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

Entry: The Creation / Evolution Debate 2002 to 2006 - A18848622
Author: Giford - U187177

This article is a synopsis so far of the scoring game I have running at A3400787.

Gif

I'm not sure that the fact that a leading US Creationist is a crook is really anything to do with the debate. I'm sure there are plenty of people who believe in Evolution and are crooks too.

specimin --> specimen

Typo corrected and reference to Hovind removed.

Gif

The reference to the non-effect of reality on the beliefs of the American people could, I feel, be usefully quantified by reference to any of the various surveys that show how many Americans
- don't believe in evolution
- think the earth is 6000 years old
- believe Noah's Ark really existed
- any amount of other nonsense.

Other than that, excellent work!

SoRB

Hi SoRB,

By the criteria I have set for inclusion in this entry, data must be more recent than mid-2002 and be new - so surveys showing that levels of belief in [god / creationism / UFOs / the existence of cheese] have not changed are not within the scope of the article.

There might be a case for some of the UK surveys showing a creeping belief in creationism, since that is newer. I'll see if I can find some details.

Gif

Well (and I realise this is very pedantic...) if surveys showing levels of belief have not changed, then the final sentence of the entry is redundant.

"There is no sign that any of this is having any effect on the beliefs of the American public."

Either you have data more recent than 2002 which supports that statement, in which case you might quote it, or you don't, in which case you shouldn't say it.

Fair enough?

SoRB

Hi SoRB,

OK, I'll add in some info on surveys (from both sides of the Pond, pre- and post-2002) at the end.

Gif

All changes now made.

Gif

Hey i'm pretty new at this peer review but i just want to say that you should really look into this what i mean is just sort of look at everything. Althought i am religious i dont want to be biased and say evolution is a load of (rude word) but just sort of look at what everyone thinks kk :D

I question the point of this entry, to be honest. First of all, it's not about a real debate. There might be a battle going on in America's courtrooms and classrooms for the minds of children but the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of evolution and this has been exposited in the Dover case.

So, it appears to be about what's been going on on h2g2. I tend to cling to the opinion that h2g2 is 'about' facts, events, history other than itself. Occasionally, some misbegotten God-bothering twerp posts an ill-advised denunciation of Darwinism to PR, which then gets dealt with swiftly and brutally and with any luck no more is heard about it. This appears to be nothing more than an exercise in raking over the embers of an argument that flared up and died down a long time ago. It's tedious and dispiriting to have to engage in the same arguments over and over again, and this merely gives succour to some around here who appear to be on their own particular Crusade.

Let sleeping dogs lie.

Hi Moofish - Perhaps you can help me to improve this article by supplying some of the evidence against evolution? I would suggest that the best place to do this would be in the original thread on which this article is based (see post 1 of this thread).

Hi FM - creationism in the UK has been growing rapidly over the past few years. See the surveys linked in the article. Several schools now teach creationism, and Truth in Science recently sent (deeply flawed and inaccurate) creationist literature to every school in the country. The resulting debate has lead to creationism being made part of the UK national curriculum for the first time. Some of this success is due to successful creationist selling of the 'we just want balanced treatment / fair debate' line. I think that simply dismissing creationism out of hand plays into that. While you definitely have a point (no-one wants to waste time making schoolkids 'investigate both sides' of the flat Earth argument or the diseases-are-caused-by-evil-spirits argument), it is equally important that the evidence be presented.

On top of that, of course, the original Uni project is unarguably now out of date. None of the material in this article is presented in the Uni project at present. Furthermore, this article is entirely factual, even if the facts are about a religious/political movement rather than a field of scientific study.

(Sorry if my 'strictly neutral' hat slipped a little oon this post.)

Gif

Yeah, but my point is that as it stands, the article starts out by portraying itself as an account of the skirmish we've had going on here. If the existing articles are factually incomplete or inaccurate, then the evidence you report ought to written into an update.

Secondly, creationism is NOT taught as part of the National Curriculum. The idea is *explored* but this is not the same as a didactic handing-down of knowledge. I *want* these ideas to be explored so that children can be *taught* the difference between science and a faith-based position and, in so doing, develop their critical thinking skills. I had a RE teacher trotting out William Paley's creaky old watchmaker argument but was able to instantly see the flaws in it. Now, I was a very bright child but there is no reason why children whould not be exposed to the same flawed reasoning *providing* it is in the right context.

