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.

[LiteKeeper]

You are speaking of interpretation, not evidence. Both are derived from presuppositions.

[whispering out loud]

ahhh yes the well supported theories angle, theories which are well supported with other theories, which themselves are based on theories. And just where exactly are all these facts? Facts by the way can be irrefutably scientifically proven. Just for the record, I am looking for the facts directly supporting the toe, not the facts that support theories that support the toe.

[Coyoteman]

ahhh yes the well supported theories angle, theories which are well supported with other theories, which themselves are based on theories. And just where exactly are all these facts? Facts by the way can be irrefutably scientifically proven. Just for the record, I am looking for the facts directly supporting the toe, not the facts that support theories that support the toe.

Go study the scientific method and get back to me when you can understand how it works.

[whispering out loud]

I understand how it works, and also how it evidently works for evos, We're scientist, and if you disagree with us, then you know nothing of Science, you can deny it all you like it, but that is how you all act, and it is how you come off. Get back to me when you are willing to actually reason, and discuss the subject not blindly shooting down anything that contradicts what you believe.

[blowfish]

Both sides have the same physical evidence. The presuppositions of the "interpreter" of the physical evidence is what is in question.

Well, it's true - both sides have the physical evidence: they're surrounded by it.
I should have said "One side has a coherent explanation for the physical evidence, the other side doesn't."

Is that more to your liking?

[Ready2go]

"Considering how nasty evolutionists get ... I don't they're laughing. Evolutionists are control freaks and don't like people NOT believing the fantasies they preach".

Yes they get very nasty, but they greatly under-estimate the power of the Holy Spirit. He is drawing more, & more folks to God. And I love it! :)

[LiteKeeper]

I should have said "One side has a coherent explanation for the physical evidence, the other side doesn't."

"coherent" is a relative term, again based on your presuppositions. No, your response is not more to my liking. You have proved nothing by the statement you have made.

[Coyoteman]

You wrote: ahhh yes the well supported theories angle, theories which are well supported with other theories, which themselves are based on theories. And just where exactly are all these facts? Facts by the way can be irrefutably scientifically proven. Just for the record, I am looking for the facts directly supporting the toe, not the facts that support theories that support the toe.

I replied: Go study the scientific method and get back to me when you can understand how it works.

You came back with: I understand how it works, and also how it evidently works for evos, We're scientist, and if you disagree with us, then you know nothing of Science, you can deny it all you like it, but that is how you all act, and it is how you come off. Get back to me when you are willing to actually reason, and discuss the subject not blindly shooting down anything that contradicts what you believe.

Your initial comment had a number of errors. For example:

• ahhh yes the well supported theories angle, theories which are well supported with other theories, which themselves are based on theories

  Theories must be based on, and explain, facts. Theories do not explain other theories as their primary goal. Science is facts-and-theories. Facts alone have limited use and lack meaning. A valid theory organizes them into far greater usefulness.

• Facts by the way can be irrefutably scientifically proven.

  Nonsense. Facts are subject to change as more data come in. The speed of light is a "fact" but it has changed a bit in the last hundred years. The measurements are increasingly accurate.

  Also, I don't know of anything in science that can be 'irrefutably scientifically proven." Mathematics, perhaps, but that uses a different approach.

• Just for the record, I am looking for the facts directly supporting the toe, not the facts that support theories that support the toe.

  There are a lot of facts supporting the theory of evolution. They include all the facts in the fossil record and the genetic data. If significant facts go against a theory, it will have to be discarded or severely modified. That is where the Cambrian rabbits come in. All you have to do to disrupt the theory of evolution is find some. Better yet, find a bunch (because everyone knows there is no such thing as one rabbit).

When you argue against the theory of evolution, you have to bring scientific evidence to the table. Divine revelation, religious belief, wishful thinking, what 'the stars foretell,' public opinion, what the neighbors think, and the unguessable 'verdict of history' don't mean squat.

[Oztrich Boy]

This is what can easily happen if ID or creationism is mandated in the classroom. Teachers, particularly science teachers, will not give it a fair shake,

Actually your problem is they will. Creationism is insufficiently robust and falls to pieces when you shake it.

[Oztrich Boy]

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

Ye-hah!

[doc30]

At one time science DID take into account what was once considered *supernatural* and it found that there were *natural* explanations for those things, like disease. Who knows what we might be missing discovering simply because some scientists are uncomfortable with anything that does not fit in their narrowly defined, restricted world.

