Webcast quango: One-third of UK teachers are creationists

What about Science Teachers specifically

I'm not to worried if a bunch of bible bashers who took timeout from a busy schedule of arts and crafts or sociology (let alone RE!) think religion should be taught in Science class.

The important questions would be:

1/ How many Science teachers do?

2/ How many Head Teachers do?

Philosophy not RE

RE should be scraped from the general curriculum, and philosophy mad a compulsory part.

Unfortunately too many teachers are religious whackos, the profession seems to attract the fringe element.

To be honest, I would scrap all of the current set up of education, just make it 100% exam, and publish the exam criteria, job done. If they want to learn they can, if not so what. Far more economical an approach, teachers can join all us adults in the real world, and actually make a contribution to the economy, rather than leech of it.

@ Hollerith

i don't think it's misrepresenting anyone, it clearly states “....almost 9 out of 10 (87.9%) teachers take the pragmatic view that they should be allowed to discuss creationism or intelligent design in science, if pupils raise the question.”, it's also saying/showing that about 3% of teachers think it should be given the "...same status as evolution in the classroom..." , the title to the story is misleading ut thats mee-ja folk for you (I'm just hoping none of those 3% end up teaching my children).

perhaps they should

teach statistics in English lessons..

We discussed evolution in RE lessons, because this was 30 years ago though, there was a clear faith vs science split as lets face it , the discussion about evolution was done and dusted 100 years ago.

This doesn't mean that ID shouldn't be mentioned it should just be discounted as faith, the same way that miracles are discounted. You can't discuss it in the same way as flogiston or the michelson morley experiments (picking classic examples of theory debunking), because both those issues can and are disproved via experiments. ID/creationism cannot be disproved by experiment, in the same way that god cannot be.

Still , I wonder when the religious americans will finally get round to reading about plate-techtonics. Wonder what great phrase they'll invent to contradict that...

Save religious nonsense for religious education lessons.

If someone wants to discuss religious matters, save them for religious education lessons. Science lessons are for presenting concepts with actual proof to back them up, of which there is none for creationism, other than the usual bullcrap line of, 'God made it that way.'

It's a metaphor...

7 days... it's not seven actual earth days... it's a metaphor for the order by which they came about. As for if ID is viable as a theory... there is not one shred of evidence whereas there is plenty of evidence to support evolution. The idea of creation is a hangover from a time when people had not figured out evolution and needed a story to explain things and the big guy in the sky seemed pretty plausible.

It used to be thought that thunder was god getting angry and the sun was driven across the sky in a chariot but science has explained these in incontravertable ways and at some point in the future it would be nice to see proof of the origin of species.

They key difference between science and belief is that science is not blind and it's pretty fickle. As soon as a better theory comes along the open minds of science will embrace it. Religion is marred by the concept that a book written a few thousand years ago is the truth and is not subject to revision and updating when better information becomes available.

@Jamie

Orbit. The word you are looking for is orbit.

@Warren

Evolution is not fact, is that far more important thing, a scientific theory. Science should be about scientific theory. Science should not be about arbitrarily making crap up and then killing people who disagree with you. The teaching of religion (as opposed to religious education) impedes scientific learning and indeed any logic based learning.

Proof?

What sort of proof can science provide for a God who almost certainly exists outside of time?

@Jamie

Of course you can come up with an explanation you like to interpret the Bibilical creationist story in whatever you like. It's very easy to come up with allegorical interpretations or redefine the words as you see fit and, of course it's impossible to prove it is wrong.

But that utterly and totally misses the point - it's not science; any explanation that is not, in principle, falsifiable immediately identifies itself as unscientific. What might be the point is if the nature of science as a methodology was properly taught in classrooms then truly people might learn to think for themselves. They might then understand the difference between different methods of understanding.

It would be a jolly good idea if some of the more rigorous branches of philosophy were taught in schools (and to schoolteachers) and then we might not get this sort of nonsense of mixing up creationist theories and evolution as being equally valid interpretations of the same phenomena when, in fact, the former is based on an axiomatic faith system.

Forget creationism

I've come through the entire public school system with absolutely no idea how our government or legal system works.

How is MP formed?

I call bullshit...

I know a lot of teachers, including most of my family and hangers-on, many of them are Christians and I don't know a single one who thinks that creationism is anything more than a creation myth. I also don't know any of them who give a shit about TeachersTV.

