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.”
Still waiting for answer to post #27… Ill check back in a while. But since the worlds most prominent biologist have never been able to answer the question I dont think assmustard and bobber will either…well, bobber might since he knows everything….I’ll check back on you biologists in a bit…
#27–fedup==you are right, no one can answer how “the protein cell” began on earth. So what?
What does that mean to you? What will it mean to you when we discover/develop 12 different ways to initiate self reproducing life from inanimate elemental parts. Still no proof which way of the 12 got things going.
So what?
Protein cell? Protein CELL?? Jeez, that doesn’t even deserve a response.
Bobber, I guess this is just beyond you….
Fedup said:
“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…”
I’m not sure what point you are making here. Science generally doesn’t claim to have all the answers. There are some questions that science may never be able to answer, such as: Can you prove that I don’t have an invisible, pink dragon in my garage?
This lack of answers does not in any way mean that Biblically literal creation is correct by default. There are many creation myths, any of which can be just as wrong as any other.
We shouldn’t make the error of confusing mythology with science. That’s why myths should be kept out of science classrooms.
And Bubba, it’s obviously clear why you are a “bubba” … They probably never discuss protein cells on Jerry Springer so you would not have any way to know that the protein cell is the building block of all life.
#34: You miss the point as well… The point is that the issue of intelligent design is not mutually exclusive to religion and is simply another theory that is argued as not being “scientific” in nature and therefore not worthy of study when the same can be said for all other current theories regarding the origin of life. It may be that Richard Dwakins is absolutely correct that life on earth began by some alien visiting earth. You need a bit more research on the topic.
Fedup:
I’m happy to leave religion out of any discussion of intelligent design. However, intelligent design is not a scientific theory. It is not falsifiable. Therefore it has no place being discussed as a scientific theory.
It might be relevant in a philosophy class perhaps.
Dawkins claimed that he was quoted out of context in the movie. But his hypothesis may have as much chance of being correct as any other hypothesis such as Biblical creation, the Rainbow Serpent, etc.
Dawkins doesn’t say that it is impossible that we are descended from aliens. He just deems it as very unlikely, just as it is very unlikely we were created by some sort of “god”.
“You need a bit more research on the topic.”
Let’s stick to the facts rather than make guesses as to each other’s state of knowledge eh?
#32 – Mr. Ray
>>Protein cell? Protein CELL?? Jeez, that
>>doesn’t even deserve a response.
Hey, you’re not just talking about anyone here, you’re talking about a guy WHO KNOWS ABOUT SCIENCE.
And he seems to think the protein CELL is the crown of creation…
oooOOOOOooooOOOoohhhhhhhhh
The crown of creation….
Soon you’ll attain the stability you strive for
in the only way that it’s granted
in a place among the fossils of our time.
In loyalty to their kind
they cannot tolerate our minds.
In loyalty to our kind
we cannot tolerate their obstruction.
Life is Change
How it differs from the rocks
I’ve seen their ways too often for my liking
New worlds to gain
My life is to survive
and be alive
for you.
oooOOOoooOOooOOOOOOOooohhhhh…….
#35, Jimy Heel,
What the eff are “protein cells”? As a great scholar, surely you will be able to explain that one.
Now after you tell us what a “protein cell” is, could you tell us where the intelligent designer came from?
BTW, evolution has been demonstrated. Many times. In fact, the dachshund laying beside my chair is an example of where, with human help, a wolf has evolved into the shape and size she is. The American short hair cat chasing the ball is another example of evolution. Then there is the Holstein cow and Thoroughbred horse, also which have evolved with help.
How about the dodo bird? It evolved into a flightless bird and couldn’t compete when rats and men were introduced to their island.
Of immediate view is the Peppered Moth. Since the moth normally rested on trees and with carbon soot darkening the trees in urban areas, the moths darkened their coloring to match the trees.
Or we could read some Charles Darwin’s observations of how some small animals had evolved differently on the different Galapagos Islands. Interesting book, the On the Origin of Species.
We are at a draw over the issue of falsifiability as it pertains to intelligent design. I would and many biologist support that the fact of the complexity of the protein cell supports the falsifiability aspect that the theory of such complex and specific DNA order within the cell is something that just happened. I think the reverse argument can (and is) be made against the prevailing theories.
#35 – FuckUp
>>And Bubba, it’s obviously clear why you are a
>>“bubba” … They probably never discuss protein
>>cells on Jerry Springer
I wouldn’t be surprised if the Jerry Springer Show is the ONLY place they discuss it…
Mr Fissure; evolution is about the study of CHANGE not origin.
Fedup said:
“Still waiting for answer to post #27… Ill check back in a while. But since the worlds most prominent biologist have never been able to answer the question I dont think assmustard and bobber will either…well, bobber might since he knows everything….I’ll check back on you biologists in a bit…”
Science doesn’t know the answer but we can describe the type of answer that could be described as “scientific”:
1/ Will be based on empirical evidence or observation;
2/ Will be repeatable;
3/ Experimental / observational method will be clearly described and available for anyone to reproduce, validate or challenge;
4/ Will be objective;
5/ Will be falsifiable
6/ Is consistent with other well accepted scientific theories or laws, or subsumes them entirely (much as relativity did to Newtonian motion).
Do you have an hypothesis or a theory that meets these criteria that you would like to present? Assuming it passes peer review, I’d be happy for such a theory of proteogenesis to be taught in a science class.
How can you discuss creation with people that don’t understand the role of the protein cell in biology. Lets’ get back to discussing what you do know…republicans bad….democrats good…George Bush bad….Obama good…Global Warming is George Bush’s fault….Al Gore is God….etc, etc…
This is what happens when you don’t teach science to the science teachers.
#44: Exactly. None of the current theories regarding the origin of life on earth meet the criteria that you list. I’m sure the world’s biologist would be at your debt if you could provide such information.
#40 – FuckUp
>> I would and many biologist support that the
>>fact of the complexity of the protein cell
>>supports the
OK, you’ve got us all on tenterhooks now, Mister Wizard….WHAT THE FUCK IS A PROTEIN CELL????
#45, f*ckedup,
WHAT THE EFF IS A PROTEIN CELL ?????????
No one can explain something that doesn’t exist you effen idiot.
Now, where did the intelligent designer guy or gal come from?
#40–F&kedup==thats a gem, another cut and paste for my collection called, in homage to George Carlin: “Droppings.”
You are directly confusing “falsifiable” with your own lack of knowledge. Not the same thing.
Hah, hah, hah. Even with my dictionary and google by my side, there are no words to truly catch your state of awareness.
Theories attempt to explain Observations (or “facts”)
Evolution is observed. Natural Selection is the theory that is used to explain it.
Evolution is not a theory. It is an observable fact.
Examples of evolution being observed: Drug resistant bacteria, the fossil record, finches of the Galapagos.
Questioning the theory of natural selection does nothing to change the fact that Evolution happens and can be observed.
Creationism does not provide a theory to explain evolution. It just says God did it. So stop thinking.
27 fedup
Shake up some oil and water, you get bilayered vesicles. Add in RNA evolved from the Miller-Urey experiment and you have your cell. That works.
Now go back with your time machine to see if this was the actual natural mechanism or just one of many probabilities.
While your at it, take some close-up photos of the 9/11 jet cockpits so we can be really, really sure they weren’t piloted by Bush clones.
RBG
I think fedup is confusing a metaphysical question with a scientific one. There a different kinds of single cells. Some have a nucleus and some don’t. All of them have DNA and RNA. DNA and RNA are molecules that store information. Molecules are made of chemicals. The scientific question is how the chemicals come together to form complex structures? The metaphysical question is why complex structures seem so important?
Arguing that complex structures mean a designer was involved ends up in a infinite statement that a designer must be complex so therefore the designer has a designer.
The question fedup needs to answer is can something complex come from non-complex items? Like can you combine some sugars with some phosphates to create a complex structure?
Fedup said:
“Exactly. None of the current theories regarding the origin of life on earth meet the criteria that you list. I’m sure the world’s biologist would be at your debt if you could provide such information.”
If they don’t meet these criteria (and a few more, like making predictions) then they aren’t scientific theories. They are hypotheses. Hypotheses have a perfectly valid place in science.
Intelligent design could conceivably be a hypothesis but it conflicts with my point #6 with regard to evolution*. Evolution is a very well supported scientific theory.
How would I provide the information? I’ve already said that I don’t know. Do you know?
With regard to the complexity of proteins, the notion of irreducible complexity isn’t scientifically valid as it isn’t falsifiable either.
Why? Because if a scientist proved that proteins really are not irreducibly complex then anyone can simply posit another arbitrarily complex thing and say “now prove that THIS isn’t irreducibly complex”. Ad infinitum.
Proteins really aren’t that hard to make anyway. Living organisms synthesise uncountable proteins each day without a moment’s conscious thought or effort. I’m doing it right now!
*In deference to the absolutely correct retep01810, when I say evolution I am really meaning the theory of evolution by natural selection.
#54 – alphageek
>>With regard to the complexity of proteins
No no. Not proteins. Protein CELLS. It’s a new scientific breakthrough from FuckUp (he know about science!), and we’re all on tenterhooks waiting to find out what they are.
Protein Cells!! The answer to all our questions!!
BubbaRay is correct — there is no such thing as a “Protein Cell”. Cell membranes are built from lipids and proteins. Want to know more? Obviously, you need to, in order to discuss this intelligently. Proteins are molecules, genius.
Thanks, Mr. Mustard. Maybe you could tell me just who is Jerry Springer? Wasn’t he the mayor of Cincinatti?
When there is a question to which we don’t know the answer, the correct response is “I don’t know. More research is needed.”
“God did it” is worse than no answer because it stops the pursuit of the answer.
I don’t think the educated put enough effort into shaping this world for the ignorant.
A start could be “The Theory of Natural Selection” and drop out the fact of Evolution. In Darwin’s original, the words are too close together to be separated by the simpleminded.
And that raises something that is falsifiable: most irreducible idiots believe in fairies, angels, and cretinism. (Ahem, not a typo.)
#45 – FuckUp
>>George Bush bad….
Ah, OK. NOW I’m with ya. I think we can all agree on that.
I thought you were saying “bush” was bad, which would lead me to conclude that you’re a pole-smoking rump wrangler!
And we know you’re ALL MAN. You literally reek of testosteron. Heck, your balls are made out of PROTEIN CELLS!!
#56–KD==everyone with a fourth grade education knows there are no “protein cells” but protein is incorporated into all cells===so its not too far a stretch to help F&kedup out and make his drivel make sense for him.
Its just that even when you correct for his entirely madeup terminology, the concepts he is groping at are even more faulty–even from his own value system. Poor boy doesn’t read much–even of the bible or other religious texts. Hard to get an education from bumperstickers and one page hand-outs. His type of aggressive ignorance on everything in opposition to science (can’t call it religion or faith can we?) makes a Jesuit look good.