Your awakening begins with looking at the truth

Andy!?!?!?

Sounds just like the kind of bollocks the guy I lived with while at uni spouted.

Sounds just like the kind of bollocks the guy I lived with while at uni spouted.

It page 1, chapter 1, 1st paragraph of “How to be a successful Conspiracy Theorist”.

The answer is clear. And many a much wiser and more intelligent human than I have said as much.

An even wiser human wouldn’t have made three pointless sequels.

And that’s exactly how we got Brexit.

Nah, that’s how we ended up with the rejection of… oh I see.

Cougar

The teacher acknowledging it is simply down to the teacher. Is it realistic to expect a third-year high school teacher to even know about Bose-Einstein condensates? I honestly don’t know. From my own experience of high school and of dating more than one highschool teacher over the years, it’s a coin-flip as to whether they’re subject matter experts or are teaching what they read in the textbook at 11pm the night before.

It’s a 3rd year SCIENCE teacher… I’d say it’s not only reasonable but absolutely required?
What purpose is the teacher actually fulfilling if it’s what they read in the textbook at 11pm the night before.??
However .. if we assume this is the case then it’s surely even more important that the approved course material is actually correct??

HOWEVER: This one exampe is in science, he’s had maths tests just as poorly constructed and taken from the approved materials and his maths teacher last year was a VERY good mathematician… (lousy teacher but good mathematician) I’m very confident it would have taken her seconds to see a few of the questions she’d copied and pasted were not solvable.

It took me a bit of googling to find a loophole. Not as easy when on the spot face-to-face. 🤷‍♂️ The teacher should have known better of course, they seemingly handled it badly.

You aren’t a 3rd yr science teacher though… but the point really is that question should never have been in the approved materials in that form and you aren’t writing GCSE exams and supporting materials.

To put this into a different context (perhaps more familiar to you) it’s like the syllabus and supporting materials are some sort of constant beta but without any feedback loop or continual improvement or UAT.

… so, conspiracy theories, then?

This isn’t what I would class as a conspiracy… at least it’s a very long stretch it is what makes people vulnerable to conspiracies.

We could say a byproduct of this is our electorate get used and inured to lies and misinformation (oops we just forgot to include those deaths in care homes – There are no media here – I drive my whole family to Barnard castle to test my eyesight) but I personally think that’s a byproduct.

Another “conspiracy” is rich Tory’s giving contracts to rich, tory donors… but I struggle to see that as some conspiracy, more a fact of life?
When the PPE is useless or the exams and supporting material is full of errors and inaccuracies but noone cares or puts in a feedback loop then perhaps that’s bordering on “conspiracy”?
I mean what are the KPI’s that these exam companies that provide or commission this supporting material have to meet?
I’d make an educated guess they are being paid by the word/page/question not by how correct or not the questions are.

I know the maths teacher knows her maths… I don’t know about the science teacher but the real question here is how they got given those questions to use and how can those questions have made it through any sort of testing?
Suppose they have somehow got through initial testing and are now going through some beta UAT then where is the feedback…

So said science teacher realises the question is incorrect (after its been given in a test). What is the feedback mechanism so that this question gets corrected? (I know YOU don’t know that answer but again observations seem to indicate there is no feedback mechanism).

To illustrate: One of my little pleasures is reading self-published authors and the reader is doing beta testing.. use a kindle or similar and there is a feedback mechanism and many/most of the authors then make corrections.

If you want to find a conspiracy then lets have a go… lets look at one of these government paid exam/publishing companies and their director.

So here we have Richard Michael Wooff KEARTON
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/XL2HOH52lmW-Be_ClQfZyYCs4Io/appointments

Director of EDEXCEL…. and a load of Pearson companies…
and from the cabinet office a Richard KEARTON appointed to Member to the Independent Monitoring Board of the Military Corrective Training Centre
https://publicappointments.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/announcements/

..and a Richard Kearton on the board of East Suffolk and North Essex NHS trust pushing a publishers agenda…??