It is because of what you describe as a narrow interpretation that science studied what was once thought to be supernatural. However, it is misleading to assume science accepted a supernatural explanation. It did not and that's precisely why such supernatural subjects were studied. Science works on the premise that there is a natural explanation for the world around us. And guess what? Every time science studied what was once thought to be supernatural, natural explanations emerged.

It seems that that is the only way scientists can discredit faith; by placing it in a rigid framework that allows for no other interpretation.

Two popints. First, science doesn't care one way or the other about religion, Christianity or any other. So to say it is actively trying to disprove the Bible is very misleading. Science comes up with the best fit for the physical evidence. If that contradicts Scripture, it is not science that is to be blamed. Secondly, a lot of people take Biblical literalism very seriously, I'm sure you've seen some of the arguements, not only in these threads, but in a variety of topics. With literalism removed, it would not change the outcomes of science, but it would allow a deeper understanding of creation without the emotional conflict over the decision to use a literal or allegorical interpretation of certain scripture. Evolution would still be the dominant unifying biological theory. But, as you accurately pointed out, a philosphical understanding of God's role as the creator of evolution could be more readily accepted by certain elements of the scientific community. Keep in mind, however, that philosophical view is not a scientific view, but it is shared by some of our fellow Freepers who are well aware of the boundary betwen science and philosophy or religion.

[curiosity]

Seems like a waste of time.

[Quark2005]

Both sides have the same physical evidence.

But only one side interprets the physical evidence in a manner that makes specific, coherent and successfully tested predictions. (Guess which!)

[From many - one.]

Here is some current thinking on the topic:
The RNA World

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/articles/altman/index.html

[onedoug]

This seems as much hypothesizing as that of ID advocates. So, what's the issue here?

[whispering out loud]

Did I in this post argue against anything? NO

You stated, the toe is based on facts as well as theories, I simply asked what are these profound facts that stand alone as evidence to the toe without them self being bathed in theory. Where was my argument, I merely asked you to support your statement, you said fact, I said where.

[Coyoteman]

...you said fact, I said where.

This is a fact.

There are hundreds of thousands of other facts, some better, some not so good. There are the data from genetics and lots of other fields. Those are facts. There are the dates, from a variety of disciplines. The list of facts is quite long. But this is one of my favorites. We had a nice cast in the bone lab when I was in grad school, and I spent a lot of time with her. (Now an x-ray suggests she is a he. Sigh!)

Happy now?

---

Fossil: Sts 5

Site: Sterkfontein Cave, South Africa (1)

Discovered By: R. Broom & J. Robinson 1947 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 2.5 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, floral & faunal data (1, 4)

Species Name: Australopithecus africanus (1, 2)

Gender: Male (based on CAT scan of wisdom teeth roots) (1, 30) Female (original interpretation) (4)

Cranial Capacity: 485 cc (2, 4)

Information: No tools found in same layer (4)

Interpretation: Erect posture (based on forward facing foramen magnum) (8)

Nickname: Mrs. Ples (1)

See original source for notes:
http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=24

[whispering out loud]

this is not a fact, a fact is a statement with definitive proof, this is a fossil, it is impossible to scientifically ascertain the facts surrounding this fossil (I say this because without a scientist actually there at the time of death to actually observe the conditions at death we do not know the conditions at death, nor the circumstances or situations since death.) all you can do is hypothesize about this fossil. It is not however a fact supporting evolution.

[Coyoteman]

this is not a fact, a fact is a statement with definitive proof, this is a fossil, it is impossible to scientifically ascertain the facts surrounding this fossil (I say this because without a scientist actually there at the time of death to actually observe the conditions at death we do not know the conditions at death, nor the circumstances or situations since death.) all you can do is hypothesize about this fossil. It is not however a fact supporting evolution.

That's one of the funniest Luddite commentaries I have ever heard.

Stick to the Bible and apologetics, per your tagline. You certainly aren't a scientist.

Good night!

[Deadshot Drifter]

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.

I think more universities should do this. Finally they are going to "teach the controversy!" by critically analyzing evolution, creationism and ID.

I bet the professional victims at the Discovery Institute will issue a press release by this time tomorrow, whining, moaning and gnashing their teeth about these lectures.