Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

One third of British teachers think ID or creationism okay

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In The Daily Telegraph, Martin Beckford tells us “One in three teachers says teach creationism alongside evolution” (07 N0v 2008).

The poll found that 31 per cent of teachers agree that creationism or intelligent design – the theory that the universe shows signs of having been designed rather than evolving – should be given the same status as evolution in the classroom, including 18 per cent of science teachers.

Half of those questioned agreed that excluding the alternative to evolution would alienate religious pupils, and almost nine out of 10 believed they should be allowed to discuss creationism if pupils bring it up.

Mr Bethell said: “Although over half of teachers either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the idea that creationism should be given the same status as evolution, there is a significant minority who believe that it should be given equal weight.

“Nearly half of teachers also agreed with Professor Michael Reiss’ sentiment that excluding alternative explanations to evolution is counter-productive and alienates pupils from science.

No surprise here, except, were I advising those teachers, I would tell them to keep quiet about their doubts for now. The people who fired Michael Reiss are perfectly capable of a purge, and indeed, a purge has already been threatened.

The elite Darwinist materialists will then – par for the course – replace experienced teachers with their stooges – signally free of either brains or guts, and likely to resolve evidence-based doubts by an orgy of compulsory communal Darwin worship.

Arthur Jones, chair of the British Association of Christian Teachers, writes to say,

If you want to watch what TeachersTV in the UK is producing for teachers and schools, promoting Darwin and attacking creationism and intelligent design, then go here.

It is dreadful, but it does illustrate a stark divide – scientists agitating for dogmatism and indoctrination and educationists and teachers feeling that discussion and argument are better.

I say it was dreadful because at no point does it explain what creationists or ID proponents actually believe, nor how they handle the evidence. Almost none of the ‘evidence’ mentioned in the programme discriminates between the positions. Adam Rutherford, the presenter, is, in relation to the issue he was addressing, plain ignorant (and that’s being generous!)

However there are some good omens in the UK – growing instances of the atheists having to face the hard questions that their control of the UK media has hitherto enabled them to avoid (e.g. Justin Brierley’s interview of Richard Dawkins after his last debate with John Lennox in Oxford on 21 October – you can listen to it on the Premier website here ).

Actually, Dawkins – who told Ben Stein that, given a choice, he is willing to believe space aliens created life rather than that God did – should long ago have been discredited as a public figure. The fact that he hasn’t been tells you how bad things are in Britain.

So British teachers, read as much as you can about design and teach those alert students with whom you can safely share information to remain quiet about what they know for now. And wait for the signal.

See also: Can we all just spell out together “U-S-E-F-U-L I-D-I-O-T-S” and have done with it?