If, in science class, someone brings up creationism/ID what is a teacher supposed to do? Send them out of the room? Tell them to shut up? or discuss it as part of scientific reasoning, why it may be true, why it may not.

Even Dawkins discussed creationism with a science class on his Darwin program.

Who votes wins

But how many were Biologists? "Teacher" doesn't mean "polymath" or "intellectual", and there's no reason to expect a History or Technology teacher to know any more about evolutionary theory than any random punter off the street.

Also, I worry about the methodology of this study. "Self-selecting" equates to "meaningless sample group" - those who are strongly motivated to have Creationism taught in schools are much more likely than any other type of person to take part in this study. Most Creationists are in religious organisations that are likely to treat this kind of survey as a means of promoting their particular viewpoint.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is exactly what happened here; by ambushing the vote a handful of well organised Creationists could easily skew the results.

@Jamie

"Time is relative and something which we have designed"

I do agree with the first part of your statement. Einstein himself has proven that Time is relative, so I doubt anyone can actually put those words in doubt.

However, any pretense of credibility you might have had falls flat on its face with the last part of your statement.

Nobody in the Human race has "designed" Time. If that were the case, we would have included methods to "wind back" Time and otherwise exert full control over it.

What the Human race has designed is its own understanding of time, yes. But Time will go on whether there is a human being to measure it or not.

I accept the idea that the Universe originated in the Big Bang - until a better scientific theory comes along. I accept the idea that immense and numerous stellar explosions were required to create the various kinds of matter that exist beyond the humble hydrogen atom. I accept that it probably took billions of years and untold trillions upon trillions of events to create the conditions that made life on this planet Earth possible.

And I also accept, and welcome, the idea that there is a God who, in His godly wisdom and intelligence, set the whole thing in motion and made sure to provide all the tools we needed to understand it.

The two items are not mutually exclusive, and I see no reason to consider that Science is diminishing God in any respect. On the contrary, I believe that Science simply demonstrates that God does indeed have a vastly superior intelligence to our own, and we should be in awe of what God has created and thankful to have the ability to take tiny steps in understanding it.

Because if we had designed the Universe, the specs would still be stuck in a committee and the beta version would have blue screened right after the first black hole.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN

At one time, there was nothing. Then there was a Big Bang, and a universe, complete with everything needed for everything that is, came into existence. How?

To deny there could be an intelligence responsible for this, is very unscientific.. To say in a classroom, "There are those who think there is an intelligence in the universe who created it." will not cause any harm to anyone. Except those who do not want students to believe there is moral order. To whose advantage do you suppose that is?

Creationism in science classes

I noted some cynicism in this report. Good! How many of the teachers identified themselves as science teachers? Why waste time talking about superstitions in a class on biology? Would it then be OK to discuss French grammar in English or vice versa? I think the answer to that is probably no.

I have no problem with debating religion/science/philospohy/ethics with anyone, especially as zealots of all flavours end up car crashing their rather feeble arguments in relatively few steps, but this onward march of "teachers" who aren't qualified to comment on what is or isn't on the science curriculum, piping up and adding their unwanted voices to this debate is a complete joke.

re: Ready, aim, fire

Well it's only fair: the religious nuts (such as yourself) keep sniping about things they don't understand and use that lack of understanding as PROOF that science is bogus.

Or is it only Christians who are allowed to say "you're wrong"?

re: INTELLIGENT DESIGN

You seem to be saying that the universe is set for intelligent life and this is so mindbogglingly unlikely that there MUST be an intelligence behind it.

However, that intelligence must have come about in a system that is set for intelligent life and this is so mindbogglingly unlikely that this intelligence MUST have an intelligence behind it.

But THAT intelligence must have come about in a system that is set for intelligent life and this is so mindbogglingly unlikely that this intelligence MUST have an intelligence behind IT.

...

hmmmm

@ "Because if we had designed the Universe, the specs would still be stuck in a committee and the beta version would have blue screened right after the first black hole" - yes, if humans had designed it we wouldnt have made humans with evidence of evolution (coxix {spelling??} - the little bit of your spine where a frikkin TAIL used to be. or the fact that we have things like the appendix, which serves no purpose and is a left over from our pre-human days...

