The Press Association: Third of teachers want Creationism — All the press material I’ve seen in England is very carefully worded as if it was orchestrated.
Three in 10 science teachers believe creationism should be taught in science lessons, according to a new survey.
And more than a third 37% of primary and secondary teachers in general believe that the subject should be taught alongside evolution and the Big Bang theory.
The Ipsos Mori poll of more than 900 primary and secondary teachers in England and Wales found that while nearly half 47% believe it should not be taught in science lessons, two thirds 65% agree that creationism should be discussed in schools.
This rises to three quarters of teachers 73% with science as their subject specialism. Two in three science specialists 65% do not think that creationism should be taught in science lessons. But few teachers think creationism as an idea should be dismissed outright.
Just one in four 26% agree with a view expressed by Professor Chris Higgins, vice-chancellor of Durham University that “creationism is completely unsupportable as a theory, and the only reason to mention creationism in schools is to enable teachers to demonstrate why the idea is scientific nonsense and has no basis in evidence or rational thought.”
Fiona Johnson, head of education research at Ipsos Mori and director of the Ipsos Mori Teachers Omnibus, said: “Our findings suggest that many teachers are trying to adopt a measured approach to this contentious issue, an approach which attempts not only to explain the essential differences between scientific and other types of ‘theory’, but also to acknowledge that – regardless of, or even despite, “the science” – pupils may have a variety of strongly held, and arguably equal value, faith-based beliefs.”
*sigh* I keep hoping the “faith-based” people will have their raptures and go away, leaving the universe for rationality.
Alas, like cockroaches, they keep popping up over and over.
I don’t believe that standard creation theory should be taught but I would accept the teaching of quantum creationism and the theory of devolution.
Very related: Why Evolution is True:
http://newscientist.com/article/dn16347-review-iwhy-evolution-is-truei-by-jerry-coyne.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news
Are there any normal people left in the UK?
I don’t know about the UK, but I really get the impression that my generation in the US isn’t particularly religious at all (I’m 20). I’m just hoping you old farts don’t manage to destroy the world before we take over.
Here’s the part of the question regarding evolution (no one argues that evolution is not a valid process it’s just not an explanation for the origin of life. Evolution is about change not the start of life) that no one can answer. How did life begin on this planet? What is the origin of the protein cell which is the foundation of all life, planet and animal? What proof exist to answer these two questions. Even the most ardent atheist in academia, Oxford University’s Richard Dawkins admits that it could be from intelligent design, just not from a “God”. He believes a space alien could have “dropped” off life forming cells on earth. The best “theory” that the non-intelligent design bunch can come up with is that the protein cell came from crystals that landed on earth somehow. No proof to support intelligent design, no proof to disprove intelligent design. Just remember, No one, zero, zilch, no one! can prove how life began on this planet. Believe what you will….
Google has created a search tool just creationist:
http://www.catholicgoogle.com/
In fact, if you search for “PORN”. It doesn’t even exist! Therefore, PORN doesn’t exist.
This would be an interesting topic to discuss for those of us that know something about science…
#2 I’m interested as to why quantum creationism is any more appropriate in a science class than classical creationism?
How is the “Theory of devolution” a scientific theory? Can it be falsified? What predictions does it make?
Likewise the “Theory of quantum creationism” – how is that a scientific theory? Can it be tested by experiment or verified by observation?
If these are indeed scientific theories then could you please direct me to a peer-reviewed journal that contains details as to the predictions expected from the models, supporting evidence and/or descriptions of actual or hypothetical experiments that would support or falsify the theories.
Based on the links you provided I would suggest that both “quantum creationism” and “devolution” are hypotheses – at best.
Evolution is a theory. Theories are always subject to reevaluation and evidence. Any process that is beyond observation as evolution is, is simply unscientific. It is never scientific principles but theory. For evolution to be true, there would have to be links between the different species that simply are not in the fossil evidence.
Science puts more evidence against evolution that it supports evolution. Evolution is a religion based faith, i.e. God does not exist (a universal negative which is unproveable), and there man is self created.
For science to work, there are basic principles (against evolution) which must be assumed, such as the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
You can call creationists names all you want (like that was educated or “rationalist” as you like to push yourself), but in the end, science is against evolution, and supports a one time recent event creation. Creation is not continuing, and evolution is not evidenced. It is not, has not, and will not be observed because the lines are laws of science. Within a species, there is variation, but there is nothing happing (now nor ever) between species. The fossil evidence never points to or gives evidence or support to that.
Since this is the way things are, you should stop bashing creationism so that you don’t embarrass yourself later on!
Get back on the global warming error so that you can be embarrassed by that.
#5–F&kedup==life would appear to be a natural occurrence in an incredibly large universe. There are a number of good ways “life” could first appear. True, we can never prove how it first appeared on Earth, because that happened in the past.
But take a virgin planet, say Mars, that gets terraformed by Astronauts from Earth. We will know how life got started on Mars==by Intelligent Design that we caused and witnessed.
With “no life” in the Universe at the Big Bang, in fact with no atoms, then expanding and cooling to form atoms of Hydrogen, further cooling to form Helium and the birth of stars, Stars exploding ejecting heavier elements reforming into bigger stars again exploding a third time to form even heavier elements and these elements naturally combining into rudimentary nucleic acids====its not hard to draw the line of creation. Details to follow.