11. Richard Kearton questioned whether, given the successful partnership with Macmillan
at Ipswich, this had been revisited. The Chief Executive stated that he had been
involved in the discussions and there was now no need for Macmillan involvement in
the development.

https://www.esneft.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/2.3-Minutes-of-the-Trust-Board-meeting-Public-2-August-2018-Draft-v2.pdf

Want to make any bets if he or any of these companies he’s director of have made any Tory party donations for the lucrative contract EDEXCEL get?

but then is that a conspiracy??? Govt contract given to mates, given public money and produce crap?

I bet you believe your government cares about your wellbeing too, don’t you.

I bet you think this song is about you

What purpose is the teacher actually fulfilling if it’s what they read in the textbook at 11pm the night before.??

Teaching?

If they were subject matter experts they’d be in academia/industry.

No offence intended to teachers.

I did a joint accredited chemistry and engineering degree, so could (with a PGCE) legitimately teach Physics or Chemistry at A-Level, I’ve no idea what a Bose–Einstein condensate is, and probably even less of a clue if they’d asked a Biology question.

TINAS – 36 and still regularly flummoxed by the isenthalpic expansion of dense phase fluids.

veganrider

I bet you believe your government cares about your wellbeing too, don’t you.

U OK hun?

ETA to be honest, right now I think the idea that the government cares about our wellbeing is so contrary to the mainstream only a CT would believe it.

Plenty believe it over Convid.

Gonna need a bigger boat.

We could say a byproduct of this is our electorate get used and inured to lies and misinformation

No, absolutely not. To most people* there is a world of difference between simplifying something in order to teach certain concepts (and leaving out others), and mendacious falsehood.

If I say the sky is blue, am I lying? I mean, it’s not always, is it? Sometimes it’s red and pink. But those are edge cases that aren’t important – we appreciate that it is generally true. Humans deal in generalisations because we need to most of the time, we only get into specifics when we really need to. That’s why we can use Newton’s laws most of the time, unless we really need to include quantum or relativistic effects. There are always relativistic effects but they are so small as to not be significant for most purposes.

* You need to be aware that you aren’t typical, Steve, and I don’t mean that in a negative way. One of the good things about the modern world is that we are beginning to understand what it means not to be neurotypical, how common it is, how to deal with it, and that it’s not a pathology.

It’s a 3rd year SCIENCE teacher… I’d say it’s not only reasonable but absolutely required?

Meanwhile, in the real world, this is ridiculous. Do you suppose that many people want to become experts in their field and then spend all day sitting in front of bored schoolchildren who don’t know what a solid is in order to scrape something barely above minimum wage? Get many teachers with “doctor” or “professor” in front of their name in an inner city comprehensive, do we?

You aren’t a 3rd yr science teacher though…

I probably know enough science to teach it to a lower high school class, certainly if I’d had prep time the night before. I expect you do too.

I say this with no disrespect to teachers – as I said, I’ve dated a couple, I know what a thankless slog of a job it is – but the core skill of a teacher is teaching. Your “lousy teacher but good mathematician” there sounds terrible, I’ve had plenty of those as a student and I learned jack from them. My A’ Level Physics fell three grades in a year for just that reason.

So said science teacher realises the question is incorrect (after its been given in a test). What is the feedback mechanism so that this question gets corrected? (I know YOU don’t know that answer but again observations seem to indicate there is no feedback mechanism).

That’s an improvement on “lies” I suppose.

What you either aren’t getting or are unwilling to accept is that examples like your states of matter aren’t really incorrect. Same with non-compressible fluids or materials getting smaller when they solidify. It’s simplified, it has to be because they’re teaching basic concepts to kids who know nothing and care less. There are always going to be gotchas and exceptions, you start talking about hypothetical frictionless surfaces at sea level in a vacuum assuming the Earth is a perfect sphere on day one and absolutely no-one will follow what you’re talking about.