@"At one time, there was nothing. Then there was a Big Bang, and a universe, complete with everything needed for everything that is, came into existence. How?" - who MADE god then? touche! always wins that one... was it mr and mrs god? is it god jr playing?

i dont mind religous fanatics but my kids will be withdrawn from any classes spouting religous nonsense - ive been an athiest since i was 5! (yes, i remember telling a teacher it was all rubbish back in 1st year infant school)

religion dumbs and numbs the mind - it stops us thinking as we are all told 'god made everythingstop dont worry your pretty little head'

i split up with my ex (who was a god botherer) after too many dumb conversations about how evolution cant be proved... ffs lol

re: Adam & Eve...

Vaughn, are you calling Adam a monkey!!!

We are not descended from apes. Apes and us descended from a common ancestor (which, to the ape would be a manlike ancestor if he were as stupid about it as some creationists). That ancestor was not an ape. Neither were they human. They were another species.

All dogs are descended from a wolf. Even Chihuahuas. And they're about as far as looking like a wolf as you can get. But we don't seem to say that the Chihuahua is descended from a Great Dane, do we, just because they have the same (different) ancestor species.

re: Proof?

"What sort of proof can science provide for a God who almost certainly exists outside of time?"

None.

Which is why God and discussions about such belong in a religious discussion, not a science one.

Why then do the christian activists seem to want to insist? you don't see scientists demanding that general relativity is taught in RE classes, or that home economics should be taught from the pulpit.

Intelligent design

There is one, and only one, supernatural entity in this universe. All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for He and His allmighty meatballs are the origin and the end of all and any physical or pataphysical entity. He created the universe, and He created man to serve and adore Him. Anything else is bullshit. Burn your idols, muslims, jews, christians, for they are leading you to an afterlife of endless pain and suffering in salted boiling water (and tabasco in the eyes).

That's what I demand be taught in science class. My religious freedom is not less important than yours, biatch!

The FSM bless you all.

More seriously, do we really want to turn science classes into endless discussion on which religion has the best cosmogony? If yes, I'm sorry christian nutters, but your fairytale is much, much less appealing that the Hindu one. You loose. Now can we get back to rational thinking based on facts and the understanding of causes and consequences? You kids can go play make-believe in the playground.

re: It's a metaphor...

And God is not real. It's just a metaphor.

The Universe itself is a thing beyond our knowledge but within our grasp to understand. It isn't an intelligence, it is merely the process of the universe acting under its own nature toward an end that it neither knows, cares or drives for. It just exists because that is what it is for. To exist.

Why not? If bits in the bible are metaphor or allegory, then why must the central character be real?

Scepticism classes

RE: should be removed from the curriculum, and replaced with scepticism classes. Children would be taught to think for themselves and question the fallacy of religious beliefs of all flavours. There would then be no need for nonsense such as creationism or ID to come up in science lessons.

re: Creation or evolution

Let's just have a look at the creationist's belief here: until a few years ago it was based entirely on Genesis in the Bible. As there is absolutely no scientific proof whatsoever for what was originally written down several thousand years ago, where there is evidence of evolution everywhere, intelligent design was invented to fill the bus sized holes in the creation myth, with the basic line being 'oh, well, perhaps we weren't created by a supreme being whose existence cannot ever be proved but the complexity and variety of life on Earth means that something must have done it.'

Gene Roddenberry used to say that the alien species on Star Trek all looked human because of some star-seeding race who had travelled the galaxy in prehistory. It certainly saved on expensive makeup, and indeed predates the concept of intelligent design by 20 years or so. Intelligent design is basically the same argument, except that there isn't a successful TV franchise behind it. Is that ridicule?

@Jamie&JEAN

Your point seems to be that creationism isn't impossible, so it deserves mention in a science class. That's a gross misunderstanding of the nature of science. Science does not deal with the unknowable - and, more specifically, it does not deal with theories that are logically impossible to disprove.

The point that creationists love to make, "you can't prove that God/aliens/someone didn't create the universe/world/species", is exactly the reason for which creationism isn't science. It might be true, it might be false, it doesn't matter; it belongs to a philosophy class, not to a science class.

Evolution can, in principle, be disproven - for example, by observing the sudden appearance of a new species, sharing relatively little genes with any previously existing species. Creationism can't be disproven, as any conceivable observation can be explained as "God did it". This makes it not-science. True or false doesn't even factor in the discussion.

If a science teacher got asked this by a student, I think he should explain that science deals with testable knowledge only, and that the student should pose that question to the philosophy teacher.

re: Creation or evolution.

"It is quite amazing that these people who are so positive that evolution is correct are frightened of creationists."

Why then do creationists keep trying to get their dogma introduced into science classes? How is that fear?

If you can, then please tell me where I can get A.J.Crowley's work introduced in the Sunday Service...

Re: Creation or evolution.

>It is quite amazing that these people who are so positive that evolution is correct are frightened of creationists.

Yes, because they are scary people that cause people to die, quite often creationists are deluded religious fanatics, 5000 american women will die each year from preventable cervical cancer, but they will not recieve the HPV vaxine becuase of religious fanatics who refuse to issue the vaxine in schools (thankfully the UK is saving our daughters lives), 50% of americans are infected with HPV, think of that before you shag one.

>All they seem to able to do is ridicule creationists.

That's because they are stupid (or at least hold stipid beliefs, sod it! nahhh, they are stupid)

>They are so positive that evolution is correct they are frightened to debate creationism in the classroom.

There is no debate, creationism is just wrong, the earth is millions of years old not 6000, FACT.

>The truth is evolution cannot stand up to scrutiny.

Oh yes it does, and it has done, time and time again, go to http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html probably the best detailed scritiny, go there and read, the answers to every question is there.

Creationists are retards

29% disagreed with this statement: "Creationism and intelligent design are not part of the science national curriculum programmes of study and should not be taught as science."

That's disgraceful. I don't care if these teachers teach science or not. They all should be fired immediately and they should not be allowed to teach anything anywhere ever again. It's not fair to students to be stuck with an idiot teacher and only idiots still believe in magical creation or magical intelligent design in the 21st century.

Religious Education?

I am quite shocked to hear that schools are required to teach religious education. I would expect that to happen in special religious schools that certain minority groups of parents - such as Roman Catholics - send their children to, not the normal public school system.

Of course, in the United Kingdom, the Church of England continues to enjoy the status of an "established church", in flagrant violation of the Eternal Law of God, as revealed in the First Commandment:

Thou shalt make no law which concerns itself with creating an establisment of religion, nor shalt thou restrict freedom of speech, nor of the press.

Oh, no; that's the First Amendment.

But then the United States violates this principle, by requiring Catholic parents to pay out of their own pocket for Catholic schools while paying taxes for public schools. We Canadians, at least, have got it right, at least in Alberta and Quebec.

@John savard

And they also forced non-christians to chant "one country, under god" in the oath of allegience, despite that being a recent invention and the ORIGINAL oath didn't say that.

And all the dollar bills have "in god we trust".

Oh, and they get charity status.

So they do get a lot of help from the government as it is. Don't be stingy about having to pay for it.

@Mark

Marc, did you mean to use question marks???

No, I wasn't calling Adam a monkey. I was calling him an ape, though that's splitting hairs as much as you did. I well understand how evolution/natural selection/adaptive radiation works. My point was simply how the story could be interpreted in support of these scientific ideas just as much as against them. The assertion that Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil (concepts readily understood by humans) suggests they were something other than human prior to eating the fruit. The act of eating stands as a metaphor for whatever mutations made the difference between humanity and its immediate predecessor. As a hardworking atheist I find this sort of observation pretty useful.

In this thread

One group of people show their support for an attempt to force their opinions on another group.

The modern trend of hatred (and that is the correct word) of Christians is no different to the prevalent racist attitudes of times past.

Strange also how people are arguing for the case of being 'open minded' while simultaneously denying the right to be taught differing values in schools.

OK, V. It was mostly a PS TK.

Although if we're going to go all allegorical, as I said before, why should the main character be the only one that gets to be real rather than allegory?

@John Savard

So, do non-parents get to avoid paying school taxes in Alberta and Quebec then? It is not an establishment of religion to insist that everyone's taxes should go to pay for the public schools, whether or not one uses them. It is also not an establishment of religion (nor a prohibition of the free exercise of religion) for the government to pass on picking up the tab for someone wishing to send their children to a religious school.

@Mark

I completely agree with you. God seems to stand simply for everything not understood. If humans are around long enough to understand everything then perhaps religious types might admit defeat. However the prospect seems unlikely as the sun and, by extension, the earth has a limited shelf life. And so to bed.

Well,

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. :)

There are those in here who hold up the torch of scientifiy theory as the be-all and end-all of rational thought. 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.

There are those in here who are demanding the segregation of taught subjects as if science / english / maths / philosiphy were totally seperate. Perhaps you should look a little closer at these subjects and then you might discover the overlaps. Or perhaps I am imagining the amount of maths in science / engineering / social studies, and the effect of the language on the world view and personal paridigms etc etc. As has been said in here, education is about teaching the student to think. Partitioning these subjects will not teach people to think and cross connect ideas. Of course that is fine if you just want a heard instead of a thinking populace.

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. One example is the Peacock. Its huge, bright & colourfull tail feather display does nothing to assist its survival. Should you mention that this display is used to attract a mate and thus assist _species_ survival will only show that you do not understand the difference between an _excuse_ and a _reason_. Tell me the _reason_ for hampering all of the males in a species from surviving.

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.

@AC

"You're wrong and I'm right" is the only explanation you CAN give to children. You have to teach them a SHITLOAD of stuff before they can meaningfully negotiate their own way to the truth. For evolution, you have to learn biology, chemistry, phylogeny, geology, radio carbon dating, physics and a whole lot of debating techniques (and really good english skills) before they can look at the evidence of evolution and see where people are arguing from ignorance and where there are genuine unknowns or uncertainties.

But to get there, you have to teach them.

But without "I'm right, you're wrong", you have to teach them biology, chemistry....

Evolution comes up in a science class for Junior School or first year Secondary.

Do 12-14 year olds have to learn nuclear physics (so they can understand the dating techniques that give the ages of geological strata etc) JUST so we can say "The Human evolved from the Ape" without having to say "I'm right"?

@Mad Dave

"Hatred"? Isn't "You're all going to roast in HELL!!!!" hatred too? Isn't "only those with a belief in God can be moral, since God is the source of moral thought" hatred too?

Isn't "You're lying" hatred? Well, that's what christians do each and every day to people who don't believe and try and explain it.

Isn't it hatred to say that if someone says you're wrong (in that your actions are not deserved, such as "ID should be a science so taught in class 'to show the controversy'") then turn about and accuse them of racist bigotry? Isn't it also arrogant in the extreme to believe that? Because you're saying it is IMPOSSIBLE for someone to tell you you're a frigging idiot without doing so just because they hate you and not, for example, because you're a FRIGGING IDIOT?

Stop trying to play the "poor me, you're all picking on me. You're mean" card. It doesn't wash with your arrogance.

Macleod

" 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. "

No, there are those here who *accept* evolution (which doesn't require you to be a member of any religion to find it plausible), and find it laughable that other people would rather believe what a 2000 year old book on the beliefs of a middle Eastern desert tribe tells them.

"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. "

Leaving aside exactly what the Big Bang has to do with evolution, why don't you take 30 seconds to Google the Big Bang instead? I'm sure it's very easy to find informative stuff about it, which is done far better than I could ever hope to do.

"Evolution has a number of _glaring_ holes in it. Holes that Darwin himself admitted. "

Can we have some actual examples of these alleged *glaring" holes?

"One example is the Peacock. Its huge, bright & colourfull tail feather display does nothing to assist its survival. Should you mention that this display is used to attract a mate and thus assist _species_ survival will only show that you do not understand the difference between an _excuse_ and a _reason_. Tell me the _reason_ for hampering all of the males in a species from surviving."

Clearly the peacock's tail doesn't hamper it from surviving, or rather being able to pass on it's genes. If it did prevent it from breeding, then you'd see a progression towards peacocks with ordinary tails at best, and peacocks going extinct at worst. Whatever the exact reason, the tails don't stop peacocks from sufficient reproductive success!

" 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."

And here we have the real reason for your finding fault with evolution!

You can't deal with the fact that actually you're not a special flower made by a sky fairy, and so you dismiss evolution out of hand.

thinking straight!

Well, its really interesting to read some of the comments here! How come we are so ready to dismiss that God created the world?

None of us were there at the beginning,yet we seem so eager to have concluded that everything came about by any means other than acknowledging God did it. Why is that?

Lets look at things from another angle.

Having seen that The Bible and the existence of God has been all but banished from our schools (especially State), where does that leave us as a society today?

Can we honestly say that our society is healthier?

Sadly the rot has been going on for 3 or more generations.

Breakdown in society and Families is greater now.........

Indeed, not only has The Bible and acknowledgement of God been almost banished from opur schools, but certainly from the media, and most of those who carry any authority in society, including Teacher Training Colleges.

Some may conclude that The Bible is a restraining influence on life and thought. Well, may be it is, but in a good way...to keep us from harming ourselves and others.

However, it is also a very liberating book, as any serious reader of it would tell you.

And from one comment I saw, the person thought that morality is still possible without God.

That is true as far as conscience allows it, and of course conscience is put there by God.

Apart from God, there is no possibility of morality.

Who would set the standards....? Who has any right to administer whatever forms of morality were deemed to be suitable?

As soon as you apply man's rationale to our human condition, it falls down, and that is what is happening.

Far better to accept God's verdict and solution. Its the only safe way........ satisfying to us and honouring to God.

We leave God out of our thinking at our peril.

Andrew Fairhead

Science teachers?

Does anyone know how many of these teachers were science teachers? I think a huge problem is that evolution is not understood by many people. This leads me to conclude that there might actually be place to teach creationism in science and scrutinise it under the scientific method. Perhaps the fact that RE teachers teach evolution and creationism as equally valid ideas is part of the problem. We create science skeptics. Teach them in science lessons and we will have a different outcome.

Teachers & Creationists in UK Schools

Who are these idiots who think Creationisim is an intelligent design, I bet they think School is spelt Skool as well, the prats!

WHY?

I read yesterday all the comments made here about the matter of creation in schools.

It is a sad reflection on our country that there should be such venom against the Teaching of Creation. After all, it is the record of The Bible.

It must be said that since we have all but managed to eliminate the Bible and Teaching of Christianity (NOT RE), from our schools as well as the media, we have not improved as a society.

Weigh up the crime and general behaviour of some children and young people (not always their fault, but their partents and teachers)....and its clear that somethinmg is badly missing.

Its not religion we need, but the genuine basis of Christian teaching and behaviour.

This may be why there is such vehement oposition to some 'faith' schools (of the Christian kind) from some people including sadly the Sec of State for schools.

If there is failure at the top, it will be repeated all the way down. Hence the standards of achievement, behaviour and general morality are so low, and we are debased as a country.

This is linked to the teaching of Creation (some variableness in this is accepted), because if we dirtch it, we are basically ditching the Bible and the God of The Bible.

Unfortunately, although those who espouse the ditching of Creation/God/The Bible think they are gaining freedom from being in subjugation, in actual fact the opposite is true. We are and have been sucked into a vortex of slavery to self and what we want or think is right. Thus no one has any 'right or authority' to say us nay.

Creation gets us started at the beginning of The Bible (Genesis=beginnings), and if we begin to follow things through, we'll see it makes a lot more sense than, the speculation of evolution or guessing about what may or may not have occured.

Surely its better to believe Someone who was there, and all the 100's of 'speculators' who were not!

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?

Andrew Fairhead

Re: AC, 18:14

"PLEASE explain the Big Bang to me rationally."

A theory's validity does not, thank science, depend on my ability (or anyone else's ability) to explain it to you. I'd love to have someone concisely explain a large chunk of theoretical physics to me just because I ask with a smirk on my face, but the fact is that's unlikely to happen here. I suggest you get one of Hawking's popularising books (e.g. A Brief History of Time) and start with that, and see if it helps.

"education is about teaching the student to think"

I've seen this phrase squirt out of a few religion sufferers. The fact is that science education is about teaching the student to think scientifically. Granted, there are areas of overlap between science, maths, engineering, philosophy, etc.; and where these are relevant I do believe they should be covered. Just because there are arguments between scientists and raving schizotypals, though, doesn't mean science lessons should be polluted with supernatural garbage. Some ideas shouldn't be 'cross connected' - it doesn't really teapot.

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

Bull, the tail is used by the hen to select a mate. Practically useless or not, a bird's tail is a pretty good proxy for health (like human hair or the antlers of an elk). As soon as potential mates begin to use a characteristic that way it will tend to become exaggerated by successive generations simply because it is being used in that way and has become, in itself, a reproductive advantage. It's not all about survival, species or individual; with such a large, heavy tail, a peacock doubtless lives a shorter life by at least a few years than he otherwise might, but without it he wouldn't stand a chance of becoming an ancestor to a new peacock variety.

Seriously, Darwin covered a lot of these ropey old arguments in the Origin of Species (I have a relatively late edition but I think at least some of these were covered even in the first edition).

"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."

It's nice how we finally get to your real reason for attacking science. Well, unfortunately for you, just because you would prefer it was true, doesn't make it so. What you're doing is not a far cry from sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la la la la, not listening, la, la, la" while someone tries to tell you there's no Santa Claus.