Who’d a thunk it? David Cox==more F&ckedup than F&ckedup himself.
Cloning?
bobbo: Thanks for continuing to prove that you know so little about so much. I know you are certainly a subject matter expert in proving what dumbasses liberals are. You are funny as hell too. I love how you always post like you know what the hell you are talking about. Could you fill us in on the exact number of “fishes” in the sea? You obviously know everything about the worlds oceans to Im sure…
David: Great post but so far above the heads of the liberal asshats that post on this site like bobber and assmustard. Explaining basic scientifc principals to these mental giants would be like explaining calculus to Paula Abdul.
#5 Evolution does not even attempt to answer the questions you raise. Hypotheses of abiogenesis are directed at answering the questions you ask.
You might as well say that the theory of gravity does not explain where life came from. Your statement could be seen as a strawman type argument or an attempt to poison the well.
You said: “No proof to support intelligent design, no proof to disprove intelligent design.”
This is the exact problem with intelligent design. It is not falsifiable by experiment or observation. Therefore it is NOT a scientific theory.
Evolution, on the other hand, is readily falsifiable.
David: Just stand by for the liberal tried and true responses to anything they can’t argue logically and intelligently… Haters, bigots, racist, bush lovers, republicans, conservatives, blah, blah, blah, and many more names and attacks…
I for one will be checking back every five minutes to see if Dave can be as ludicrous at F&kedup.
A race to the bottom showing evolution is not goal directed.
Hah, hah!! Good Show!
David Cox said:
“Evolution is a theory. Theories are always subject to reevaluation and evidence.”
Of course, that is how science works.
“Any process that is beyond observation as evolution is, is simply unscientific. It is never scientific principles but theory.”
Not sure what you mean when you say evolution is beyond observation. It has been demonstrated in the laboratory. Feel free to repeat the experiment if you disagree with the results.
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/
“For evolution to be true, there would have to be links between the different species that simply are not in the fossil evidence.”
There are many links between different species. Of course links do not exist for all species of fossils as the fossil record is incomplete. But contrary to what you say, links are clearly found. Tiktaalik and Archaeopteryx are clear examples of transitional fossils.
Putting aside the fossil record altogether, the shared genetic inheritance of all life on Earth provides the links you are seeking.
#14: Your response to my question is just what I expected. My question and point is this, why is there so much opposition to investigating the theory of intelligent design within the question of the origin in life when those that so quickly discount the possibility have only theories themselves? No protein cells have ever been created through any experiments that have occurred based on those theories that the non-intelligent design folks hold so dear. Science is suppose to be a SEARCH for validation not just a one sided political pursuit. I find it very comical that Biologist such as Dawkins and many, many more will entertain a theory such as “big bang and crystals” without any evidence whatsoever to support the theory but argue against the possibility of intelligent design for the same reason.
A great example of the hypocrisy that I just mentioned is in the recent documentary, “Expelled” , that interviews some of the worlds most prominent University Biologist regarding this issue including Richard Dawkins.
#15 – FuckUp
>>bush lovers
Hey, what’s wrong with bush? Bush, beaver, carpet, muff, crotch lawn, it’s all good.
#17—WoW!!!!
Goes into my cut and paste file for just how assbackward these scientifically illiterate are.
Amusing if they didn’t reproduce.
# 8 alphgeek,
High ranking cosmologists already teach that a highly ordered physical reality can spontaneously materialize out of nothingness and then become increasingly disordered and decay into inevitable extinction and non-existence. You can find the authoritative reference and relevant discussion in the given link.
#18–F&kedup==and I like the video with that “left beehind” star discussing how God intelligently designed the banana for humans to eat and the banana they used as proof was thoroughly human engineered.
So bad, even the morons in the film admitted they got it wrong.
Not very faithful to admit an error.
Wow, fedup and David Cox, your ignorance of science is astounding. Just astounding.
#21: No proof whatsoever… No experiment to prove any portion of what they think “might occur”. So, for most folks these days a professor or anyone with a claimed knowledge in a particular area can just describe what the think might happen in whatever area and it’s taken for fact…I guess it’s no different than those that thought the world was flat and ships would sail off the edge of the world just because someone said it was so!
If you’ve not seen it:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4
Cracks me up whenever I think of it.
Fine, mandate the teaching of science in sunday school and protestant christian schools by secular science teachers.
24 post and no one can answer this one question…HOW DID THE PROTEIN CELL BEGIN ON EARTH? Not surprising since no one can answer the question with anything more than a guess…
Bobber, I have no idea what film you are referring to. I for one don’t bother watching kirk cameron for science info…
#23–skippy==no one with an education can really be so ignorant of basic word definitions. Mustard does it but as a thinly disguised joke.
Dave and F&kedup are either recent left beehinds from some religious commune, or active recruiters for the same. Too stupid to reproduce, they have to steal real people and indoctrinate them before they get to fourth grade.
Telling no one even stoops to explain the errors F and D make. Beyond the pale. Hmmm. Maybe I’m stooping too much?