Is there a feedback mechanism? I don’t know, you’re absolutely correct there. I would assume that there is some form of iteration, we’ve had kids sitting GCSEs since 1988 so there’s been plenty of time to work it out. 🤷‍♂️

If you want to find a conspiracy then lets have a go…

I don’t, particularly. I was just looking at the thread title.

If I say the sky is blue, am I lying? I mean, it’s not always, is it? Sometimes it’s red and pink. But those are edge cases that aren’t important – we appreciate that it is generally true.

It’s not blue, it merely appears to be blue due to Rayleigh scattering. You can work out the scatter quite easily:

Why is little Timmy crying?

Molgrips (please assume I hearted your POST 😉

No, absolutely not. To most people* there is a world of difference between simplifying something in order to teach certain concepts (and leaving out others), and mendacious falsehood.

There is a huge grey area but then where does “missing out deaths in care homes” sit in that?
Is “there are no press here” mendacious ? Or was that just “look I’m making a joke and its funny – obviously noone is meant to believe that”?

If I say the sky is blue, am I lying? I mean, it’s not always, is it? Sometimes it’s red and pink. But those are edge cases that aren’t important – we appreciate that it is generally true.

This depends totally where you say this… as an observation to a painting or a piece of literature ? as a design spec to a matching bike component? As someone paid to write questions and supporting material for science curricula ?

“Molgrips looked over the mess of the battlefield, the stark blue of the sky seemed out of place with the bloody carnage he was observing below it”…….

Referring to specific pigments, why is the night sky 3 shades blue in Van Gogh’s Starry night? in a history of art …. or for that matter GCSE chemistry…

vs GCSE science “What colour is the sky?” (and a one word space)

At best the “What colour is the sky?” is a trick essay question but it is otherwise a valueless question for GCSE science and would be better as “Why does a clear sky in daytime appear blue?” (which could then be multiple choice or essay)

simplifying something in order to teach certain concepts (and leaving out others)

The two don’t need to be mutually exclusive… that is “leaving out others” can be done in different ways to pretending it doesn’t exist.

Many of these different ways have been put forwards on here as “when I teach this I explain… ” and equally can be found in some of the approved materials.
https://studyrocket.co.uk/revision/gcse-physics-edexcel/triple-particle-model/states-of-matter
(just a google search)

States of Matter
Kinetic Theory Model
The three states of matter are solid, liquid and gas, these can be explained by …..

This can very easily be rewitten as “The Kinetic Theory model has 3 states of matter” OR 1/2 dozen alternates from the top of my head.

One of these reinforces this is a simplified model… one either glosses over it

Even better “The simplified Kinetic Theory model has 3 states of matter”

You haven’t specifically stated this in the reply so I am now talking about a generalisation ….
What exactly is the harm in these questions being factually correct?
Where is the downside to making sure the questions / material is actually accurate and consistent?

Humans deal in generalisations because we need to most of the time, we only get into specifics when we really need to. That’s why we can use Newton’s laws most of the time, unless we really need to include quantum or relativistic effects. There are always relativistic effects but they are so small as to not be significant for most purposes.

It’s the same deal for “teaching it” though (by which I’m referring to the exam board approved material) … just ensure the boundary conditions are consistently repeated in the approved material and exams.

* You need to be aware that you aren’t typical, Steve, and I don’t mean that in a negative way. One of the good things about the modern world is that we are beginning to understand what it means not to be neurotypical, how common it is, how to deal with it, and that it’s not a pathology.

So lets play Devils advocate….
On one hand there is an argument that denying/simplifying other states of matter outside of the EdExcel (and whoever else) kinetic model is to make it easier for EVERYONE to understand … on the other hand “we are beginning to understand what it means not to be neurotypical, how common it is, how to deal with it”.

You see the issue here?

This can very easily be rewitten as “The Kinetic Theory model has 3 states of matter” OR 1/2 dozen alternates from the top of my head.

