Arrived today, sent to the school library, "Explore Evolution". Looks like a very plausible book, with citations from scientists, endnotes to chapters and so on. Actually originating from the American Discovery Institute, a conservative think tank using the wedge strategy of getting ID taught in science.

Apparently plausible (though flawed) rhetoric - an example from page 3 introduction:

"Experimental scientists can observe phenomena under controlled conditions. However historical scientists, like archaeologists and palaeontologists, must try to figure out what happened in the past without the benefit of observing the past directly. They operate more like detectives...Sometimes we find that the same evidence can be explained in more than one way...in the historical sciences, neither side can directly verify its claims about past events"

Oh dear. The rest of the book is like this, quoting scientists when it wants ('Evolutionary biologist Michael Lynch has noted that creating a clear picture of evolutionary relationships is an "elusive problem" "(p57),but other times making a vague 'Many scientists arrgue that..." without citing. They also make constant use of 'Neo-Darwinism", apparently as an attempt to personalise a scientific theory and lend credence to the evolution is a religion gibberish.

 See if its turned up in your school, might well have gone to the library, and start asking questions. Or just put it in the fiction section where it belongs. Scientists can start 'teaching the controversy' when RE classes start teaching Pastafarianism. 

FR David:

Arrived today, sent to the school library, "Explore Evolution". Looks like a very plausible book, with citations from scientists, endnotes to chapters and so on. Actually originating from the American Discovery Institute, a conservative think tank using the wedge strategy of getting ID taught in science.

Apparently plausible (though flawed) rhetoric - an example from page 3 introduction:

"Experimental scientists can observe phenomena under controlled conditions. However historical scientists, like archaeologists and palaeontologists, must try to figure out what happened in the past without the benefit of observing the past directly. They operate more like detectives...Sometimes we find that the same evidence can be explained in more than one way...in the historical sciences, neither side can directly verify its claims about past events"

 

Oh dear. The rest of the book is like this, quoting scientists when it wants ('Evolutionary biologist Michael Lynch has noted that creating a clear picture of evolutionary relationships is an "elusive problem" "(p57),but other times making a vague 'Many scientists arrgue that..." without citing. They also make constant use of 'Neo-Darwinism", apparently as an attempt to personalise a scientific theory and lend credence to the evolution is a religion gibberish.

 

 See if its turned up in your school, might well have gone to the library, and start asking questions. Or just put it in the fiction section where it belongs. Scientists can start 'teaching the controversy' when RE classes start teaching Pastafarianism. 

FSM rules

 Basta with the pasta, already.

FR David:

Scientists can start 'teaching the controversy' when RE classes start teaching Pastafarianism. 

Excellent. I've taught Flying spaghetti monster several times in RE of late so I'm waiting with bated breath :)

Seriously though I find it frightening in RE lessons how many students come out with the opinion that evolution is just a theory or just an opinion and creationism/ID just as valid. (I teach in a school with science specialism status.) I ended one lesson saying "Thank God for Dawkins" - at least when it comes to evolution.