A growing number of science students on British campuses and in sixth form colleges are challenging the theory of evolution and arguing that Darwin was wrong. Some are being failed in university exams because they quote sayings from the Bible or Qur’an as scientific fact and at one sixth form college in London most biology students are now thought to be creationists.
[…]
In the United States there is growing pressure to teach creationism or “intelligent design” in science classes, despite legal rulings against it. Now similar trends in this country have prompted the Royal Society, Britain’s leading scientific academy, to confront the issue head on with a talk entitled Why Creationism is Wrong. The award-winning geneticist and author Steve Jones will deliver the lecture and challenge creationists, Christian and Islamic, to argue their case rationally at the society’s event in April.“There is an insidious and growing problem,” said Professor Jones, of University College London. “It’s a step back from rationality. They (the creationists) don’t have a problem with science, they have a problem with argument. And irrationality is a very infectious disease as we see from the United States.”
[…]
Most of the next generation of medical and science students could well be creationists, according to a biology teacher at a leading London sixth-form college. “The vast majority of my students now believe in creationism,” she said, “and these are thinking young people who are able and articulate and not at the dim end at all. They have extensive booklets on creationism which they put in my pigeon-hole … it’s a bit like the southern states of America.”
>> The0ne said, on January 29th, 2010 at 9:34 am
>> Damn, all this time I’m just been visiting the wrong countries. Maybe I’ll find some Brits in Cambodia shagging some little girl who’s actually a pretty little boy.
That’s just creepy.
Science is really no more than what we know or have theorized about the Creation.
This explanation is uncomfortable to atheists because it forces them to consider that there really is a Creator.
Truth and discovery is rarely behind the Creation/Science debate, only the defiant rejection of God in the name of Science.
So what about all the scientists who are religious? (and not just scientists who are christian but scientists who follow other religions?) And what about all the religious people who have no issues with science?
#30 The0ne
Ah, so your boss is a brit and you don’t like him. Well that makes complete sense then.
I am truly humbled. I underestimated the depth of your worldliness.
>> bac said, on January 29th, 2010 at 9:27 am
>> What the IDers are saying to the world is that they observe the wonders of Nature but are too lazy to find out the true charactistics of Nature so they state some all powerful invisible being designed Nature.
You’re not exactly wrong, but that’s not exactly it.
It’s certainly not laziness — it’s MUCH MORE WORK to reconcile constantly-expanding science knowledge with a static document from 1000 CE.
It’s exhausting, actually.
>> jccalhoun said,
>> So what about all the scientists who are religious? (and not just scientists who are christian but scientists who follow other religions?) And what about all the religious people who have no issues with science?
Many atheists believe they own science.
Ironically, this is purely a faith-based belief unconnected from reality.
In reality, lots of religious people are doing fantastic work in pure and applied science.
They sometimes get bullied by the atheist supremacists but they hang in there.
>> AngryChad said, on January 29th, 2010 at 10:22 am
>> When you forgive people for being completely irrational in any aspect of life, as the widespread acceptance of religion does,
I don’t know any religious people who are “completely irrational in every aspect of life” — even the most adamant creationist acts rationally in most situations.
Ironic, though, that you believe such an irrational thing despite it’s obvious absurdity.
#22 MrMiGu
…The appendix “acts as a good safe house for bacteria,”…
…before dense populations in modern times and during epidemics of cholera that affected a whole region, it wasn’t as easy to grow back that bacteria and the appendix came in handy. In less developed countries, where the appendix may be still useful, the rate of appendicitis is lower than in the U.S…
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/21153898/
#34
As you should but sadly no, it’s not the only reason. If you can comprehend better than a 1 year old you’ll notice I stated over and over several times that I’ve met Brits but have yet to find a decent good one to be friends with.
My coworker was “a” example of what I’ve been talking about. If I give another example, I’m afraid it’ll just confuse you more so I won’t.
And if you go beyond the comprehension of a 2 year old then you’ll pick up the subtleties of my tone where I have not given up and would like to continue meeting English people until I meet someone who is nice and decent.
Is that so hard for you to imagine that I have not yet met a nice English person?
What do creationists think about Neanderthals? I would guess they think they were just ugly people or something.
# 10 qb,
I said that there are scientific theories of creationism.
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. That’s the view of all mainstream physicists. You can hear Sir Roger Penrose express that very orthodox belief at exactly 5:00 to 7:05 minutes into the following Hard Talk interview with Stephen Sackur.
As you suspect, the whole debate about the validity of creationism is really about the definition of science.
#25: The creationists are lousy at teaching science. If I were in need of a doctor, I would prefer an MD who believes in reality (e.g. evolution and biology, the nature of the universe we live in, and other scientific discoveries), than a doctor whose world view is based on 2000 year old fairy stories written by people who had no clue about the actual nature of reality. Religions are good for teaching ethics, most of the time (exception: see all the wars among the many religions).
The strongest argument against Darwinian evolution is evolutionary biologists also accepting the pseudo-science of the biomedical establishment.
http://everythingimportant.org/AZT
The reason most graduates are creationist is; if they are not, they aren’t allowed to graduate. Or Darwin forbid, if they slip through we just won’t hire/fund them!
The only reason the theory of evolution is not full of holes is it is moving target. They keep changing the theory so it is hard to say it is inaccurate. They simply say you just are behind the times. They fixed that ‘bug’ in the last re-write. You are just out of date!
Notice the group is having a lecture, not a debate. Every time evolution is debated it loses. So go ahead and continue to fail anyone who does not follow the scientific religion of evolution.
Free tinkers will ponder the fig. Each variety of fig needs a specific wasp to fertilize the fruit. The pollen and stamen are contained within the fruit and each variety has a wasp with a special trick to burrow into the fruit and fertilize it. How can such a complex arrangement survive in a evolutionary world?
Hence the term “Intelligent Design”. It is hard to believe such a complex system came about in a random fashion.
Unless you believe in the religion of evolution!
So you ask your doctor what their religious views are before you accept treatment? Most people choose a doctor based on reputation or at least whoever their HMO approve.
Most Creationists believe in biology, relativity (Einstein believed in creation and came up with relativity, so pick another argument), the nature of the universe we live in, and scientific discoveries. I want a doctor who can operate on humans and knows human biology. I don’t want a doctor who has only studied and operated on apes.
What we disagree with is the origin of the universe which happened a long time ago anyway. (Some time before 6000 years ago. Yes, 22 billion years ago is some time before 6000 years ago.) We also disagree with the method the universe was formed. This has no impact whatsoever on the current universe we live in today. I read Scientific America just like evolutionists because I study science. I just don’t buy evolution.
Calling my religion a fairy tale is wrong. You will learn the truth someday.
#41 “Floyd said, on January 29th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
#25: The creationists are lousy at teaching science. If I were in need of a doctor, I would prefer an MD who believes in reality (e.g. evolution and biology, the nature of the universe we live in, and other scientific discoveries), than a doctor whose world view is based on 2000 year old fairy stories written by people who had no clue about the actual nature of reality.”
#43 “The pollen and stamen are contained within the fruit and each variety has a wasp with a special trick to burrow into the fruit and fertilize it.”
I saw a documentary about that. It was really cool, but I can no longer bring myself to eat figs. Yuck. All those bugs crawling into my fruit and then the smaller bugs eating the wasps. Also with the sap pouring on the trees to attract ants so the wasps only land certain times in the life cycle of the fig tree.
Benjamin,
You better stop eating carrots potatoes and tubers, they grow in the mud.
Stop eating beef, they piss and shit on the grass they eat. (Same for Sheep, and we won’t discuss pigs!)
Each variety of fig where the wasp dies with in the fig exudes a chemical that digests the bug.
No different than if the bug died on the ground and the plant absorbed the nutrients from the ground.
#5
There are scientific theories of creationism.
Baloney. There are wild guesses, some made by scientists, about the notion of creationism but there are no scientific theories of creationism.
#9
Science is really no more than what we know or have theorized about the Creation.
This explanation is uncomfortable to atheists because it forces them to consider that there really is a Creator.
More baloney. Atheists make no assumptions about the possibilities of a creator. However, they do require that any such claims are backed by scientific proof. Something that creationists have never done.
#27
“Creationism” is not wrong, it’s just not science.
This is the message that needs to be stated in science classrooms.
Could not have said it better. I have no problem with a scientist that is religious as long as they understand where science ends and philosophy begins.
#41
You are confusing speculation with science. There are no scientific theories about creationism. What you are presenting is one man’s guess. Without tangible, unbiased, repeatable evidence to support his hypothesis, it remains in the realm of philosophy and personal introspection.
As you suspect, the whole debate about the validity of creationism is really about the definition of science.
Nonsense. We differentiate science from non-science via the methods used to make conclusions. Science requires evidence. Non-science does not.
