one in three teachers says teach creationism alongside evolution

[franksolich]

I don't have a dog in this fight, since my own religion tells me that God is the First Cause of all things, all else being irrelevant, but I thought this was funny.

Proponents of evolution, who might or might not be correct, allege themselves to be "enlightened rational" people, when in fact they make those who advocate the other two major theories (creationism and aliens-from-outer-space-ism) look eminently reasonable in comparison.

Hardly anything else in life is more silly than watching one of them thump the science book and preach the gospel of evolution.

This, from England:

One in three teachers says teach creationism alongside evolution

One in three teachers believes schoolchildren should be taught that creationism is just as valid as evolution, according to a survey.

The poll also disclosed that pupils in almost a third of schools already learn about the controversial divine explanation of the universe, with even science teachers thinking it has a place in classrooms.

Almost all of those questioned by Teachers TV, a satellite television channel, agreed that children with strong religious beliefs would feel excluded from science lessons if their views were ignored.

The findings support the views of the Rev Professor Michael Reiss, who lost his job as director of education at the Royal Society, Britain's prestigious scientific academy, after calling for creationism to be included in school science lessons.

The ordained Church of England minister said the idea that the Earth was made by God 10,000 years ago should be discussed if pupils raise it, because "banging on" about natural selection would not lead evangelical Christians or Muslims to change their views.

But he was forced to step down after his views were denounced as "dangerous" and "outrageous" by two Nobel laureates and the Royal Society claimed he had damaged its reputation.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/secondaryeducation/article3393175.ece

This augments an earlier poll, taken in England about two years ago, that showed something like 63% of all Englishmen do not believe in the theory of evolution.

As England is rated as the "most secular," least-church-going, least Christian-affiliation, society in all of Europe, one can't blame "Christian 'fundamentalists'" for this.

[Chris_]

One in three teachers says teach creationism alongside evolution

Then astrology should be taught alongside astronomy, alchemy alongside physics, and levitation arts alongside of physics.

[djones520]

Can we mandate that evolution be taught at church then?

There is no all inclusive story of creation.  If public funded schools where to begin teaching the Christian/Judea/Islamic story of creation, then they would have to start teaching every major religions story as well, otherwise we'd start getting to the point where the government was elevating a specific religion above another, and I believe that would be a violation of the 1st amendment.

[Chris_]

Can we mandate that evolution be taught at church then?

There is no all inclusive story of creation.  If public funded schools where to begin teaching the Christian/Judea/Islamic story of creation, then they would have to start teaching every major religions story as well, otherwise we'd start getting to the point where the government was elevating a specific religion above another, and I believe that would be a violation of the 1st amendment.

Pretty much.  Also, Creationism (all forms) is NOT a "theory" by any scientific definition.

[franksolich]

Can we mandate that evolution be taught at church then?

There is no all inclusive story of creation.  If public funded schools where to begin teaching the Christian/Judea/Islamic story of creation, then they would have to start teaching every major religions story as well, otherwise we'd start getting to the point where the government was elevating a specific religion above another, and I believe that would be a violation of the 1st amendment.

This is England, remember; no "separation of church and state" in England.

[djones520]

This is England, remember; no "separation of church and state" in England.

Yeah.  I was speaking in terms of the US though.  If Britain wants to do that, it's their own prerogative.

[franksolich]

Then astrology should be taught alongside astronomy, alchemy alongside physics, and levitation arts alongside of physics.

Perhaps I didn't make my point clearly enough, sir; sorry.

It's not about the origins of mankind; it's about how people who imagine themselves "rational" and "logical" and "scientific" turn out actually to be intolerant narrow-minded "believers," which is the opposite of rational, logical, and scientific.

The believers in only one religion; evolutionism.

Reality is Infinite; the human mind, even collectively, all of us, is finite.

The finite cannot comprehend the Infinite.

Therefore, the Truth, the final irrevocable Truth, with all contrary to it being lies, cannot be determined by man.

I suppose it depends upon what crowd one hangs around with the most, but in my experience, the most offputting have been the evolution cultists, with their rabid strident insistence that they are right and everybody else is wrong.

And so I get a great deal of merriment when such people get egg on the face.

[Chris_]

Perhaps I didn't make my point clearly enough, sir; sorry.

It's not about the origins of mankind; it's about how people who imagine themselves "rational" and "logical" and "scientific" turn out actually to be intolerant narrow-minded "believers," which is the opposite of rational, logical, and scientific.

The believers in only one religion; evolutionism.

Reality is Infinite; the human mind, even collectively, all of us, is finite.

The finite cannot comprehend the Infinite.

Therefore, the Truth, the final irrevocable Truth, with all contrary to it being lies, cannot be determined by man.

