Jump to content

Truth in Science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 89.241.214.89 (talk) at 10:10, 7 October 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Part of a series on
Intelligent design
Clockwork
Watchmaker analogy
Concepts
Movement
Campaigns
Authors
Organisations
Reactions
Creationism

Truth in Science is a United Kingdom-based organization which promotes the "Teach the Controversy" campaign.[1][2][3] It uses this strategy to try to get intelligent design taught alongside evolution in school science lessons.[4] The organization promotes the idea that there is scientific controversy about the validity of Darwinian evolution, a view rejected by the United Kingdom's Royal Society and over fifty Academies of Science around the world.[5][6] Consequently, the organization argues that schools should adopt a "critical approach" to Darwinian evolution in science lessons and a "fair and accurate" representation of "alternative viewpoints", such as intelligent design.[7] The group is affiliated with the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement, following its strategy and circulating the Institute's promotional materials.[8]

Organization

According to the Truth in Science website[9] the organization is run by a Board of Directors who are advised by a Council of Reference and a Scientific Panel. As of 20 June 2007 these are listed as follows

Board of Directors

  • Stephen A. Hyde (Chairman)
  • Professor Andrew McIntosh[10], Professor of Thermodynamics at the University of Leeds, an evangelical Christian and creationist [11] and, as of 2 June 2003, was a member of the council of reference of Biblical Creation Ministries[12]. Andrew McIntosh has written a book called Genesis for Today[13] which argues for a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis. During a BBC Northern Ireland radio debate, broadcast on 10 December, 2006, McIntosh stated his position that a Young Earth was his personal conviction, but that this was tangential to the scientific claims of Intelligent Design.[14]
  • Willis B. Metcalfe (Vice Chairman), an evangelical Christian publisher.
  • John Perfect, a teacher.
  • Maurice Roberts, Minister of the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing)[15] and former teacher of classics.

Council of Reference

  • Stuart Burgess, Professor of Design and Nature, and Head of Mechanical Engineering at Bristol University, has a Diploma in Theology from the London Reformed Baptist Seminary (of the Metropolitan Tabernacle).[16]
    Professor Stuart Burgess appeared on a radio interview with BBC Northern Ireland on 18 April, 2004.Burgess stated his position that the Earth "is around 6000 years old, that's what the bible says". In drawing a conjunction between science and religion, Burgess said that one's choice of explanation was "faith versus faith", and that "either you have faith in evolution or faith in creation". Burgess went on to concede "that the Earth has the appearance of great age" on the grounds that "the bible says that God created a mature Earth, and a mature universe, with Adam mature, and trees being mature". The interviewer quizzed Burgess on the matter of a deceptive God. In his response, Burgess explained, "when man came into the universe he would have that fully functioning universe ready to enjoy". In response to further challenges, Burgess said that the Big Bang is a religious faith, which contradicts the first law of thermodynamics. In his penultimate question, the interviewer, William Crawley, asked Burgess "You're not concerned that you're messing up the minds of young people by giving them the impression that they have to commit scientific suicide in order to be believers?" to which Burgess responded: "My main concern, is that on the day of Judgment, people will not say to God 'my excuse is the theory of evolution', for not believing in God, because God will say that is not an excuse".[17]
    Professor Stuart Burgess wrote a book, called "Hallmarks of Design", which compares biological structures, for example, genetic coding, to sets of engineering drawings. Burgess draws the inference that a designer must have designed such structures.[18]
  • John Blanchard, author of popular books including Evolution: fact or fiction? Has Science Got Rid of God? and Does God Believe in Atheists?
  • Gerard A. Chrispin, A lawyer and director of Daylight Christian Prison Trust.
  • George Curry, Minister of Elswick Parish Church (St Stephen and St Paul), Newcastle upon Tyne.
  • David Harding, Pastor of Milnrow Evangelical Church, Lancashire.
  • Dr Russell Healey, teacher of mathematics.
  • Derek Linkens Professor and Dean Emeritus, Department of Automatic Control and Systems Engineering, University of Sheffield.

Scientific Panel

Truth in Science and Intelligent Design

Basic types

At least one article on the Truth in Science website uses scientific creationist terminology[19] to describe animal species. Scientific creationism uses the term "basic types" [20] as an alternative to that of speciation. Basic type biology addresses the charge that creationists reject changes within species, by allowing for microevolution within those types, but arguing against macroevolution.

"Each tree in the orchard represents a distinctly different group of organisms – what we might call a Basic Type – and each originated separately. In this non-evolutionary view, they cannot be traced back to a universal common ancestor. Nevertheless, each Basic Type is a broad group probably encompassing many species. While each Basic Type originated separately, a great deal of variation has occurred within the created group. For instance, all dogs – including wolves, coyotes, jackals, dingos and domestic dogs – probably belong to the same Basic Type. However, dogs are distinctly different from, and unrelated to, other groups (e.g. cats, bears, weasels). Basic type biology, pioneered by Professor Siegfried Scherer and colleagues in Germany, seeks to identify the original Basic Types using hybridization (cross-breeding) studies (Scherer 1993). Scientists in the USA have suggested additional criteria for identifying and classifying the Basic Types, some of which can also be applied to fossil organisms (Wood and Murray 2003). This has developed into an exciting field of biological study with its own conferences and publications." Horse Evolution (2005), Paul Garner BSc (Hons), FGS, Truth in Science.

Bacterial flagellum

On October 11, 2006, a reader, Chris Preedy, wrote a letter to The Times newspaper highlighting "scientific errors" on the Truth in Science website, including that the organization denies the evolution of bacterial flagellum[21]. In response, Richard Buggs of the Truth in Science scientific panel published a letter in the Times stating:

"I do not know of a good evolutionary pathway for the development of the bacterial flagellum. In his latest book, Professor Richard Dawkins identifies a single possible intermediate step. This hardly constitutes a pathway."[22]

Supporters

Nick Cowan, a former head of science and currently a chemistry teacher at the Blue Coat School [23], in Liverpool, welcomed the Truth in Science DVD information packs. Cowan, a creationist, stated in The Independent newspaper, that "Darwinism is a religion", and that "the debate between evolution and intelligent design is not a debate between science and religion, it's between religion and religion" [24]. Cowan told reporters at The Independent that he planned to use the information packs in his lessons.

The Truth in Science website reported on Monday 1 January, 2007, that twelve senior academics wrote to the Prime Minister and Education Secretary in support of Truth in Science [25].

The group, led 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, reportedly praised Truth in Science for highlighting the "severe limitations concerning origins", and that Darwinism is not necessarily "the best scientific model to fit the data that we observe".

According to Truth in Science, 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.

Projects

Truth in Science offers a number of online and mail order resources, including downloadable lesson plans[26], and DVD packs, including Where does the Evidence Lead? and Unlocking the Mystery of Life by Illustra Media[27] and featuring prominent members of the Discovery Institute[28]. Truth in Science denies that these materials focus upon creationism, but instead focus upon intelligent design[29].

Focus on parents

Truth in Science offers a resource page for the parents of United Kingdom school children, divided into three categories: Balance, Moral and spiritual aspects, and Action[30]. The focus of these propositions includes the issue of where humans came from, the implications of origins on the education of children, and the way in which the answers to these questions "influence their ideas about morality, culture and God".

Textbook reviews

Truth in Science offers over twenty reviews of GCSE, AS, and A-Level science textbooks. Sample criticisms include[31]:

  • "This textbook overstates the case for evolution, failing to present the limitations of the evidence."
  • "The book fails to mention that many missing "missing links" provide evidence against evolution."
  • About "teaching the controversy": "[T]hough different views of origins are mentioned, any controversy is presented as religion versus science."
  • "It does not mention that some aspects of evolution are very hard to test empirically."
  • "This textbook is clearly one-sided in its presentation of origins, and fails to mention significant scientific debate over evolution."
  • "[I]t fails to give a fair representation of intelligent design or Creationism as alternatives to evolution."
  • "Whilst this book is exceptional in its honesty about the shortcomings of the case for evolution, the authors are never to follow these to the logical conclusion of doubting the theory itself."
  • "No scientific alternative to Darwinism as a theory of origins in suggested, all alternatives being treated as religious in nature."

News blog

Truth in Science runs a News Blog on its main website, which features articles on areas such as education policy, current affairs programmes, newspaper editorials, and provides a general critique of mainstream evolutionary science[32].

Criticism of Truth in Science and/or intelligent design

Because Truth in Science advocates teaching intelligent design in science classes, the criticism of intelligent design can be incorporated by reference. The overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science;[33] The National Science Teachers Association and others have termed it pseudoscience,[34] and some have termed it junk science.[35] No scientific evidence in support of the intelligent design hypothesis has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.[36]

The following criticisms are more specific to Truth in Science:

Subverting Darwin's theory

In response to the introduction of Intelligent Design to European schools, the Royal Society stated that "intelligent design has far more in common with a religious belief in creationism than it has with science" and raised concerns that "young people are poorly served by deliberate attempts to withhold, distort or misrepresent scientific knowledge and understanding in order to promote particular religious beliefs"[37].

Argumentum ad populum

Truth in Science cited a Ipsos MORI poll of United Kingdom citizens which shows there exists popular support for Intelligent Design, and Creationism among the non-scientific public. "There is a modern controversy over Darwin's theory of evolution..., and this has considerable social, spiritual, moral and ethical implications. Truth in Science promotes the critical examination of Darwinism in schools, as an important component of science education."[38]

This view, that the truth of a theory depends on its democratic support, contrasts with the scientific method which holds that useful theories are good at explaining empirical evidence (and not necessarily popular or widely believed).[39]

Openings in National Curriculum

On their National Curriculum page, Truth in Science claimed that Lord Filkin, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Education and Skills, confirmed that Intelligent Design can be taught in schools. It quoted him as saying: "In all aspects of the science curriculum, we encourage pupils to consider different ideas and beliefs, and how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting evidence. Intelligent design theory is not part of the National Curriculum. The National Curriculum for Science states that students must learn that the fossil record is evidence for evolution and how variation and selection may lead to evolution or extinction. Intelligent design theory could be discussed in schools, but only in the context of being one of a range of views on evolution that students might consider and evaluate against the evidence." [40][41].

In a BBC Newsnight interview, on Monday 27 November, 2006, Jeremy Paxman asked Andy McIntosh of Truth in Science, as to whether his organization had been "economical with the truth" regarding the omission of Lord Filkin's final sentence, in an earlier official Truth in Science letter. Paxman stated that Filkin's answer implied that students would discard Intelligent Design once they evaluated the theory against the evidence. In his response, McIntosh said that the statement did not imply that students should discard Intelligent Design, and that evolution and Intelligent Design had "important philosophical implications".[42]

Information pack controversy

In September 2006, Truth in Science sent resource packs on Intelligent Design to the heads of science of all United Kingdom secondary schools.[43]. According to New Scientist, 59 schools around the United Kingdom used, or planned to use the Truth in Science information packs.[44]. The New Scientist article stated that Truth in Science circulated the material with the intention of countering the teaching of evolution in science classes, and that the information packs "promote the notion that life on Earth was created through intelligent design, a euphemism for the biblical story of creation".

The BBC News website reported the reaction to the information packs from the United Kingdom Department for Education and Skills: "Neither creationism nor intelligent design are taught as a subject in schools, and are not specified in the science curriculum. 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."[45] -- DfES Spokesperson, BBC News.

Speaking in the House of Commons, on November 1, 2006, The Right Hon. Jim Knight, Labour MP for Dorset South[46], and Minister of State at the Department for Education and Skills, the Minister for Schools, criticised Truth In Science, their information packs, and Intelligent Design creationism, citing them as unsuitable for the United Kingdom science curriculum. In answer to a question regarding what the Secretary of State for Education and Skills would do in response to the information packs, Knight said:

"Neither intelligent design nor creationism are recognised scientific theories and they are not included in the science curriculum, the Truth in Science information pack is therefore not an appropriate resource to support the science curriculum. The national curriculum for science clearly sets down that pupils should be taught: how uncertainties in scientific knowledge and scientific ideas change over time; the role of the scientific community in validating these changes; variation within species can lead to evolutionary changes; and, similarities and differences between species can be measured and classified,"[47] -- Jim Knight [holding answer 18 October 2006] 1 Nov 2006 : Column 456W

Critical reception

From notable religious figures and organizations

Truth in Science and the claims of intelligent design have been criticised by leading scientists and at least one prominent member of the Church of England. In December 2006, Colin Slee, the Dean of Southwark, said: "Everything needs to be explored, so that children can ask sensible questions. Though I see no huge difficulty with exploring intelligent design or creationism or flat Earth, they happen to be misguided, foolish and flying in the face of all evidence. I see no problem with Darwinian theory and Christian faith going hand in hand"[48], -- Colin Slee, Dean of Southwark, The Times, December 2006.

Ekklesia, a United Kingdom theological think-tank accused Truth in Science and the advocates of intelligent design of misrepresenting the bible, and that Creationism and intelligent design are not on par with accepted scientific theories. According to one Ekklesia contributor, Geologist and Anglican vicar Michael Roberts[49], the material on the Truth in Science website is carefully packaged to hide its Young Earth Creationist roots[50]. Simon Barrow, co-director of the UK Christian think tank Ekklesia outlined his critique of intelligent design creationism, and pseudo-scientific explanations for the universe: "Creationism and ID are in no way comparable to scientific theories of origins and have no place in the modern science classroom. They also distort mature Christian understandings of the universe as coming into being through the whole world process, not through reversals or denials of that process. The roots of creationism, whether in its ‘hard’ form, or in attenuated ID ideas, lie not in science but in misinterpretations of the Bible. Claims that such notions can be justified from a ‘literal’ reading of Genesis are nonsensensical. This book has not one, but two ‘creation stories’. They differ widely in detail, are highly figurative, and were written to combat fatalistic Ancient Near East cosmogonies by stressing the underlying goodness of the world as a gift of God, not to comment on modern scientific matters"[51] -- Ekklesia, 25 September, 2006.

From notable secular figures and organizations

In a Guardian newspaper article, dated 27 November, 2006, Professor Lewis Wolpert of University College London, attacked intelligent design, and the ambitions of Truth in Science: "There is just no evidence for intelligent design, it is pure religion and has nothing to do with science. It should be banned from science classes,"[52], -- Professor Lewis Wolpert, Guardian Unlimited, 27 November, 2006.

Although Truth in Science's material discusses the scientific claims of Intelligent Design, the Royal Society stated, "intelligent design has far more in common with a religious belief in creationism than it has with science".[53]

In October 2006, a Science organization called Science, Just Science reviewed the DVD information packs sent by Truth in Science to the heads of science at all United Kingdom secondary schools in September 2006.

The arguments are presented in the style of an educational film, and are generally presented among needlessly lengthy scientific descriptions and impressive visuals, which help to make creationist arguments sound reasonable to anyone without scientific training in the relevant disciplines. Anyone familiar with creationists will recognize their standard tactics including appeals to emotion, arguments from ignorance, misdirection and occasionally blatant falsehoods[54], -- Science, Just Science, October 2006.

The UK pro-science advocacy group, British Centre for Science Education has been involved in government lobbying in the UK to counter the activities of Truth in Science.[55][56] BCSE protested when Truth in Science sent information packs to every UK secondary school in September, 2006.[57] BCSE estimated that TiS had spent around £116,000 till date, including employment of a full-time administrator.[58] In a letter to the editor, published in Financial Times, Ian Lowe of BCSE, expressed concern that creationism could possibly flourish even in Britain[59]; while Mike Brass, chairman of BCSE, said in a letter to The Guardian, "intelligent design (ID) is creationism dressed up in a tux to sneak into our science classrooms."[60]

