The Press Association: Third of teachers want Creationism — All the press material I’ve seen in England is very carefully worded as if it was orchestrated.
Three in 10 science teachers believe creationism should be taught in science lessons, according to a new survey.
And more than a third 37% of primary and secondary teachers in general believe that the subject should be taught alongside evolution and the Big Bang theory.
The Ipsos Mori poll of more than 900 primary and secondary teachers in England and Wales found that while nearly half 47% believe it should not be taught in science lessons, two thirds 65% agree that creationism should be discussed in schools.
This rises to three quarters of teachers 73% with science as their subject specialism. Two in three science specialists 65% do not think that creationism should be taught in science lessons. But few teachers think creationism as an idea should be dismissed outright.
Just one in four 26% agree with a view expressed by Professor Chris Higgins, vice-chancellor of Durham University that “creationism is completely unsupportable as a theory, and the only reason to mention creationism in schools is to enable teachers to demonstrate why the idea is scientific nonsense and has no basis in evidence or rational thought.”
Fiona Johnson, head of education research at Ipsos Mori and director of the Ipsos Mori Teachers Omnibus, said: “Our findings suggest that many teachers are trying to adopt a measured approach to this contentious issue, an approach which attempts not only to explain the essential differences between scientific and other types of ‘theory’, but also to acknowledge that – regardless of, or even despite, “the science” – pupils may have a variety of strongly held, and arguably equal value, faith-based beliefs.”
Bobo, if you had gotten a Jesuit education, you wouldn’t be punctuating sentences the way you do.
#9
*Sigh*. That evolution happens is an unquestioned, observable fact.There are scientific theories which explain how that phenomena works. A hypothesis does not become a scientific theory unless there is evidence to establish its validity. Go to http://toarchive.org/indexcc/index.html to debunk the rest of your mistaken assumptions such as the “missing” fossil record (http://toarchive.org/indexcc/list.html#CC300).
#18
> why is there so much opposition to
> investigating the theory of intelligent
> design within the question of the origin
> in life
As a discussion unrelated to science, there is no opposition. It is when proponents of ID wish to treat ID as science that there is opposition.
I suggest you start here: http://toarchive.org/indexcc/index.html
#28, #31
http://toarchive.org/indexcc/CB/CB025.html
http://toarchive.org/indexcc/CB/CB050.html
#37
> intelligent design is
> not mutually exclusive to religion
On the contrary, most people claim them to be one in the same which is the whole problem.
> …and is simply another theory
> that is argued as not
> being “scientific”
If by your use of “theory” you mean *scientific* theory, then no. ID is not just another scientific theory since it is not scientific. Science only deals in what can be observed or measured in a repeatable fashion. ID entirely rests on the existence of a being or beings that cannot be proven to exist.
Well, I guess f*ckedup now knows that there is no such thing as a “protein cell”. I wouldn’t be bothered in the least if he doesn’t return to answer.
Yes, as mentioned above, when you have science teachers, they should be taught science first.
#63 – Mr. Fusion
Why, is FuckUp a science teacher? Arrrghhh!! Gak!! Say it ain’t so!! Fuck “PROTEIN CELL” Up is a science teacher???
First – If God existed and cared if I believed in him/her/it it would be a simple thing for an all-powerful to appear in the sky with a horde of angels and announce – I am the Lord thy God and the Reverend Wright is my spokesman on Earth. Now, worship me!
Second – Anyone who denies evolution is simply incapable of absorbing a vast body of evidence/proof and cannot be argued with to anybody’s benefit.
Third – As a medical student many years ago, I gave up on any kind of belief in “intelligent design” (though that term was not then in use that I was aware of) my first semester when we started dissecting a human cadaver. Could an “all-powerful” god really make all those silly design errors?
Fourth – The pain I have in my lower back is a simple indication that my body was “designed” to walk around on all fours, not upright on two legs.
Five – The basic proteins of life have been created in laboratories mimicking the early earth. Once you get proteins, it’s a matter (like infinite monkeys typing out Hamlet) of time until they combine in a way that will support life. So, did aliens seed life? I agree with Dawkins. It ain’t impossible but it’s damned unlikely. Were we created by a god? It ain’t impossible but I sooner believe in aliens.
#65, Anim,
Good thoughts / comments.
We have only scratched the surface of the body of knowledge. What little we have learned though adequately demonstrates the chaos and randomness our world presents itself as. While it is still possible that there is some “intelligent designer”, the probability is too small to even register.
I’m still waiting for someone to explain where their “god” comes from.
#64, Mustard,
I think f*ckedup is really Jimy Heel trying on a new name in an effort to troll. Too many of his posts show the language and tone as Jimy Heel’s.
You wankers are funny.
#67 – Mr. Fusion
Weeeeel, I don’t know. Jiminy is a douche bag, but I don’t think even he would be stupid enough to go putting all his proteinaceous eggs in the PROTEIN CELL basket.
Repeatedly.
It takes a true know-nothing at the first level of ignorance to go down that road.
#68, Mustard,
It takes a true know-nothing at the first level of ignorance to go down that road.
Agreed, and that fits Heel’s history. Little substance, plenty of poorly thought through attacks, plain ignorance, …
Creationism, now that’s just ignorant.
Intellignet design, tries to apply a human perspective to universal change.
Evolution finds patterns in change yet limits itself to change in lifeforms and supposes that those changes are caused by environmental conditions or natural selection.
My theory, the purpose of the universe is to express absolute potential by expressing all possible manifestations of the physical and symbolic. It’s perfection makes possible it’s structure and patterns change to make life possible and life itself is subject to the same patterns in change.
The need to call the unkown a random event is just as ignorant as calling it an act of god.
The really interesting thing about being human is that we’re not perfect enough to see the perfection all around us, yet we’re all part of the universes equation for perfection and contribute to it even though we are unaware.
NONE!!!.. and I mean NONE would be as the picture at the top depicts with a guy who thinks the world in 10,000 years old. TOTAL BUNK. Stop confusing ID with creationism as a straw man.
Its been well established for decades that the Universe is a meaningless place. No beauty or truth. No perfection or promises made. Thats why we can all project our own notions onto it, and we all do.
#72 Why Bobbo, that’s so sad. If we’re part of the universe and those things are part of us… I don’t see the seperation of man from the rest of creation.
For a person that expresses meaning so well you certainly seem to have some contradictory ideas. If the universe is meaningless how are we comunicating?
Perhaps the tragedy of exsistence has blinded you to certain aspects, don’t let negative conditioning close your mind.
amodedoma said:
“Evolution finds patterns in change yet limits itself to change in lifeforms and supposes that those changes are caused by environmental conditions or natural selection.”
The theory of evolution by natural selection – by Darwin and his successors – limits itself to this domain. But I think most scientists would recognise that evolution as a concept – change over time – is possibly an inherent property of the universe. Look at primordial galaxies versus modern galaxies, the stellar lifecycle, order arising out of disorder such as stalactites, etc.
To take the next step and grant these processes some sort of cosmic meaning is dubious though. Not because it is necessarily definitively untrue, but because the evidence to support the conjecture is lacking.
Your theory, for example. It sounds lovely, almost like floating on a cloud in Heaven. But do you have any evidence – outside of your own personal beliefs or feelings or the beliefs and feelings of others – that your theory is a true explanation of the purpose of the Universe? Can you show any objective evidence that the Universe even has a purpose?
I’m glad you have a belief structure that makes you feel comfortable. Normally I would never presume to challenge your personal beliefs but your response to Bobbo indicates a certain superciliousness when comparing your beliefs to his.
I can’t speak for Bobbo but I essentially share his view of the nature of the Universe. You seem to assume that our viewpoint is in some way inferior to yours. I would challenge this strongly on a number of grounds but I’ll limit myself to two for the moment:
1/ Do you claim that you are more “in touch” with “creation” or “reality” than Bobbo or I as a result of your belief structures? If so, how would this manifest?
2/ What is it specifically that makes your belief structure any more valid or realistic than mine (gnostic atheist) or a fundamentalist Christian’s, or a Ba’hai’s or an agnostic atheist’s belief structure?
AHHHH crap!!!! I hate it when other people are more eloquent in explaining my ideas than I am in offering them. RATS!!! The universe is so unfair and ugly when it does that to me.
#74–amodedoma== You say: “Why Bobbo, that’s so sad.”/// Well, no it isn’t. Sadness is not having your expectations/desires met. There is great pleasure and comfort in perceiving the universe as it actually is==as in meaningless. But this all goes back to basic philosophical principals: “What is a chair.” I never got on well with formal philosophy and had to read Jean Paul Sarte to be introducted to Existentialism: “We were never more free than during the German occupation.”
So, somewhat paradoxically, the Universe has no meaning but humans are able to apply their meaning to it. Gnosticism of a type but I wouldn’t raise it to the level of being spiritual.
I’m still learning. I was reading an article about “How beautiful the universe was and how perfect God had made it for man.” then some lout came by and commented that yea the universe is about 99.999999999999999999999999 percent totally lethal to man. Thats no criticism of that .ought one percent mind you==but how about a little proportionality??
For grins==what does the universe mean?
Alphgeek==no need to respond to you, you have me inside and out.
# 72 rectagon said,TOTAL BUNK. Stop confusing ID with creationism as a straw man.
check this out
By no means do I have any ‘faith’ in any of my or anyone else’s theories, as soon as I hear something more coherent and useful I learn.
I made no statement of faith, my ideas are based on observation. Everything that is human and exsists within the human experience, including the purely symbolic is a product of the patterns of change that manifest themselves throughout the universe. Even the subtlest of human emotion is the product of the universes context.
Didn’t mean to sound dogmatic.
My faith is my own and is entirely subjective to my own experience. I have no need or desire to evangelize.
Ok, so the universe isn’t perfect, it’s only human. HA! (get it?)
The meaning of the universe is….
How the hell should I know! Tiny as I am having a meaning for myself is all I can manage.
Sorry Bobbo!
“We are a way for the Universe to know itself.”
Carl Sagan
who is now spinning at 45 RPM from laughing at “protein cell.” Thanks to KD for identifying Jerry Springer. A mayor? Go figure.
Carl Sagan’s explanation of evolution in the superb series “Cosmos” is one of the finest around. I urge all interested to watch it. And yes, thanks Mr. Mustard.