Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

WTF? I don't understand this? Firstly, I thought Edexcel had changed their name to AQA. Secondly, what on Earth are these edcuation boards thinking?

Creationism is already taught in Religious Education classes (or at least, it should be). Why on Earth should it then be taught in science classes?

And I thought we were safe from Christian fundamentalist views. Pop goes my bubble.

0 Replies

Biting Teeth wrote-

Quote:

And I thought we were safe from Christian fundamentalist views. Pop goes my bubble.

Complacency usually does go "Pop".That's evolution.

0 Replies

Just as stuffed full of **** as the proverbial Christmas goose . . . sheer ignorance is not disqualification to the attempt to make intelligent-sounding comment . . .

0 Replies

I had previously understood that it was important in order to sell dead geese to grease addict punters at Xmas that any **** present in their lower colons or bowels had been removed in the factory.

I didn't know that the proverbial goose was stuffed full of ****.I will have to rethink my position relative to those friends of mine who eat goose.

If I had any that is.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

WTF? I don't understand this? Firstly, I thought Edexcel had changed their name to AQA. Secondly, what on Earth are these edcuation boards thinking?

Creationism is already taught in Religious Education classes (or at least, it should be). Why on Earth should it then be taught in science classes?

And I thought we were safe from Christian fundamentalist views. Pop goes my bubble.

Wolf, the name that keeps coming up is MP Jacqui Smith. She seems to have some fondness for creationism. Let us know what you hear about this controversy.

0 Replies

Wolf wrote-

Quote:

Creationism is already taught in Religious Education classes (or at least, it should be). Why on Earth should it then be taught in science classes?

I don't think "taught" is the right word in the science classes.Discussed is more likely which it really needs to be if Creationism is being "taught" down the corridor and the respective teachers are meeting in the staff room and in formal discussions and possibly in social activity.Creationism is also accepted by large numbers of parents and grandparents and,indeed,in the National Anthem,in much literature and in festive holidays and much else.

The problem is essentially one of cultural lag and the black and white views you,and others,express are simply unrealistic if not fatuous.

It would require the science teachers to tell the children that the class down the corridor,their parents and grandparents and all the rest are "a load of tripe" and may be sweepingly described in like manner to how they have been described on the gramophone record which has been played on this thread and elsewhere so repetitively,so naively and so tiresomely.

Darwin and his supporters were well aware of this difficulty.Their wives were Creationists.They knew it would take a long time for Evolution to make its way into general acceptance and that there are social factors outside of the rigidities of science which must be taken into account.I noticed earlier a post which said that one American state simply didn't teach evolution at all in its school science courses in order to avoid this problem.

Posters,not having any responsibilities,can easily afford the black and white positions they take but ministers with responsibilty cannot.The logic of scientific evolution requires us to find a new National Anthem because children who are taught nothing but the science are going to think "God Save The Queen" a ridiculous and even disreputable song.So also with "God bless America".They are also going to think that their parents and grandparents and the priest or vicar conducting baptisms,weddings and funerals are barmy and,as such,not worth a blow on a ragman's trumpet.

Obviously the debate,conducted irresponsibly at the black and white level, provides opportunities for self publicists,cheap news media controversy and general infighting at all levels with money,greed and ambition the primary motivating factors.

Anyone who thinks they have the solution ought to approach their government which,should the solution be of the slightest use,will welcome them with open arms,brass bands playing Pretty Vacant, the red carpet treatment and congratulatory eulogies along the lines of "Sheesh-why didn't we think of that?"

If a purely scientific orientation was to prevail generally some quite drastic changes to a large number of features of our lives would be set in train.

One might be a very useful study for the children of how they came into the world themselves but I won't go into even the elementary and crude aspects of that in case someone takes it into his head to move forward from the simple side of it into more advanced and refined considerations.

0 Replies

Spendius, that still does not change the fact that Creationism is not science. I've never ever been taught or even discussed non-science things in a science class. It's just not done.

0 Replies

Wolf-

I'll agree with you so long as the science avoids evolutionism which of course it can't except by a sleight-of-hand whereby the buck is passed to other educational agencies such as media and tradition.

It works the other way round too.If children are taught evolutionism in science and other parts of their life have got them to believe it is a load of rubbish won't they then think that all the rest of science might be too.Won't it discredit science as some posters on here have done.

0 Replies

spendi will NEVER understand what evolution and science is all about. NEVER!

