The naturalist joined three Nobel laureates, the atheist Richard Dawkins and other leading scientists in calling on the government to tackle the "threat" of creationism... In a statement on a new campaign website, the 30 scientists and campaign groups including the British Science Association demanded creationism and "intelligent design" be banned outright...More at The Telegraph. Photo: REX.
Speaking ahead of the launch today he said: "Evolution is an extremely powerful idea that lies at the heart of biology. "At the same time, it's a sufficiently simple concept that there's no good reason why it should be left out of the primary curriculum. If creationism is discussed, it should be made clear to pupils that it is not accepted by the scientific community."
Andrew Copson, chief executive of the BHA, said: "... the threat of creationism and ‘intelligent design’ being taught as science is real and ongoing, particularly as more and more schools are opened up to be run by religious fundamentalists. It has never been more urgent for concrete steps to be taken to ensure that all state schools teach evolution, and not creationism, and we urge the Government to implement the simple and sensible measures suggested in this new statement."
20 September 2011
David Attenborough: creationism should NOT be taught in schools
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Sure it should, just not in science class.
ReplyDeleteMark it well - advocates of censorship betray their own lack of confidence. They may tout evolution as "an extremely powerful idea", but they distrust the power of the idea to enlighten stubborn minds. Instead they seek to keep the argument away from young minds entirely. Weak.
It's not science and shouldn't be taught as if it were science.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure creationists would also object to hearing students were taught how the sun god slew the sky-bull and from it's blood came the waters of the world and from it's bones came the mountains, the hairs of it's hide became the forests and the fleas on it's hide became the animals of the world. Surely that creation isn't what they have in mind.
The Christian creation story is just one of hundreds of myths. There must be many tens of religions practised today, and hundreds more no longer practised, each with a story about who created the world and all life upon it.
ReplyDeleteManpace, you are correct about wanting a wider knowledge of creationism. Teach all creation stories. I'm sure many people would benefit from learning about the myriad myths that people have cooked up over the years.
Lawrence,
ReplyDeleteNo, it isn't just one of hundreds of myths. It's the truth.
However, just because it is a fact does not make it science. In that, I could agree with you. The miraculous is not subject to science. I find it unfortunate that Christians and others forget that.
You might persuade me that "creationism" should not be taught in science class, but it should not be neglected all together.
And why shouldn't it be neglected altogether? It's place is at best in cultural or social studies class, which obviously cannot cover everything. Leaving it out is as good or bad as leaving any other cultural curiosity out.
ReplyDeleteBesides isn't it the job of friends and family jobs to indoctrinate the youth on religious beliefs, not the government.
Yes, I too believe, like David Attenborough, that teaching creationism over evolution in schools is a step back into the dark ages. Back in the day, people didn't know any better. The bible should be taken metaphorically not literally. Evolution is based on sound scientific evidence.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat is fascinating that we are coming full circle - from confident creationists who nonetheless felt threatened by evolution and used their influence to restrict dissemination and debate
ReplyDelete...to confident evolutionists who nonetheless feel threatened by creationism and used their influence to restrict dissemination and debate
I think both sides do kids a disservice. We're preventing kids from thinking by imposing a pre-fab conclusion. Better to teach them to think and puzzle this stuff out, even at the risk that they reach a conclusion "we" don't approve of.
(Though not in science class. Civics or history or something.)
I think Manpace that you are saying what everyone else is saying. This creationism doesn't belong in science class.
ReplyDeleteIt's just up in the air whether it should be taught elsewhere, and in what manner.
Creationism is part of a belief system, a religion. The fact that it is part of the numerically dominant religion of the USA is of no importance in this discussion. As a religion, Christianity and its teachings belong in churches, or taught as part of a comparative religions course in school. Comparative religions courses give students ample opportunity to learn about the genesis, history and different philosophies of a variety of belief systems.
ReplyDeleteOf course, science is also part of a belief system. It is impossible scientifically to sustain the premise that science alone should be the sole arbiter of truth. And yet this is what this particular group of "leading scientists" wishes to do.
