Schools should teach creationism?

[sam_butler]

I hear ya mister. The subsequent words should serve to clarify, although my blog and this thread are similar and not the same, so I think we should try to stay on topic. Here's the verbiage:

 

“What?!” you say. Well if we’re going to talk about ‘religious’ in terms of firmly set beliefs and a kind of stubbornness toward changing them, then to me it’s those who believe that ‘religion’ is nonsense who are the most guilty. I, of course, am willing to deal with that, as I do every day in our increasingly secular society, isolated from religion by an increasing mockery of it in the media.

 

Mockery of religion in the media? The Uncyclopedia article, while I'm sure intended to be a bit of fun, is an extreme example of this. To bring it all back down to Earth, I think we have to avoid that happening in the education system. I think somewhere between denying the existence of religion and preaching it in geography classes would be preferable. It's a wide playing field though...

[sam_butler]

Actually I'm going to quote myself again. This was the conclusion of my blog post:

Destruction of an opposing reality is far from the nicest thing one can do. That’s not to say we should be passive about radical ideas that could have a negative impact, nor that we should teach the theory of evolution as a mere ‘belief.’ In a school science lesson however, the possibility of other, perhaps spiritual factors, in shaping the course of evolution, should not be attacked. It probably shouldn’t be promoted either, as this would be seen as unscientific due to the lack of tangible evidence. But there is no tangible evidence for the existence of ‘chance’ either, and scientists should be reminded of this. In my opinion, creationism is not a matter of scientific interest. The Big Bang then, should always be taught as a theory until such a time as more evidence becomes apparent. But the opposition of science and religion should not be brought into the school system and nor should their separation.

[somabc]

I hear ya mister. The subsequent words should serve to clarify, although my blog and this thread are similar and not the same, so I think we should try to stay on topic. Here's the verbiage:

 

“What?!” you say. Well if we’re going to talk about ‘religious’ in terms of firmly set beliefs and a kind of stubbornness toward changing them, then to me it’s those who believe that ‘religion’ is nonsense who are the most guilty. I, of course, am willing to deal with that, as I do every day in our increasingly secular society, isolated from religion by an increasing mockery of it in the media.

 

 

ah, but it is wrong of you to define atheism as "firmly set beliefs and a kind of stubbornness toward changing them" this is not what atheism actually is, as I mentioned in my 1st post. You are unfairly defining the terms of the debate.

[sam_butler]

The problem for me arises when religion actively interferes with science, when it is taught in a science classroom, when children are taught religion from a young age at home instead of science and so forth.

 

Sneaking your edits in above my replies! But I get you, and I agree that atheism and religion can exist side-by-side. I mean I'm not exactly segregated from the world--I have friends and family who are Muslim, Catholic, Anglican, atheist, agnostic and of course, Scientologists. Being 'taught' religion shouldn't be seen as a replacement for science and learning to think with reason.

 

I think we basically agree that science and religion aren't exactly opposed to each other in principle, but some people like to set them head-to-head and watch the, er, big bang. I have always taken the scientific approach to my own beliefs and where I see evidence, I'm more convinced. I have never really studied Big Bang Theory extensively, so I'll check out that page on evidence of it. I don't think it's entirely implausible either, to be frank.

 

I think we're at least close to being on topic

 

Now, how to use IT in R.E. classes... I think slowly the religion of IT will take over the world. Its followers will worship Charles Babbage, because his name is most memorable and rhymes with a certain vegetable. There is also tangible evidence that he actually existed. See if the Flying Spaghetti Monster can beat that.

[MkII]

Thanks for your input Sam. The Scientology reference alludes to a record breakingly long thread that started with a discussion on it.

 

I did read your blog post and thought it very well done. I'm a Christian, and I believe some of the Bible, including the torah, to be symbolic rather than literal. I believe that to be the great majority opinion of mainstream Christians.

 

It's those people that like yourself, are willing to accept there may be other answers and that we don't know everything, that are the truly religious. Without doubt and questioning it's all entirely worthless.

