Royal Society and Creationism In Science Classes 892
An anonymous reader writes "The Reverend Professor Michael Reiss, a biologist and Anglican priest, is the education director for the Royal Society, the venerable British science institution. He recently called for creationism to be discussed in science classes, not just in religion or philosophy classes. Science journals reacted with a world of 'WTF' and the Royal Society backpedaled furiously. Now Nobel laureates are gathering to get him fired: 'The thing the Royal Society does not appreciate is the true nature of the forces arrayed against it and the Enlightenment for which the Royal Society should be the last champion.' The blogs, of course, are loving it."
It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:5, Insightful)
I have no problem with students being shown the difference between science and "creationism". One is the very antithesis of the other. How can the average student be expected to argue against this nonsense if they don't understand what it is and why it is not science?
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree. Creationism and other pseudoscience should be discussed in science classes. I doubt that's quite what the good reverend had in mind though.
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:5, Insightful)
options C, D, and E (Score:4, Funny)
> Many other religions believe that the universe was created in a different way.
i have always found it a poor choice between ONLY a) science (of the darwinian we came from frogs), or b) creationism (we came out of nowhere, with no proof, and you jus gotta believe).
why is there never any discussion of option c) d) or even something like e) the occult evolution of the cosmos [rsarchive.org]?
no doubt, not many would choose option e) -- which both the creationists and scientists would think is just nuts -- but insofar as the number of possible theories examined, out of the many theories, it always only comes down to just two - ludicrous creationism, or ape science - other options aren't ever discussed, when there are other options. why are we caught in this polarity between the two ideas that have no overlaps in venn diagram...? :-P
Re:options C, D, and E (Score:4, Interesting)
and here's an example of option C) John Davidson, Natural Creation or Natural Selection [johndavidson.org]
i'm not saying his work is necessarily scientific (although he graduated cambridge with honours in biological sciences) -- but he interprets his science through the lens of buddhistic thought instead of judeo-christian creation myths. -- in doing so, he presents a radically different explanation of the fossil record which not only fits the with the facts, but also accords fully with indian philosophy.
then there's another, call it option D) -- and it doesn't necessarily contracdict darwin, but is based on a non-kantian epistemology -- theory of knowledge implicit in Goethe's World Conception - revision in Darwinian conception of time [rsarchive.org]
it just seems that trying to even acknowledge the existence of any other stream of thought other than options a) judeo-creation myth and b) the darwinian version of evolution seems impossible with some people though.
Re:options C, D, and E (Score:5, Interesting)
i'm not saying his work is necessarily scientific (although he graduated cambridge with honours in biological sciences) -- but he interprets his science through the lens of buddhistic thought instead of judeo-christian creation myths. -- in doing so, he presents a radically different explanation of the fossil record which not only fits the with the facts, but also accords fully with indian philosophy.
I'm a Christ-follower, and a deep studier of Scripture, and I firmly disavow any belief or support of Creationism in whole or in most parts. When one studies how the ancient Israelites translated Genesis, one can not even begin to understand how modern Evangelicals and other groups of the mass deluded would even begin to believe it was written as an explanation of anything except for what Scripture was meant to do: open the doorway to why Jesus had to do what He did when He did it, and that's that.
For me, the biggest difficult I face living amongst Christians is their inability to discern what they believe in and why. Example: most Christians would hold the Bible up in the air and call it "the Word of God." The problem is that the Bible is NOT the Word of God. Read Scripture, one sees this thing called the Word, and it is not written or spoken. In fact, this Word is a person/part of God/God who would come to human form as Jesus, the Messiah/Savior of the Ancient Israelites. Holy Scripture is NOT the Word. So when God through Scripture tells one to stick to the Word, most of the deluded Christians believe they must stick to Scripture as fact and as literal, when in fact this is completely the wrong way to go about life. Even Jesus Himself bemoans His own Apostles when they try to force Scripture into the physical realm: "My Kingdom is not of this world," He said.
So as one Christian to the many others who are reading this: stop with this sola scriptura nonsense. It's not Scriptural, and has nothing to do with how one lives today. Genesis was about God's SPIRITUAL Creation, not about the physical world. Revelation was about God's SPIRITUAL Convenant with the Ancient Israelites being fulfilled about 2000 years ago (1938 years ago, how I read it), not about some future physical destruction of the physical. God's Kingdom is not of this world, Christians. So stop trying to force it here, when there's no need to. It only pisses off the non-Christians, and makes all your good actions fruitless since they're countermanded by your misuse of Scripture to try to change the physical world.
Re:options C, D, and E (Score:4, Interesting)
When one studies how the ancient Israelites translated Genesis, one can not even begin to understand how modern Evangelicals and other groups of the mass deluded would even begin to believe it was written as an explanation of anything except for what Scripture was meant to do: open the doorway to why Jesus had to do what He did when He did it, and that's that.
I get what you're saying and appreciate you saying it, but I need to point this out: Genesis was the Hebrew record of creation before it was anything else. Jews do not see their scripture as a collection of prophecies which Jesus later fulfilled, it stands on its own and does not need justification.
(Raised Catholic, if it matters)
Re:options C, D, and E (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm a Christ-follower, and a deep studier of Scripture, and I firmly disavow any belief or support of Creationism in whole or in most parts. When one studies how the ancient Israelites translated Genesis, one can not even begin to understand how modern Evangelicals and other groups of the mass deluded would even begin to believe it was written as an explanation of anything except for what Scripture was meant to do: open the doorway to why Jesus had to do what He did when He did it, and that's that.
I hate to break it to you, but the ancient Israelites didn't translate Genesis.
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
According to 1 Corinthians 15:45-46, Christ was the "last Adam", who is a "quickening spirit". (Through your deep study, you should know that "quickening" in 17th-century English means "making alive".) The first Adam was made a living soul, and according to verse 46 was "of the earth". This quite plainly shows that Adam was a real man (living soul) with a real body (of the earth).