ReplyDeleteIn other news, other groups of similarly "leading scientists" are firmly in support of intelligent design. Wouldn't want anyone to get the impression that Dawkins/Attenbrough et al are omnipotent or anything...
They should make a deal with these atheists evolutionists. If the atheist scientists stop trying to be theologians, philosophers, and psychologists, then Christians will stop teaching creationism as science.
ReplyDeleteSound fair enough? :)
Brad Williams, I don't think it is helpful to the argument to say that "atheist scientists" shouldn't be vocal in theological, philosophical, and psychological discussions.
ReplyDeleteJust because a person is an atheist doesn't mean s/he can't have a focused grasp on knowledge, reason, morality, and mental and physical processes which the branches of discourse you just mentioned deal with(in fact, many may argue admirably for the exact opposite.
Quinn
The problem arises when atheist scientists who are experts in their fields cross over into other disciplines such as philosophy (in which they are amateurs, regardless of intelligence) and expect their views to be given just as much credence... These very same scientists tend to mock when theologians/philosophers dare to comment on science.
ReplyDeleteI might be wrong, but it seems to me that Brad is simply suggesting we operate on a level playing field.
IT may surprise some that scientists are not de facto atheists. I can attest to that from personal experience with many different scientist types, ages, genders and beliefs. I work with Buddhist scientists, Catholic scientists, Lutheran scientists, agnostic and atheist scientists...you name it, there's probably one or two kicking around the university "doing science" and believing in some deity/ies at the same time. We don't have constant fire alarms, our population remains constant...it appears no one disappears in a random lightning strike for believing in both evolution and God.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there are many creation stories, all fascinating and enlightening. I find it annoying to hear how the Christian legend is the only one that should be considered, the only one that is right. (I can't bear to type "true", when the proponents avoid a null hypothesis at all cost)
(and now for something completely different: my word verification is "hummuss" mmm....hungry)
Creationism and intelligent design is philosophy at most and myth at the least. Go ahead and teach it in school, but not as science which it is not.
ReplyDeleteSo is atheism. What's the problem, then? The Big Bang is a creation myth. Evolution should not be taught as science, nor should any other atheistic creation myth be taught as science.
ReplyDeleteSee? Looks ugly when your philosophy is on the hook, eh?
Brad - in what way is atheism a myth?
ReplyDeleteThere is no evidence for there being a god.
There is plenty of evidence for there not being one.
The Big Bang isn't a creation myth, there's a flotilla of evidence pointing to it - cosmic microwave background radiation and redshift data most notably.
ReplyDeleteThe key difference is that by definition, science is testable, and these are the things taught in a science class. This isn't a Christian vs. Atheist question. It's a science vs. not-science question. Science gets taught in science class, comparative religion in another.
Yes, yes, of course there is, Anonymous. My proofs are better than your proofs, though. Want to have it out in science class or in philosophy? Or should we just indoctrinate the kids on your certainty alone?
ReplyDeleteI've never seen anyone arguing in favor of Intelligent Design actually bring some real evidence to the table, let alone a specific religions creation myth.
ReplyDeleteSo your arguing about "your proofs" don't exactly inspire me to suddenly think that I might be wrong, that someone might finally have a real argument.
Fundamentally it always boils down to people of faith are prepared to take things solely on faith, this is something that many atheists cannot do.
Brad: No, your proofs don't exist. Simple.
ReplyDeleteYes, we teach our children to look at the evidence - and lets be very clear, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for creation or intelligent design, and a mountain of evidence for evolution - and growing all the time.
I suspect that someone has been telling you plain out and out lies if you really think there's a shred of credible evidence to support creationism. It doesn't belong in a philosophy debate, it's about scientific evidence, not opinion.
Creationists and evolutionists all have the same evidence—the same facts. Same earth, same fossils, same stars. The difference is in the way we interpret the facts. We interpret facts differently because we start with different presuppositions. Things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. Facts are neutral but facts do not just sit there; all facts are interpreted. We are arguing about our presuppositions not about evidence.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCurve ball: "If you believe we arrived here by chance random processes then your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don’t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. You don’t know if you’re making correct statements or even whether you’re asking the right questions."
