Webcast quango: One-third of UK teachers are creationists

@Dave Oakes

Yes, because shouting, "I'm right and you are a moron" is clearly the correct scientific response to be teaching kids.

Creationism is not on equal footing with evolution

There's no point in debating creationists. it's gives equal footing to a one sided argument.

It's better to bring these challenges up in court. The creationists are then forced to address specific questions directly without being able to bring in their fire and brimstone wishy wash.

In court creationism doesn't stand up anywhere. In a debate you can have fast talking con men who can spew out whatever garbage they can come up with and the debator is forced to rebut in too short of a time period.

There's no debate as to whether or not evolution is a fact. the debate is in the details and mechanisms. if you don't believe in evolution because it's a theory, then you must not believe in other scientific theories like gravity or electricity or magetism or germs or ......

Creationists are dumb.

@ AC 13:41 GMT

AC: "Evolution is not fact, is that far more important thing, a scientific theory. Science should be about scientific theory"

Some theories and hypotheses eventually are agreed to be facts. Evolution is such a theory.

The evidence supporting evolution is so voluminous, and there is such a paucity (i.e. none at all!) of competing theories that explain the evidence, that no thinking person can any longer disagree with the concept. In particular, scientists now agree that Darwin's theory is true, not merely speculation.

You might argue that no one has seen evolution in action, but every so often these days new species are seen to arise. Example: sudden oak death is a new species of /Phytophthera/ evidently formed by natural hybridisation of a North American species with an Asiatic species imported by accident into California. There are other examples as well.

I'm hot on this topic because the creationists will chirp "but evolution is just a theory" as though "theory" means "stab-in-the-dark guess made by some Joe-the-Plumber." Not at all; the Sarah Palins of the world are not the intellectual equals of Charles Darwin and their ill-informed opinions do not merit comparison to Darwin's immortal insight.

Darwin was a wise enough man to see the holes in his theory, and his theory of evolutionary mechanisms (gradual, progressive change) is merely one competing theory. Perhaps the most prominent other theory of evolutionary mechanism is the "punctuated equilibrium". But that theory in no way goes against the fundamental understanding that species can, and do, and have, changed into other species via natural mechanisms.

As for the concept of "scientific theory", there's the Popperian definition that a scientific theory is one subject (in principle) to disproof. So far no one has discovered a fossil that could not be slotted into a grand family tree of all life. Creationism, on the other hand, by its dependence on the arbitrary involvement of a Flying Spaghetti Monster or other such supernatural entity with creative urges, is simply undisprovable. It does not lead to the exclusion of a wide range of possible phenomena, unlike a strong scientific theory. Creationism, via its fundamental arbitrariness is simply not scientific.

All humans are athiests....

Some of us just go one god further ;-)

(With apologies to Richard Dawkins for the blatant plagarism)

Finally, if there is a God then there _must_ be a reason for living

What if the reson is "God was bored so made up idiots to laugh his arse off at"?

Why must there be a reason and why must we be part of it just because there's a "god"?

You are saying nothing that has any basis in anything other than your personal faith. And so calling it any form of truth is bollocks.

Now, what if there's a reason and WE OURSELVES MAKE IT? Hmm? Is that not any different from a sky fairy making one up for us?

How about poor old god. Up there in the sky with no reason for existence. Unlike you lucky humans. Maybe that's why he's so pissed off at us, smug bastards that we are.

My approach which is far more human than yours is that just because there's no God doesn't mean we're an irrelevant accident. We can make our own reason for existence. After all, in your "mind" God doesn't need one, but you don't call HIM an irrelevant accident.

You have no faith in yourself.

If you had that, you would not be so malleable to evil works.

PS: you're going there, because the likelihood you have the wrong god is a whole lot bigger than there being no god.

On the flip-side...

... should we therefore discuss evolution in R.E lessons also? No, of course not.

Science is not about people's opinions, politically correctness or superstition; it is about cold hard facts based on evidence, however discomforting they may be to some people.

It's so important to the future of our society that our children grow up with a firm understanding of basic science. Giving credence to superstitious nonsense will only hinder that.

It may sound harsh, but hard science is the only way we are going to eradicate diseases, solve energy problems, improve living conditions, provide transport, improve world-wide communications and stop climate change.

God=Infinity, Infinity=God

God exists in since and even has its own symbol, 8 rolled on its side and squished a bit.

As has been pointed out already God is an allegory, something to explain that which cannot readily be explained.