But it’s all meaningless bollocks if your audience does not yet understand what “kinetic”, “[scientific] theory”, “model”, “state” or “matter” means. Christ, most adults don’t properly understand half of those terms, never mind young teens. You need to accept that your kid tackling his science teacher over plasma cutters is an outlier.

Teaching bright kids, average kids and craft kids requires different approaches. Can you really not comprehend how an opening gambit of “today kids, we’re going to learn how the simplified Kinetic Theory model describes 3 states of matter” is going to lose the entire room when what you’re actually trying to teach is “solid lumpy, liquid runny”? You’re proposing changing an entire teaching approach to benefit one high-performing kid at the expense of 30 others.

Sorry, I’m assuming the Kearton stuff is a very dry piss take of conspiracy theories, as

..and a Richard Kearton on the board of East Suffolk and North Essex NHS trust pushing a publishers agenda…??

is obviously talking about Macmillan cancer nurses in those minutes? (well played if it is)

… I suspect what you’re actually doing is getting the arse because you think your lad was treated unfairly. And on that I wholeheartedly agree with you if events played out as you say. But it is a mistake to then project that back onto teaching as a whole.

I’m arguing with antivaxers on twitter ATM

Who are smugly justified about the ‘revelations’ about Pfizer jab

Gbnews , Toby young, Twitter, Facebook etc etc are amplifying absolute nonsense based on a gross misunderstanding of how vaccines & trials work

Honestly I despair

I bet you think this song is about you

Oh @doris5000, you’re so vain 😉

That was worthy of recognition 🙂

I’m arguing with antivaxers on twitter ATM

There has to be a better way to spend your Friday morning.

colonelwax

Sorry, I’m assuming the Kearton stuff is a very dry piss take of conspiracy theories, as

It’s 10 mins of google for people with the same name as the Director of the examining board my kid has so it’s a bit of a piss-take unless anyone wants to look deeper.

The real point is I wouldn’t consider some hypothetical Tory donor or someone who support them in a wider way getting lucrative contracts (or an appointment to the House of Lords) that are so poorly constructed that they can do a crap job as a “conspiracy”.

I’m arguing with antivaxers on twitter ATM

Who are smugly justified about the ‘revelations’ about Pfizer jab

If it helps,

A viral tweet is claiming to give bombshell news (🚨) that Pfizer is "admitting" they never tested whether the vaccine prevented transmission and therefore the concept of "get vaccinated for others" was a lie – this is wrong on basically every count. So, some facts.

— Rachel Schraer (@rachelschraer) October 12, 2022

Cougar

But it’s all meaningless bollocks if your audience does not yet understand what “kinetic”, “[scientific] theory”, “model”, “state” or “matter” means.

The issue here is does “not yet understand” because this is GSCE science…. what they get taught here is going to be all they ever get taught on the above unless they are one of a small percentage that then go onto studying in science at a higher level.

Christ, most adults don’t properly understand half of those terms, never mind young teens.

^^^ See the above ^^^^

Conspiracy websites/pages/groups especially creationist ones are FULL of adults who left school without knowing what a scientific theory is…which is/was my whole point on page 1… 😉

You need to accept that your kid tackling his science teacher over plasma cutters is an outlier.

It’s 2022 mate … t’interweb on one hand and on the other plasma, lasers .. mobile phones are now all ubiquitous parts of everyday life (whether we know it or not).

from your other post

It’s simplified, it has to be because they’re teaching basic concepts to kids who know nothing and care less.

Even in the “worst inner city blah blah school” some kid is going to be able to say “Hey Siri – what are the states of matter” or google and someone in that class is going to actually care.

Teaching bright kids, average kids and craft kids requires different approaches. Can you really not comprehend how an opening gambit of “today kids, we’re going to learn how the simplified Kinetic Theory model describes 3 states of matter” is going to lose the entire room when what you’re actually trying to teach is “solid lumpy, liquid runny”? You’re proposing changing an entire teaching approach to benefit one high-performing kid at the expense of 30 others.