ReplyDeleteMark I'm not sure what you just said made much sense at all. Evolution isn't entirely random, some of the inputs are random but the entire process certainly isn't.
ReplyDeleteDid we evolve the right way? There is no right way, your statement assumes a purpose that doesn't necessarily exist.
And your last sentence I can't extract much meaning from at all, perhaps you could explain a bit more. I think you have some context that I'm missing.
I am stunned after reading these comments. I had no idea that there were so many fundamentalist Christians reading this very intelligent blog. How can they not differentiate between faith and science? Their arguments seem to boil down to, "I believe it, so it's true". I don't know how creationism was ever considered as "scientific". I fear for our civilization.
ReplyDeleteBarbwire, your second sentence is a bit crass. I'm sure you know from the content of this blog that I'm the antithesis of a fundamentalist when it comes to religious dogma, but having said that, there's no reason to disrespect someone by implying that their religious beliefs preclude appreciation of other intellectual material.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to thank everyone on this comment thread for keeping the narrative civil and respectful. And, btw, I'm sure you guys know you're never going to convince your debate opponents here of the incorrectness of their viewpoint.
So, keep calm and carry on...
Thanks for that timely reminder - especially that the internet generally is rarely a forum where people's worldviews are changed...
ReplyDeleteI think the thing that really bugs me about Attenborough's approach (which is stereotypical of some others in his position) is the complete lack of balance and lack of self-awareness. His very reasoning is self-contradictory, but he can't see it:
"Evolution is an extremely powerful idea that lies at the heart of biology. At the same time, it's a sufficiently simple concept that there's no good reason why it should be left out of the primary curriculum."
Okay, but intelligent design is an extremely powerful idea that lies at the heart of many religions. At the same time it's a sufficiently simple concept that there's no good reason why it should be left out of the primary curriculum. (Ask any child whether he/she believes that God made the universe.)
"If creationism is discussed, it should be made clear to pupils that it is not accepted by the scientific community."
Firstly, that statement is prima facie false. Who is this "scientific community" he claims to speak on behalf of? As has already been pointed out above, there are many theists who professionally practise science without seeing a conflict with their religious views.
Secondly though, I wonder if Attenborough would similarly maintain that when evolution is taught, it should be made clear to pupils that it is not accepted by the religious community? (Yes, the same applies - there are plenty in the "religious community" that do accept evolution, after all.)
"... the threat of creationism and ‘intelligent design’ being taught as science is real and ongoing"
What threat?
"particularly as more and more schools are opened up to be run by religious fundamentalists"
And what about the schools being opened up and run by religious fundamentalists? (I'm assuming here that by "fundamentalist", we mean someone that will not tolerate other views. Spot the irony.)
"It has never been more urgent for concrete steps to be taken to ensure that all state schools teach evolution, and not creationism"
*rolls eyes*
Anonymous et all,
ReplyDeleteYes, I suppose I am a "Fundamentalist" Christian to some of you. I am certainly not ashamed of the Christian adjective, but I'm not certain that fundamentalist is a very helpful word anymore.
As for my intellectual credentials to read this blog, which I love by the way, I did manage to get a degree in English Lit., and I have a Masters of Divinity with a concentration in Biblical languages. I confess freely that I substituted philosophy classes for higher math requirements because I thought I hated math. Turns out I just hated homework, math is pretty awesome.
So, I am not a complete knuckle-dragger. I can tell the difference between science and faith, but I am also smart enough to know that any explanation of the evidence will be colored by one's presumptions. I also happen to know that science, for all of its many splendors, cannot do theology very well. That is why the sciences will always be the handmaiden of theology. Agree or disagree all you like, it's the truth.
I'm not going to press the case here any longer about whether or not intelligent design or creationism should be taught in schools. It certainly should. It should be taught right along your idea, and if your idea is so powerful, what are you worried about?
If you would like to have a civil discussion about science and matters of faith and how I, as a "fundamentalist" Christian pastor understand them, you may email me. My email is available on my profile. I am not anonymous.
