h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'm quite surprised that such heavyweights as David Attenborough and Richard Dawkins would get so concerned as to write to the Prime Minister regarding small schools that are also including creationism in their science classrooms. Do they feel that science cannot discuss alternative views? Or are they concerned that there is something socially wrong with providing students within the education system the alternative to believe in the idea that God was responsible for creating living organisms in a manner which does not correspond to the full-blown theory of evolution? Why bring in the full force of politics to block teaching contrary to their particular theories?

Surely we should allow the alternatives adequate competition, so that ultimately the true theory of the origin of life wins (or perhaps I should say survives).

Sven.

What if there were a cult that said by meditating and praying to its god humans could fly from the tops of mountains or tall buildings.

We would not want that taught to children because it is clearly dangerous nonsense.

Well creationism is similar, sure it, creates no immediate danger but neither does it have any suppoting evidence. If we were to teach biblical creationism as a scientific theory we would then be obliged to teach the equally compelling theories of each and every cult and religion.

I and others think that as a scientific theory only those that have any physical evidence to support them should be taught and that creationism should be kept for RE only.

Would you be happy with state schools teaching that Newton or Darwin were gods?

Teaching creationism in a science class is akin to teaching French in an English class. It is a religious myth and if some want to believe it fine, but it has nothing to do with science.

'Would you be happy with state schools teaching that Newton or Darwin were gods?'
Perhaps science should be taught in religious studies classes as an alternative.

Ste

**randomly happens across thread**

I would at least like to nominate Newton for demi-God status.

The creationism v evolutionism arguments have missed the point. The whole objective of scientists is to present a plausible hypothesis for observed phenomena. No can prove that gravity works as we've said it does, or that the atom is constructed as is thought, but that doesn't stop us teaching it.

Besides - I don't believe there's any reason why creation and evolution couldn't sit side by side. Scientists are certainly not sure how life arose on this world. If paramecia and soforth were placed here by a divine entity and then evolved, then the Lord God truly would have made them all.

B

In that case I would nominate Darwin as full on all-poweful GOD. Just to annoy the creationists. And because he was the root cause of a revolution in Western thinking that is still with us today.

Anyway,

There's indisputable FACT and then there's scientific fact. The latter isn't as ceertain as the former, and that's why it's so powerful. Gravity, the atom, evolution are all scientific fact.

"I don't believe there's any reason why creation and evolution couldn't sit side by side."

Exactly. That's been my position all along. Both Newton and Darwin (and others) were such intellectual revolutionaries that they changed the thinking of all of society, including religious folk. It's ironic that creationists can only think in a scientific manner, such is the pervasiveness of science in our society. They see science as the only way to get validation of their beliefs and try to claim scientific credibility. Missing the point entirely of course.



Ste

"There's indisputable FACT and then there's scientific fact."

True, but there aren't anywhere near as many of the former as you might believe. The existence of the atom was only confirmed 10 years ago.

B

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. And that science acknowledges that.

Ste

Besides - I don't believe there's any reason why creation and evolution couldn't sit side by side. Scientists are certainly not sure how life arose on this world. If paramecia and soforth were placed here by a divine entity and then evolved, then the Lord God truly would have made them all.

How about the two facts that a:

there isnt a single shred off empirical evidence to even suggest the existence of a bigG.

b:

placing creationism next to evolution in an education system suggests to students that there is a scientific foundation to creation theory.

one love

I have just taught a scheme of work that put evolution/creation next to geology. So where does that put fossils?

B

blicky:

"there isnt a single shred off empirical evidence to even suggest the existence of a bigG."

People don't believe in God, generally, because of empirical evidence though.

"placing creationism next to evolution in an education system suggests to students that there is a scientific foundation to creation theory."

That's a good point. If it should be taught anywhere it should be in a religious studies class.

Creationism (not the totally biblically literal form) can easily sit side-by-side with science. There really is no clash. Many scientists are deeply religious, and many religious people, including clergy, do not doubt evolution or other science because of their faith. I personally have no religious faith so I find it difficult to imagine. But I realise that faith is something more than blind following what you're told. Fundamentalists (of any religion) don't share this kind of faith with normal people of faith, creationists included. It's a very stupid form of unthinking religion they have.


Master B,

"I have just taught a scheme of work that put evolution/creation next to geology."

What do you mean by that?


Ste

I mean that creationism and evolution aren't actually placed adjacently in very many education systems.

Mostly, and this is the case in all of Europe and most of the States, kids learn evolution in Biology, and creation stories in RE/RI.

B

Oh so you were saying that you were teaching a very unusual class scheme. Was this science? How *did* you approach fossils?

Ste

Well, you usually pop along to the staffroom where you'll find a couple reading the papers.

Sorry, I'm not in a mood to take this topic seriously at the minute.

B

Hehehe, dork.