Human knowledge is finite but potential knowledge is infinite so the human race will never know everything and will always require a contruct to explain that beyond our sphere of knowledge. Scientists use infinity to describe this, religion uses God.

@AC - Well

Apologies but this runs on a bit but I like to know why - "Because God must have done it" just doesn't cut it for me. Sorry.

"There are those here who are demanding the right to their own opinions and beliefs. And if you do not agree with their beliefs for any reason then you are obviously a moron. Rational thinking here. :)"

Science is not an "opinion" or a "belief" though many scientists often miss the point at which their personal opinions/beliefs impinge on their otherwise good works, eg Richard Dawkins.

If you prefer simple answers then "It wuz God wot dunnit" may be adequate. Personnally, I see this as the simpleton (child-like) answer much like it is Santa Claus who brings the presents at the winter solstice and the Tooth Fairy takes away old teeth. I never believed this rubbish as a child and am not about to start any time soon.

"There are those in here who are demanding the segregation of taught subjects as if science / english / maths / philosiphy were totally seperate."

Straw man alert! Language and maths (just another language) are general tools which need to be taught first (the 3 Rs). No-one is claiming that science should, or even could, be segregated from these subjects. But religion and science share no commonality, one encourages the questioning of inherited ideas and the other admonishes them (not respectively).

"Evolution has a number of _glaring_ holes in it... One example is the Peacock."

Bollocks! The primary imperitive of all species is reproduction and so I will start by describing the 'observed' reproductive strategy of the the peahen.

When searching for a mate, the peahen will search out the peacock with the largest number of 'eyes' (the large blue/black dots found at the tip of the tail feathers) and will shag the lucky bugger. She will shun any further andvances UNLESS the new beefcake has a higher 'eye' count.

Now, if you had studied a course on sexual strategy then you would often hear the lecturer ask you very same question "Why would a peahen search out a mate that is so obviously badly suited to ongoing survival needs?" and the simple answer is that you are starting from the wrong logical postion. Think how the peacock got to become the peahen's choice.

1. A peacock has to survive to be an available suitor.

2. To survive he must avoid predators.

3. A large tail is a hinderance so a peacock with an enourmous tail has to work harder to survive than a less well endowed rival.

In the peahen's mind this translates into "the well endowed guy has worked harder so is physically better so can provide better genes to my chicks". Or put more simply

more 'eyes' = better genes.

Your interpretation is flawed because you have allowed you thought process to become clouded by a preconception. It is this kind of closed-minded creationist thinking that leads to scientists describing them as morons.

"Finally, if there is a God then there _must_ be a reason for living. If there is no God then there _cannot_ be a reason for living. I would rather not be just an irrelevant accident."

Two issues with this.

Firstly, the existence of God does not provide a reason for living. Our minds can create any reason for remaining alive, eg production of baby often reduces an individuals natural tendancy towards risky behaviour "for the sake of the baby".

Secondly, the fact you would rather not be an "irrelevant accident" is purely an expression of your ego. You are under the impression that you have to be special, an idea that is fed to you thoughout your life because it actually makes you more controllable (both as a consumer and a citizen). People are much more content if they feel that they are somehow special. But...

There are close to 7 billion people just like you so really, in a global context, you are irrelevant - sorry. There is a term called 'sphere of influence' and outside of your's you become irrelevant to the rest of the planet - again, sorry.

Finally, as a scientist I have to point out that evolution is NOT A FACT, it is a theory. It may be a very good theory that has stood up to intense scrutiny but it is still only a theory. Any 'scientist' who believes evolution is a fact is no better than a creationist.

Science is hard

Science is not about people's opinions, politically correctness or superstition; it is about cold hard facts based on evidence, however discomforting they may be to some people.

It's so important to the future of our society that our children grow up with a firm understanding of basic science. Giving credence to superstitious nonsense will only hinder that.

It may sound harsh, but hard science is the only way we are going to eradicate diseases, solve energy problems, improve living conditions, provide transport, improve world-wide communications and stop climate change.

The topics one should never discuss at dinner ... remember?

Let's see..... as my mother said, that would have been sex, politics and religion.... I sympathize with quite a few of the posters, not because they are creationists or evolutionists...but because they are simply jumping in and trying to discuss the issue. You can beat up on anyone for their point of view, because it is the world's oldest sport. But, if you take the posters who speak their minds intelligently and politely (without the arguments ad-hominum) you will get a debate, but take the rest and you will get diatribes.