The reason I am bowing out here is out of respect for this blog's proprietor. I find it rude to have a flame-war in someone else's comment box. From the sort of digs I've seen here so far, I seriously doubt that the discussion can progress without that happening.
Oops. In my previous comment, "And what about the schools being opened up and run by religious fundamentalists?" should read "And what about the schools being opened up and run by atheist fundamentalists?"
ReplyDeleteMinnesotastan said...
ReplyDelete"I'm sure you guys know you're never going to convince your debate opponents here of the incorrectness of their viewpoint."
Agreed, I've never seen anyone change their mind in such a debate. But I'd like the other side to at least see where I'm coming from.
Rob Pomeroy said...
"As has already been pointed out above, there are many theists who professionally practise science without seeing a conflict with their religious views."
This is because religious views do not have to have anything to do with scientific/logical views (and vice versa), for example there are plenty of people who believe in the Christian god and in evolution. They only become incompatible where articles of faith demand rejecting scientific evidence, one or the other has to be compromised in this situation.
""... the threat of creationism and ‘intelligent design’ being taught as science is real and ongoing"
"What threat?""
Probably because it is not considered science, because it does not follow the scientific principle. By all means teach it, but don't try to pass it off as something it is not.
"And what about the schools being opened up and run by atheist fundamentalists?"
Agreed, it would be nice to keep the fundamentalists of both religious and atheist variety away from such positions. The problem is how do you identify them? Bias can contribute much to such accusations.
In other news, other groups of similarly "leading scientists" are firmly in support of intelligent design
ReplyDeleteActually no, there is not widely respected group of "scientists" that support i.d. The most obvious reason is that it's religion/myth, not testable science.
If we're going to teach myth and magic as science, make sure we teach alchemy alongside chemistry, and astrology alongside astronomy.
ReplyDelete@Steve. A quick Google search found these scientists: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/scientists_who_support_intelli003594.html
ReplyDeleteA good starting point if you are interested or open to questioning your beliefs.
Personally, I'm an ex-atheist and ex-evolutionist. I got to that point by research. Science continues to 'discover' evidence that fits better with an ID model than with any non-theistic models so far proposed. Unfortunately many people start with a conclusion (e.g. there is no God) then try to fit evidence into that model. It is a huge paradigm shift to move from atheism to even considering the possibility of ID. However, the evidence, if viewed objectively, demands that consideration. I hope you pursue it :)
"Unfortunately many people start with a conclusion (e.g. there is no God)"
ReplyDeleteIn my experience it also often starts the other way around. We are told all our life that god exists and then we get to the age where we actually start thinking about it and realize it doesn't make sense to us. People don't usually go through this process casually, it can cause a lot of stress coming to to terms with it.
As for the evidence discovered in favor of ID, I've never heard any that is even remotely convincing. But maybe such news just never reaches me.
@Steve. A quick Google search found these scientists: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/scientists_who_support_intelli003594.html
ReplyDeleteA good starting point if you are interested or open to questioning your beliefs.
3 guys don't represent any kind of legitimacy or consensus. There's a reason ID is considered pseudoscience, it's not peer reviewed or subject to testing. It cannot be tested because it relies on a supernatural religious *belief*. Myself I have no religious *belief* so there's nothing there to question. That was not always so, but education and actual interest in history and religion has made it impossible for me to believe in any religion.
ID is pseudoscience and fraud. As the federal judge who tried the school case said:
"To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect," he wrote. "However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions."
Personally, I'm an ex-atheist and ex-evolutionist. I got to that point by research. Science continues to 'discover' evidence that fits better with an ID model than with any non-theistic models so far proposed. Unfortunately many people start with a conclusion (e.g. there is no God) then try to fit evidence into that model. It is a huge paradigm shift to move from atheism to even considering the possibility of ID.
I actually doubt that 100%, furthermore, most people become atheists or agnostic after having a religious childhood. There is no research to ID any more than there's any kind of testable science to magic or astrology. You also make the false supposition that legitimate science and evolution is incompatible with religion, which it is certainly not.
ID is nothing but pseudoscience (to generous really) and the only motivation behind it is to try to sneak Christian* religion into schools via the backdoor.