#44
There is no one theory of evolution. It is represented by a number of theories which explain the observable fact that species evolve.
Every time evolution is debated it loses
Fanatical dribble coming from someone that is clearly ignorant about the scientific method. Even if you prove that the current theories of evolution are all wrong, you have provided ZERO support that creationism is valid.
How can such a complex arrangement survive in a evolutionary world?
This is a variant of the “an eye is too complex to have evolved on its own” dribble. That argument might have made sense…1000 years ago. Much has been learned since then. Given the time frames involved, a tremendous degree of complexity can be produced. Go to TalkOrigins.org where all such arguments have been thoroughly trounced.
At the end of the day, the fundamental, glaring truth is that creationism is not science. There is no falsifiable claim. There is no evidence to support their statements. It is purely philosophical smoke covering the Judeo-Christian-Muslim religion. Thus, if a doctor wants to believe in witch doctors, that’s his prerogative as long as he understands the scientific method and how to actually go about understanding the real world. I don’t want a doctor telling me that prayer or voodoo will heal my broken arm.
#44 emhodew
Start to finish, that is the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen on this blog. It would have to be 5 times smarter to be a forehead slap.
Creationism is not an alternative to science. It is an alternative to faith.
Creationism tries to rationalize faith.
All scientific theories can be proved or disproved through observation and experiment.
If you want to disprove evolution scientifically then disprove it through observation or experimentation. Dawkins has already mention several ways to disprove evolution. A simple way is to find fossils in the wrong era for example; modern bird fossils before the time of the dinosaurs.
# 48 said,
“Without tangible, unbiased, repeatable evidence to support his hypothesis, it remains in the realm of philosophy and personal introspection.”
Don’t tell me. Tell that to the vast consensus of mainstream physicists that teach that the universe exploded into existence out of nothingness. And while you’re at it, also please instruct the willfully blind Darwinists who assert without evidence that all life descended from a single-celled animal.
#39 The0ne
Yes, yes. You’ve really won me over with that brilliant argument.
How you know one and dislike him, and you’ve met some others and for some reason dislike them too. And what a big heart you have because if you met one, just one, that somehow worked for you, you might change your mind. Inspiring indeed.
Characterizing millions of people by a handful you’ve met. Yes, nice one.
I’ll say it again – you need to get out more.
There’s no rule that says there won’t be more Dark Ages.
#51
There actually IS evidence to support the idea that the universe exploded from a single explosion. That evidence is based on other existing scientific theories of physics and cosmology. There is absolutely ZERO evidence that points towards a single creator or even single non-Terran species.
also please instruct the willfully blind Darwinists who assert without evidence that all life descended from a single-celled animal.
A strawman argument. No scientist claims that all life evolved from one and only one single-celled organism just as no scientist would say that man evolved from chimps. It is probable that multiple single-cell organisms developed independently at the same time.
That species evolve is an observable fact. How they evolved and from what they evolved is what concerns scientists. If all life evolved from simpler forms, then the inescapable conclusion is that there was a starting point of single-celled organisms. Again, this is not based on conjecture based on wild assumptions. There is real evidence that points to this conclusion.
# 54 said,
If all life evolved from simpler forms, then the inescapable conclusion is that there was a starting point of single-celled organisms.
Unfortunately, there is absolutely no evidence that favors progressive evolution above devolution.
http://everythingimportant.org/devolution
#54
Rubbish. You were obviously asleep in biology class. Take, for example, the book called “On the Origin of Species” by some eminent scientist of the 19th century called Darwin. Just chock-a-block full of examples, such as the Galapagos finches. And that was only the first of many such observations.
#55 Shubee
Um, the KT boundary? The Tr-J boundary? The P-Tr boundary?
Any major extinction event.
#48-Thomas-they (Atheist) require that any such claims are backed by scientific proof. Something that creationists have never done.
Proof of intelligent design is all around. From the design and function of the solar system to the many forms of life we take for granted.
There is an abundance of proof if you have a mind to recognize it.
#53 there are days and people that make me think we are living in them.
#58
A nonsensical proof as your hypothesis provides no means to be falsified and thus is not scientific. If everything is designed, how do you differentiate between not-designed and designed? You cannot start your argument with “everything is designed”. You must start with no assumptions and prove your claims. If your claim is that “everything is designed”, then you must provide a means by which we can detect that which is not-designed from that which is designed.
#56
Did you really mean to direct that at me because as far as I can tell, you are proving my point.