Posted on 11/16/2008 10:37:40 AM PST by SeekAndFind
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.
Commenting on the results of the survey of 1,200 viewers of Teachers TV, its chief executive, Andrew Bethell, said: "This poll data confirms that the debate on whether there is a place for the teaching of creationism in the classroom is still fierce."
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
I taught both when I worked in public schools as well, always starting out the lesson with “Some people believe...” on both subjects, instead of teaching evolution as FACT.
However if I had been ‘caught’ teaching creationism, you would have probably seen me fired or worse. Sad that in America that freedom of speech and freedom of religion are so stifled in education. :*(
When I grew up and we reached this section in science class, our teacher presented it as “theories of man” and we as students divided up and presented what we wanted to present with our sources of course and proposed test questions. Our teacher looked at the questions and cleared them and all was taught and no one was in my opinion in that class felt like they were not fully informed and could argue all positions which made their own position stronger.
I assume they also support teaching astrology alongside astronomy, alchemy alongside chemistry, magic alongside physics.
The idea of creationism is perfectly acceptable to be taught -- in philosophy or comparative religion courses.
Creationism is not nor can it be a Scientific Theory.
freedumb2003 wrote: “I assume they also support teaching astrology alongside astronomy, alchemy alongside chemistry, magic alongside physics”
Where I attended school, astroglogy and magic and alchemy didn’t make this topic or any other topics, but one student presented a theory that man originated from a camel with a straight face although the rest of the class (including me) had to be contained not to laugh (it was truly a lesson in manners), so there you go. One thing about knowing all theories though is you know the weaknesses of those you disagree with and can present your points more effectively.
A "scientific theory" is not a hypothesis all grown up. A scientific theory is something completely different. Creationism (nor ID) is NOT a competing theory to TToE. It is an interesting idea but it does not even come close to meeting even the first rule of a scientific theory.
I was teaching self-contained 4th/5th grade students (many illegal aliens at that time)...many of them DID have a religious background for the most part, and asked questions. I encouraged those questions instead of saying evolution is the ONLY answer to the history of man and earth. I never tried to force religion on them as such, and I don’t have a problem if a teacher teaches my child the same way.
Give the children ALL the options, and don’t crush other options just because it doesn’t have ‘scientific’ merit, IMO.
What about ID - Intelligent Design??? that’s DIFFERENT than “creationism”.....anyone here watched Ben Stein’s movie?
To suggest that Creationism is an alternative theory is a disservice. Not only is it not science, it opens the door to "which creationism?" Hinduism? Buddhism? Taisom? Native American Spirtualism?
I appreciate what you were trying to do but it will be hard work to teach these children how grievous the error in their thinking is when they put science alongside mythos.
No offense -- I am sure you wanted to spur discussion.
>>anyone here watched Ben Stein’s movie?
His commercial was all anyone needs to see to eschew that movie.
To suggest defining abiogenesis is somehow a prerequisite to TTOE is like saying it is also a prerequisite for all the theories in Physics.
Far from being an argument that gets one sent to the Principal’s Office since it can’t be answered, any science teacher would (SHOULD) basically say “it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.”
Indeed. Ben Stein went off the deep end when he glowingly endorsed Al Frankenfraud for the U.S. Senate, and he hasn't recovered his marbles since. Sad really.
“I assume they also support teaching astrology alongside astronomy, alchemy alongside chemistry, magic alongside physics.”
They would support it only IF astrology actually offered valid criticisms of astronomy and valid alternative explanations for things that astronomy could not answer; and IF alchemy offered valid criticisms of chemistry and valid alternative explanations for phenomena unexplainable by chemistry; and IF magic actually offered valid criticisms of physics and valid alternative explanations of phenomena unexplained or unexplainable in principle by physics.
After all, as super-duper secular scientifically-minded “modernes” (pronounced with the proper amount of snooty nasal French accent) we are inherently UNBIASED and care not FROM WHERE AN ALTERNATIVE THEORY OR RELEVANT CRITICISM ORIGINATES. Right? Yes, of course right.
Most scientists, even those officially committed to Darwinism (technically, “Neo-Darwinism” or “The Synthetic Theory”) know that the twin pillars of the theory — random mutation and natural selection — are inadequate to explain (i) the origin of life, and (ii)the appearance of new species, with new body plans, and new capabilities wholly different from species that came before it.