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Wolf-

I'll agree with you so long as the science avoids evolutionism which of course it can't except by a sleight-of-hand whereby the buck is passed to other educational agencies such as media and tradition.

Um...? I'm sorry, but er... science avoids evolutionism? But Evolution Theory is scientific.

Quote:
It works the other way round too.If children are taught evolutionism in science and other parts of their life have got them to believe it is a load of rubbish won't they then think that all the rest of science might be too.Won't it discredit science as some posters on here have done.

Still, I don't see the reason why Creationism or ID have to be the major focus in science classes. Creationism is not the opposite of Evolution. ID is not the opposite of Evolution. There are so many other creation stories, such as the Egyptian one, Norse, Greek and so forth, that to focus on Creationism or ID is unfair.

There is no controversy coming from Creationism. It is merely Christian fundamentalists trying to get their viewpoints seen and recognised. None of it is a sincerely genuine attempt at science.

0 Replies

England is now experiencing what happened in the United States.

ID does not have equal standing with evolutionary theory. Therefore, there is no scientific controversy.

The only controversy about evolution is cultural controversy. There are politicians in both England and the United States who feel they can gain votes by promoting pseudo-science.

0 Replies

Look what happened to Bush's use of religion in the US; most backfired on him.

1. Teri Schiavo and his attempts to have the SC intercede.
2. his promotion to teach ID in our schools.
3. his denial of "marriage" to gays and lesbians.

All he has left are the fundamental christians that support him - and they're split.

0 Replies

Wolf wrote-

Quote:

Um...? I'm sorry, but er... science avoids evolutionism? But Evolution Theory is scientific.

No.Science classes might leave it out.That's not the same thing at all.Anyway,one state,I gather,is doing just that and Darwin and Huxley and others thought it wisest to do so.

I know evolution is science.That's not the point.And anyway some philosophers have doubts.

Quote:

Still, I don't see the reason why Creationism or ID have to be the major focus in science classes.

Who said anything about "major focus"?

Quote:

It is merely Christian fundamentalists trying to get their viewpoints seen and recognised. None of it is a sincerely genuine attempt at science.

I would only say that that is not disingenuous if I thought you had not read much of my input on here.
What they are trying to safeguard is the social effect on their daily lives of their views.Not the views themselves although it might seem so to those who persist in taking appearences for realities for motives I can't understand.Or,rather,the effects of unchallenged opposed views to which the same applies.

Nobody thinks Ohms Law or studies of magnets and suchlike in classrooms are going to effect their social life in anyway.

They think that certain views lead to certain effects using scientific thinking.

0 Replies

wande wrote-

Quote:

England is now experiencing what happened in the United States.

Not at all.

Quote:

ID does not have equal standing with evolutionary theory. Therefore, there is no scientific controversy.

It depends who is defining equal standing.

Quote:

The only controversy about evolution is cultural controversy.

Oh-is that all?Nothing to bother about then if it's only a bit of itsy-bitsy cultural controvesy.

Don't anti-IDers cringe when c.i. chips in to support them?

0 Replies

CREATIONISM IN ENGLAND

Quote:

Academics fight rise of creationism at universities
(Duncan Campbell, The Guardian)

A growing number of science students on British campuses and in sixth form colleges are challenging the theory of evolution and arguing that Darwin was wrong. Some are being failed in university exams because they quote sayings from the Bible or Qur'an as scientific fact and at one sixth form college in London most biology students are now thought to be creationists.

Earlier this month Muslim medical students in London distributed leaflets that dismissed Darwin's theories as false. Evangelical Christian students are also increasingly vocal in challenging the notion of evolution.

In the United States there is growing pressure to teach creationism or "intelligent design" in science classes, despite legal rulings against it. Now similar trends in this country have prompted the Royal Society, Britain's leading scientific academy, to confront the issue head on with a talk entitled Why Creationism is Wrong. The award-winning geneticist and author Steve Jones will deliver the lecture and challenge creationists, Christian and Islamic, to argue their case rationally at the society's event in April.

"There is an insidious and growing problem," said Professor Jones, of University College London. "It's a step back from rationality. They (the creationists) don't have a problem with science, they have a problem with argument. And irrationality is a very infectious disease as we see from the United States."

Professor David Read, vice-president and biological sciences secretary of the Royal Society, said that they felt it was essential to address the issue now: "We have asked Steve Jones to deliver his lecture on creationism and evolution because there continues to be controversy over how evolution and other aspects of science are taught in some UK schools, colleges and universities. Our education system should provide access to the knowledge and understanding gained through the scientific method of experiment and observation, such as the theory of evolution through natural selection, and should withstand attempts to withhold or misrepresent this knowledge in order to promote particular beliefs, religious or otherwise."