Comments
You ask, “What came before the big bang?” I would say, “I don’t know, there isn’t any evidence to answer this question.” Actually, what I was pointing out that that the known Universe requires an entirely separate ontology from the known Universe. And since we know the Universe exists, and since we know of no natural law to explain why it exists, the most reasonable explanation is something beyond the natural. Which is a claim made by Christianity, so I guess you can say that it is evidence for Christianity.tribune7
November 16, 2008
November
11
Nov
16
16
2008
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
Nullasalus: Dawkins doesn't have some ad hoc principle of the designer not being God no matter what. He says that (obviously, to him) the designer would be more evolved than us - hence some extraterrestrial life. He also adds, unmistakably, that he doesn't believe this is the case. He explains it very clearly many many times, e.g. here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNu8F01BD9k Other than that, I'm sorry that Dawkins' rhetoric hurts your feelings. But: Who cares? We're grown-ups now. Tribune7: You ask, "What came before the big bang?" I would say, "I don't know, there isn't any evidence to answer this question." What data do you have from before the Big Bang?NotedScholars
November 16, 2008
November
11
Nov
16
16
2008
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT
So it’s intolerant bullying to want science taught in a science class is it? How about we only teach what is demonstrable in science class? For explanations of origins how about we teach them in a history or culture class with the testing done on the understanding of the various methodologies and explicitly stating that acceptance of any conclusion is not required? This would include Old Earth vs. Young Earth and neo-Darwinian evolution vs. creationism. :-)tribune7
November 16, 2008
November
11
Nov
16
16
2008
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT
Domoman, So it’s intolerant bullying to want science taught in a science class is it? If you think creationism *is* science then I see how there might be a problem. Do you think it is science? O’Leary, No, your comment was not clear. Will you condem creationists teaching creationism in science class or not? As I noted in my previous comment, I don’t think there should be a purge of people who hold a particular viewpoint, just that science should be taught in science class and those that cannot do that should not be teachers. Do you agree or not?scottrobinson
November 16, 2008
November
11
Nov
16
16
2008
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT
Re "the words of Jim Carrey from Bruce Almighty, they are: “Wimpy… kiddy… baby… whiners!!” Seriously, this threatening, intolerant, bullying has to end! I’m seriously sick of it!" Here in Canada, we have begun a new policy of just putting the boots to that kind of thing. Hereafter, if you want attention in Canada, it is better not to be a thug, because you will get attention, all right, but not the kind you likely want. We are characteristically non-violent people, so if you really scare us, we will really disarm you.O'Leary
November 16, 2008
November
11
Nov
16
16
2008
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT
At least aliens doesn’t posit an entirely separate ontology from the known Universe. The known Universe requires an entirely separate ontology from the known Universe. What came before the Big Bang?tribune7
November 16, 2008
November
11
Nov
16
16
2008
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT
Nullasalus, Dawkins did admit recently, in his 2nd debate with John Lennox, that a reasonably respectable case could be made for a deistic God, but it is something he does not believe. So he may be taking steps in the right direction, although I do see your point too, and am personally no fan of Dawkins. And on the quote by O'Leary of: "The people who fired Michael Reiss are perfectly capable of a purge, and indeed, a purge has already been threatened." All I can say is, in the words of Jim Carrey from Bruce Almighty, they are: "Wimpy... kiddy... baby... whiners!!" Seriously, this threatening, intolerant, bullying has to end! I'm seriously sick of it!Domoman
November 15, 2008
November
11
Nov
15
15
2008
11:23 PM
11
11
23
PM
PDT
Statistically speaking this survey was almost worthless. It was based on a self-selecting sample and the question about equal weight in the classroom omitted to say which class: science or Religious education. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2008/nov/07/evolution-education Still I guess it makes for a sensational story.Mark Frank
November 15, 2008
November
11
Nov
15
15
2008
11:02 PM
11
11
02
PM
PDT
NS, The problem with Dawkins on this point isn't that he believes aliens are simpler than God as an explanation. It's that he's sandbagging - 'there is no design, and even if there is, it can't be God'. That's fine when he's building his own personal keep-God-out wall - he's welcome to believe what he pleases. But he's made a career out of insulting, belittling, and condemning people for being open to the possibility of design, because he doesn't like the designer they envision. There's plenty of room to knock Dawkins for being able to accept the idea that Klingons may have been involved, while huffily insisting that a deity is ridiculous. And complaining about an 'entirely separate ontology' in this context is ridiculous, because design questions extend to the known universe itself. It's the very metaphysical viewpoint and status which is at issue - appealing to it doesn't break any perceived ties. Again, note that the problem isn't that Dawkins simply disagrees. It's that he thinks anyone who disagrees with him on these subjects is an idiot, irrational, and possibly dangerous. So when the Bright who pontificates on just how rational and correct he is can be seen preparing a design 'out' in case the evidence continues to not shape up in the way he hopes it does, yes, he's discrediting himself. Maybe he'll eventually shape up and concede that a serious case can be made for viewpoints he personally doesn't agree with.nullasalus
November 15, 2008
November
11
Nov
15
15
2008
09:45 PM
9
09
45
PM
PDT
So let's recap: Dawkins should be discredited because of the belief that aliens as a cause of life is simpler than God as the cause of life. Doesn't seem that crazy or discredit-worthy to me. At least aliens doesn't posit an entirely separate ontology from the known Universe. And furthermore, your arguments still seem to rest on some kind of belief that God has evolved... in isolation? I'm still waiting for the data on that. And does Dawkins believe the Universe is infinitely old? I don't think so.NotedScholars
November 15, 2008
November
11
Nov
15
15
2008
09:05 PM
9
09
05
PM
PDT
noted I was disputing Dawkins, not you. Evolution has no limits in an infinite amount of time. Back in the day when a steady state universe was commonly accepted Darwinian evolution was a decent theory. It only fell apart when the age of the universe got a commonly accepted bound while the known complexity of life increased (and it is still increasing) exponentially. With every passing day, while we discover greater and greater intricacy in life, evolution's job gets more and more difficult when the time to get her done doesn't increase along with the magnitude of the task.DaveScot