See also

References

  1. ^ "Teaching the controversy is, of course, also related to the required teaching on "Variation, inheritance and evolution" under topic Sc2 "Life processes and living things" in Key Stage 4" Truth in Science - National Curriculum
  2. ^ "Teaching the controversy? The closest this textbook gets to teaching the controversy is a box entitled Scientific arguments against evolution (p. 781). This describes several doubts which may be held about evolution, such as the origin of the first replicating molecules, and the evolution of the human brain. It admits that an element of faith in evolution is needed. In the absence of good evidence, the book appeals to the great majority of scientists alive today who believe in evolution. No alternative theories are mentioned which pupils might want to consider." Truth in Science - Review of Biology: Principles and Processes. Roberts, M., M. Reiss, and G. Monger. 1993. Nelson
  3. ^ "Teaching the controversy? The only alternative idea about origins mentioned by this book is from before Darwin: 'Most scientists used to think that all living things had remained the same since the Earth was created. (p. 298)' This view is outdated, even among creationists. There are many scientists today who have scientific doubts about Darwinism. These are not mentioned." Truth in Science - Review of Biology for You, Gareth Williams, Nelson Thornes, 2002
  4. ^ "Therefore the new GCSE programmes will provide new opportunities to teach alternatives to evolution in science lessons" Truth in Science - National Curriculum
  5. ^ "We, the undersigned Academies of Sciences, have learned that in various parts of the world, within science courses taught in certain public systems of education, scientific evidence, data, and testable theories about the origins and evolution of life on Earth are being concealed, denied, or confused with theories not testable by science. We urge decision makers, teachers, and parents to educate all children about the methods and discoveries of science and to foster an understanding of the science of nature." IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution (PDF file)
  6. ^ See also: List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design
  7. ^ "We consider that it is time for students to be permitted to adopt a critical approach to Darwinism in science lessons. They should be given fair and accurate presentations of alternative views." Truth in Science - Home
  8. ^ Who are Truth in Science? James Randerson. EducationGuardian.co.uk, November 27, 2006.
  9. ^ Truth in Science website
  10. ^ Andrew McIntosh profile on Answers in Genesis.
  11. ^ The Sunday Sequence with William Crawley.
  12. ^ Biblical Creation Ministries: Proclaiming Biblical truth from Genesis to Revelation
  13. ^ Genesis for Today - In the Beginning, by Andy McIntosh.
  14. ^ The Sunday Sequence with William Crawley
  15. ^ Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) - Articles.
  16. ^ Answers in Genesis biography of Stuart Burgess, Mechanical Engineering (UK)
  17. ^ Sunday Sequence - Finding God in the Universe.
  18. ^ Hallmarks of Design, by Professor Stuart Burgess at Amazon.com.
  19. ^ Truth in Science - Horse Evolution.
  20. ^ "Junker and Scherer revitalized the Bible-based pre-Darwinian “theory of creation” as a theistic alternative to evolution. In order to circumvent logical problems concerning the documented continuum between micro- and macroevolution, the authors introduced a new “species concept”, the so-called Basic Types of life. Since, according to chapter 1 of Genesis, God created animals and plants after their own kind (microorganisms, fungi, and protoctista are not mentioned), these kinds must represent higher taxonomic groups. As examples, Junker and Scherer discuss the following Basic Types: Anatidae (ducks, geese, and swans), Canidae (dogs, wolves, and foxes), Triticeae (wheat, barley, and oats) and humans (one species, Homo sapiens). This novel “Bible-based theory” postulates that God created an in-built capacity for variation within a kind, but not between different Basic Types. Hence, what the Darwinists label as macroevolution is replaced by supernatural acts of the Creator, but microevolution (that is, the diversification of the Basic Types, with the exception of humans) is theistic–naturalistic evolution. This concept was introduced by Scherer several years ago at the Third International Conference on Creationism and at the European Creationist Congress (http://www.pages.org/bsc)." NCSE Resource - Darwinism and Intelligent Design: The New Anti-Evolutionism Spreads in Europe.
  21. ^ Questions for Creationists - The Times - Letters to the Editor.
  22. ^ Truth in Science
  23. ^ The Liverpool Blue Coat School - Welcome.
  24. ^ Independent Online - Schools.
  25. ^ Truth in Science - Senior academics support Truth in Science.
  26. ^ Truth in Science - Science Lesson Plans.
  27. ^ Illustra Media - Unlocking the Mystery of Life.
  28. ^ Truth in Science - Resource Pack.
  29. ^ "Truth in Science is seeking to encourage the teaching of intelligent design, not Creationism, in science classes. Our packs discuss intelligent design, and not Creationism." Truth in Science - Resource Pack
  30. ^ Truth in Science - Parents.
  31. ^ Truth in Science - Textbook reviews.
  32. ^ Truth in Science - News Blog.
  33. ^ See: 1) List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design 2) Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83. 3) The Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism petition begun in 2001 has been signed by "over 600 scientists" as of August 20, 2006. A four day A Scientific Support for Darwinism petition gained 7733 signatories from scientists opposing ID. The AAAS, the largest association of scientists in the U.S., has 120,000 members, and firmly rejects ID. More than 70,000 Australian scientists and educators condemn teaching of intelligent design in school science classes. List of statements from scientific professional organizations on the status intelligent design and other forms of creationism.
