I have made a few posts in the past about creationism and its place in schools, but the fight to have it removed from science classrooms, and to reduce the number of strict believers is about to be brought out even more by Darwin200.
I won’t go into great detail about Darwin200 here, except to say that it is an organisation to celebrate to rather large Darwin related anniversaries. Firstly, on the 1st July, we see the 250th anniversary of Darwin’s theory of evolution, it is the day on which Darwin first presented the theory to fellow scientists. Secondly, on 12th February next year we celebrate the 200th anniversary of the man’s birth. And to coincide with these important dates in scientific history we will see an 18 month celebration, starting this week.
As part of this we will see various books, a series of programmes will appear on the BBC, an OU course will be started, and a study into the evolution of snails will begin. This will all be started by the unveiling of competition entries at the Natural History Museum in London for “Darwin’s canopy” a painting to be displayed on the ceiling. And a major Darwin exhibition will begin in November.
The main concern that exists is the number of people who believe in either Creationism or Intelligent Design as solid, undeniable, fact. 40%. no, that isn’t a typo, it really is that high. A professor at University College in London has said that students are accusing him of “teaching lies” and “insulting people’s religion”. He says that in his 30 year career of teaching genetics and evolutionary biology in the first 20 years the issue of students wishing to be exempt from lectures and certain exam questions on religious grounds was raised once. That has changed dramatically. I question whether these students should actually be studying evolutionary biology, but of course we can’t stop them just because they don’t believe in the theory of evolution, that would be discrimination.
It confuses me how teachers can be accused of teaching lies when teaching evolution as it is the current, accepted, scientific fact. It may well change, most things in science do, but as it stands the theory of evolution is not a lie, at least not more so than “The earth is 6-10,000 years old and was made in 7 days by God”.
40% is not a majority, but it is getting worryingly close, and if it continues to be taught is some of our state funded schools as fact the number may rise. It is wrong for the adults of our future to leave school believing that it is a fact a sky fairy created us all. It is wrong for them to blindly accept evolution is true, as it is for them to blindly accept anything. Evolution is a scientific theory, currently accepted as fact. For children to simply sit in a science class and be told “Evolution is true, it always will be, just accept it”, is almost as wrong as them sitting and being told “God created us, it will always be true, just accept it.” It is very important that the children are taught why it is true, that it is supported by evidence, such as the snail study, that is what science is.
We will never completely eradicate the idea in some people’s minds that they were created by an almighty being, but we can at least attempt to teach the correct thing as fact in schools. It is likely that some children will be taught at home, by their parents, that they were created by [insert parent's God]. And any child that is taught this at home should have the courage in school, when evolution is being taught to put up their hand. They should however not say “You’re wrong, I want to leave.” I hope, however, that they will say “That’s not what I believe, I believe X, why do you think you are more right than me?”. At this point the teacher will do one of two things. A not-so-good teacher will simply say “Because this book said so.” or some equally useless answer, a good teacher however will begin a debate, hopefully involving the class, and thus any child who didn’t question the theory. This will then at least give the class a chance to see why it is that evolution is the accepted theory, not creationism.
So let’s all hope that Darwin 200 can do its job and reduce 40% to something more in keeping with an idea that is, quite simply, so far out of the scientific truth it hurts.
MTFBWY
Filed under: Religion | Tagged: Creationism, Darwin200, Evolution, Religion
I like your idea about allowing the debate to occur in the classroom. Believe it or not, I teach my kids to think, too. Ironically, this ability to think and ponder is what always brings me back to an intelligent creator. There is no scientific explanation for our ability to think, to ponder our existence, to love, etc. There are too many things in this universe that are perfectly suited for our existence. The way that our bodies grow and function suggests a certain brilliance behind it all. Randomness is not fact.
Science was born out of religious men and women with a quest for truth. That truth emanated from a true creator. Today the starting point has been eliminated and yet there is still this quest for scientific fact. It seems that in the scientific world everything can be tested and proven with the exception of the existence of a creator. That is a “fairy tale.”
I can see where the whole “Adam & Eve” account of creation in the bible is hard to swallow. That does require faith in the reliability of the source. I believe it to be true. However, I just don’t see how you can scientifically rule out a creator or designer when it comes to our existence. Something started it all. I think this is more than a mere assumption.
I believe that scientific theories have become “religion” for many people. Why else would someone fervently wish to reduce the number of people who believe in creation or intelligent design?
I’m sure that I will not convince you otherwise but I’m just as free to state my opinion as you are yours.
You are of course entitled to your view, and I am glad you have stated it here, however I would like to make a few points regarding some statements you made.
You say that “Randomness is not fact.” and indeed it isn’t. Darwinian evolution and natural selection is anything but “random”. It requires small gradual stages to make improvements until we reach what we have today, and continue until we reach another evolutionary stage. As Richard Dawkins put it, it is the climbing of Mount Improbable.
Secondly your idea that “Something started it all.”. That infamous jump from “nothing” to “something”. Be it via a Big Bang, the collapsing universe, God’s 7 days, or the Giant Spaghetti Monster, all raise one very important question “what created *them*”. The idea that our complexity, and the complexity of the universe means that we must have had a more complex creator. but if that creator was God, what created his/her complexity?
Finally, I have had so many debates with theists and atheists alike about this, and as you too appear to have realised, it would appear very difficult to change someone’s opinion on this matter.
And whilst I am certain that none of this will change your opinion on the matter I hope it will at least serve to improve your understanding of the opposing argument and go some way to perhaps strengthen your view.
In some respects I agree with both of you – but actually, more fundamentally, disagree strongly with both!
It is very clear that Darwinian evolution is backed up by far too much evidence to be denied, without being irrational. But Richard Dawkins (and some other scientists, mainly Biologists) does science a great dis-service by thinking that any scientific theory can “disprove” all possibility of an ultimate reality that supports, and gives a “meaning”, to the universe (a concept that we personalise as God).
Science does not, in fact, have anything to say on this – apart from clearing away primitive pre-scientific myths. And, equally, most intelligent religious people do not attempt to “disprove” scientific concepts on the basis of their scriptures or their personal faith. These are two separate lines of human thought that cannot be dismissed by simplistic (or insulting) attacks on the intelligence and integrity of those who seek truth, by either route – as long as it is a rational quest.
Cosmology raises many questions that are more profound than Dawkins’ simple biological “faith” in pure randomness. But it would be just as dangerous to claim that the strangely life-friendly character of the universe is in any way a proof of a divine plan.
To be true to itself science must be agnostic about ultimate meanings and values – and, equally, religion must not try to second-guess factual matters that only science can investigate.
P.S. I would just add that my own position is as both a scientist and an “agnostic Catholic”. And, having spent a lifetime thinking and arguing with myself and others, I do not think it possible to prove that the universe (or human life) has any meaning or ultimate value. But, equally, I am certain that we must live as if we believed that it has.
For example, the only good life is that based on a belief that “all men are our brothers”, and not just random organisms that we can reasonably exploit if we think we can get away with it!