory of evolution) The National Curriculum for Key Stage 4 Science (Sc1: Scientific enquiry)' I think at Key Stage 3 & 4 most teachers just teach what will be statistically probable in the GCSE exams rather than engage in debate -as the curriculum is is very full.However TiS quite rightly is encouraging students to think and realise that alternative credible theories can be discussedWormHerder
January 2, 2007
January
01
Jan
2
02
2007
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT
I think when people like them oppose Darwin theory and support ID, one can't still say that “Intelligent design is not a recognised scientific theory”. However I think that ID still needs some work and resources to be ready to be taught. The Design of Life will be a great addition to the collection of Illustra Media CDs, because it is a text book on the theory. Also I'm sure that Behe's coming book will be very important.IDist
January 2, 2007
January
01
Jan
2
02
2007
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply