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

Modern evolutionary thought does not allow for the supernatural.

Many scientists subscribe to the notion that "Nature is all there is" which is a philosophical statement but not a scientific statement. Science has a hard time making absolute statements, especially when singular events are beyond observed duplication. A little more humility from the "scientific community" would be appreciated on this score, but theirwidespread paranoia demands an absolutist mentality .

---------------

Question for theistic evolutionists: "Can God acheive an intended result by a process devoid of intentionality?"

"I didn’t think my reply suggested that. I have no problem with ID-ers. The ID just took a long time, from our POV."

Sorry for doing a little "lumping together" of my own. I didn't mean it as a philippic against you personally. But the fact remains that that the majoritarian view in science nowadays is that ID = Creationism. Which betrays serious sloppiness of thought ---on their part.

Many scientists subscribe to the notion that "Nature is all there is" which is a philosophical statement but not a scientific statement.

Very true, but this is the crux of the matter in teaching evo vs ID. The evos will say that what they are teaching is "science" devoid of "religion", and that ID is "religion" devoid of any "science". The problem is that both have a philosophical presupposition that cannot be proven with the scientific method.

What needs to be pointed out is that any origin theory is based in a philosophical presupposition, and as such, has a certain amount of faith to it.

True, it really doesn't matter to me, I'm grounded in the bible. More then just words, my experiences with God. I've seen God move in my life in so many miraculous ways(biggest, salvation and the after effects and I was healed of liver cancer 8 years ago,++++++++ so many more things) I have no doubts. My feelings were I needed to say what I believed. There are some that are confused, if what I say helps so be it.

If you believe in God, this won't change His mind about you :) He still loves us no matter what. Relationships are like that with God, there is still much I don't know. The more I learn, especially about God, the more I realize how little I know.

Well, we'd like to know why the statement that creationism's influence is growing across the globe is BS.

The intelligent design "movement" was the last hurrah of creationism. It was a movement concieved, bankrolled and largely populated by conservative christians who publicly insisted that it had nothing to do with religion at all.

Epic fail.

That it failed to attract any significant base of support among scientists and professors came as no surprise to anyone not already bewitched by its philosophical chicanery.

What was surprising was its failure to accomplish its real goal: to drive a big enough "wedge" (as Phillip Johnson put it) of public opinion between what he saw as philosophical naturalism and the classroom that ID would end up having to be taught despite, and contrary to, the opinions of the vast majority of scientists and researchers.

In a nation like the US where the majority of the population believes in some sort of special creation, this seemed a very real possibility, which is why the reaction from Eugenie Scott & Co. was so vehement.

But what happened?

School board members who attempted to introduce ID found themselves looking for work after election time even in conservative counties. Judges with conservative track records on other issues failed to see the validity of ID as a legitimate scientific theory. Scholars and theologians at conservative schools who were initially excited by it came to find its arguments uncompelling enough that they were not willing to trumpet them publicly. The few researchers who remained publicly supportive of ID were denounced by their own collegues and exist as borderline academic pariahs.

In short creationism (along with its red-headed, back-stairs stepchild the ID movement) failed in an environment more ripe for its success than any other western, democratic country on the planet. It failed to a degree that I think surprised even its most vehement detractors.

If creationisms attempt at intellectual respectability cannot succeed in conservative, religious colleges or rural Pennsylvania, it cannot succeed anywhere.

bewitched by its philosophical chicanery

Nice set of loaded words there. Let us not forget that the modern evo have their own "philosophical chicanery" going on: they claim that all that exists is matter and that there is no God. While they don't know everything, they discount the possibility of something that is not unreasonably possible.

Let me expand. How did life occur? We don't know, but it can't be God. How did the universe begin? We don't know, but it can't be God. They have already rejected a definite possibility for rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.

You’re describing influence in terms of their acceptance by those in institutions of learning, organizations, etc.

I think the author is referring to the GENERAL PUBLIC and what they believe. In this regards, he seems to be telling us that creationism seems to be gaining in acceptance.

For instance, CBS has been doing a yearly poll on public acceptance of evolution since as far back as I can remember.

This poll (1991) had 47% for creationism (God created man 10,000 years ago) and 40% for evolution.(man evolved God guided the process). However an addition 9% also believed in evolution (man evolved God wasn’t involved) End numbers 47% to 49%

A follow up (1997) to the last poll, with the same numbers came out 44% creation 39% evolution with God and 10% pure evolution. End numbers 44% to 49%

In 2005, they told us that their poll results show that most Americans do not accept the theory of evolution. Instead, 51 percent of Americans say God created humans in their present form, and another three in 10 say that while humans evolved, God guided the process. Just 15 percent say humans evolved, and that God was not involved.

This number, I think has been increasing every year in favor of creationism INSPITE of what is happening at our institutions of learning.

*THAT* I think is what the author is referring to.

See Part II for evidences of a global flood.

Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html

Part I dispels the upside down logic of evolution.
Part III is questions, answers and a debate challenge.

Sorry but you could not be more wrong. Evolution is historical (aka hysterical) science. Evolution stands logic on it’s head to try to explain nature. The Dover PA case did not involve any “conservative, religious colleges of rural Pennsylvania” higher learning insitutes.

See my post #30 in this thread for more truth than you’ll
find in all of the evolution textbooks combined. If the
government would quit funding evolutionary science then
it would literally dry up and blow away.

The interest thing to me about the Dover PA case is that the judge in the case is an alumnus of a certain prep school. The alumni magazine from this school had some interesting comments. Most viewed this as a way to annoy what they perceived as conservatives, and did not really discuss the merits of the case.

I wish I had kept the magazine, but was so disgusted with the lot that I threw it away.

I don’t agree.

Science is not based on faith but on putting up a thesis without any faith, knowing it may be wrong. It’s only based on observation and logical links to other observations and the point is not to regard it as truth for all time but a temporary base of work until obeservations are made that make your thesis obsolete or incomplete or wrong.

In fact faith is a problematic attitude for a scientist since they are certainly tempted and do fall in love with their theories all the time - but the philosophie is - and that is what every scientist gets tought and what every priest is forbidden: To not fall into love with theories, models, interpretations etc. but to test them, make your own and put them to a discussion.

It is the essence of science to be unfaithful.

There is no way science can proof or resume that ‘there is no god’.
In fact it is impossible to proof that angels, elfs or the like do not exist.

There are areas of incertainty and they are big.

But only because we don’t know jack about what things are in these areas it doesn’t mean on the other hand that there is a god.

Science doesn’t say ‘there is no God’ it just says - we don’t see him.

Jesus walked - perhaps - over the water. But there is a lot of indications, that makes it to hard to believe. We even have a better theory - one that has more logical connections to other observations and results of interpretations and is much harder to attack: The bible contains stuff, that is made up.

So why consider a second best theory ?

We even have a better theory - one that has more logical connections to other observations and results of interpretations and is much harder to attack: The bible contains stuff, that is made up.

And your proof that the bible has fiction in it is what?

So why consider a second best theory ?

In your mind, it is the second best theory. To me, the idea that an intelligent and logical mind has been created by random events is far poorer than the idea that a more superior intelligence created a lesser one.

You claim “The bible contains stuff, that is made up.”

I say prove it or pack it up and go home! The Bible is unique among all other books. And it shows many clear signs to be divinely inspired by God as does creation itself.

To make such an outlandish claim, you obviously have never seriously studied His Word nor the many heavily researched books and articles as well as archeological science itself which shows the Bible to be trustworthy and true.

Psalm 22 was written at least 800 years before Jesus Christ walked the earth yet it alone provides numerous fulfilled prophesies describing the details surrounding the crucifixion. Science can not begin to compete with His Word and has no answer for any of the wondrous and miraculous claims in the Bible.

The problem with your statement is not science, it is scientists. We have seen over and over again in the scientific community a certain penchant for holding on to theories, even when shown to be false, because there is a certain desire for them to be true. AGW has shown this in bold stripes.

The problem is that every scientist does fall in love with their own theories or models. For instance, is the speed of light constant? There is some good evidence that it is not, but there a strong resistance from the physics community not to accept the theory. Einstein refused to believe quantum mechanics because, as he put it, "God does not play dice." (and, no, I am not saying that Einstein believed in God, I am just quoting him).

Also, I have yet to see a controlled experiment that conclusively proves ToE over ID. What I see is the equivalent of forensic scientists looking over a crime scene trying to figure out what has happened, but who have been told that the perpetrator is not their man, and that they should abandon any line of inquiry that proves otherwise.

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.