That’s an improvement on “lies” I suppose.

According to some of the teachers they do explain there are other states that it’s a simplification.
Lets instead address the endorsed supporting material … lets assume some of the science teachers actually do explain it’s a simplification lets not write off every kid who’s unfortunate enough to be in one of those classrooms you described AND that some of the “endorsed supporting material” uses more accurate wording including these “scientific theory” mysteries

then why can’t it be consistently presented across these exam board endorsed resources (other than the exam boards don’t want to pay anyone who can do this)

Is there a feedback mechanism? I don’t know, you’re absolutely correct there. I would assume that there is some form of iteration, we’ve had kids sitting GCSEs since 1988 so there’s been plenty of time to work it out. 🤷‍♂️

Well if this was something else then yeah… and 1998 and before the privatisation of the examining boards and approved course material from the “educational companies” I’d fully expect there was. This was back in the days of pre-digital… you’d think with it all being digital it would be so much easier to “report a question/statement” and it could be corrected???

Based on the stuff floating about now it really doesn’t appear like there is.

I don’t, particularly. I was just looking at the thread title.

So precis (it’s not a conspiracy) is the directory of the exam board my son lists his profession as “accountant”.
He’s also directory and named person of interest on a bunch of other companies (Pearson publishing, education, pension)

There is a quote somewhere from Bill Gates saying something like “It doesn’t matter where your IT reports as long as its not finance” and I’d take the same approach here… The person who is directory of a company with a government contract to supply educational material and exams shouldn’t be an accountant.

“solid lumpy, liquid runny”

.. obviously useful if they get into medicine 😉

I’ve just read an interview with Randy Blythe, frontman of Lamb Of God, who’s in the process of writing a non-fiction book, and I thought this bit was appropriate;

He continued: “Things have just gotten screwier and screwier and screwier. And I’m thinking, like, ‘What is the cause of this? Why are people acting the way they do?’ And I think that there’s a cult of toxic, narcissistic individualism that has made people think, for some insane reason, that their uneducated opinions are just as valid as those of world-renowned experts. On a bunch of different topics, everything from medicine to foreign policy to economics. I mean, I am in full possession of the fact that I am a man of average intelligence. But I’m smart enough and emotionally stable enough to realize that if I don’t know something, I need to refer to someone smarter than myself. But I think in today’s societal climate, people just don’t want to accept that. And they don’t want to accept uncertainty in their lives, so they go looking for answers and wind up finding some kook conspiracy theorist who provides them with a really strange, in my mind, explanation for things for which there are no concrete answers. It’s like a security blanket for the witless. I think people don’t like feeling insecure, unsure, et cetera, so they’re looking for someone to give them an answer that reassures them that none of their problems are their own fault, that someone else is to blame.”

This bit in particular I’m going to make a note of for the future: “It’s like a security blanket for the witless.”

😎

It’s 10 mins of google for people with the same name as the Director of the examining board my kid has so it’s a bit of a piss-take unless anyone wants to look deeper.

No worries, just checking if you’d deliberately mixed up cancer nurses and publishers, and were, umm, lying.

The issue here is does “not yet understand” because this is GSCE science…. what they get taught here is going to be all they ever get taught on the above unless they are one of a small percentage that then go onto studying in science at a higher level.

Well… so what?

Seriously. Outside of “science at a higher level,” about the only application for your average adult to know about plasma being a fourth state of matter is in the Thursday night pub quiz.

It’s 2022 mate …

Good point. Might as well close all the schools, stick ’em in front of YouTube and tell them to work it out.

why can’t it be consistently presented across these exam board endorsed resources

Because People? Some folk are good at their jobs, others not so much.