I suppose it depends upon what crowd one hangs around with the most, but in my experience, the most offputting have been the evolution cultists, with their rabid strident insistence that they are right and everybody else is wrong.

And so I get a great deal of merriment when such people get egg on the face.

Not quite sure where you are going with this, Coach.

I agree about the Ultimate Truth resting with God, but that really has nothing to do with evolution (not quite sure what an "evolutionist" is). 

The belief in God and His love for us and how he created the Universe -- and the analysis thereof -- belongs in the areas of theology or philosophy.

Observing this Universe, understanding the rules He established and how they do not change arbitrarily, seeing how those rules apply in the past, present and future -- that is the realm of science, which is where the Theory of Evolution firmly sits.

[franksolich]

Not quite sure where you are going with this, Coach.

Where I'm going with this is a jab at people who think they know all, understand all.

In this particular instance, people who are damned certain about the origins of mankind; that their theory, and only their theory, is the ONLY correct one, and anybody who believes otherwise is ignorant.

Isn't a closed mind something these same people accuse "religious" people of having?

Talk about projecting.

As I said, I don't care about the origins of mankind; whether we descended from apes or were created by God or brought here by aliens from outer space.

The more important question is, who and what are we?, not where did we come from?

Human perception is faulty, and throughout all of history, a great many "scientific" "truths" have been found to be not so.  As I've said before, I fully expect that sometime during my lifetime, the law of gravity will be disproved, replaced by something else, and sometime during this century, that 2 + 2 = 4 will prove wrong, being replaced by something else.

The only Final, Ultimate, Unchanging, Irrevocable, Eternal Truth is God--which the finite intellect of man cannot possibly comprehend.

When the world is full of ambiguities and mysteries, it is hazardous to declare "such-and-such is the truth, and all contrary to it are false."

[MrsSmith]

Then astrology should be taught alongside astronomy, alchemy alongside physics, and levitation arts alongside of physics.

Isn't that merely teaching disproven science alongside not-yet-proven science?

[Chris_]

Isn't that merely teaching disproven science alongside not-yet-proven science?

No it is teaching mythology alongside well-proven science.

[Chris_]

When the world is full of ambiguities and mysteries, it is hazardous to declare "such-and-such is the truth, and all contrary to it are false."

Any scientist who says that is not a scientist at all.

Science says "I have this set of observations. From those observations I can create a picture -- a model if you will."  As addition observations arrive they will disprove the model completely or make the model more complete.

There has never been a single observation to disprove TToE -- and it is supported by other branches of science.  OTOH, billions -- BILLIONS -- of observations have continued to both support the underlying model (a scientific theory).<p>

A handful of people putting their hands over their ears and eyes because they don't like the conclusions no more removes that body of data than a single person can stop a tidal wave by standing on the sand and holding his hand out.

Science advances human knowledge and generally improves life -- if used properly. It is God's gift to Man to help us understand our physical world.

[MrsSmith]

No it is teaching mythology alongside well-proven science.

I do believe that astrology and alchemy were considered scientific in their day.  As at all times, the science of the day is that which we think we have or can prove.  And, as always, later scientists look back at the nutty ideas of the past with contempt.  Imagine what tomorrow's scientists will think of the nuttiest "proven science" we believe today. 

[MrsSmith]

Any scientist who says that is not a scientist at all.

Science says "I have this set of observations. From those observations I can create a picture -- a model if you will."  As addition observations arrive they will disprove the model completely or make the model more complete.

There has never been a single observation to disprove TToE -- and it is supported by other branches of science.  OTOH, billions -- BILLIONS -- of observations have continued to both support the underlying model (a scientific theory).<p>

A handful of people putting their hands over their ears and eyes because they don't like the conclusions no more removes that body of data than a single person can stop a tidal wave by standing on the sand and holding his hand out.

Science advances human knowledge and generally improves life -- if used properly. It is God's gift to Man to help us understand our physical world.

Big if...

[Chris_]

I do believe that astrology and alchemy were considered scientific in their day.  As at all times, the science of the day is that which we think we have or can prove.  And, as always, later scientists look back at the nutty ideas of the past with contempt.  Imagine what tomorrow's scientists will think of the nuttiest "proven science" we believe today. 

That is true of all branches of science.  Physics probably has more to worry about than TToE, If you find several billion bones and bone fragments, along with trace fora and fauna, along strata that can be dated, and observed micro-evolution you probably have a pretty good picture that won't be shaken deeply.<p>
Trying to describe WHY light comes in particles and moves in waves or what the fundamental underlying forces that CAUSE gravity, ITOH, are subject to a LOT of change in a short time that could cause many theories to be discarded or heavily modified.

[Chris_]

Big if...

I use a couple of miracle drugs to stay alive.  I call that "used properly."