November 15, 2008
November
11
Nov
15
15
2008
08:13 PM
8
08
13
PM
PDT
NS, "In any case you say “not really” when my comment is exactly correct: That is Dawkins’ point. Not some crazy alien theory that O’Leary insinuates in order to suggest he should be discredited." One problem here is that Dawkins is (and this is a favorite past time of the modern New Atheists, I notice) mixing science with philosophy/theology, and passing it off as nothing but science. Dawkins, in those oft-cited examples, takes a step that every major ID proponent I've seen is unwilling to take: Identifying the designer. Worse, Dawkins establishes who the designer can be positively identified as in advance - there is no design, and even if there is, it's not God. Ergo, no evidence for design, no matter how instrumental or grand, could ever be evidence for God. So no, as near as I can tell you're wrong on this point. Dawkins' comments about aliens were in large part criticized because he's willing to concede that design is a real possibility, that design cases may even be scientific (even rational?) explanations - but only if God is expressly ruled out from the outset. The moment you're willing to file any and all evidence for God under 'aliens' or (as some more transhumanist-inclined atheists prefer to go) 'simulated universe and the programmer is definitely not God', there's no more discussion to be had. You're taking a position similar to solipsism, where axioms rule out any and all counter-evidence, and the axioms cannot be questioned. And you know what? I don't mind if a person is a solipsist. If Dawkins wants to build that wall, that's fine. But when he wants to argue that there's no evidence for God, and also that any evidence one could attribute to God must instead be attributed to aliens, he's playing a shallow game that comes down to philosophy, rather than science. He deserves to be called out on the point. (PS: Davescot makes a great point, one I've long considered. Appealing to eternity to explain apparent design is fatal - eternity doesn't just make the spontaneous assembly of complex structures a certainty. It makes /design/ a certainty too, on all scales. Materialism/naturalism collapses the moment a person is willing to accept ground rules that include eternity and actual infinities.)nullasalus
November 15, 2008
November
11
Nov
15
15
2008
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT
Richard Dawkins is on record (the documentary film "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed") as stating that he would support directed panspermia (aliens seeding life throughout the galaxy) in lieu of belief in God. The fact that atheists resort to irrational, outrageous theories in order to avoid God tells me that their atheism is more a matter of the will than of the mind.Barb
November 15, 2008
November
11
Nov
15
15
2008
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT
Someone up there (scottrobinson) said: "Will you condemn or condone teaching creationism to impressionable children? I can understand your promotion of intelligent design, but creationism?" Oh come ON! You forget that I am a Canadian. We have just started to beat back into their troll holes a bunch of evil snitches who run around trying to get people in trouble for what they believe. (Google Ezra Levant + "human rights" Commission if you need to know what I am talking about.) I got a far better education than most kids today. Some of my teachers were creationists and others were theistic evolutionsits or ID folk. Some were atheists. In those days in Canada, people were respectful and it was okay to talk about what you believed. That was a far cry from now, and today's situation is NOT an improvement. If Brit thugs come down heavy on teachers who are creationists, I hope someone wipes the floor with them. That's the best use I can think of right now for evil snitches. Creationism doesn't make much sense to me but pogroms make way less sense. I trust I have made my position clear.O'Leary
November 15, 2008
November
11
Nov
15
15
2008
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT
In an infinite amount of time an infinitely complex intelligence is not just plausible, it’s inevitable. LOL. Good point, Dave.!tribune7
November 15, 2008
November
11
Nov
15
15
2008
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT
Okay, so you're telling me that your thesis depends on a doctrine of the evolution of God. Feel free to scientifically examine that proposition, and post the evidence. Great. In any case you say "not really" when my comment is exactly correct: That is Dawkins' point. Not some crazy alien theory that O'Leary insinuates in order to suggest he should be discredited.NotedScholars
November 15, 2008
November
11
Nov
15
15
2008
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT
NS He’s saying that God is so implausible and so complex and so different than known causes that he is even more implausible than aliens. Not really. Depends on how much time each of them has to grow more complex. In an infinite amount of time an infinitely complex intelligence is not just plausible, it's inevitable.DaveScot
November 15, 2008
November
11
Nov
15
15
2008
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT
I have a much better argument against evolution anyway here: http://sciencedefeated.wordpress.com/NotedScholars
November 15, 2008
November
11
Nov
15
15
2008
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT
But this poll should not encourage Intelligent Design proponents. It shows very clearly that teachers thing the reason for including it is for the sake of students' feelings - *not* for its scientific merit. How can you be happy about this poll? Also, Dawkins' comment about aliens vs. God is not difficult to understand, as you know. He's making a point about God, not aliens or humans. He's saying that God is so implausible and so complex and so different than known causes that he is even more implausible than aliens.NotedScholars
November 15, 2008
November
11
Nov
15
15
2008
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT
Hey, Waltzing Matilda, cool. In my view, the entire Western world is entering another fascist spaz. We just scored a key victory in Canada here. We have a long way to go. But as they used to say in World War II, Godspeed.O'Leary
November 15, 2008
November
11
Nov
15
15
2008
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT
Denyse, thanks for this. Recently an Australian Christian school were fimed talking about ID in a science class for a public TV documentary on ID. They got into trouble with the educational authorities. Someone high up in the public high school principal's association complained and they experienced an inquisition, with the threat that government funding support could be withdrawn. It seems that it is not just in the US where one must live in fear of being EXPELLED. It is interesting that Adam Rutherford (NATURE) has called for the re education of science teachers who don't think Darwin is king. If they cannot see the truth, he thinks they should be fired.idnet.com.au
November 15, 2008
November
11
Nov
15
15
2008
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply