Should creationism be taught in British classrooms?

To some people's incredulity and others' satisfaction, creationism's influence is growing across the globe. Definitions of creationism vary, but roughly 10-15 per cent of people in the UK believe that the earth came into existence exactly as described in the early parts of the Bible or the Quran, and that the most that evolution has done is to change species into other, closely related species.

The more recent theory of intelligent design agrees with creationism, but makes no reference to the scriptures. Instead, it argues that there are many features of the natural world - such as the mammalian eye - that are too intricate to have evolved from non-living matter, as the theory of evolution asserts. Such features are simply said to be "irreducibly complex".

At the same time, the overwhelming majority of biologists consider evolution to be central to the biological sciences, providing a conceptual framework that unifies every disparate aspect of the life sciences into a single, coherent discipline. Most scientists also believe that the universe is about 13-14 billion years old.

The well-known schism between a number of religious world-views - particularly Judaeo-Christian views based on Genesis and mainstream Islamic readings of the Quran - and scientific explanations derived from the theory of evolution is exacerbated by the way people are asked in surveys about their views on the origins of human life. There is a tendency to polarise religion and science: questions focus on the notion that either God created everything, or God had nothing to do with it. The choices erroneously imply that scientific evolution is necessarily atheistic, linking acceptance of evolution with the explicit exclusion of any religious premise.

In fact, people have personal beliefs about religion and science that cover a wide range of possibilities. This has important implications for how biology teachers should present evolution in schools. As John Hedley Brooke, the first holder of the Andreas Idreos Professorship of Science and Religion at Oxford University, has long pointed out, there is no such thing as a fixed relationship between science and religion. The interface between them has shifted over time, as has the meaning of each term.

Most of the literature on creationism (and intelligent design) and evolutionary theory puts them in stark opposition. Evolution is consistently presented in creationist books and articles as illogical, contradicted by scientific evidence such as the fossil record (which they claim does not provide evidence for transitional forms), and as the product of non-scientific reasoning. The early history of life, they say, would require life to arise from inorganic matter - a form of spontaneous generation largely rejected by science in the 19th century. Creationists also accuse evolutionary theory of being the product of those who ridicule the word of God, and a cause of a range of social evils (from eugenics, Marxism, Nazism and racism to juvenile delinquency).

Creationism has received similarly short shrift from evolutionists. In a study published in 1983, the philosopher of science Philip Kitcher concluded that the flat-earth theory, the chemistry of the four elements and medieval astrology were all as valid as creationism (not at all, that is).

Life lessons Evolutionary biologists attack creationism - especially "scientific creationism" - on the grounds that it isn't a science at all, because its ultimate authority is scriptural and theological, rather than the evidence obtained from the natural world.

After many years of teaching evolution to school and university students, I have come to the view that creationism is best seen by science teachers not as a misconception, but as a world-view. A world-view is an entire way of understanding reality: each of us probably has only one.

However, we can have many conceptions and misconceptions. The implications of this for education is that the most a science teacher can normally hope to achieve is to ensure that students with creationist beliefs understand the basic scientific position. Over the course of a few school lessons or a run of university lectures, it is unlikely that a teacher will be able to replace a creationist world-view with a scientific one.

So how might one teach evolution in science lessons to 14- to 16-year-olds? The first thing to note is that there is scope for young people to discuss beliefs about human origins in other subjects, notably religious education. In England, the DCSF (Department for Children, Schools and Families) and the QCA (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority) have published a non-statutory national framework for religious education and a teaching unit that asks: "How can we answer questions about creation and origins?" The unit focuses on creation and the origins of the universe and human life, as well as the relationships between religion and science. As you might expect, the unit is open-ended and is all about getting young people to learn about different views and develop their own thinking. But what should we do in science?

In summer 2007, after months of behind-the-scenes meetings, the DCSF guidance on creationism and intelligent design received ministerial approval and was published. As one of those who helped put the guidance together, I was relieved when it was welcomed. Even the discussions on the RichardDawkins.net forum were positive, while the Freethinker, an atheist journal, described it as "a breath of fresh air" and "a model of clarity and reason".

The guidance points out that the use of the word "theory" in science (as in "the theory of evolution") can be misleading, as it is different from the everyday meaning - that is, of being little more than an idea. In science, the word indicates that there is substantial supporting evidence, underpinned by principles and explanations accepted by the international scientific community. The guidance makes clear that creationism and intelligent design do not constitute scientific theories.

It also illuminates that there is a real difference between teaching something and teaching about something. In other words, one can teach about creationism without advocating it, just as one can teach in a history lesson about totalitarianism without advocating it.

This is a key point. Many scientists, and some science teachers, fear that consideration of creationism or intelligent design in a science classroom legitimises them. That something lacks scientific support, however, doesn't seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson.

I remember being excited, when I was taught physics at school, that we could discuss almost anything, provided we were prepared to defend our thinking in a way that admitted objective evidence and logical argument. I recall one of our A-level chemistry teachers scoffing at a fellow student, who reported that she had sat (outside the lesson) with a spoon in front of her while Uri Geller maintained he could bend viewers' spoons. I was all for her approach. After all, I reasoned, surely the first thing was to establish if the spoon bent (it didn't for her), and if it did, to start working out how.

Free expression When teaching evolution, there is much to be said for allowing students to raise any doubts they have in order to shape and provoke a genuine discussion. The word "genuine" doesn't mean that creationism and intelligent design deserve equal time with evolution. They don't. However, in certain classes, depending on the teacher's comfort with talking about such issues, his or her ability to deal with them, and the make-up of the student body, it can and should be appropriate to address them.