[franksolich]

Any scientist who says that is not a scientist at all.

Oh, but they do say that, and their acolytes are even more noisome than authentic scientists about the matter; I give you the example of the malicious cartoon character primitive, the "Kelvin Mace" primitive, and the instance the nocturnally foul one who, while not accepting evolution 100%, thinks all other theories are garbage.

These guys are SO convinced that evolution is absolutely right, the only correct thing, and anyone who disagrees is stupid.

Again, I guess it depends upon which crowd one runs around with, to determine the most ideologically-rigid and narrow-minded.  I imagine in some parts of the country, it's those who believe God spontaneously created man; in other parts of the country, it's those who believe aliens from outer space brought us here; and in yet other parts of the country, it's those who boisterously preach the gospel of evolution.

Nebraska has always been a hotbed of evolutionary sentiment, and that's the environment in which I grew up.  I'm not sure why this is, but evolution was taught in elementary and high schools in Nebraska as long ago as the 1880s (of course, Nebraska pretty much didn't exist prior to the 1880s).

The "creationists" and the alienists have always been outmanned, outgunned, in Nebraska, and it doesn't help that governmental funding of the evolution religion (in the schools and colleges) gives evolution much credibility and respectability, as compared with these other religions.

I might be off by a grade or so, but I believe it was in the 3rd grade that I first learned of evolution.  It made sense to me, so I figured, ho-hum, on to the next chapter......

And it wasn't until I was a junior in high school that I learned this wasn't quite the case, it being only a theory and not established fact.

I supposed if one had taken a poll of my own generation, probably it would show that 90% of Nebraskans believed in evolution; if one were to take a poll of Nebraskans today, probably it would show only 50%, maybe even less, believe in evolution.

Now, this decrease in the proportion of Nebraskans believing in evolution can't be due to "pernicious" "religious influence," because in my lifetime on into the current generation, the influence of religion has temporarily declined--and oh, so precipitously--not increased.

And so it has to be something else, why fewer people believe in evolution.

I think it has to do with two things: (a) the utter pomposity, the utter self-righteousness, the utter arrogance, of those who allege to be "rational" "logical" "clear-thinking" people, who try to jam evolution down others' throats.

And (b) an evolving sense of doubt about what is "certain" in an always-changing world where Reality is not only Infinite, but slippery, hard to grasp.

It's all good, this doubt.

[djones520]

These guys are SO convinced that evolution is absolutely right, the only correct thing, and anyone who disagrees is stupid.

And what have you to say about those who are so absolutely convinced that the bibles story of creationism is right, that they deny the existance of Dinosaurs, and other such animals that existed before humans?  What do you have to say about those who are so wrapped up in their religious teachings that they view those of us who would see outside of it as "stupid"?

I could without a doubt gaurantee you that they far out number the people your complaining about Frank.

[Chris_]

These guys are SO convinced that evolution is absolutely right, the only correct thing, and anyone who disagrees is stupid.

Oh, Coach, you have been badly misled.

No one says evolution is absolutely right -- not in the way you mean.  What they are saying is that evolution is the only scientific theory that explains the massive body of data and that no scientific alternatives have been found.  It means that to not understand this means you are willingly blinding yourself to science.  It is analogous to saying that since you can't see the wind it can't carry aircraft.  You can BELIEVE that, but it doesn't change the underlying science.

And a "theory" is not a "grown up hypothesis." A theory is the highest level of understanding in science.  "Just a theory" applies to non-scientific thought, never to science. 

Stephen J. Gould put it best:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess.
...
[Scientific] Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
...
In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent."

In this context, TToE is a scientific fact, if not a metaphysical one (which I believe YOU believe is being asserted when scientists say TToE is a "fact."

And no one is "jamming TToE down" anyone's throat, any more than they are "jamming chemistry" down their throats or "jamming physics" down their throats.

Physics, astrophysics, astronomy, geology -- all these directly contravene literal Genesis and literal creation.  How come we don't have people protesting these branches of science?  Because creationism is selectively "enforced" -- the conclusions of these other sciences don't offend people.  The conclusions of TToE does (some).

So if you believe that creationism is a competing theory to TToE then it is a competing theory to ALL science. 

And that is withOUT bringing up what criteria an idea must meet before qualifying as a Scientific Theory.

[franksolich]

And what have you to say about those who are so absolutely convinced that the bibles story of creationism is right, that they deny the existance of Dinosaurs, and other such animals that existed before humans?  What do you have to say about those who are so wrapped up in their religious teachings that they view those of us who would see outside of it as "stupid"?

I could without a doubt gaurantee you that they far out number the people your complaining about Frank.

Oh, I dunno, djones, sir.