 

You've made reference to Richard Dawkins. As a scientist, do you think his statement that there is actual proof of evolution that creationists deliberately ignore to be incorrect?

[somabc]

You've made reference to Richard Dawkins. As a scientist, do you think his statement that there is actual proof of evolution that creationists deliberately ignore to be incorrect?

 

He is not a Scientist. He is a Scientologist.

[MkII]

I knew he was a Scientologist - I also thought he taught science, looks like I was wrong. Ah well

[somabc]

If he teaches Science then I apologise. Its a bit of a debate though, is a science teacher a scientist?

[beeswax]

Back to the OP, this section from yesterday's Guardian letters page should help clear up a few things.

[sam_butler]

Interesting to see Michael Reiss' comment there in the Guardian. Don't believe everything you read in the newspapers eh!

 

One could consider himself to be a scientist if he applied scientific reasoning, but I'm not a scientist in the professional sense.

 

I have not heard that particular statement verbatim from Dawkins, but I know he has said something similar. I don't really watch everything he's done for TV nor read his many writings, but I would say that he is being a little generalised in making this assumption.

 

If there is evidence for evolution, and I consider that there is, then that's fine. If someone ignores it, okay. But you can't go round saying 'creationists ignore evidence for evolution' because it doesn't refer to everyone. There may be some creationists who consider the evidence to be false or insufficient, and there may be those who accept it. Personally, I find the evidence for evolution to be mostly accurate, but it doesn't mean that I believe we all arose from a sea of ammonia or that all living things are animated by a carbon isotope. In my opinion, just as religion and atheism can coexist, science and religion can and do coexist and it would be remiss of us to omit either from the other's lesson. We don't deny science in R.E., so why deny religious belief in science? And that doesn't mean I advocate promoting it either. I just don't think science is against religion or vice versa. Some scientists may be against religion and some religionists may be against science. So be it, but let's not tar everyone with the same brush.

 

I think you get my drift anyway.

[somabc]

Prof Reiss is on the dead on the money. If a pupil raises an objection to a theory (any theory) then the teacher should be able to explain the science (or lack thereof) behind the theory.

 

The only problem is how much time the teacher has to spend tackling alternative theories such as creationism, FSM etc. If they are to have enough time to actually explain the science can they simply tell the pupil that their particular theory is not important and move on?

[Guest Guest]

Prof Reiss is on the dead on the money. If a pupil raises an objection to a theory (any theory) then the teacher should be able to explain the science (or lack thereof) behind the theory.

 

The only problem is how much time the teacher has to spend tackling alternative theories such as creationism, FSM etc. If they are to have enough time to actually explain the science can they simply tell the pupil that their particular theory is not important and move on?

 

But which is worse; telling a kid "no sorry, this is what the course says" and move on. Or explaining to him how the foundation of all his and his families beliefs is a lie?

[gwendes]

Oh yes you are!!

 

Nah, I really wasn't!

 

If I hadn't vented about that article I would have exploded by the time I read there was a Creationist Museum about five minutes from my house!

 

BBC NEWS | Magazine | Who are the British creationists?

 

We're going on Saturday!

 

Hi mark - I would take up the cloth but I really, really love computers. They are so awesome. (:crying:)

 

Good summer?

[gwendes]

Anyone else think Sam should read 'Scientology'?

 

I'm surprised that not everyone agreed with the OP. Actually surprised.

 

If you want to redefine science then that's a different issue. School children are not placed in a classroom with lots of cool chemicals and invited to mix them and try and discover something that no one has!

 

Kids learn things like acid+base = salt+water - it was true when my mum and dad were at school, then when my older brother went, then when I did and my younger sister went. This is not a matter for debate, it's a fact we all learned (and should remember)

 

Are people saying that if the biblical account of the world was not compatible with this we should discard this element of science too? Scientists don't go out of their way to annoy religious people!