Even your hero, Richard Dawkins, admitted ON FILM, in an interview with Ben Stein, that he is perfectly willing to accept the notion that life was designed by intelligent agents...he is simply unwilling to accept the idea that this chain of cause-and-effect started off with a supernatural act from a non-material agent. In other words, his philosophical materialism prevents him from accepting God.
Aside from that little bottleneck in his thinking, he explicitly asserted that he has no problem accepting Intelligent Design. The designers, however, must themselves be material, having been designed by still earlier designers, ad infinitum. The apparent infinite regress is what leads him to reject the argument as absurd (absurd in form, not necessarily, by his lights, untrue in factual content).
See Ben Stein’s film “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”. It’s now on DVD.
Due to the lovely rules of ‘pass’em no matter that they aren’t ready’, many of these children dropped out of school and went the way of gangs and early motherhood. *sigh*
See, the thing is—in the social studies books, those other
origins of life WERE taught! Christianity was the only one ‘outlawed’—that is my objection.
“To suggest that Creationism is an alternative theory is a disservice. Not only is it not science, it opens the door to “which creationism?” Hinduism? Buddhism? Taisom? Native American Spirtualism?”
To suggest that Darwinism is truly a scientific theory — as opposed to a secular/materialist creation myth — opens the door to “which Darwinism? Classical Darwinism as it actually appears in Origin of Species? Neo-Darwinism/Synthetic Theory started in the 1940s (some of which contradicts Darwin’s original theory)? Population genetics (some of which contradicts the synthetic theory)? Stuart Kaufman’s theory of self-organization (not creationism but completely un-Darwinian)? Stephen Jay Gould’s and Niles Eldridge’s theory of Stasis/Punctuated Equilibrium (which contradicts much of classical Darwinism and neo-Darwinism but at least admits to the public that the fossil evidence does NOT show what it ought to show if the original theory were correct); Dean Kenyon’s early notions of Biochemical Predestination (written before Kenyon had a “Road to Damascus” moment and woke up in bed one evening in a cold sweat painfully admitting to himself that he and his colleagues had simply been READING their own evidence INTO the data. He became a creationist after that.)?
Which sect of the Darwinian religion should be taught as “the truth”?
You’re purposely misrepresenting your side of the argument to make it seem as if it’s a big, unbroken, monolithic theory that has the preponderance of the evidence — not the preponderance of OPINION, but EVIDENCE — in its favor. Wrong! “Evolution” is now fragmented into a dozen different varieties, some of which contradict the others in major ways. Their point of agreement — the secular/materialist equivalent of C.S. Lewis’s “Mere Christianity” — is that (i) lifeless matter came first, (ii) lifeless matter somehow organized itself into living organisms, (iii) the process or processes, though still mysterious, were not directed by a goal or by an intelligent agent acting toward a goal or purpose, and these processes are perfectly reducible to and explainable by chemistry and physics.
These are the common elements of the secular/materialist creation myth and are used — like the issue of abortion in a political campaign — as a litmust test: for hiring, for tenure, for grants, for career advancement. These three points MUST be believed by spokespersons for academia...regardless of any evidence to the contrary.
Why would you teach creationism? Evolution is a theory only in the fact that empirical knowledge is based on educated people challenging established theory. Freedom of speech is just graffiti if is isn’t backed up by a foundation of fundamental facts.
The Theory of Creation is pretty broad, but it is pretty consistent -- Evolution is a stochastic process resulting from a combination of factors over a long time frame.
You’re purposely misrepresenting your side of the argument to make it seem as if it’s a big, unbroken, monolithic theory that has the preponderance of the evidence
My presentation is consistent and you are grasping at straws. Your idea that variations within the scientific community undercuts TTOE is like saying that scientific squabbles about the theory of gravity undercut Physics as a scientific discipline (which should therefore not be taught).
Under no definition of a scientific theory does Creationism (any variety, including ID) fit. Which is my underlying point.
If that was the case then you have a VERY legitimate argument. If general discussions and curricula about creation myths (sorry, fellow Christians, for this discussion Genesis falls into the "mythos" category) excludes a very widely accepted one then it is truly a disservice to the students -- and defamatory to Christians (and I assume Jews).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.