Example: most Christians would hold the Bible up in the air and call it "the Word of God." The problem is that the Bible is NOT the Word of God. Read Scripture, one sees this thing called the Word, and it is not written or spoken. In fact, this Word is a person/part of God/God who would come to human form as Jesus, the Messiah/Savior of the Ancient Israelites. Holy Scripture is NOT the Word. So when God through Scripture tells one to stick to the Word, most of the deluded Christians believe they must stick to Scripture as fact and as literal, when in fact this is completely the wrong way to go about life.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. -John 1:1-2
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: -2 Timothy 3:16
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. -2 Peter 1:21
You are correct in saying that Jesus is the Word, but you miss the point. Scripture is the Word. If you deny the literal inspiration of the Scriptures, then your faith is in vain. You are left with nothing to believe in but whatever you yourself make up.
Even Jesus Himself bemoans His own Apostles when they try to force Scripture into the physical realm: "My Kingdom is not of this world," He said.
Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
-John 18:33-37
Jesus is NOT "bemoaning" his apostles. His apostles aren't even in the picture. Jesus is saying that if he had come to be an earthly king, then his servants would use force to overthrow the Roman empire (what the chief priests accused him of plotting). But that isn't why Jesus came into this world.
So as one Christian to the many others who are reading this: stop wi
Re:options C, D, and E (Score:4, Insightful)
You sir, by denying the very first verse of the Bible, deny Christianity and are I contend are NOT a Christian.
You, sir, by arrogantly presuming the spiritual and scriptural authority to excommunicate someone based on a slashdot post, ARE a douchebag.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem with your position is that your personal faith represents a comprehensive abandonment of everything that is substantively "Christian". You disagree with literal interpretations of the Bible, you don't believe any of the assertions it makes about the physical world, you view God metaphorically and non-anthropomorphically the way deists like Einstein and Spinoza viewed the notion - as a concept, not an entity - and you bandy about abstractions like "SPIRITUAL" and "the Word" that would certainly
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So, I gotta ask... if you can figuratively throw out so much of the scripture as a misunderstanding, what says that doesn't extend to Jesus himself?
No Overlap? (Score:3, Interesting)
I've always thought that these ideas were nowhere neither as polar as they are usually presented.
I mean, if you accept the initial premise of an all powerful God, standing outside spacetime, then it's not so far a step to imagining a God who created the whole shebang in all its four dimensional glory, and then instantiated it at a point in time about six and a half thousand years ago.
Hey presto! Science works. Physics works. Evolution works. And God created it all, quite possibly in six days, albeit in
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly people should be confronted, as early as possible with both right AND wrong thoughts, and the evidence supporting them.
Of course, anybody can make a politic like this look bad by saying "look he's asking for creationism to be taught alongside evolution !". Of course ! How else do you suggest we teach children the difference.
Something like creationism is what a literal interpretation of the bible would yield. Distribute the first chapter of genesis, have students read it. Demand the children argue fo
Science converges, religion doesn't (Score:3, Informative)
There were several different scientific opinions on the origin of the universe, but when the cosmic microwave background radiation [wikipedia.org] was discovered in the 1960s, scientists agreed that the "big bang" hypothesis is the most likely.
That's why science is an absolute truth, which ultimately will prevail over personal opinions and beliefs. Science is based on experimental facts, to which logical reasoning is applied. You can believe as m
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:5, Insightful)
String Theory is not based on *physical* evidence, but it is supported by *mathematical* evidence, as are pretty much all modern scientific theories.
Nonsense (Score:4, Interesting)
And the reason that the mathematics is not evidence of the string hypothesis is that other hypotheses mathematically explain the same observations that the string hypothesis was created to explain almost as well, or even as well, as the string hypothesis does. For example, the MoND hypothesis arguably matches with prior math better than the string hypothesis does, since all it requires is a very slight (otherwise insignificant) adjustment of certain constants, whereas string hypothesis requires the addition of multitudes of dimensions and a great deal of other complexity.
Therefore, while the math for the string hypothesis might work out in a somewhat consistent manner, it is not "evidence" favoring the string hypothesis at all. On the contrary, if anything the mathematics favor other hypotheses such as MoND, which is approximately as consistent but much simpler. Admittedly, both hypotheses have some inconsistencies that researchers are trying to iron out.
In any case, in direct contradiction to your claim, it is clear that in order for ANY of these ideas to move from the level of hypothesis to the level of "theory", they require some kind of real-world testability. That may be forthcoming with the recent startup of the LHC; on the other hand it may not.
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:5, Insightful)
First, many scientific theories are based on no evidence (string theory) and at this time we don't even know when they can be proven, if ever, but yet I'm sure many people can cite cases where universities are teaching string theory.
No scientific theory can be proven. We have always to expect new information or newly discovered facts to contradict scientific theories and finally to disprove them. And that's exactly the point. That makes a theory scientific.
And yes, there might be facts that contradict String Theory. We just don't know them yet.
And yes, there might be facts that contradict Evolution. If we ever find a halfly designed and then not finished model of a potential organism, which can not have lived this way, has no known predecessor and now known parallel, then we could hypothetize that a designer was at work (and didn't finish it).
Many theories are also based on assumptions that, given the human tendency to act holier-than-though, we think must be right or otherwise, God forbid, our theory might end up being wrong.
That was never a problem with a scientific theory. They often have proved to be wrong (then they got abandoned and replaced by other theories), or incomplete (then they have been extended) or being valid only for a very small subset of events (then they have been superseeded by a more general theory).
The daily work of a scientist is not to find more evidence for a well established theory. More evidence you need only for a hypothesis, a not-yet-theory. The daily work of a scientist is crashtesting theories. Hit it with extreme conditions, with imaginative setups, with an alternate hypothesis, with better measurement. If you can poke a hole in a well established theory, a scientific price is not far away. If you find yet another evidence for a well established theory, all you get is a yawn from your colleagues.
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:5, Informative)
The platypus a) works b) is thus finished c) has wellknown predecessors (mammal-like reptils).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The absolutely huge difference between string/m theory and creationism that you don't seem to get, is that what limits research for the former is technology. The latter is simply unfalsifiable.
Second, many religions have a concept of a Creation.
What does that have to do with science?
This is from Richard Feynman:
I would like to add something that's not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you're talking as a scientist. I am not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you're not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We'll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you are maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:5, Funny)
The key point to take home though is that there is no confirmed proof of string theory at the present time but it is still being taught much like evolution for that matter.