[gwendes]

But which is worse; telling a kid "no sorry, this is what the course says" and move on. Or explaining to him how the foundation of all his and his families beliefs is a lie?

 

It isn't a science teacher's job to explain why his or her parents have a distorted understanding. Teaching creationism is not either.

 

This is a really big problem. That's why scientists need to stand united with a single stance - evolution is a fact and biblical texts have no authority in the field.

[Guest Guest]

It isn't a science teacher's job to explain why his or her parents have a distorted understanding. Teaching creationism is not either.

 

This is a really big problem. That's why scientists need to stand united with a single stance - evolution is a fact and biblical texts have no authority in the field.

 

My point exactly. The only outcome i could see from a teacher telling a devout christian/muslim/etc their religion is wrong and they are right is for the teacher to be branded a racist/spreading religious hatred/whatever the current "in thing" is. And even if their are no grounds for a conviction the allagations alone are enough to destroy someones career/life.

 

For a teacher to argue against a religion he must first fully understand it. Science teachers are not RE teachers, infact in alot of cases they are quite opposite types of person. Anyway the bottom line for a religious person is "yoiu must have faith" so no amount of proof is ever going to convince them that everything they have ever been taught is wrong.

Edited September 16, 2008 by Guest

[MkII]

A teacher shouldn't be so stupid to tell the religious person that they're wrong. Like you say, it'd be professional suicide. It shouldn't be necessary. Evolution remains a theory. Certain facts may support it, but nothing is conclusive (I think I'm right in saying).

 

It is a real problem at some level for most religious believers. You are believing in stuff that is supernatural. That affects your understanding of science; you have to look on science as incomplete. Some look on science as proof of intelligent design. The interpretation changes enlightened by scientific study. The meaning isn't changed, just better understood. I don't understand people who say religion is a fixed view unlike science. The Bible makes statements, but none are disproved by science.

 

Funny thought yesterday - the Bible is the best evidence there is against intelligent design - I know that's essentially been said in different ways already, but just thought it clarified it a bit

 

Interesting the comments on the Guardian article re teachers within a school needing to collaborate more. In my ex school the RE teacher and the Chemistry teacher were best buddies. They are both Christians, core members of the school Christian group thingy, the RE teacher a devout creationist and the Chemistry teacher not so much. (I'm still in contact with both as friends) (Dan the RE man gets excellent results. His lessons are challenging and interesting - the kids get to discuss moral issues in some depth.)

 

I think it's actually against the rules now to discuss creationism in science lessons.

 

I was just discussing creationism with a couple of Christian friends last night in a churchy meeting thing. They firmly believe the torah to be literally true. These are not extremist nutters - very ordinary people with simple beliefs. They had no problem with my belief in evolution. I have no problem with their beliefs either. I'm just interested in why they think what they do. One is a mother, and tells her children the same. I suppose it's down to the intelligence of the individual to reason and conclude what they do.

Edited September 16, 2008 by MkII

[localzuk]

Evolution remains a theory. Certain facts may support it, but nothing is conclusive (I think I'm right in saying).

 

There is a difference between a scientific theory and the general word 'theory'. A scientific theory hast to go through huge amounts of peer review, testing, and be generally accepted as 'true' before it is actually even a theory.

 

Creationism isn't a theory, in the scientific meaning of the word.

 

It is important to remember that when discussing this really.

[gwendes]

A teacher shouldn't be so stupid to tell the religious person that they're wrong. Like you say, it'd be professional suicide. It shouldn't be necessary. Evolution remains a theory. Certain facts may support it, but nothing is conclusive (I think I'm right in saying).

 

It remains a scientific theory.

 

"In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena." Wiki

 

Generally speaking, theories are facts. They are the best model we have, backed up by large amounts of evidence.

 

Since evolution was first proposed we have discovered genetics - if that isn't conclusive, being able to trace the movement if every piece of digital code within every living thing, then nothing is. What about micro-evolution?