Having said that, I don't pretend to think that this kind of teaching is easy. Some students become very heated; others remain silent even if they disagree profoundly with what is said. But I believe in taking seriously the concerns of students who do not accept the theory of evolution while still introducing them to it. Although it is unlikely that this will help them resolve any conflict they experience between science and their beliefs, good teaching can help students to manage it - and to learn more science.

My hope is simply to enable students to understand the scientific perspective with respect to our origins, but not necessarily to accept it. We can help students to find their science lessons interesting and intellectually challenging without their being a threat. Effective teaching in this area can help students not only learn about the theory of evolution, but also better appreciate the way science is done, the procedures by which scientific knowledge accumulates, the limitations of science and the ways in which scientific knowledge differs from other forms of knowledge.

-- Michael Reiss is professor of science education at the Institute of Education, University of London. His PhD was on evolutionary biology, and he is a priest in the Church of England

An object with mass that is higher the that of air will immerse in water - a body that contains mainly water will do so nearly completely or sink.

Now it’s your turn to tell me your hint to believe Jesus really walked on the water ;-)

Now this is not a proof but it is a little theory with a quite dense logical background.

I’ll go with this until you show me something reproducable and consistent that convinces me otherwise - and no just because many people do it or because it’r written is not a logical and reproducable thing.

But as Doctor House said - don’t reason with religious people - they wouldn’t be religious if you could ;-)

Psalm 22...

well THAT must be interpreted... as what ?

Either that Psalm 22 is an impressive act of prophecy - details from the passion of chirst where actually written on paper long before Christ was on Earth.

Or the authors of christ’s passion knew the content of Psalm 22 and bound it into known context.

Since I do not know how it was determined that psalm 22 was authored over 800 years BC I will not say it isn’t so - I know that many sources of text in the bible are much older then 2000 years. Was it never ‘worked over’.

What do you think would happen to all the informations written down in ancient times ? What motivations existed then to write things down.

If I assumed that there was in fact prophecy and enlightenment as a motivation to some of these ancient writers - isn’t it likely that there have been people arround who wrote and preached also political and ethical propaganda ?

What might have happened to writings like the later ?

Hmmm I am asking to much - you don’t have to open your mind to ateism. It’s maybe not even what makes you or most people happy.

I would ask not to demand to mix science with religion or to even compare them in any way is a missunderstanding of concepts. Just keep creationism where it belongs - into talkshows and the media - it was ment as a provocation. If it appears in school then in lessons where you teach children what ‘the media’ is.

Ah, you presuppositions are showing again. You assume that Jesus was just a man. And you assume that there is no room for the supernatural, that the laws are nature cannot be violated.

No mere man can walk on water as described, except by some supernatural event. But if He is God, the Creator of all, as He said many times, it would not be illogical to allow Him to perform acts like this to show His dominion over creation.

I'll give you a crude analogy. In many pieces of software, there are "easter eggs" or "cheats" that allow the player to do things not normally possible. These are placed in by the creators of the software, and, unless revealed to rest, they look impossible to perform by the average user. But they show the dominion of the programmer over the game.

But as Doctor House said - don’t reason with religious people - they wouldn’t be religious if you could ;-)

Spoken like a true closed-minded bigot (House, not you; I have no idea if you are a bigot). You have presupposed that religious people are not reasonable. That makes it easier for you to dismiss us.

As I pointed out earlier, ANY origin theory is based in a philosophical presupposition, and as such, has a certain amount of faith to it. Also, any theory is worthless if it cannot be predictive, i.e. a controlled experiment where the result can accurately be predicted before. I have yet to see a controlled experiment that conclusively proves ToE OR ID. As such, both are not theories, but conjectures.

True science does not ignore nor throw away some/most of the known data just because it does not fit their assumptions. See my links page and explain why over 100 natural clocks are ignored in favor of those used by evolutionary science and their many [oft not-stated] assumptions for starting points and uniformitarianism.

You stated: “I would ask not to demand to mix science with religion or to even compare them in any way is a missunderstanding of concepts.” You must study much history grasshopper, before you may begin to see who is ‘pulling the wool over your eyes.’ Newton did his scientific reseach in an attempt to prove God, the Bible and the evidence that God states is plain for all to see in His creation.

You ever heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls? Modern science has shown that the Biblical Old Testament is accurately recorded as it was passed down throughout history.

More suggested reading to shed light on your Biblical understanding:

3 books/recordings by Lee Strobel:
The Case for Christ,
The Case for Faith, &
The Case for Creation.

‘More than a Carpenter’ by Josh McDowell [iirc]
‘The Signature of God’ by Grant Jeffries
‘Starlight and Time’ by Russell Humphreys

Dr Ivan Panin Russian Mathematician later emigrated to USA and spent his life’s work researching the mathematical codes underlying the structure in the Bible which consequently led to modern day ELS - Equidistant Letter Spacings. ELS is only possible w/ the advent of the computer age.

Online book that I strongly reccomend for hardback purchase
containing what is and what is not conclusive in modern evolutionary science by a former evolutionary scientist
‘In the Beginning’ by Dr. Walt Brown Ph.D.
[also on my FR links page.]

The choice is yours:
Continue to throw stones blindly, or
Do some of your own web research and analysis.

Modern day science has become big-time Bible critics by using only the data that supports their hopes and dreams. I think eventually you’ll see that all folks live in glass houses some are just more stone-proof than others.

But no one has shown any true science that can conclusively refute the inspired Word of God. Many make such claims and many reach consensus w/i their own little warped peer-reviews but none [no one] can produce anything on par w/ the accuracy of the Bible.

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.