String theory is not taught in any class I ever took. It's not taught in anything but advanced physics courses because it's beyond the capability of the vast majority of educators to understand. I would wager that you don't know the first thing about string theory and probably lack the proper math skill to even evaluate it objectively. Reading a watered-down pop-science book on the topic one time DOESN'T count as any expertise whatsoever. Being Stephen Hawking does.
So lets compare what an evolution class discussion might look like compared to a creationism class discussion. We'll start with the evolution class:
=====
TEACHER: Class, we have finished learning the rise of the four legged terrestrial animals in the context of global climate changes a billion years ago. Any questions?
STUDENT: Yes, how do we know about the climate changes?
TEACHER: Good question. We know because we have rock samples that we can date to an accuracy of 50 million years and can compare isotopic abundance of key elements in those rocks we know to have formed in the last million years. Differences in the isotopic profiles between the two rock samples suggest rapid significant changes in the atmosphere that were likely to allow for the colonizing land by amphibian like animals. Rock samples about two billion years old suggest that earth's atmosphere before that time would have been too harsh to allow terrestrial colonization by any animal more advanced than an insect.
=====
Now for the creationism class.
=====
PRIEST: So now you have learned that god made the creatures. Any questions?
STUDENT: Could we also explain that diversity of the creatures could come about through natural variation and selection based on adaptive advantage?
PRIEST: God made the creatures.
STUDENT: But there is a geological record consistent with a diversification mechanism based on natural selection. How do we account for this geological record.
PRIEST: God made the rocks and god made different creatures.
STUDENT: Why would god deliberately make this geological record that could go a long way towards explaining biological diversity?
PRIEST: Don't question god. You are going to hell.
=====
Ouch! Dammit, Occam! (Score:3, Interesting)
How about this: God made the creatures and the way he did it was via evolution.
So, basically, what you are saying is that we have these two possibilities based on the exact same amount of evidence:
1.) All living organisms came about via evolution.
2.) All living organisms came about via evolution because God did it that way.
As there is ZERO empirical evidence for the existence of any such entity, what, beyond your fragile ego, makes the second option more compelling? Now, I agree that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, but when faced with a complete lack of evi
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:4, Insightful)
The key point to take home though is that there is no confirmed proof of string theory at the present time but it is still being taught much like evolution for that matter.
This might be a good point if it weren't completely wrong. String theory is at an entirely different level of acceptance than evolution and there is still significant debate within the scientific community over its veracity. Why? For exactly the reason you mention-- there's very little evidence to back it up, merely a nice solution to a set of abstract equations that implies that such a configuration of spacetime would be awfully convenient. Which, incidentally, is how a lot of the Standard Model was first postulated which has turned out to explain subsequent experiment extremely well.
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:5, Insightful)
From the link ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2008/sep/11/michael.reiss.creationism [guardian.co.uk] ), here's what he said:
"Creationism can profitably be seen not as a simple misconception that careful science teaching can correct. Rather, a student who believes in creationism has a non-scientific way of seeing the world, and one very rarely changes one's world view as a result of a 50-minute lesson, however well taught."
Seems very reasonable to me.
If you do things the wrong way, you can prove you are right, but teach nothing.
If you teach nothing, you do not have a science class.
The uproar over what he said appears to be rather unscientific.
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is, that if you're not prepared to have your beliefs shaken, you're not really fit for science. Maybe it should be prefixed with a 'shake-your-belief' class, in which you do all sorts of little experiments like trying to see colour in the semi-dark, do simple maths in base-9, explain the mating behaviour of seahorses, and compare the height and circumference of a drinking glass (just things off the top of my head that could confuse a fourteen year old).
If I may expand upon that ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now imagine a class with 10 Creationist students in it.
All arguing their latest talking points with the teacher.
All demanding that books X, Y and Z be read to show the "facts" of Creationism.
All saying that authors A, B and C have "disproven" evolution.
All claiming that evolution is a religion.
Fuck that. Put Creationism in a World Religions class and just save the time and arguments. As can be seen from the comments here, even self described "nerds" have trouble understanding what science is (and is not). Why bother with the confusion and the arguments?
Re:If I may expand upon that ... (Score:4, Informative)
Oh, really? I think we should teach the controversy. A couple of days ago in my evolution class we learned about creationism - it was probably the single most interesting class ever.
We got to look at and talk about the Wedge Document [antievolution.org] (see also Wikipedia's writeup [wikipedia.org]). This stuff is amazing. Their political and social motives are like something beyond the 9/11 conspiracy theorists wildest wet dreams.
So let me ask the creationists here: Do you really want any of this stuff to come up in a science class? Really?
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:5, Informative)
No, that is exactly what the good reverend had in mind. To quote from interview given here [guardian.co.uk], he says:
"Creationism is not science, and it should not be given equal time in science lessons, and it shouldn't be presented by science teachers as a scientifically valid alternative. But as a teacher, I'm comfortable when dealing in science lessons with what students bring to the lesson even if it isn't good science. So I would want to acknowledge without in any way ridiculing the student.... I want to acknowledge that for the student that is how they understand the world, and I can respect them for that, but I want to make it very clear that's not the way the overwhelming majority of scientists understand the world, and we have very good evidence-based reasons as to why scientists understand the world they do, and then nothing would delight me more than to get into the scientific evidence for evolution or the history of the universe."
Why again are his comments a matter of controversy?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's actually exactly what he's claiming he meant, however.
From one of the articles:
In a statement Reiss has also clarified his comments. "When young people ask questions about creationism in science classes, teachers need to be able to explain to them why evolution and the Big Bang are scientific theories but they should also take the time to explain how science works and why creationism has no scientific basis."
It may be backtracking, but it still makes sense to me.
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:5, Interesting)
It should probably be discussed in any section on the history of biology as an example of an inferior theory that was replaced by a superior one.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that, given evolution, the superior theory is the one that survives. It is *not* at all a given that evolution will survive.