  34. ^ "for most members of the mainstream scientific community, ID is not a scientific theory, but a creationist pseudoscience." Trojan Horse or Legitimate Science: Deconstructing the Debate over Intelligent Design David Mu. Harvard Science Review, Volume 19, Issue 1, Fall 2005.
    • National Science Teachers Association, a professional association of 55,000 science teachers and administrators in a 2005 press release: "We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science.…It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom." National Science Teachers Association Disappointed About Intelligent Design Comments Made by President Bush National Science Teachers Association Press Release August 3 2005
    • Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134–1138 American Society for Clinical Investigation, 2006.
  35. ^ "Biologists aren’t alarmed by intelligent design's arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they’re alarmed because intelligent design is junk science." H. Allen Orr. Annals of Science. New Yorker May 2005.Devolution—Why intelligent design isn't.
    • Also, Robert T. Pennock Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism.
    • Junk science Mark Bergin. World Magazine, Vol. 21, No. 8 February 25 2006.
  36. ^ Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 4: whether ID is science
  37. ^ "The Royal Society fully supports questioning and debate in science lessons, as long as it is not designed to undermine young people's confidence in the value of scientific evidence." Some proponents of an alternative explanation for the diversity of life on Earth now claim that their theories are based on scientific evidence. One such view is presented as the theory of intelligent design. This proposes that some species are too complex to have evolved through natural selection and that therefore life on Earth must be the product of a 'designer'. Its supporters make only selective reference to the overwhelming scientific evidence that supports evolution, and treat gaps in current knowledge which, as in all areas of science, certainly exist - as if they were evidence for a 'designer'. In this respect, intelligent design has far more in common with a religious belief in creationism than it has with science, which is based on evidence acquired through experiment and observation. The theory of evolution is supported by the weight of scientific evidence; the theory of intelligent design is not." Royal Society statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design
  38. ^ "In an Ipsos MORI Poll carried out in January 2006 for BBC Horizon , 41% of the respondents thought that Intelligent Design Theory should be taught in school science classes, and 44% believed that Creationism Theory should be taught. An Opinionpanel Research Survey in July 2006 found that 30% of University Students in the UK believe in creation or intelligent design" Truth in Science - Home.
  39. ^ "Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered." Evolution as Fact and Theory by Stephen Jay Gould -- 4th paragraph
  40. ^ Truth in Science - National Curriculum
  41. ^ House of Lords Hansard for 21 Feb 2005 (pt 9) - Schools: Teaching of Intelligent Design
  42. ^ Newsnight video on creationism and intelligent design in UK schools
  43. ^ BBC News - 'Design' attack on school science.
  44. ^ New Scientist - Creationism creeps into UK schools.
  45. ^ `Design` attack on school science: Parents are being encouraged to challenge their children`s science teachers over what they are explaining as the origins of life., BBC News, Friday, September 29, 2006.
  46. ^ Jim Knight, MP for Dorset South - Home.
  47. ^ House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 01 Nov 2006 (pt 0001).
  48. ^ Creationism gains foothold in schools - Times Online.
  49. ^ Ekklesia - Creationism distorts truth in science, says vicar
  50. ^ "The material on the website is carefully packaged, and its YEC roots, and thus its scientific worthlessness, may not be immediately apparent to the undiscerning." Ekklesia - UK anti-evolutionists seek to lure parents with new website
  51. ^ Ekklesia - UK anti-evolutionists seek to lure parents with new website
  52. ^ Revealed: rise of creationism in UK schools - Guardian Unlimited.
  53. ^ Royal Society statement on evolution, creationism and intelligent design, 11 Apr 2006
  54. ^ Science, Just Science: Truth in Science materials.
  55. ^ The dangers of creationism in education, Report, Committee on Culture, Science and Education, Rapporteur: Mr Guy LENGAGNE, France, Socialist Group, Parliamentary Assembly, Council of Europe, Doc. 11297, 8 June 2007.
  56. ^ SCIENCE EDUCATION, Graham Stringer, Member of Parliament, Early Day Motion 2708, 11.10.2006
  57. ^ Graebsch, Almut (November 23, 2006). "Anti-evolutionists raise their profile in Europe". Nature. 444: 406–407. doi:10.1038/444406a. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  58. ^ Randerson, James (November 27, 2006). "Who are Truth in Science?". The Guardian. Retrieved 2007-07-28. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  59. ^ Lowe, Ian (October 21, 2006). "Creationism has no place in classrooms". Letter to the Editor. Financial Times. Retrieved 2007-07-28. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  60. ^ Brass, Mike (December 19, 2006). "Creationism in the classroom". The Guardian. Retrieved 2007-07-28. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Media

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Truth_in_Science&oldid=318425860"