So what to do ? I am a big fan of science and learning, believe it or not so is the clergy of the Catholic Church (and many other religious types). Popes, monks and priests wrote, did experiments, postulated mathematical proofs, etc. They did not do their work in some kind of intellectual hinterland, vacuum or darkness. Many were learned men, and I won't argue against the fact that they were mostly men because of prejudice, etc. however many such people also helped lay the foundations of our current civilization and our current scientific understanding. To be fair, entering the priesthood was one way to get an education too. Organized religion didn't always stop such people from thinking, even though many of its representatives attacked the thinkers (burning at the stake was popular, at times) and were thus the equivalent of our modern-day political-correctness retards.

Unfortunately, bigots and sh*th*ds can still be found aplenty in the 21st century and they aren't all creationists. Why should religious education be removed from the curriculum? Why should self-proclaimed atheists and other self-proclaimed religionists (surely if you are the only one who knows the truth, you must be a religionist) insist that they must always be right and someone with another (theological, perhaps) perspective be automatically wrong ? Perhaps, some are just mis-informed ? I do thank a previous poster for raising Occam's razor from the Latin. Although, I don't believe William was burnt as a heretic, and he was probably praised by his peers (admittedly, I didn't check that out first, so please don't stoke up the bonfire) he made a pretty compelling case about thinking for yourself which can still apply today with added value.

The point is: if you can't think for yourself, you will become a pretty piss-poor example of humanity (nevermind your spiritual orientation) and therefore: a) you should be trained to think at an early age and continue to do so until you die (my bias), b) you should always be able to entertain other points of view (even if you think they are absurd, see a) above ) and c) you should always respect other human beings (i.e. love your fellow man) even if that is hard to do sometimes d) if you can't fulfill a), b) and c) then do your best but expect some grief from organized society. If God is omniscient he would surely agree.

To complete the rant, now how many of us can honestly say we apply these principles in our everyday lives ? Didn't most of the great religions (unless hijacked by politicians) preach good things at the start? I'll get my coat now, coz it says (and means) hate the sin, not the sinner on the back.

Answers to anon

"There are those here who are demanding the right to their own opinions and beliefs. And if you do not agree with their beliefs for any reason then you are obviously a moron. Rational thinking here."

I have no problems with you believing in whatever invisible supernatural beings you want; but anyone trying to promote a great leap backwards to the dark ages where belief is more important than facts and pushing it to school kids deserves to be called on it.

"Now PLEASE explain the Big Bang to me rationally. I get a bit confused about the idea that everything suddenly appeared out of nothing, no-when and for no reason. Silly of me of course"

First answer me this; If you believe in a god, where did they come from? Rather silly if you assume it appeared out of nothing. If you believe it always existed (and only got around to creating Earth after teatime), then why not accept the simpler proposition that the universe always was; after all, we have known for nearly 100 years that space & time are linked, so time started with the big bang. Secondly, the big bang has nothing to do with evolution. Thirdly, why do you assume that the big bang appeared from nothing? Have you even bothered to read a Wikipedia article on the big-bang? It's not just another creation myth; there is real evidence such as the expansion of the universe; or did your god just forget to mention that in genesis?

"There are those in here who are demanding the segregation of taught subjects"

Really? At junior levels these are often taught combined by one teacher. Seems to have worked out pretty well over the last few hundred years of education policy to divide timetables into core subject areas so that specialist teachers can give deeper understanding. You expect a P.E teacher to be an expert on the works of Shakespeare, Calculus, Music, Physics, Chemistry and History? Personally, find that would lead to say teachers not understanding a shred of biology trying to comment on evolution & getting it wrong.

"I am quite frankly saddened with the predictable howls of rage and contempt from the commentators on this site whenever this type of subject matter arises. Evolution has a number of _glaring_ holes in it. Holes that Darwin himself admitted"

Its 2008 - Darwin wrote over 100 years ago so you might want to catch up if you think Darwin was the last word in evolution. DNA has been discovered & shown beautifully the links between species; including the linkage between apes and humans that Darwin could only have guessed at. Also huge numbers of fossils & live species that show transitional forms. Everything over the last 150 years has proven evolution & nothing disproved; the only real scientific arguments are subtle such as group selection vs individual.