Not to give offence to anyone, but it has been all but extinguished in the entire muslim world, and it's slipping even in Turkey. (and not slipping like this message, but there is real, actual, physical violence from muslims attempting to enforce creationism in Turkey)
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:4, Informative)
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:5, Insightful)
Lamarckism was a perfectly logical and convincing theory to explain evolution; it turned out to be wrong, but there's nothing inherently unscientific about it in a pre-Mendelian world.
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:5, Insightful)
Using that yardstick, you have to teach about the Flying Spaghetti Monster in science classes too, so you can argue against this nonsense.
Students learn how to identify and dismiss bullshit by being taught the scientific method [wikipedia.org] . It works on any bullshit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, the whole FSM thing is funny, but when it becomes the knee-jerk reaction to every discussion about creationism, it gets old fast.
The reason it makes sense to discuss the differences between scientific reasoning vs. creationist belief is that there is a significant, vocal population of people who earnestly believe that creationism is not only true, but just as valid in a scientific context as evolution.
By that yardstick, it does not make sense to worry about showing why FSM isn't science -- because
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem here is that the people pushing this would quickly stir themselves into a froth over any honest discussion of these matters. This would quickly turn the class into an exercise in name-calling, pressure tactics, and outright threats, not unlike the talk show circuit, except probably even worse. It would end up becoming a denial of service attack upon the system.
Frankly, it probably should be discussed in the social classes, but if the public discourse that has already happened is any indication
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't object to theories being taught, we object to things that aren't science being touted as science.
Re:It /should/ be discussed in science classes (Score:5, Insightful)
UM, I think you neglected to mention that Evolution is also just a theory at this point.
Theory of Relativity.
Atom Theory.
Electromagnetic Theory.
Theory of Gravity.
Yeah, let's remove all "just theories" from science class. You have a pop-quiz asking them how to spell 'science', and then you send them home with nothing else to teach. Brilliant!
Yeah, you might want to mention that part when you advocate suppressing alternative beliefs in the classroom...
Excuse me, but we don't teach Swedish in English class.
We teach English in English class, and we teach Science in Science class.
And in Science class teachers should not be teaching "beliefs". They should be teaching accurate overview of the various fields of science as understood and practiced by professionals in those fields. And the indisputable FACT is that Evolution is the one and only understanding and practice of the field of biology by 100%(*) of professional biologists. "Welcome kids, this is biology class. The one and only scientific understanding and practice of biology among professional biologists is evolution and some other things I'll get to later. Here is what evolution says and he's how it works and here let me show you this shitload of evidence that convinced all of those scientists that evolution was valid and accurate. You don't have to believe in evolution any more than you have to believe in atoms, but you do need to understand the material and you do need to pass the tests."
It wouldn't matter if Atom Theory were wrong and atoms don't exist. A Chemistry class must teach an accurate overview of Chemistry as understood and practiced by professional Chemists. Even if atom theory is wrong and atoms don't exist, it is impossible to understand the modern field of chemistry without knowing atom theory. Even if atom theory is wrong and atoms don't exist, it is impossible to enter and practice modern Chemistry unless one understands atom theory. Even if atom theory is wrong and atoms don't exist, it is impossible to do good science proving atom theory is wrong unless one first understands atom theory.
So even if you have the ignorant notion that evolution is wrong, it doesn't matter. The absolutely indisputable fact is that among 100%(*) of professional biologists evolution is the one and only modern scientific understanding and practice of biology.
(*)Footnote: Rounded to the nearest full percentage point 100% of biologists accept evolution, rounded to the nearest full percentage point 100% of chemists accept atoms, rounded to the nearest full percentage point 100% of astronomers accept the fusion-powered-sun. Just because one-in-a-couple-hundred people-witha-a-degree is a crackpot does not mean we teach the Electric Universe electric-powered-sun crapola in highschool science class.
-
C'Mon England (Score:3, Insightful)
Creationism is not science. Period.
Re:C'Mon England (Score:5, Informative)
Evolution is not taught as a religion. Its just that religious people are so blinkered that they can only see it that way. Its taught as an established fact, with a great deal of corroborating evidence.
Look, if you could prove to me that some bearded dude came along with a bag'o'miracles(tm) and created the world and all the little creatures in one day, I'd accept it. I wouldn't 'believe' it, in the same way I don't 'believe' in rivers or tree's. They exist, I see them, end of problem.
You can't prove it though, because the very basis of religion is the concept of belief without requiring proof.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You know, I was actually going to follow and read all the links you posted as an attempt to understand why creationists sometimes consider evolution and other sciences another form of religion, and then I intended to post a well-formed rebuttal. However, I couldn't get past your first link. I couldn't even finish reading it.
Basically, the contents of that page offended me. Not because I care what other people believe in, but because it was obvious that the people who wrote that piece are not actually tha
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Misleading summary (Score:5, Informative)
The summary here is absurdly slanted. Reiss didn't advocate discussing creationism in science classes; he wrote that, if students bring up creationism, science teachers ought to be in a position to explain why creationism isn't a scientific alternative to evolution, rather than simply refusing to discuss the issue at all. Quote:
"If questions or issues about creationism and intelligent design arise during science lessons they can be used to illustrate a number of aspects of how science works."
That's an eminently sensible position.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Knowing the way we functioned in school, though, this position may prove to be a hindrance. It only takes one or two trolls to turn every class into a creationsim debate.
But if what you quote is correct, why has it turned into such a heated issue? The last thing that should happen is science not discussing certain issues.
Re:Misleading summary (Score:5, Funny)
I am just as disgusted by the militant atheist blathering on about Science proves there is no God as I am the religious fundy trying to pass of creationism as Science.
Now, I must admit I haven't read any atheists more militant than Dawkins, so I might be out of my depth, but I haven't ever encountered the stance that "science proves there are no gods".
As a linguist, I can readily assert that gods do in fact exist. So do elves, gnomes, unicorns and honest politicians. Now, outside language, that's a wholly diferent and highly debatable matter (do note that I never put trolls on the list, as we have the whole of the internet to actually prove their existence).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which amuses me that they would waste so much of their lives dedicated to proving a negative that, according to them, has absolutely no impact on their lives anyways.