As I said, it probably depends upon what predominates in one's own area of the country; and in this, the heart of America, it's always been the evolution lobby.

A lot of that is probably due to the religious preferences of the state, in which Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism (all three synods) totally predominate.

[Chris_]

Oh, I dunno, djones, sir.

As I said, it probably depends upon what predominates in one's own area of the country; and in this, the heart of America, it's always been the evolution lobby.

A lot of that is probably due to the religious preferences of the state, in which Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism (all three synods) totally predominate.

The Catholic Church is a proponent of teaching TToE.

[Chris_]

Isn't that merely teaching disproven science alongside not-yet-proven science?

Worshipers of science will never understand that.  By denying creation the status of "science", they can keep the theory of evolution in a nice, neat little package.  Denying explanations that conflict with one's own has been a common tactic for eons, and it certainly isn't limited to creation or evolution.  Can you say "globalwarming" boys & girls?

[franksolich]

There is a large table lamp here, behind the computer.

I look at the lamp-shade, and it's white to me.

I imagine most would agree, yeah, that lamp-shade's white.

Using "scientific" observation.

However, how do we know for a fact that the lamp-shade's really white?

Our eyeballs after all have limitations, and there's the matter of one's perceptions being distorted by life-experiences.

But nonetheless, the lamp-shade seems white, and most would agree it's white.

Based upon faith that our vision and perception are correct.

"Based upon faith."

That is what all life is, faith; simply trust that our limited and fallible human skills at observation are accurate.

Science is faith just as much as Presbyterianism or Coueism; the only dead certainty, the only absolute Truth, is God.....which of course means the Truth, being Infinite, is far beyond the finite capability of mankind to grasp.

"Scientific" truth is always shifting, never coming to a complete stop, a complete resolution.

One time while in the socialist paradises of the workers and peasants with free medical care for all, I observed something, a description of which I gave to a physical education professor at the University of Nebraska sometime later.

The good professor said such was an impossibility; it could not be done, as it defied all the laws of anatomy and gravity and human strength.....and especially not done by a badly-nourished, badly-healthed, stunted-growth teenager.

But I saw it with my own eyes; observed it carefully and closely, and hundreds of others saw it too, although they weren't nearly as impressed as I was.

The lad leaped into the air, did a flip-over, and then came down with only one hand on the ground, holding the rest of his body up in the air.  On that one hand, he did two things at the same time; he shoved himself up-and-down into the air, sort of "hopping," using his hand, and at the same time.....rotated, spinning himself around in circles.

(This apparently was some sort of ancient Ukrainian folk-dance.)

It was shown to me that by the standards of "scientific" textbooks on anatomy and gymnastics, such a thing is impossible.

Yet I saw it with my own eyes, as did hundreds of other people, and it was apparent that all these people (with the exception of myself) had seen the phenomenon so many times they weren't even impressed by it.  They seemed to appreciate it, but it wasn't as if they hadn't seen it before.

Science is really nothing more than blind faith; blind faith that one's perception and powers of observation and conclusions are correct.....and the whole history of mankind betrays that such faith is misplaced.

[Peter3_1]

Science is a continuous search for fact. It is limited by the ability to accurately observe. The lampshace is not "white" it  simply reflects all visible (to us) wavelenengths of light. My "red" sweater is not "red" but reflects that portion of the spectrum, absorbing the rest. And so on.

Science and its' throries are supurbe ways of describing the reality we live in, and every day we learn that the description is not 100Z%, or even close.That more remains to be learned by a wide margin than we know, but at least we know that the knowledge CAN BE OBTAINED.

The mystery is in the CREATION of it all, the brilliant past all understanding  creation of so ccomplex a ayatem that permits everything from clusters of Galexys to interstelar dust becoming the building blocks of life , amino acids, whils still in deep space, to bacteria to this livinng world. Even more amaszing is the existance of an animal that can wonder and appreciate   the incredible beauty that is this universe.

THAT is where faith and the Creator enters in. Not in the dogmatic reading of ancient texts as literal revealed word of God the Creator. There is revealed wisdom, to be sure, but is is not about the begats and the age of the earth. It is about human relationships , kindness, compassion, tollerance and understanding...the Golden Rule being the base of what is expected. That is where it starts, and we're warned, ingore these things, and our worldly works are dust.

[franksolich]

It is about human relationships , kindness, compassion, tollerance and understanding...the Golden Rule being the base of what is expected. That is where it starts, and we're warned, ignore these things, and our worldly works are dust.

That, sir, is correct.

Quibbles over the origins of mankind are just so much noisy chitchattery, especially since the human mind in this world will never know the Truth anyway.

It's far more important for us to waste forests of trees and oceans of ink discussing what we are, and what we are as compared with what we could be, rather than why we became to be.