What is the reason for living if there is a God? Why can't there be a reason for living if there isn't one? I would suggest that evolution itself provides a simple, if slightly unsatisfying reason for living: all living things are replicators, therefore the ultimate purpose of a replicator is to replicate and produce offspring who produce offspring and so on ad infinitum. The vast majority of us will not succeed in the long run; most families die out, which is why modern species are usually quite distinct from even their closest cousins.

As a human being, though, I (like you) prefer to believe that there is more to this. Personally I believe that the aim of life is to progressively improve its survival changes as a phenomenon. I think human beings are well placed to further this goal, maybe colonising other planets at some point, or facilitating a new genetic takeover (see Cairns-Smith) by something that can carry my favourite human trait (conscious experience) into habitats into which evolution can't, with its incremental modifications, carry our species. I realise that these are flights of fancy, but these are the things I like to believe. I do, however, like to remain conscious of the difference between those and the truth. The truth is far less grand and intoxicating, but it is realistic.

Religions are replicators too. They are mind-viruses, infecting a mind with a superficially convincing argument, threats of dire consequences of disbelief and promises of protection and freedom from death. And all we need to do is commit ourselves to them, believe them without questioning them, and (crucially) act in the interest of fellow sufferers (or hosts if you prefer) and against the interests of non-believers. Where possible, we should attempt to repeat the superficially convincing argument to other minds, in the hope of infecting those too. Religious 'teachers' make a living out of spattering the credulous with their mind-snot.

Religions survive and spread, surviving the death of each host by infecting more hosts. Like us, they evolve to improve their survival advantages over time, developing new and more subtle claws to sink into our brains. Like us, too, they are incredibly resilient.

Like us, too, they are irrelevant accidents, whether or not they would prefer to believe otherwise.

@Well,

You list one supposedly "glaring hole" in evolution and fail to mention that it is one of the most successful theories in science, supported by vast bodies of evidence. I would suggest that the Peacock does use it's tail feather to attract a mate (it's not the only example of such an evolved trait.) But please tell us what you think the difference is between an excuse and a reason - it might help me to understand your last paragraph, where you seem to make an _excuse_ for believing in God.

@Bload

Thanks, Bload. As an agnostic, I admit I have occasionally wondered where all this stuff came from - and why. So that was it! It came from two fundamentalist fermions having a split-up. Whew, that's that then. Still, can't help wondering why they bothered. I guess they couldn't have stayed together for the sake of the kids. Just thinking of the whole affair drains me of all my dark energy.

God or not ... and addressing fears.

I have no idea if there is a God/ess or not. S/he hasn't spoken to me.

I *do* know that there is all kinds of evidence that evolution exists.

I also *do* know there are errors and contradictions in the Bible. Examples:

Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 have completely different versions of Creation (which kind of makes the whole creation vs evolution argument pointless, until the Bible thumpers can agree which variation of Creation they believe in).

Pi is NOT equal to 3, contrary to I Kings 7:23-26

No man has seen God John 1:18; Jacob looked upon the face of God in Genesis 32:30; God and Abraham had a meal together in Genesis 18; Moses saw the back of God in Exodus 33:23

The last words of Jesus are recorded differently in Matthew 27:46, Luke 23:46 and John 19:30

I could go on. My point is that it's obvious that the Bible is a flawed (group of) document(s). Why so many people base their lives on it without realizing this would be beyond me ... if it weren't for the fact that social engineering works as well as it does. It's called "indoctrination from childhood" ... Or as I prefer to call it "brainwashing".

Before you flame me for this, do some reading for yourself. Don't take the word of somebody who makes a living at perpetrating the "bible inerrant" myth. Don't take my word for it, either. Try reading the book for comprehension YOURSELF. I know I have! Can you HONESTLY say the same?

What are YOU afraid of, Christians?

Explanation? Why?

"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."

Why? You don't seem to need one to believe that God suddenly appeared out of nothing, no-when and for no reason.

Time started. The universe was there when it started. What happened "before" time started is a silly question.

However, if you MUST have a rationale for this (please supply one for your sky pixie), what about before the BB there was a previous universe undergoing it's big crunch?

@ Well AC

> If there is no God then there _cannot_ be a reason for living.

Wrong. Its to pass on your DNA (Please don't though).

It's been two days, cowards.

What am I talking about?

Re-read 10th November 2008 04:38 GMT

What ARE you afraid of, Christians?

As I said, cowards.

"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."

I know. See subject line.