I'm not sure what world you live in, but in my world, the existence of religion has a *very* significant effect on *everyone's* life, whether they want it to or not. If only we had a world where belief in religion only affected that individual, and their actions were completely independent of whatever superstitions they wanted to embrace.
But
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You sir, are an extreme moderate.
No worries though, I also make an attempt to stand between the darkness and the light. It's an impossible goal that is worth pursuing.
Re:Misleading summary (Score:5, Insightful)
why should my kids be deprived of a real science education just because someone else indoctrinated their children with specious non-scientific beliefs?
if a kid raises creationist objections to evolutionary theory, the teacher should kindly say to him "that is religious mythology, not science," and end the discussion there. pseudoscience is pseudoscience, and there's no reason to make special allowances for discussing pseudoscience in a science class just because it's based on a popular religion.
As a teacher, I believe it is vital that we take the time to explain why creationism is not science, so that the students have a solid understanding of the issue to debate and defend their positions. Your approach is asking the students to accept your statement on faith, which will not help them learn science.
Creationism vs Evolution (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a great class to teach kids about what science is, and what the differences between scientific theories, and a non-scientific theory is.
For example, in science a theory is supposed to be able to make predictions: I throw the apple up, and gravity accelerates the apple back down etc. Have the kids then try to explain what predictive qualities Evolution has, and what predictive qualities Creationism has.
It could be a great teaching tool IMHO.
Embrace, and extinguish. ;)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> what evolution predicts can't be proven because it is conveniently impossible for us to be around long enough to see any new species develop.
Speciation has been observed [talkorigins.org].
The principle of evolution is not only a theory, which withstood the test of time, but one, which has been proven to work in other fields [wikipedia.org].
Creationisum == Stupid God (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Creationisum == Stupid God (Score:5, Insightful)
The root of it all is that these American "evangelicals" aren't what the rest of the world uses "evangilcal" to mean. It's just a word the've taken to replace "literalist". These are literalists, plain and simple. Why don't they call themselves that? Because literalism is frowned upon by most of mainstream Christianity.
Yeah, stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yeah, stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Worse. Go read _everything_ he said here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2008/sep/11/michael.reiss.creationism [guardian.co.uk]
I think he actually deserves an apology. It's amazing the reaction he got.
What next, are they going to burn down churches because of what he said? Just because someone happens to mention creationism in the same breath as science classes?
They're starting to behave like religious nutters too.
Re:Yeah, stupid (Score:5, Informative)
I think you're right. His actual words are really quite reasonable - to paraphrase - teachers of science (and particular of evolution and related subjects) need to be able to deal with persons of the Creationist persuasion in some sort of functional manner. His recommendation is that the science teacher gently try to reinforce that the Creationist viewpoint isn't a scientific one and then goes on to the realization that this is not likely to change the world view of the afflicted individual.
Really, nothing more, nothing less. I think it speaks worlds for how touchy a subject this is. The base issue is that the dis separate "world views" -- scientific or essentially non scientific -- drive politics, social mores, economics, foreign and domestic policy, schooling and many other important issues. Neither side wants the other to 'win'. Getting along peaceably is tough.
tooth fairy, santa, and easter bunny ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:tooth fairy, santa, and easter bunny ... (Score:5, Funny)
"Reality-based thinking is vastly overrated and certainly won't prepare children for a career in the City or in government." ; )
It's spreading to Europe too? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's a bit worrying that the creationist movement is starting to raise its head in Europe as well. It's not that it's new, it's that previously only US creationists were bold, loud and revered enough to take science on headfirst and actually win. It used to be that we west-Europeans, including the creationists, took it as self-evident that creationist beliefs were just that, beliefs, and hence confined to the private sphere. But from the looks of it, our fundies are getting audacious and trying to manufacture the same kind of "controversy" here. Meh, did these people not learn about the Enlightenment? Do they not care? I guess that's why we cannot have nice things.
Re:It's spreading to Europe too? (Score:5, Interesting)
Creationism should be taught by the parents. (Score:3, Interesting)
I also know creationism happened. The thing that strikes me is that non-Christian accounts of creationism would be taken in also. It said Muslim, but why stop there. Why not throw in other man made religions too? There is no end to the number of ways that the universe can be created when you use man made religions. I mean having all sorts of different theories on reality through string theory is bad enough. When you throw the scientific method out the window, you're not left with something that should be taught in a science course.
Re:Creationism should be taught by the parents. (Score:4, Interesting)
I know general principals in evolution. The only thing I have against the word evolution being thrown around so much is that people use it for different things. For example last year the news was reporting,"Over fished species are showing signs of hyper evolution." They said this because weird genes are expressing themselves. They implied that when a species gets low on population that they evolve faster. As an arm chair scientist, I rather see this as the inbred effect that when there is less DNA in the gene pool that genes are expressed strongly for several reasons. I wouldn't call it evolution as much as gene loss or genetic erosion. I just think that the word evolution is overused.
That's exactly what evolution is. Evolution can be most evident when there are severe pressures on survival.
I'd liken it to "Driving". The individual processes inherent in the action are still called driving ( shifting, accelerating, braking, ect.. ), yet they are each unique in and of themselves.
Discussion != Endorsement (Score:5, Insightful)
The columns seem reasonable. Creationism should not be taught in science class as science, but it certainly is part of the context in which the theory evolution came about. One could hardly teach about Copernicus without mentioning Heliocentrism, or Pasteur without Spontaneous Generation.
Reasonable (Score:5, Informative)
Dr. Reiss has been repeatedly taken out of context with his comments. The media has consistently misinterpreted what he said to mean that he supports the teaching of creationism in science classes. In fact what Dr. Reiss said was that if a student asks about creationism, the teacher should be prepared to explain to that student why creationism is not science, something that I think most level-headed people would agree with. To reiterate, Dr. Reiss did NOT say that creationism should be in any way be endorsed in science classes, only that the student should be made aware of WHY it is not science.
Burn the heretic! (Score:4, Insightful)
I think creationism is nonsensical, but the reaction over this is reminiscent of the Inquisition. Calling for firing someone for voicing a heterodox opinion is getting uncomfortably close to a modern-day auto da fe.