 

We will never be able to observe evolution but the overwhelming evidence it has left, in the fossil record for example, puts the theory beyond question. The idea that an old book somehow holds a more complete truth or an alternative theory that holds equal water and is based on an equal amount of faith is nothing other than an insult to Science. And it deserves a capital letter.

[Guest Guest]

A teacher shouldn't be so stupid to tell the religious person that they're wrong. Like you say, it'd be professional suicide. It shouldn't be necessary.

 

For arguements sake, Im a Christian and you are the teacher.

 

Me - "The world, all its creatures, and man were created by God in 7 days around x000 years ago (sorry cant remember what god says it is). There is no such thing as evolution. And all the evidence which points to creatures pre-dating man by millions of year (ie Dinasours) is falsified or mis-interperated. Carbon dating is wrong... "

 

 

Now explain to me how you would correct me without actually telling me Im wrong. See the problem? At some point in the debate someone has to come out as being right and the other as wrong. There are some issues which can be interperated by scientists and religious people in differant ways but some things such as the all but un-deniable proof that the earth is older than God says it is (fossils, dinasaurs, evolution etc) are black and white issues; the earth either is or isnt the age Gods said it was, therefore someone has to be right and someone wrong.

Edited September 16, 2008 by Guest

[gwendes]

The teacher needs to state the facts that support the theory of evolution in a non-confrontational way. My friend is a science teacher and he has been confronted by children he feels have been told to challenge him - when given the facts the child has always backed down. They begin to understand that it isn't just a matter of faith.

 

Evolution is very important in science - children that don't accept that or the reasons why the evidence is so strong are highly unlikely to succeed in any area of science. Or archaeology.

Edited September 16, 2008 by gwendes

[somabc]

A teacher shouldn't be so stupid to tell the religious person that they're wrong.

 

But their duty as scientist/teacher is to present the unbiased evidence and if the pupil is a creationist then they should understand that the evidence does not support that.

 

 

The Bible makes statements, but none are disproved by science.

 

Is anything in the bible backed up by science (or history). The most that could be said about the bible is that it is a collection of documents written in Koine Greek by different authors possibly several hundred years after the events depicted had taken place. It would be like me writing a book on the history of Queen Victoria as though I was there at the time. There were many texts written around this time some of which were added to the bible and some were discarded later.

 

New Testament apocrypha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

This 'bible' was copied many times by scribes over the years inevitably introducing subtle changes in meaning with each copy made. It was also translated many times which may have obscured the original authors meaning. The use of numbered chapters and verses was not introduced until the Middle Ages and later. The order of these books varies according to Church tradition. The New Testament books are ordered differently in the Catholic/Protestant tradition, the Lutheran tradition, the Slavonic tradition, the Syriac tradition and the Ethiopian tradition. Early manuscripts of the letters of Paul and other New Testament writings show no punctuation whatsoever. The punctuation was added later by other editors, according to their own understanding of the text.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_errata#KJV

 

This is my favourite mis-print.

 

"Wicked Bible", "Adulterous Bible" or "Sinner's Bible" 1631: Barker and Lucas: Omits an important "not" from Exodus 20:14, making the seventh commandment read "Thou shalt commit adultery." The printers were fined £300 (a lifetime's wages) and most of the copies were recalled immediately. Only 11 copies are known to exist today.

 

So in a science classroom how can this be considered anything other than a poor copy of some old documents that can not be verified as true?

Edited September 16, 2008 by somabc

[MkII]

For arguements sake, Im a Christian and you are the teacher.

 

Me - "The world, all its creatures, and man were created by God in 7 days around x000 years ago (sorry cant remember what god says it is). There is no such thing as evolution. And all the evidence which points to creatures pre-dating man by millions of year (ie Dinasours) is falsified or mis-interperated. Carbon dating is wrong... "

ok i'll play

 

Well Johnny, you're facts are mostly not Biblical. A hard interpretation of 7 literal creation days in human terms is fanciful. Nowhere in the Bible does it mention how many years ago this was, the figures are a human invention based on loose interpretation. Christianity doesn't exclude evolution. Carbon dating may be innacurate, but our best guess is that it's right.