Leaflets questioning Darwinism were circulated among students at the Guys Hospital site of King's College London this month as part of the Islam Awareness Week, organised by the college's Islamic Society. One member of staff at Guys said that he found it deeply worrying that Darwin was being dismissed by people who would soon be practising as doctors.

The leaflets are produced by the Al-Nasr Trust, a Slough-based charity set up in 1992 with the aim of improving the understanding of Islam. The passage quoted from the Qur'an states: "And God has created every animal from water. Of them there are some that creep on their bellies, some that walk on two legs and some that walk on four. God creates what he wills for verily God has power over all things."

A 21-year-old medical student and member of the Islamic Society, who did not want to be named, said that the Qur'an was clear that man had been created and had not evolved as Darwin suggests. "There is no scientific evidence for it [Darwin's Origin of Species]. It's only a theory. Man is the wonder of God's creation."

He did not feel that a belief in evolution was necessary to study medicine although he added that, if writing about it was necessary for passing an exam, he would do so. "We want to become doctors and dentists, we want to pass our exams." He added that God had not created mankind literally in six days. "It's not six earth days," he said, it could refer to several thousands of years but it had been an act of creation and not evolution.

At another London campus some students have been failed because they have presented creationism as fact. They have been told by their examiners that, while they are entitled to explain both sides of the debate, they cannot present the Bible or Qur'an as scientifically factual if they want to pass exams.

David Rosevear of the Portsmouth-based Creation Science Movement, which supports the idea of creationism, said that there was an increasing interest in the subject among students. "I've got no problem with an all-powerful God producing everything in six days," he said. He said it was an early example of the six-day week. Students taking exams on the subject should not be dogmatic one way or the other. "I tell them - answer the question, it's no good saying it [creationism] is a fact any more than saying evolution is a fact."

A former lecturer in organic chemistry at Portsmouth polytechnic (now university) and ICI research scientist, Dr Rosevear said he had been invited to expound his theories at many colleges and had addressed the Cafe Scientifique, a student science society, at St Andrews university, Fife. "The students clearly came expecting to have a laugh but they found there was much more to it. Our attitude is - teach evolution but mention creationism and let students decide for themselves."

Most of the next generation of medical and science students could well be creationists, according to a biology teacher at a leading London sixth-form college. "The vast majority of my students now believe in creationism," she said, "and these are thinking young people who are able and articulate and not at the dim end at all. They have extensive booklets on creationism which they put in my pigeon-hole ... it's a bit like the southern states of America." Many of them came from Muslim, Pentecostal or Baptist family backgrounds, she said, and were intending to become pharmacists, doctors, geneticists and neuro-scientists.

0 Replies

I recall some years ago, I was doing some consulting in the UK coal fields and we were trying to convince the british that they should manage their acid mine waters better
"We dont have environmental problems ere in the Uk like you ave in the states" . meanwhile , entire streams in Wales have phs of 3 or less.

UK has always had adopted a nose in the air attitude about problems they "dont have' Ive already told our contrarian correspondent that his country is already a target of some well organized prosyletizing by the ICR and DI.

Spendi seems to be trying to make an argument that it doesnt matter that the people arent exposed to good science cause they will be mostly day laborers. So I guess, in his circle, facts and evidence arent worth much just because one cannot comprehend them.

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

Spendi seems to be trying to make an argument that it doesnt matter that the people arent exposed to good science cause they will be mostly day laborers. So I guess, in his circle, facts and evidence arent worth much just because one cannot comprehend them.

That is a distortion of what I have said and plainly so.

Whether you can't comprehend what I've said because you don't wish to or because it is too subtle for you I don't know but I have never said "people" in the way you have there.I have made it quite plain that I only mean "some people".
Your exposure to the English language doesn't seem to have led you to be able to manage it with the skill a scientist needs to handle science.One gets the impression that to you anybody is a scientist who is called a scientist but as the word has prestige large numbers of people covet the appellation who are palpably unfit to do so.And you buy into that whereas I don't.
There will be many schools in America and here which will not produce one real scientist but will produce many ordinary workers most of whom will spend happier and more productive lives through having some sort of belief rather than being faced with the severe asperities of scientific thought. The extent that such asperities are not appreciated by you for what they are measures your lack of understanding of science and the effect of its truths on psychological states of mind ill prepared to receive them.

