Posted on 07/10/2006 12:22:16 PM PDT by 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.
PFLR
HORRORS! It's the end of civilization as we know it.
Both are based on faith, so why not?
No, it's just part of the ongoing dumbification process. Someone coined the term 'endarkenment', which fits very well.
Darwin’s theory of evolution is based on facts and well-supported theories.
Religious belief is based on faith and revelation.
===> Placemarker <=== in case this thread evolves (but I doubt it)
I don't really see how this news is bad for a student's understanding of science and their ability to be scientists.
This hysterical reaction is really uncalled for. I rather fear the day when students are asked to sign a statement of faith accepting nothing but pure naturalism as the all important ground rule of theorizing in science before they can be accepted into any science course.
The problem with that issue is that many creationist/IDers either don't understand the facts or don't want to believe the facts so it is hopeless to argue with them.
The problem with that issue is that many creationist/IDers either don't understand the facts or don't want to believe the facts so it is hopeless to argue with them.
Actually, I think they dislike the results of evolutionary theory.
The only reason it took so long is the stiff-necked stubborness of some Athiestic Humanistic people to shoehorn God out of their lives and to keep Him on the periphery of nuttiness. God and science can and must co-exist. Science and naturalism is a paradox which could never be sustained.
fyi. Creationism pinglist ping.
Note that the article quotes a *sociology* professor in order to demonstrate some level of concernt that science isn't open to diverging views. This sociologist, and the author, simply do not understand that science isn't simply about competing views. In science, you can have a view or opinion, but without credible research, it isn't science. And science is open do diverging views, put it happens to be at the forefront of out knowledge where we are still learning and trying to understand new things. Until the research is done, those competing views vie for attention in order to ger research projects off the ground. Only after the work has been done can our understanding be aligned with one particular view.
People can have whatever scientific views they want, but that doesn't mean nature agrees. That's the final arbitratory.
Yes, you are right. If their concept of God based on literal Scripture is perturbed in any way, then it is the perterbation (i.e. the real world) that is wrong. The Bible says so.
How is 'finding'/exploring, discovering and analyzing the facts "dumbification"...
I say look at the facts:
(..Gasp..maybe the Biblcal flood-Creation actually DID happen..?\\).
Now who's being hysterical?
Look, it's really simple. We're talking about *science* classes. Not philosophy. Not comparitive theology. Science.
Science operates on this thing called Physical Evidence. It's really central to the way science works.
Evolution has lots of physical evidence. Creationism/ID has none.
The fact that this physical evidence is theologically disgreeable to some people makes it no less real.
When one side has the physical evidence and the other side doesn't, there's not much to 'find and explore'. Except perhaps the logical bankruptcy of the evidence-free side.
I say look at the facts:
Do let is know when you get some that support creationism.
(..Gasp..maybe the Biblcal flood-Creation actually DID happen..?\\).
Not according to the physical evidence.
If there was truly a world-wide flood at about 2350 BC, where is the evidence?
We should be able to see it everywhere, in the soils. Where is it?
BULL:
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"
There is much evidence for the Supernatural creation of the earth that God caused (recorded in the Gensis account probably by Moses), and much to refute evolution, and a litte to prove evolution-not enough to claim that it was the cause of mankind..,
but if we just look at the facts.. macroevolution may be seen as nothing more than a hoax, and neither Creation/nor Evolution can be difinitively "proven"!
Be careful, you might get some Creationist/IDers coming out of the woodwork claiming that science must take into account supernatural explanations otherwise science is flawed. How else can science and Biblical literallist Christianity be reconciled?
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.