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.”
#87
Suppose a professor purported belief that the Easter Bunny is responsible for gravity? Should we consider such a non-scientific hypothesis in the same light as scientific hypotheses? Certainly not.
ID is not science. It is not phrased as science and thus should not be treated as science.
> I want all the information
> presented to me not just
> some theory.
http://toarchive.org/indexcc/list.html#CA200
http://toarchive.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html
> If the theory was so great
> , why isn’t it accepted as a FACT?
That species evolve is an observable fact. Darwin’s theory is accurate at predicting that evolution under certain conditions.
> Darwin’s theory didn’t
> explain everything 100%
No theory does nor purports to do so.
> Neither camp fully explains either.
There are no “camps” here. There is science and not science. ID is not science.
Misanthropic Scott, bible believers and thumpers in general: Here is Chritopher Hitchens giving the strongest sermon I have yet to hear on the evils of religion. I’m sure there are worse, I just haven’t seen them:
“The main source of hatred in the world is religion.”
http://.youtube.com/watch?v=yYIs1fkZ2wo&feature=related
You muffed up the link again, Bobbo. You took out the “www”, but not the “.”; it should be:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=yYIs1fkZ2wo&feature=related
Mustard–you are my constant star, the true direction, my only Imam. Lots of other good screeds there too==like why women don’t make good comedians.
#95, bobbo,
… like why women don’t make good comedians.
Tell that to Cow-Paddy.
Darnit, QB, now I can’t get Wagner and the music out of my head! Kudos for the Norse references. Now that’s some Creationism.
Here’s a very short take on Wagner’s 25 year work.
Thanks to bobbo, Mr. Mustard, Mr. Fusion, QB, amodedoma and others for making this (near 100 comment) thread so thought-provoking.