If you are not prepared to read my posts with the care I expect I see little value in you commenting on them unless you think other readers are incapable of seeing my point and are content to continue having the same old weary tune played over and over to them which I don't think is the case.

Quote:

"We dont have environmental problems ere in the Uk like you ave in the states" . meanwhile , entire streams in Wales have phs of 3 or less.

Should read-

"We don't (h-ave-'ave) environmental problems (h-'ere) in the UK like (what) you (h-'ave) in the (S-states).(M-m)eanwhile,entire streams in Wales (had)(?) a ph(pH) (reading) of 3 or less.

Did he really pronounce the "h" in "have" and then not do in the other two cases.It is usual,when taking the piss out of English users in the manner you chose to also precede words beginning with a vowel with an "h" as in "henvironmental"and "hin".
I'm not sure about "phs" but it looks wrong.

Now what is an "entire stream".What is a stream for that matter and,more to the point,where were these streams and what percentage of all the "entire streams" in Wales are they supposed to be representing and out of what sort of land were they coming off.

Hence-

"We don't have henvironmental problems 'ere in the UK like wot you 'ave in the States."Meanwhile,entire streams in Wales had pHs of 3 or less."

And scientific language today is more or less incomprehensible to at least 99% of the population and little purpose is served by exposing young people to it unless they show an aptitude which will derive useful, rather than casually asserted, benefit from doing so.

When someone who uses "have" rather than "had" in relation to events "many years ago" after a lifetime's exposure to English usage,at great expense, it is hardly a recommendation for scientific usage to be rammed down the throats of the great unwashed unless,of course,it is to provide salaried jobs for those who can baffle an appointments board with their wizardry.

Most certainly,facts are worth less than nothing to those who cannot comprehend them because they might be learning something useful in the time taken to sit bored before their deployment.As also would the teacher's time.

0 Replies

wande quoted-

Quote:

One member of staff at Guys said that he found it deeply worrying that Darwin was being dismissed by people who would soon be practising as doctors.

What difference does it make that "one member of the staff at Guys" (Guy's maybe) said that.Another member of staff might be deeply worried about being abducted by aliens for sexual experiments in a flying saucer but that doesn't mean the rest of us ought to share their concerns.

I don't believe the "deeply worrying".A deeply worried person thinks of nothing else all day long and often in his/her dreams.I would be deeply worried if I was being operated on by someone who is deeply worried about anything although "one member" might easily be a lift attendant
in which case I don't suppose I would be all that bothered.

And it is impossible to dismiss Darwin.I wouldn't even dismiss Darwin's theories.

I would imagine that many doctors are believers in some faith or other.Indeed I know that is the case and I haven't heard of any concern being expressed about their capacities.

That quote should not be present in a screed anybody expects to be noticed.The fact that it is,in what is presumably a carefully drafted statement for publication,leads to obvious conclusions about the quality of the writer(s).

0 Replies

farmerman, UK has always had adopted a nose in the air attitude about problems they "dont have' Ive already told our contrarian correspondent that his country is already a target of some well organized prosyletizing by the ICR and DI.

THIS WAS MY POINT, youve repetedly implied that the ID movement would never gain grounds in the UK,because , as youve implied further, its because the Brits are too smart.

I understand you like to divert your blabs away from the point, but I shall attempt, briefly , to recover it.
You seem to have disdain for teaching science to the "masses"-I dont know if its because youve got this Severe British thing going on like Lord Albany Berrybender, or (As I suspect) , youve merely flunked math at university. Its a silly selfish posture that, if ignored, would otherwise awaken some latent talent who, like "the coalminers children" wouldnt get an education beyond the rudiments of social contract and basic skills.

By NOT teaching science you will , of course , still allow ID to make its way under the tent because it provides an alternative to something that you say that the masses dont need. (Even you have got to admit that its a silly proposal youre forwarding)

If, as you seem to imply, the Brits are too smart to take up ID as a resource in biology or earth sciences, then they must already be well versed in the "Liturgy " of Science, and where did that knowledge come from? probably some good teachers who got through to their charges.

0 Replies

I'd say defining the word 'design' might help clear
up the confusion.

A post from Dr. Alan Shulman
at ButterfliesandWheels.com recently gave good
concept:

'God' is an artist.

And let's face it, what artist ever knew what he/she
was doing?

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know