I’ve just read an interview with Randy Blythe, frontman of Lamb Of God, who’s in the process of writing a non-fiction book,

Given that they are the only gig I’ve walked out of (they were supporting Heaven and Hell) I’m more impressed by that writing than the band

creationist ones are FULL of adults who left school without knowing what a scientific theory is

You do understand that they think that the scientific model is itself a conspiracy theory, right? Lots of folk who fall into FE or creationism do so because they reject the mainstream science that they were taught in school. Teaching it “harder” isn’t going to make less people fall prey to conspiracy theories.

creationist ones are FULL of adults who left school without knowing what a scientific theory is

You do understand that they think that the scientific model is itself a conspiracy theory, right? Lots of folk who fall into FE or creationism do so because they reject the mainstream science that they were taught in school. Teaching it “harder” isn’t going to make less people fall prey to conspiracy theories.

Cougar

Well… so what?

Seriously. Outside of “science at a higher level,” about the only application for your average adult to know about plasma being a fourth state of matter is in the Thursday night pub quiz.

or a welder .. but you’re missing the point there with regards to conspiracy theory fodder and not knowing what a scientific theory is…

NickC

You do understand that they think that the scientific model is itself a conspiracy theory, right? Lots of folk who fall into FE or creationism do so because they reject the mainstream science that they were taught in school. Teaching it “harder” isn’t going to make less people fall prey to conspiracy theories.

I mostly agree that is what I was posting on PAGE 1 – but I think you/I/we need to determine what “mainstream science” is perhaps???

But even before that I’d chicken and egg the “because they reject the mainstream science that they were taught in school” a bit as you could equally say FE and creationism are the rejection (both of those definitively reject the scientific method) vs Lemaitre

hence my earlier statement about the Islamic Golden Age etc. – you can’t believe in a book/version that is literal and immutable in all aspects and do useful science because you have to reject your observations which is where the creationists are.

But let’s take the Creationist example …. and what many Americans get taught as “mainstream in the mid west science” – where many states mandate teaching “evolution is just a theory and equal to creationism”. (in various forms) and see how that worked out without having a grounding in “what is a scientific theory” and “what is a scientific model”.

Teaching it “harder” isn’t going to make less people fall prey to conspiracy theories.

There is nothing intrinsically difficult about teaching kids what a scientific model, hypothesis or theory is… or using working such as “What are the 3 states of matter in the particle model?” over “What are the 3 states of matter”.

If you search you find that some of the endorsed material actually does state this…. it’s just that some doesn’t.

To go back to Cougar’s question….

Well… so what?

Well, I’d argue that if you leave school understanding what a scientific theory is and what a simplified model is that in relation the the thread title you are less likely to in the first instance fall victim to a flat earth or creationist conspiracy theory and why no monkeys are giving birth to humans today and in the wider world are in a far better position to understand for example the purpose of Covid vaccinations.

There is nothing intrinsically difficult about teaching kids what a scientific model, hypothesis or theory is

Hahahaha!

hence my earlier statement about the Islamic Golden Age etc.

Comparing the men on who’s knowledge a good deal of modern mathematics and astronomy rests, and creationists is a terrible argument, and I think you know it. For some folks; what Gabriel spoke to Mohammed about and the science of the world around them are two things that they could easily hold in their heads simultaneously, that you cannot, neither invalidates their faith, nor their mathematics.

hence my earlier statement about the Islamic Golden Age etc. – you can’t believe in a book/version that is literal and immutable in all aspects and do useful science because you have to reject your observations which is where the creationists are.

Funny, there are more than a few scientists who manage it, without compromising their faith, and comparing modern creationism with Islamic scientists and mathematicians would have said scientists and mathematicians doing mass head-shaking and face-palming. They discovered things that Western science would ignore until they ‘re-discovered’ them a thousand years later.

Comparing the men on who’s knowledge a good deal of modern mathematics and astronomy rests, and creationists is a terrible argument, and I think you know it.

Well that’s the argument, whether you think it’s terrible or not.