However, my criticisms of this entry stand. Either the material ought to go in as an update (and, in so doing, test the editorial standards of this site) or it is about a skirmish on h2g2 which, let's face it, is really pretty insignificant in the scheme of things.

Hi FM,

Lord Adonis, an education minister, will be issuing new guidelines for the teaching of creationism in UK schools by the end of Feb: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2524442_1,00.html. Creationism will become part of the national curriculum very soon. How this will be handled is not yet clear.

Yes, this material should form an update to the Project - that is exactly what this article is supposed to be. It is certainly not intended as being about another H2G2 thread (although, as noted, I have been keeping track of developments as they occur in another H2G2 conversation).

Gif

We got taught about the phlogiston theory as well. We were told that it was believed that the stuff was given up when something burned, but then Priestly (or was it Lavoisier?) discovered that ashes were heavier than the original material, and *hence the theory was false*.

You can teach about creationism without teaching Creationism itself. I see no problems with exploring its ideas in the classroom providing that they are weighed in the same way that the scientific ones are. Talk of it becoming part of the National Curriculum is absurd.

If this is part of a University Project, what is it doing in PR?

It was Lavoisier. And yes, I agree there is a difference in teaching creationism and teaching about creationism. The difference is that we don't have religious pressure groups trying to have atheistic Lavoisianism banned from classrooms or the Biblically supported doctrine of 'Intelligent Reacting' given equal time.

Laws are made by people - in a democracy, by 'the people'. If enough people are convinced of the truth of creationism, they can and will pass laws requiring it to be taught in classrooms - and as things stand, creationists seem to be winning the PR battle in the UK. It wouldn't be the first absurd thing to have overwhelming public support in the UK.

This article in in PR because the Uni project was completed several years ago (hence the need for an update). My understanding is that additions need to go through PR. This is a proposed addition to an existing Uni Project, not part of a UP in development.

Gif

We're in danger of going off on a tangent here. Campaigning for a point of view, however praiseworthy, should not be the purpose of any Guide entry, otherwise the EG will degenerate into a melee once the fundamentalists start claiming equal exposure. If you don't like what's going on in classrooms, join the PTA or the Board of Governors.

This material is not able to stand as an entry in its own right, so I suggest you either rewrite the existing entries and post to the Update forum (which should have been done in the first place) or reconsider whether this is the best place for it.

Obviously I think that this is able to stand as an article in its own right; however, if there is a consensus of opinion that it is unsuitable for the EG then I will withdraw it from PR.

(Fixed some typos)

Gif

This is a terrific entry, and very useful for those who want facts to produce in debates and conversations. I find it fills the criterion for Edited Guide entries perfectly; though I don't know the procedure for Projects.

A few typos remain.

Judge Justice Jones -- a google for "Judge Justice" produces no titles of this kind. Do you mean "The judge, Justice Jones"? If so, "Justice Jones" would do. What you have is a tad confusing.

Michael Behe, one of the founders of 'Intelligent Design Theory', was forced to conceed --> concede

"The people of Kansas are tired of being the laughing stock of not just the nation, but the world," -- single quotes only allowed (why? don't know)

This exploits a loophole in US law allowing this if the parents have religious objections to the syllabus. -- We needn't criticise the inadequacies of US Law; enough to say "US law allows this if the parents have religious objections to the syllabus."

curly-tailed lizards and were found to become beter adapted first at running fast, then at climbing trees -->better. Also, is "adapted for" not preferable to "adapted at"?

Your footnotes need concluding fullstops, and footnotes 5, 6 and 7 need spaces removed before the tag. 6 also needs a fullstop removed before

Excellent stuff. I disagree with Felonious; this is topical, useful and extremely well presented

I am afraid Gnomon may have the wrong end of the stick; it *is* germane to the debate if a creationist's honesty is impugned *in the context of his testimony*. Behe was not dismissed as an unreliable witness on account of notorious financial dealings or other extramural behaviour, but rather (as I read it) his argument was shown by the judge to be ill-formed.

Hi Recumbentman,

Thanks for your comments. I have made the changes you suggest. Wasn't sure about the 'adapting' point either, so I've put 'to'.

Gnomon was refering to an earlier version that had a reference to Kent Hovind being convicted of fraud. Thus Gnomon's point was that this was not in the context of any scientific debate (I had oringially included it more as 'news' than a point for/against either side). I have since removed this whole section, which is probably why you thought he was refering to Behe.

Gif