Creationism taught by design : finding its way into UK university lecture halls

The Times of London ^ | 07/01/2006

[SirLinksalot]

Education

Creationism taught by design

CREATIONISM is finding its way into university lecture halls, raising concerns with some academics that the biblical story of creation will be given equal weight to Darwin’s theory of evolution.

Compulsory lectures in intelligent design and creationism are going to be included in second-year courses for zoology and genetics undergraduates at Leeds University, The Times Higher Education Supplement (June 23) reveals.

But there’s a twist: lecturers will present the controversial theories as being incompatible with scientific evidence. “It is essential they (students) understand the historical context and the flaws in the arguments these groups put forward,” says Michael McPherson, of Leeds University.

Despite the clear anti- creationist stance of these lecturers, the move has set warning bells ringing across the UK science community.

“It would be undesirable for universities to spend a lot of precious resources teaching students that creationism and intelligent design are not based on scientific evidence,” says David Read, the vice- president of the Royal Society.

Yet other academics are keen to see evolutionary theory challenged in university lecture halls.

“The scientific establishment prevents dissenting views,” says Professor Steve Fuller, Professor of Sociology at the University of Warwick. “I have a lot of respect for those who have true scientific credentials and are upfront about their views.”

Students, though, seem open to creationism. One study, carried out by Professor Roger Downie, of the University of Glasgow, found that one science student in ten did not believe in evolution.

“This gives a very poor prognosis for their understanding of what science is and their ability to be scientists,” Prof Downie says.

[doc30]

The reality is that moderns that live now were not alive when the "creation" nor the evolution of species happened so both are somewhat a leap of faith and cannot be proven: That is why neither CAN be proven difinitively by mankind and will always be a "theory"

Hey, now you are getting the hang of science. After all, science is incapable of proving anything. All theories in science are unprovable. Electromagnetism - unproven. It really is. Gravity - we still don't know what causes it. Heck, we don't even know why inertia exists. All science can do is come up with tests for theories whose results have the possibility of disproving said theory.

There are a lot of people who believe science proves things when, in fact, it does not. It can only disprove things.

The big difference is that there is a lot of physical evidence out there and evolution is the best description we have so far for these observations. Many sciences are historical. They aren't done in a lab and don't require an eye-witness. The past events leave behind a forensic story. So far, every bit of evidence, every fact, shows that a literal interpretation of Genesis did not occur.

[blowfish]

That is why neither CAN be proven difinitively by mankind and will always be a "theory"

Ah yes, the old "science can't prove anything, so my particular load of theological stuff is just as plausible as the geological record" argument.
This argument is much favored by people who:

1) Don't understand how science works
2) Do understand it, but resent it's findings.

This is fine in a philosophy class. But a science class postulates certain things and goes on from there. If you don't like where it goes, don't take science classes. Poetry is a perfectly valid field of study, for instance.

Luckily, there are still a lot of people who *do* value the benefits of the study of physical evidence, and will continue to bring us the fruit of their labors.

[onedoug]

Though reproduction didn't evolve. It had to be right from the beginning.
Speculation as to how would seem valid.

And some of the greatest scientists in history have been believers.

[blowfish]

Though reproduction didn't evolve. It had to be right from the beginning.

And your evidence justifying this sweeping assertion would be...?

[From many - one.]

Yes. I saw that thread. Blatant.

[JSDude1]

shells existing in mountain rock, rock layers where supposedly "oterwise older fossils" are on top of "younger fossil layers",

Coal with human-Indian artifacts found inside,

Dinosaur Footprints found inside+alongside human footprints,

Dinsaur images, "Dragon" Immages found in Civilization artwork ALL over the world, from China, Meso-America, Europe, Africa, Asia...

The fact that no new species has even been observed "evolving" from another species through micro-evolution..The best you get is variation within species, and even then the differnt gena is a LOSS of genes information contained in the DNA, not an INCREASE.. and on , and on...

[JSDude1]

doc, I already had a hang on science, and that is all that I am saying, now that both the creationists and evolutionist WORSHIPERS, those more connected to thier own beliefs (without looking at the facts) are out of the way..I SAY JUST IGNORE THEM, then WE can look at the facts-evidence...

[onedoug]

Reproduction had to have been right from the beginning, otherwise there would have been no further life to develop.

Conversely, how might initial reproduction of the earliest life have evolved?

[JSDude1]

It's not "philosophy" when discussing what happened when there ARE REAL DINOSAUR FOOTPRINTS- WITH HUMAN FOOTPRINTS INSIDE OF IT!!

Unless of course you are merely philophising about the nature of the footprint-and matter, and if it is real or not..

[Coyoteman]

I see you are familiar with the creation "science" websites and literature.

Sorry to have to tell you, its junk. Its all been debunked over and over.

Just briefly:

Shells in mountain rock: plate tectonics and uplift

Older fossils over younger fossils: layers can be turned any angle, even upside-down

Coal with Indian artifacts: debunked in many different forms (this one, in all of its varieties has been around a long time)

Dino and dragon images: Nonsense. Some of the Peruvian examples usually used are recent. As for others, well here is some more "proof" for you:

You realize that if ID and creation are taught in science classes, there will be no holds barred, don't you? Science works on facts and theory, and tries constantly to disprove things. Are you ready for that?

And I notice you brought up everything but the one thing I asked you about, the "global" flood. That was disproved by the 1830s, by the early creationist geologists.

[blowfish]

ARE REAL DINOSAUR FOOTPRINTS- WITH HUMAN FOOTPRINTS INSIDE OF IT!!

Do tell. Perhaps you are referring to these?

[JSDude1]

Older ontop of layer that not only was 'dated' with faulty CO2 dating, but also is not a few feet, but litterally 1000 miles.. I don't thinks so

Dinos with human prints in them have not been debunked, thirdly neither has the coal, unless you have proof...

Micro has never been verified to prove macro...

[Coyoteman]

Still ignoring the "global" flood I see.

Why are you so relucatant to address that issue?

I'll be out a few hours. I check for your reply this evening.

[blowfish]

Dinos with human prints in them have not been debunked,

Please post a link to the site where dinosaur prints with human footprints in them, if you could. Likewise the coal deposits with human artifacts in them. You *are* aware of how coal is formed? Soft artifacts could not survive this process.

[GreenOgre]

The simplistic (yes, I said simplistic) designs (sic) of Evolution will soon run into the inherent evidences for Design. It was bound too happen.

What evidence is there supporting ID?
What evidence do you expect to find?

[doc30]

Some of what you posted is real, the other stuff is made up. Fossil shells in rock near mountain tops is an expected result of plate techntonics. Those rocks were once at the bototm of an ocean. Older layers on top of younger layers happens for a reason and you. The Earth is pretty dynamic and rocks do get flipper over, bent and even wrinkled. Fractures cause one section to slide over another section. It's well established stuff.

Its utter nonsense that dino and human footprints have been found together, as well as human artifacts in coal. That stuff was pulled out by creationists and thoroughly debunked by science as frauds.

And don't get into speciation. The concept of a species is a human construct. It is a label we created. It is also a human label that is given to information in DNA.

[From many - one.]

Why ever would you think that reproduction didn't evolve?

[keithtoo]

I have the evidence of fully-formed organisms. I have the evidence that unless an organism is fully formed and fully functional it will die off quickly, and yet millions of these fully-formed organisms exist and co-exist.

I have the evidence that leads to inference. I have the evidence of fully formed humans and fully formed apes, and nothing in-between.

I have fully formed reptiles and full formed amphibians, and nothing in between.

I have mammals, reptiles, amphibians, birds, crustaceans, invertebrates, etc, etc.

What I do not have is a currently existing missing link (ie: transitional form), although I ought to have billions of samples if Evolution were true. I ought to have friends over every weekend for a 'transitional form' Bar-b-que, since transitional forms would be so plentiful, that they would be the cheapest thing to purchase at the deli.

[doc30]

Older ontop of layer that not only was 'dated' with faulty CO2 dating,

When you can show why this statement of yours makes no sense, I will give you credibility. Until then, I suggest you educate yourself on radiometric dating techniques.