For some folks; what Gabriel spoke to Mohammed about and the science of the world around them are two things that they could easily hold in their heads simultaneously, that you cannot, neither invalidates their faith, nor their mathematics.

I spent a decent part of my career working with muslim scientists… and very few of them profess to take any literal meaning to every word of the Koran. I worked in Libya for nearly 6yrs where at the time it was totally acceptable and normal for a geologist to believe in evolution

There is no evidence that ALL the great polymaths of the Golden Age actually believed in any god at all… or that if they believed in supernatural entities in any form that they then believe that every word by this fantastical messenger being is completely literal and plenty of evidence that given the general co-existence and tolerance in Bagdad at the time extending not only to various sects but to other Abrahamic religions that they were pretty relaxed on that score. Indeed the Golden age many of the contributors were not Muslim themselves but Jews or Christians that thrived in the open and tolerant society of the Caliphates and would have been persecuted in Christian society at the time for their thinking and beliefs.

Quite obviously they didn’t have access to DNA and the modern trappings for evolution but there is really no reason to think their views on creation were less diverse than today’s muslim scholars… or that in fact the 10C muslim scholars had not already laid the foundations that would take Darwin almost a millennia to get to.

A good perspective of this is Dajani, R. Why I teach evolution to Muslim students. Nature 520, 409 (2015).
https://www.nature.com/articles/520409a

The whole paper is worth reading as she is a very eloquent (Muslim) educator but specifically on this the following stands out. I had to search for the specific paper but this is nothing new that my muslim scioentist friends and colleagues haven’t said before.

Muslim scholars such as Hussein al-Jisr and Ahmad Medhat in the 1880s supported evolution. Before Darwin, al-Jahiz and others proposed rudimentary evolutionary theories in the ninth century. I point out that the apparent controversy over evolution and Islam arose only in the twentieth century, when Darwin’s ideas became associated with colonialism, imperialism, the West, atheism, materialism and racism. Muslim religious scholars gradually took a stand against evolution, which the public adopted. The scholars used Christian creationist arguments to support their stance, transferring the Western war between science and religion to Islam.

or a welder .. but you’re missing the point there with regards to conspiracy theory fodder and not knowing what a scientific theory is…

I highly doubt that a welder needs to know about plasma any more than a taxi driver needs to understand fuel injection or a carpenter needs to know the chemical composition of chrome vanadium.

Well, I’d argue that…

What you’re arguing is that we should be teaching is things like scientific analysis and critical thinking. And I’m right with you there.

I highly doubt that a welder needs to know about plasma

I’m pretty sure its part of WI certifications, it certainly used to be.

What you’re arguing is that we should be teaching is things like scientific analysis and critical thinking. And I’m right with you there.

You’re only a couple of years younger than me I think … but this is exactly what we were taught in science pre-GCSE (GCE) and I don’t think (my brother did GCSE) it magically changed overnight… but in the WIDER context I agree wholeheartedly.

However what I’m saying is yes we do need to change the way we teach science … and I’ll add the point again of teaching what a scientific theory is (and isn’t).. what a scientific model and a simplified model is (and isn’t).

I’m going to make an assumption that you have a safe way to access the links without your inbox/YT/social media being flooded (you have been warned)
You don’t even need to click on the Quora stuff.. I’m just trying to illustrate how prominent “Evolution is just a theory” is to the creationists.

https://www.google.com/search?q=quora+if+evolution+is+just+a+theory+site:www.quora.com&sxsrf=ALiCzsZaZwfxnSGB4tMlRv2U00i2n1zYsQ:1665829553161&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi92pbWguL6AhX1QkEAHcPrArMQrQIoBHoECB4QBQ&biw=1614&bih=804&dpr=1.1

What needs to change? (Wikipedia entry)

Edexcel (also known since 2013 as Pearson Edexcel[2]) is a British multinational education and examination body formed in 1996 and wholly owned by Pearson plc since 2005. It is the only privately owned examination board in the United Kingdom.[3] Its name is a portmanteau term combining the words education and excellence.