Entertainment And Truth at the same time (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.youtube.com/patcondell [youtube.com]
CoE apologises! (Score:5, Informative)
Church of England to apologise for rejecting evolution [telegraph.co.uk]
As moderate religion steps away from fundamentalism, our scientists (if only through media slant) get closer to it!
Think of the children!!
reiss was taken completely out of context (Score:5, Informative)
If not science classes, where? (Score:3, Interesting)
It isn't like most high schools offer informal logic or the history of scientific methodology as separate classes.
I don't have serious disagreement with the article. I think much of what he is saying speaks directly to the practice of pedagogy and is not promoting the creationist belief system per se. Maybe we are assuming that since he is an Anglican priest, he is being less than sincere in his objectivity?
You guys do it wrong (Score:3, Informative)
You are using "theory" incorrectly. (Score:5, Insightful)
Because then you would be perpetuating the error you just made.
A "theory" in science has evidence to support it.
Where is the evidence to support Creationism?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Where is the evidence to support Creationism?
The bible. And when you take an oath, on what do you lay your hand? A science textbook?... Heeey...wait a minute...Isn't a violation of some such n' such amendment?
Re:You are using "theory" incorrectly. (Score:5, Interesting)
I always found the idea of swearing on the Bible to be very amusing.
-- Matthew 5:34-37
-- James 5:12
Re:You are using "theory" incorrectly. (Score:4, Informative)
That's patently absurd.
If your theory is that the earth is flat, and I provide evidence to the contrary and then submit the hypothesis that the earth is, in fact, shaped like a torus, that does not mean that my hypothesis has any more validity than it did 20 seconds before I submitted evidence to the contrary to your theory. My hypothesis is just as crap as yours.
In this case, we're talking about "here is a tested hypothesis that is true in most cases but has a few holes here and there", vs. "here is something we just came up with because we so DESPERATELY want to believe we weren't the result of billions of years of trial and error, and that god REALLY does love us, so very, very much".
(I know, some people just want to posit the idea that some creature somewhere out yonder created some spores that got pulled into Earth's atmosphere and life started that way - that's fine. I can deal with that. But it still dodges the question of how that other life form was created. Somewhere out there, some shit went down, and I'd much rather entertain hypothesis that are able to be tested and verified than some bright shiny bobbles and jangly keys, thanks.)
You've just repeated your error. (Score:5, Insightful)
Again, a scientific theory has evidence to support it. It is falsifiable. It can be tested.
Yet you keep using the same word to describe evolution and Creationism.
It is that exact error that is the reason against teaching Creationism.
Re:You've just repeated your error. (Score:4, Insightful)
You obviously didn't take biology or study - because if you did, you'd know that a few weeks and some fruit flies could give you all the evidence that you need.
That's not even talking about the absolutely MASSIVE amount of DNA/RNA evidence in all living things today.
Here's a funny thing - you don't need to wait for millions of years to confirm evolution, just like we don't need to wait thousands of years to confirm the half life of C-14.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Please point out the credible evidence for creationism. It's not science. Creationism isn't a Theory in the scientific sense. Just in a layman's sense.
Re:Eh... (Score:5, Informative)
And if you really want to count Creationism as a theory, even though it requires the lack of evidence in order to follow it..
Whether people like it or not, there ARE two major theories that both have evidence that can point to it
There are not 2 major theories; there are more than 200 major theories! You don't understand what you are talking about. If you really want to limit how humans were created (from dirt and a rib and a finger from a supernatural man no less) then you are one ignorant person.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Creationism / Intelligent Design isn't a theory. The only "evidence" for it is some text in a book and some fake photoshopped pictures of digs of four meter tall humanoid skeletons.
It is not reasonable to present both evolution by natural selection, which has mountains of evidence behind it, and creationism / ID as equally plausible scientific theories. The only role Creationism / ID should play in a science class is as an example of a nonscientific explanation of how we came to be here.
What missing links a
Re:First (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, why not. While we're at it, let's teach Holocaust denial in History class, and Ebonics in English lit. Also, we'll make sure to cover Alchemy in chemistry class, and our Geography teachers MUST give equal time to the idea that the world is flat!
I mean seriously, how DARE you people use logic and critical thinking when deciding what should be taught in school? Clearly we should teach every fantasy that's ever popped into anyones head - only that way can we ensure that nobodies feelings are hurt, and that all ideas get a fair hearing!
Re:First (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:First (Score:5, Informative)
When your knee has stopped jerking you might notice that Michael Reiss has nowhere suggested that creationism or ID should be taught in science classes. The RA specifically states that he does not believe that discussion of them in science would legitimise them. He also says that "when teaching evolution, there is much to be said for allowing students to raise any doubts they have (hardly a revolutionary idea in science teaching) and doing one's best to have a genuine discussion. The word 'genuine' doesn't mean that creationism or intelligent design deserve equal time."
In other words, if there are creationists in the class, Reiss says that the teacher should be allow discussion of the subject so the pupil can learn why science rejects creationism, rather than the pupil simply being presented with yet another competing dogma just on another adult's say-so. He is for critical thinking; it is those who are trying to silence him who are trying to stifle critical thinking.
Put it this way: If a kid puts his hand up in class and says that the universe was created in six days, should the teacher just say "No, you're wrong" or "Science says that's wrong because...". It's the latter that Reiss is pushing for, and that is so unthinkable to his opponents.
Re:First (Score:4, Insightful)
Correct. For those screaming about how closed-minded discussing ID or creationism is they are themselves being closed-minded and not getting the point.
Step 1: Put down The God Delusion.
Step 2: Think for yourself. Mr Dawkins is terribly clever, yes, but you too have a brain. And being clever does not make him right about everything.
Step 3. Read Reiss' article. It won't hurt. You might even learn something.
Re:First (Score:4, Informative)
Again, who is "questioning the very basic premise of Science" (whatever that is, and I'm interested that Science now gets a capital letter like God does). I think it's perfectly fair to acknowledge the benefits of the scientific method whilst still asking whether science can necessarily answer all of the questions that are of concern to us? Note that I say "asking", I don't say "claiming blindly that it can't (or, for that matter, can). When science ceases to allow questions, it ceases to be science.
