Re: paleonet Creationism to be taught in UK schools

[Frank Holterhoff <frank@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The Archbishop of Canterbury (spiritual head of the worldwide Anglican 
Church, including the Episcopal Church in the USA) has publicly come out 
against teaching Creationism in schools:

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/03/21/britain.williams.ap/index.html  
(I see this story also comes from the Guardian)

Although he's regarded as a bit liberal by some (particularly those who 
think he should be a bit more stridently opposed to the ECUSA's 
acceptance of an openly gay bishop), he does get a fair bit of 
attention, especially in the UK, not surprisingly.  Maybe his voice wil 
persuade some of the various school authorities & boards.

F

Breandán MacGabhann wrote:

>I thought there might perhaps be some interest in this article from the Guardian newspaper
>
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1735730,00.html
>
>Breandán
>
>
>  
>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Kenneth A. Monsch" <kmonsch@biol.uni.wroc.pl>
>>To: paleonet@nhm.ac.uk
>>Subject: Re: paleonet Creationism to be taught in UK schools
>>Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 14:18:31 +0100
>>
>>
>>Dear Breandán (and everyone else on-line)
>>
>>I just sent the following message to two of the e-mails that you mentioned.
>>I hope that something like this should do the trick (especially if we send
>>many such messages).
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>----------
>>To whomever this may concern,
>>
>>I have been, in part, educated in the UK. In 2000 I got my PhD at the
>>University of Bristol. The reason why I write is the news, that Creationism
>>is to be included in the science curriculum for GCSE's. I speak in unison
>>with many, whom I suspect will react to this news, as well as those who for
>>some reason do not react in saying  that this should not happen. The
>>decision to include creationism with science courses should be retracted. I
>>would like to urge you to review evidence from either the media, and (even
>>better) scholarly journals or academic books, from which follows unanimously
>>that neither creationism nor Intelligent Design is considered science. In
>>the classroom, ID can be used, at best, to explain what science is not, and
>>what it is. Creationism belongs to religion class. In science classes,
>>teachers could mention that some people reject SCIENTIFIC evidence, because
>>they just BELIEVE that God created in 7 literal days. Full stop. In religion
>>class, the teacher could say that scientific evidence produces a different
>>scenario than the LITERAL biblical stories, but that scientific evidence
>>doesn't prove that God doesn't exist. Full stop. Whatever the pupils want to
>>believe or accept then, is up to them, but nobody's feelings are hurt.
>>However, putting pseudo-science and non-science such as ID and creationism
>>on a par with science is just the start of forcing one sort of belief system
>>to the masses (I am a Christian but do not agree with creationism and
>>certainly not with aggressive creationist evangelism!). Another consequence
>>will be, that you will educate potential science students that will not
>>really know what science is, or what it is not, and thereby you would waste
>>lots of scientific talent in the UK. I hope you will consider my and other
>>people's letters and will thus take responisble decisions.
>>
>>Yours sincerely,
>>***************************************************************************
>>Dr. Kenneth A. Monsch                           tel +48-71-3754017
>>Department of Vertebrate Zoology           fax +48-71-3222817
>>Institute of Zoology
>>University of Wroclaw
>>ul. H. Sienkiewicza 21
>>50-335 Wroclaw
>>POLAND
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>
>
>  
>


-- 
Frank K. Holterhoff         MATRICuS Inc.
Physical Design Engineer    570 South Edmonds Lane, Suite 101
972-221-1614 ext. 17        Lewisville, Texas   75067
fax: 972-420-6895           USA
frank@matricus.com          www.matricus.com