Edexcel regulates school examinations under the British Curriculum and offers qualifications for schools on the international and regional scale. It is the UK’s largest awarding organisation offering academic and vocational qualifications in schools, colleges and work places in the UK and abroad. It is also recognised internationally.[4] In 2019, Edexcel was the focus of significant controversy following a leak of an A-level examination.

Edexcel was formed in 1996 by the merger of two bodies, the BTEC (Business & Technology Education Council) and ULEAC (University of London Examinations and Assessment Council).[1] In 2003, the Edexcel Foundation (the charity that managed the board) formed a partnership with Pearson plc to set up a new company called London Qualifications Ltd, which was 75% owned by Pearson and 25% by the Edexcel Foundation.[1] London Qualifications Limited changed its name to Edexcel Limited in November 2004 and is now known colloquially as Edexcel and formally as Edexcel Pearson – London Examinations.

In 2005, Edexcel became the only large examination board to be held in private hands, when Pearson plc took complete control.[1] Edexcel subsequently received investment from their new parent company.

On the first level this then did away with the following public/non-profits

On 3 April 2013, Pearson rebranded Edexcel and all of its exams ‘Pearson Edexcel’, in line with a name change that added the prefix ‘Pearson’ to all of its brands.[2]

Incorporated Examination Boards
Business Education Council (BEC)
Business and Technology Education Council (BTEC)
East Anglian Examinations Board (EAEB) – partial
Joint Committee for Business Studies and Public Administration (JCBSPA)
London East Anglia Group (LEAG)
London Regional Examining Board (LREB) – created in 1979
Metropolitan and Middlesex Regional Examining Boards (M&MREB) – created in 1979
Metropolitan Regional Examination Board (MREB)
Middlesex Regional Examination Board (MREB)
Technician Education Council (TEC)
University Entrance and Schools Examinations Council (UESEC)
University of London Examinations and Assessment Council (ULEAC)
University of London Schools Examination Board (ULSEB)

Safe Guardian link

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2012/jul/16/pearson-multinational-influence-education-poliy

There is nothing intrinsically difficult about teaching kids what a scientific model, hypothesis or theory is

There was a Jehovah’s Witness girl in my class at school who had somehow managed to get some kind of exemption from biology lessons when evolution was on the agenda and from all of Religious Studies lessons. Closed mind right from the start due to parental indoctrination.

I’m aware of less blatant cases too – a guy in the same class was from a devout Christian family and while he was a nice enough person and he did go to all the lessons and do his homework, he absolutely refused to believe any aspect of evolution.

I’m pretty sure its part of WI certifications, it certainly used to be.

I have no idea and, honestly, I don’t particularly care so I’ll defer to any superior knowledge you may have here. It didn’t seem overly relevant knowledge to this layman, was all.

You’re only a couple of years younger than me I think … but this is exactly what we were taught in science pre-GCSE (GCE) and I don’t think (my brother did GCSE) it magically changed overnight…

Our year was the first to sit GCSEs instead of GCE/CSEs. How much the actual curriculum changed between the two or how much it has changed since, I do not know. If I were to guess I’d expect “not much” and “a lot” respectively. In any case it’s probably a mistake to judge today’s schooling by experiences in the 1980s.

I’m just trying to illustrate how prominent “Evolution is just a theory” is to the creationists.

I think at this point now we’re vociferously agreeing with each other.

@crazy-legs – confirmation bias? How many people were moderate Christians and did believe in evolution? You’d never know, would you?

To be fair, he’s talking about two people. I’ve known plenty of religious people and I’d put creationists in the same sack as flat Earthers, they’re extremist idiots rather than representative of Xtians as a whole. Most major strains of religion are compatible with the theory of evolution unless they really just want to be extra special.

Like, refusing medical treatment because it’s not ‘god’s will,’ did your god not create doctors?🤷‍♂️ You might not believe in evolution but you may get to see natural selection in action.