 

 

My friend is a science teacher and he has been confronted by children he feels have been told to challenge him - when given the facts the child has always backed down

Any adult in discussion with a child has an easy task to win an argument, that's hardly something to be proud of.

 

Evolution is very important in science

I agree. Religious education is equally important. Important for scientists not to ignorantly trash it.

 

But their duty as scientist/teacher is to present the unbiased evidence and if the pupil is a creationist then they should understand that the evidence does not support that.

 

The teacher has to be sensitive to the pupils development as a whole person.

 

I take on your points that scientific theories are not common or garden theories. You state that these theories are facts, but I think you stretch the meaning of truth there. The supporting evidence is incredibly thin (I think I'm right in saying).

 

Geographical theories are scientific theories, yet those taught to me when I was at school have now changed. I see the theories now and am gobsmacked that I was taught this as fact!

 

 

Your statements about the Bible are sweeping over generalisations that are just not true somabc.

 

The Torah was written by Moses at the time of revelation from the big man himself. Supposedly. Some books were written on the spot and are direct experiences of their authors. Other books contain actual letters. Some are accounts of events. The Jewish tradition of passing down this information is incredibly accurate. Every child learns the whole of the Torah off by heart. Those who have a natural flair for it go on to memorise the whole of the Old Testament. That together with the written form, it's hardly as vague and inaccurate as you would like to make out.

 

 

 

The Bible stands as a manual describing the natural process by which man exists as a successful species. Agree or disagree, the principles it contains are universal truths.

 

From my viewpoint science exists alongside this with no contradiction. To read the Bible as an alternate scientific theory is just daft.

Edited September 16, 2008 by MkII

[Andrew_C]

I read that the Royal Society have had the sense to sack the proponent of teaching fairy stories in school as "fact". Thank G.... No that's not quite right!

[gwendes]

Bible errata - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

This is my favourite mis-print.

 

Mine is one that my Dad has a copy of, the 'Vinegar' bible- rescued from a skip!

 

Any adult in discussion with a child has an easy task to win an argument, that's hardly something to be proud of.

 

Of course. My point wasn't how proud he was! My point was that these children have been given very little information with which to fight their teachers regarding the facts and so any confrontation is easy to resolve in the classroom.

 

Teachers are the target of this- they love their subject and other people are attempting to demonstrate that science is flawed. In the US (and I'm sure here) children attend summer schools and are 'trained' to chalenge scientists.

 

We must also remember that this isn't Christianity vs Evolution - teaching Creationism is anti-scientific and you are likely to offend many other religions if you give it time in the science classroom.

 

The supporting evidence is incredibly thin (I think I'm right in saying).

 

The supporting evidence is not thin. The supporting evidence is massive. The supporting evidence touches on many other areas of science, physics, astronomy, genetics, chemistry... to suggest that science has a little evidence that points towards evolution but that no one is really sure is a lie.

 

We are able to trace and now even alter DIGITAL code within all life... no data goes against a single family tree.

 

If you expose the elements on early Earth to radiation you get amino acids - the building blocks of the DNA code within us all.

 

We are able to observe planets that are millions of light years away and getting further - the simplistic solution that a god created the world a few generations ago is fine if you have a very simple understanding of the world - we don't. I really don't understand why anyone would want to cling on to such an unsatisfying world-view. Schools that say that there are two equal theories (the scientific and the biblical) are not only avoiding the science behind why people have concluded that we evolved they are also missing exactly what science is.

 

The Church Of The Flying Spaghetti Monster was created for this very reason - if a subject having a scientific basis is no longer required in the classroom then the FSM is as valid a theory as any other - but everyone understands that the FSM is just a parody (or insult) - the point it is making is very important.