« On beards | Main | A show of hands »

February 22, 2014

Comments

Bob-B

What about deeply-rooted stupidity that does not derive from some religion? Surely it is only fair that that should be respected too.

tolkein

Well, well, well. Atheist society wants teaching that excludes faith. Who'd have thought it, eh?

Pretty well every practising Christian, Jew, Muslim believes in some form of creationism. That is not the same as Young Earth creationism or variants thereof, which are pretty marginal.

The comment that "More than half those at the Christian school also thought there had been some divine involvement." is therefore hardly surprising or shocking. Asserting, as fact, that there was no divine involvement is tantamount to asserting that atheism is true. Which it isn't. At the very least it's hotly contested.

Dom

The study is only about teenagers. Most of them will grow up to accept a soft kind of agnosticism anyway.

At least in my country, "deeply-rooted stupidity that does not derive from some religion" is already a major factor in our Universities. Creationism calls out the big names like Dawkins (and I'm glad about that), but it is surprising how by stealth alone other nonsense has crept in. Evolution is now a social construct fully explained by the capitalist patriarchy of the west, and Darwin himself is a racist and a sexist. Whole areas of research, like gender differences in IQ, are now defunded because it makes the campus "unsafe". Larry Summers famously lost his job when he brought it up parenthetically.

I hope creationism stays out of our schools, but only because it would make a stinking situation a little worse.

Mick H

Well Tolkien, evolution is true, whether you like it or not. And the thing about evolution is, it has no place for God. Most Christians now, officially at least, acknowledge that, and come to their own kind of rationalisation. Muslims - not so much.

Richard Powell

Why do they need to be taught about creationism? They seem to know about it already. As for evolution, could one really understand it without accepting it?

Some Muslims seem to believe that the Sun orbits the Earth. Are schools to teach geocentrism too?

tolkein

Who said evolution was not true? And on what basis is evolution incompatible with believing in God? I know that Dawkins and Jerry Coyne think it is, but I'm not giving their views on theology or logic much credence. John Paul ll didn't seem to think it was, and the Church ever since I was growing up didn't seem to think there was a problem, so on what basis do you think there is a problem? Other than that you're an atheist.

Mick H

Well fine, but you yourself said "Pretty well every practising Christian, Jew, Muslim believes in some form of creationism." Evolution and creationism unfortunately don't mix - which is point of the debate. Evolution is science; creationism isn't, and shouldn't be discussed in science classes. Which is where you came in, with "Well, well, well. Atheist society wants teaching that excludes faith. Who'd have thought it, eh?"

So you accept evolution is true? Good. So you accept evolution should be taught in science classes, and creationism discussed only in religious studies? Apparently not....

clazy

Mick, You can read the entire PhD thesis here: http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/2748/1/Thesis_FINAL_PH.pdf. You may be more sympathetic to its goals if you do. I haven't read the whole thing, but it does not seem to be proposing that creationism be "taught" in science classrooms, only acknowledged in such a way that students who are predisposed to reject evolution do not shut down for fear of betraying God and their community. I really can't see the problem. In fact, it seems like an excellent opportunity to show what science is, how it works, and how it is different from religion. (The thesis has an interesting discussion of the difference between science and religion as kinds of knowledge.)

Mick H

Well yes, I did get the feeling that the Times report spiced the story up a bit...

tolkein

I'm sorry, but evolution is a theory explaining the development of species from earlier living species. It pre-supposes the existence of life. It says nothing about the existence of life. It says nothing about the existence of the universe - which, it must be said, seems to have come into existence some 13 billion years ago, as if created, one might say.

So how is creationism (the belief that God created the universe - rather more plausible than spontaneous creation, which seems the main alternative suggested by the likes of Stenger and Atkins) incompatible with evolution?

The comments to this entry are closed.