Who has contributed more to the progress of society? Well, a lot of historians of science reckon that science developed out of religion; specifically that the Judeo-Christian religion taught that the universe is ordered, and so people started looking for that order. Those who thought the universe chaotic didn't bother looking because they didn't expect there to be anything to find. And, of course, religious institutions have traditionally been major sponsers of science. On that reckonning, religion can claim that it has contributed everything of its own and everything of science, so it's a clear winner. Too many people look at a view of history that has been heavily filtered by 19th century anti-clericalism.
Oh, and on the past abuses in the name of religion -- have you read Sam Harris' "The End of Faith"? He advocates initiating an apocalypse because the destruction of humanity is better than allowing religious people to continue to exist. It's an interesting book, that comes with a ringing endorsement from Richard Dawkins. Fundamentalist extremism, anybody? It's not just the religious who will kill and die for their ideologies.
Re:First (Score:4, Insightful)
how on earth Science could have developed out of religion. Every religion and its teaching has multiple interpretation depending on whom you ask and in which era you ask .
That is the present situation, yes. It wasn't the historical situation; for much of recorded history there was a religious powerbase that dictated one specific interpretation of religious questions.
Thats not the case with science , basic premise remain the same in science whenever you find a "verifiable" evidence that premise is wrong or fail at some point we correct our theory by integrating the newly acquired knowledge to our existing framework .
Again, that's the situation now, but it's a view of science that emerged in the second half of the 20th century, with the development of logical positivism and Popper's idea of falsifiability. Newton did great stuff that we have been able to build on, but he didn't work according to the modern scientific method (which is why you find so much mysticism and alchemy in his writings; it's embarrasing to those who see a black-and-white "science always right, mysticism always wrong" that a religious mystic like Newton could get so much right.
A lot of the acrimony in the science v. religion arguments comes from a lack of awareness of our history. Scientists assume that the modern view of science is the way it's always been, but it's a 20th century development. Religious fundamentalists think that they're going back 2000 years but their ideas only go back to the 19th century. Reading up on the philosophy of science and its history can be really valuable. It won't change your ideas of who is right and who is wrong, but it should show you that the lines are not as crisply drawn as the Dawkins brigade would have us believe.
thats not the case with religon . so i guess its unlikely that science has anything to do with religon at all . there is hardly any common ground
If there were hardly any common ground there would be hardly any territory to fight over -- Stephen Jay Gould's "Non-overlapping Magisteria". I agree that there's a lot of ground that is not common -- everything metaphysical (unfortunately we need metaphysics -- even the scientific method has metaphisical foundations -- and nobody -- not the scientific, not the religious, not the philosophical -- has yet come up with a dependable way of dealing with it). But all religions that teach interventionist deities are teaching that there is common ground, if not common methodology, between science and religion and so come within the scope of scientific investigation.
Your argument does not justify your conclusion. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:First (Score:5, Funny)
The Earth is a Swiss cheese! (Score:5, Funny)
No, let's teach that the world is like a Swiss cheese: round, flat, AND hollow, all at the same time! That way nobody's feeling will be hurt.
If you knew your Illuminatus Trilogy (Score:3, Insightful)
and the Earth is shaped like a carrot.
Now begone with your novel speculations, knave.
Re:First (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, in my school, Alchemy *was* discussed in chemistry class and although Ebonics wasn't talked about in English, Pigeon English was. WRT alchemy, it was mentioned it was a precursor to chemistry, and although some ideas were sound and are still in use today, other ideas, like converting base metals into gold weren't (at least not with chemical reactions). Areas related to it, such as mercury poisoning, were also discussed. WRT Pigeon English, it was mentioned that it was a language invented by merchants who had better things to do than learn full blown English but still needed to communicate with English merchants. Do kids in the US not have a broad education in the natural sciences and liberal arts?
Back when I was in school, the boundaries between classes seemed hazy....the history of science in math class....philosophy in history class, archeology in geology class, mechanical engineering in biology class, architecture in classics class. While teaching this way isn't "efficient", every subject seemed to connect to every other subject so that knowledge was a unified whole with various facets and various perspectives.
It seems that classes these days focus more on "efficiency" or "playing it safe political correctness". Pity. No wonder post-modernism has become so wide spread. When things are not taught to fit together, no wonder people think it seems like a mixed up world.
Creationism is an alternative to Science (Score:3, Insightful)
Teaching creationism in a Science class as Science is like teaching Spanish in and English class as English. Creationism is no more Science than Astrology. It should be discussed as a different branch of Philosophy as an alternative to Science, along with Astrology and Ghost-Hunting.
Re:Creationism is an alternative to Science (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the thing gp was describing was that alchemy wasn't taught as chemistry in chemistry class. It was taught as "here's what people though, and here's why we know it's wrong".
I would love to have this same level of discourse in biology classes with respect to creationism, but for one thing. Saying creationism is not scientific and not factually based will be construed by too many as an attack on their religion and you end up in a real mess.
Or you end up with the folks in Texas who are allowed to answer that "it doesn't agree with my beliefs", and get credit.
We are incapable of handling the controversy appropriately in general, so I think its best to just leave it out. Science is X, following from X and these observable facts we learn Y...
Re:Creationism is an alternative to Science (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly - the reason we can teach about alchemy in chemistry class is because nobody takes alchemy seriously any more. Similarly, you can teach about pre-Galilean follies because nobody will take offense to it or try to argue that the sun spins around the earth.
Unfortunately, way too many people still cling to the idea that our world and all the species on it were created by some mystical being. So how exactly do teach the follies of creationism, when half your class still believes in it? It's not so much a question of education, as de-programming.
On Alchemy (Score:3, Insightful)
"Exactly - the reason we can teach about alchemy in chemistry class is because nobody takes alchemy seriously any more."
But we do teach Alchemy now. We just don't call it that anymore, because "Alchemy" is nothing but the idea that one element could be turned into another. What was once ludicrous fantasy and fiction is now science. We see Alchemy happening every day. The Sun turns Hydrogen into Helium constantly, and our earliest nuclear scientists practiced Alchemy, when you get right down to it. Modern Ch
Re:Logical positivism (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that in I.D., the intelligence that interacts with the natural world is supernatural in nature and beyond the scope of science. That doesn't make I.D. notions meaningless, but it does make scientific discussion of I.D. meaningless and a waste of time.