*notice how only Christian notions of creation are considered which is completely bigoted and dismissive of all the world's other religions.
Also,
ReplyDeleteMy comment is not attack on religion. I have no problem with religion. ID is not religion though, it's a manufactured fraud, to try to lend scientific legitimacy to something that has no base in science. That is why I recognize I recognize agenda driven pseudoscience when I see it, and it's also why most mainstream religious people recognize it too.
The link was meant as a starting point for anyone who was interested. Approx 170 scientists who support ID listed here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/
ReplyDelete(It’s a creationist website so try not to get too angry ;) but the list is legitimate). Obviously, they don’t believe ID is pseudoscience. If you have a particular axe to grind – biochemistry, palaeontology, astrophysics or whatever, you could explore the viewpoints of experts in that field and why they believe ID is credible and defensible. I think it’s important to realise that ID is believed by respected, intelligent, educated people who believe it because of the science. An awful lot of us have been taught that evolution is science and ID is not and we assume this to be true without questioning it. The fact that many scientists have abandoned evolution in favour of ID should cause us to stop and think.
With regard to non-Christian ID, well, check for yourself. I did and I didn’t find anything that stood up to scrutiny. And that’s the key. Don’t believe me, investigate for yourself.
If science is in essence the experimental testing of hypotheses, then I fear that Darwian evolution and Big Bang cosmology/astrophysics may also legitimately be dubbed "pseudoscience". (If on the other hand any reader here knows a way of testing the hypothesis "everything came from nothing - no efficient cause and no material cause" I would be interested to hear about it.)
ReplyDeletePerhaps science and philosophy should be considered allies, not enemies? Both are limited in their scope and we are foolish if we pretend otherwise.
well science isn't allways credible either: remember the piltdown man ?
ReplyDeleteJust saying...
cheers
hans
(If on the other hand any reader here knows a way of testing the hypothesis "everything came from nothing - no efficient cause and no material cause" I would be interested to hear about it.)
ReplyDeleteWhy would one need to? We don't need to know how things got into the configuration required for the big bang to occur to be able to test whether it did.
It's not like saying "God did it" (for whatever "it" you're arguing about) actually answers the question in a more meaningful fashion. Then one just asks "So where did god come from then?"
well science isn't allways credible either: remember the piltdown man ?
ReplyDeleteJust saying...
And it was scientists and science that concluded it was a forgery. When scientific theories are put forth they face scrutiny and testing by the scientific community and are either proven wrong, or accepted for the time being, until they can be proven wrong, if they are in fact wrong. ID faces no such scrutiny as it's not a scientific testable theory, but rather a faith based belief.
The difference is plain as day.
Also, it's funny to put forth a forgery from 1912, that was debunked by *science* here in 2011.
Anyway, you can't argue with blind faith. The ID argument is basically: "Turtles all the way down"
ReplyDeleteI think it’s important to realise that ID is believed by respected, intelligent, educated people who believe it because of the science. An awful lot of us have been taught that evolution is science and ID is not and we assume this to be true without questioning it. The fact that many scientists have abandoned evolution in favour of ID should cause us to stop and think.
ReplyDeleteOk, you know very well that's a lie. I viewed your profile now and can see that you're just trolling comment threads.
I apologize if my comment came across as crass. I was genuinely shocked, and wrote emotionally. I would like to clarify that I am the granddaughter, and great-granddaughter of Methodist ministers. My uncle, an Episcopalian priest, baptized me. I have read the Bible Old and New Testaments several times. I think I have an excellent understanding of the teachings of Jesus. It is for that reason that I am so appalled by the people who loudly proclaim themselves to be Christian (please note the qualifying "loudly proclaim") and then act and vote contrary to everything Jesus taught.
ReplyDeleteI understand the Bible to be a great work of literature, and the basis for great religions. What I can't understand is the need to believe every word literally and deny the evidence before our eyes of the age of the earth, etc. It seems to me that the literalists miss much of the beauty of the Bible. And at the same time forget the actual (as far as we can tell in translation) words of Jesus about loving each other, caring for the sick, feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, etc.