"One example is the Peacock. Its huge, bright & colourfull tail feather display does nothing to assist its survival"

This is a logical fallacy called "argument from incredulity". Just because you find one example of a species morphology hard to understand, you throw out vast amounts of detailed evidence for evolution? Do you like women with long hair and large breasts? What is the survival advantage of a human women having these features? In fact 2 seconds search on google would answer your question (which was raised over a century ago), but you don't really want that do you? See: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/6/l_016_09.html

"Finally, if there is a God then there _must_ be a reason for living. If there is no God then there _cannot_ be a reason for living. I would rather not be just an irrelevant accident"

Fine, you believe that, but every animal seems to struggle for survival regardless of a believe in god. I want to live & I don't believe your god. Regardless of your particular reason for living (better reason to die surely, if you think you are going to heaven?) , it says nothing about the world around you or the plentiful evidence for evolution; including my children that share my genes. Not wanting to be "an irrelevant accident" is wishful thinking, about as rational as wanting the Earth to be the centre of the universe.

RE:Finally, if there is a God then there _must_ be a reason for living

Andrew Fairhead. I dispute your assertion that god created morality and is the basis for it.

I'll start with the assertion that I'm an aetheist and I'm still a moral person. If you can somehow prove that all non-christians are immoral then I'll eat my hat. In fact, I won't stop there. I'll eat any and every hat you can find.

Does your morality involve dictating to other people how they should act, what they should believe or what their own moralities should be? Freedom of action seems the only way to develop morals. Being told what to do all the time does not allow you to develop your own concepts of cause and effect. If you can't see the effect your actions have caused then you can't develop your own morality and you're nothing more than a mindless zombie, blankly following orders.

Morality exists independently of christianity. Unless you think that prior to 2000 years ago there was no kindness or morality outside of Judea and that the Roman Empire brought morality to the world? If so then I laugh at you.

The bible says I am allowed to keep slaves (as long as they're from a neighbouring nation). What's moral about that? Morality is not the same as religion as any fule kno.

Not that morality is connected in any way to the article about teachers and creationism.

"In any event, true science will never duck true enquiry or be afraid to accept what is found, nor is true science against how The Bible describes things. The Bible is not a scientific text book, but nor is it UN scientific. Anyway, who created science..etc?"

The Bible can describe things any way it wants. It doesn't make them correct. You're right, it isn't a scientific text book. The scientific method implies that when new information comes along that the old theories cannot explain, we develop new theories. Christians are obviously not amenable to modifying the book even where it is obviously in error. Therefore your argument boils down to "this is the way the book says it was and no-one can make us believe otherwise or change our theories". Which, correct me if I am wrong, is exactly the opposite of the scientific method.

If on the other hand you yourself believe in some parts of the bible and not in others (which I suspect is the case) then I can only call you a coward for not promoting an immediate rewrite.

@DutchOven

Actually, since he would have proven an atheist immoral, I'll eat HIM!

Bwahahahahahahahaaa!

@jake

They're afraid in case I've bought a nice case of Chianti.

Fff ff ff ffff.

;-)

There are so many problems with this topic...

...that i will invariable step on one toe too many and be consigned to the electronic dusty-bin. So why bother replying? why bother complaining about the stupidity that is rampant within the narrow minded bigotry of people who wish to see creationism spoon-fed to the innocent under the guise of being scientific? why not just let these arseholes destroy the few weak threads of proper educated thinking that still cling desperately to the school system? religions of all form are the complete absence of science, creationism is an unsubstantiated paranoid delusion based on one version of it. science requires proof. So I post, and await the proof. I may well be proven wrong.

Jake - you won't get an answer mate, there is no way for these insane zealots to form any coherent argument that doesn't involve burning us both at the stake.

Science requires proof and abhors faith, religion relies entirely on faith, and faith requires an absence of proof - "for without faith i am nothing"... QED.

God is great ... yeh, and the earth is flat... religion belongs in that retarded committee concept called RE where for 40 minutes a week each and every child the nation over can get some well earned shut-eye and still get a "B" in the final exam. Religions are like a string of pearls... no single one is perfect but the thread of truth runs through them all. Anyone wishing to discuss this truth might do well to read The Golden Bough, or, if that's a bit heavy going and controversial - go with The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy. There is more Universal Truth and Spiritual Enlightenment in the words of the late Douglas Adams than you will find in all of the pathetic leftovers of carefully selected gnostic texts that made it into the multiple rewrites of doctrine that were finally edited down into the 15th century manipulative debasement that is the modern bible. And anyone who believes that that sort of shite belongs in the science classroom really shouldn't be allowed to have access to anything sharp.