If human intelligence is 100% natural in nature then Science has hope of someday explaining how it arises... but rather if human intelligence has a supernatural component, i.e. a soul, then science will not ever be able to explain intelligence.
If the Intelligence in I.D. is natural rather than super-natural then the existence of this intelligence can be tested via Scientific methods. However, such a test comes awfully close to proving or disproving the existence of God. That is why God is to be considered supernatural and beyond the natural world and the realm of Science. An Atheist would be one who discounts the supernatural and a Theist would be one who believes in some notion of the Supernatural. An Atheist is therefore forced to accept Science, but a Theist is forced to neither accept nor reject Science.
<ok enough being polite... now I'm going to go into a Palin-induced rant-mode>
This is the philosophical framework of Science laid down by DesCartes. Proponents of I.D. are at best ignorant of what the word "Science" actually means, and at worst they are dishonest in their attempts to proselytize their religious views under the guise of pseudo-science.
We would be well to remember that the current scientific enlightenment that brings us the many benefits of modernity is but a small blip in human history. To protect our children from the brutish lives more typical of humanities 20,000+ year history, we must stand steadfast in our opposition to the mindless minions of conformity and orthodoxy who would force-feed us knowledge based on tradition and authority over knowledge based on reason, questioning, and experiment.
Re:Logical positivism (Score:5, Informative)
One more thing... Science is not Logical Positivism. Science can be interwoven successfully with Theism, and General Relativity is a great example of this.
The basic derivation of Relativity is very Kantian is approach as it starts from some basic assumed logical truths from with a testable theory is derived. In fact this is how many of the great theories of physics start... they start with a priori truths rather than from empirical data. The empirical data is needed to test ideas, not to generate them.
Oh, and by the way, The Big Bang theory is based on Genesis and was formulated by a Priest as a way to give physics a "moment of creation" that was previously lacking in the steady-state notions of the Universe. (But strangely most Creationists attack the Big Bang with similar vitriol to their attacks on Darwin).
Re:First (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not a question of punishment. The problem here is that this individual occupies an extremely important position in a major scientific organization. It'd be akin to the head of PETA saying "You know, I see nothing wrong with torturing puppies and then eating them for breakfast". Sure, he's entitled to speak freely, but we're also entitled to question his qualification to hold that position.
With that said, it seems his actual statement may have been misrepresented. Based on his correction, I certainly wouldn't be in favor of firing him. It seems that the whole uproar might have been a wee bit of an overreaction.
Re:Proof Earth 6000 Years Old (Score:4, Informative)
If you are lucky enough to live in a northern climate you will see, if you go to an open field, that in the spring once the snow starts to melt there will be an acumulated layer of dirt on the top of the snow. This is dust that has dropped out of the air during the winter. Now if you are even further north, say the Greenland Ice Cap, the snow will never really melt away. So year after year you will have layering in the ice cap, in the same manner as you have tree rings. One layer of dust per year.
Now if say today we were to go down 28 layers (28 years) we would find dust from Mount St. Helens. Go down another 87 layers and you will find dust from the Krakatoa erruption, another 1816 layers and we get to Mount Vesuvius which errupted in AD67.
So we have gone down almost 2000 layers and it equals about 2000 years. Now if the world were only here since 4004 BC then there should be only 4071 layers more in the ice cap. Instead we find that there are over 100000 layers to go.
Now we have seen and can prove that since 67 AD we have one layer per year so if we have over 100000 layers the earth must have been around for at least 100000 years in order to creat those layers.
Re:First (Score:5, Funny)
What ever happened to letting the facts prove themselves?
Yes, the facts are that the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who does not wish himself to be seen, created everything, including mountains and midgets. People who argue it was another imaginary force are fooling themselves. The FSM theory should also be taught in science class because it is a dissenting opinion. The people who argue against FSM theory make me doubt creationism. Creationists are the same guys who imprisoned Copernicus for arguing that the earth orbited the sun. FSM theory is consistent with heliocentricity, which we all know is correct now. Only creationists would doubt the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and they should be ashamed of themselves for not seeing why the FSM is the only true creator!
Re:First (Score:4, Insightful)
Evolution requires a little more thought and a little more time. This leaves it at the mercy of idiots who refuse to see this evidence as it takes too long - hence "It's UNPROVABLE!!"
Scientists are facing a fight with this one, and the creationists (who are plainly, outright WRONG) seem to be better funded. It is wholly right that the education director for the Royal Society be fired for such outlandish claims.
IAAST (I am a science teacher) and I would quit if I had to teach creationsim and frankly I expose them for the lunatics that they are whenever that 'view' is asked about in my classes.
Re:First (Score:5, Informative)
The facts HAVE supported evolution so far. We've witnessed microevolution in animal populations in our own lifetimes, and evidence suggests that macroevolution does indeed take place, which also fits mathematical models as well as... well, common sense. Survival of the fittest, natural selection, works with almost all of the data we have.
The issue about teaching creationism is that the science class room should be about giving students the verifiable facts which we have. The notion of "Letting the children decide" is absurd. They don't have the foundation in logical reasoning yet, nor do they have the resources to verify claims from both sides. Not to mention that facts are not subjective. If we took a vote on which is true, natural selection, or creationism, regardless of how we voted or what we think, that does not change the facts, and that does not change which is, in fact, true.
Creationism is not a "dissenting opinion" as they would have you believe. Creationism is anti-science. Instead of trying to prove their theory right, they try to prove that evolution is wrong, thinking that if they could, it MUST mean creationism is correct. But this is simply not how science works.
Facts do not prove themselves in a classroom, they prove themselves in peer reviewed journals, with copious amounts of data, and logical reasoning. If the Creationism/Intelligent Design movements had ANY of those criteria, then we could have a discussion of its merits. But since it does not, the point is moot, and trying to force it into classrooms, on impressionable students, who have not yet fully understood how science works is simply an underhanded gimmick, and does a disservice to both the scientific community as well as the education system.