MABB v6.6.6

Teach both evolution and creationism say 54% of Britons



<!-- m -->http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/ ... sm-britons<!-- m -->



More than half of British adults think that intelligent design and creationism should be taught alongside evolution in schoolscience lessons – a proportion higher than in the US.



An Ipsos Mori survey questioned 11,768 adults from 10 countries on how the theory of evolution should be taught in school science lessons.



About 54% of the 973 polled Britons agreed with the view: "Evolutionary theories should be taught in science lessons in schools together with other possible perspectives, such as intelligent design and creationism."



In the US, of 991 adults responding to the survey, which was organised by the British Council, 51% agreed that evolution should be on the curriculum alongside other theories, like intelligent design.



Across the 10 countries, 43% agreed with this statement.



It was found that Britons were almost three times more likely than Egyptians to want creationism and intelligent design to be included in the teaching of evolution.



Creationism holds that the origins of humanity and the Earth are recent and divine, as related in the book of Genesis. Strict creationists believe Adam and Eve are the mother and father of humanity and that God created the Earth in six days. Advocates of intelligent design argue that some features of the universe and nature are so complex they must have been designed by a higher intelligence.



The UK government has been quick to denounce creationism and intelligent design as unrecognised scientific theory that did not meet the requirements of the national curriculum, but it has said that young people can "discuss creationism as part of their religious education classes".



Neither the primary nor secondary school science curriculums mention creationism or intelligent design.



Prominent scientists and teaching unions have expressed shock at the poll's findings.



Lewis Wolpert, emeritus professor of biology at University College London (UCL), who is vice-president of the British Humanist Association, said: "I am appalled. It shows how ignorant the public is. Intelligent design and creationism have no connection with science and are purely religious concepts. There is no evidence for them at all. They must be kept out of science lessons."



Steve Jones, professor of genetics at UCL, said: "This shows the danger of religions being allowed to buy schools, hijack lessons and pretend that they have anything useful to say about science – which, by definition, they do not. The figure seems much too high, although no doubt there is a substantial minority that does think this."



Christine Blower, acting general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, said: "It would be wholly wrong to include creationism in the science curriculum. An overwhelming body of evidence, not assertion, supports the concept of evolution and therefore evolution must form the basis of the science curriculum. Consideration of creationism might not be out of place in religious education."



Teachers were not expressing concern that they were under pressure to teach creationism and intelligent design, teaching unions said.



The National Secular Society said schools should "ban religious explanations in science lessons", adding that the creationist movement was becoming "more vocal".



But Alison Ryan, policy adviser of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers Union, said that if a "good teacher handled the lesson", presenting creationism and intelligent design need not be problematic. "Science teachers could introduce creationism as a theory that some people hold, but that is not based on evidence."



Andy McIntosh, professor of thermodynamics and combustion theory at Leeds University, said: "There is room for any scientific position which isn't necessarily from an evolutionary base. We need to follow where the evidence leads and we shouldn't presuppose that the evidence will necessary lead to a naturalistic or materialistic explanation. We must be open to the possibility that information can come from a higher intelligence, but we mustn't assume that."



Fern Elsdon-Baker, head of the British Council's Darwin Now programme, which celebrates the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birthday this year, said the poll raised a debate about how effectively evolutionary science was communicated both inside and outside the classroom.



She said: "Overall these results may reflect the need for a more sophisticated approach to teaching and communicating how science works as a process."

lol.

Christ I hate my country sometimes

In Ireland, there's a law against blasphemy.

In my house, there's a law against claiming that religious ideas are in fact science

[quote name="Devy"]Christ I hate my country sometimes[/quote]

fairy tales can´t be taught but told

[quote name="Devy"]In my house, there's a law against claiming that religious ideas are in fact science[/quote]

at least we're moving towards evolving out of christianity. i think we'll make it.

[quote name="cat hallucination"]at least we're moving towards evolving out of christianity. i think we'll make it.[/quote]



yep into worshipping celebrities and the microwave oven.



give me ALLAH!

oh microwave of fast cooking diarrhea, give me your blessing.

hahaHAH

Better than that Cube crap

Intelligent Design was taught in my general bio course and animal biology course already.

[quote name="Johnny"]An Ipsos Mori survey questioned 11,768 adults from 10 countries on how the theory of evolution should be taught in school science lessons.



About 54% of the 973 polled Britons agreed with the view: "Evolutionary theories should be taught in science lessons in schools together with other possible perspectives, such as intelligent design and creationism."



In the US, of 991 adults responding to the survey, which was organised by the British Council, 51% agreed that evolution should be on the curriculum alongside other theories, like intelligent design.[/quote]

[quote name="Noyka"]Intelligent Design was taught in my general bio course and animal biology course already.[/quote]



what in the damn fuck



please tell me you are talking about high school biology and also those classes were taken in texas

*Alabama

alabama sounds just as likely, but TX is the big hotbed of institutional support for ID right now. and for good reason, this was a strategic choice by the ID folks -- it's such a huge textbook market, whatever gets printed for that state winds up getting circulated nationwide. pretty much the academic equivalent of CA auto regulations' impact on that market.

[quote name="Famous Mortimer"]
[quote name="Noyka"]Intelligent Design was taught in my general bio course and animal biology course already.[/quote]



what in the damn fuck



please tell me you are talking about high school biology and also those classes were taken in texas[/quote]





Nope college in California

bible college? :|

Community college

was it at least taught in the context, 'OK, i want to stress that this shit is patently wrong, and here is why it is wrong, also please remember this is the opposite of correct'



sadly i think i already know the answer to this, and it makes me want to drink. heavily

It was taught as a theory alongside Evolution in general bio.



In animal bio taught as a theory that lead to evolution.

did they at least stress that in the case of intelligent design, 'theory' refers to the colloquial definition, and not the formal scientific one?



fuck, someone pass me the whiskey

my local church emphasizes that christianity is just a theory.

[quote name="Noyka"]It was taught as a theory alongside Evolution in general bio.



In animal bio taught as a theory that lead to evolution.[/quote]



You should have demanded your money back.

[quote name="Redd"]
[quote name="Noyka"]It was taught as a theory alongside Evolution in general bio.



In animal bio taught as a theory that lead to evolution.[/quote]



You should have demanded your money back.[/quote]



Dear God.



How will you get a job with your "Biology" "degree" from such a "college"?

[quote name="Johnny"]
[quote name="Redd"]
[quote name="Noyka"]It was taught as a theory alongside Evolution in general bio.



In animal bio taught as a theory that lead to evolution.[/quote]



You should have demanded your money back.[/quote]



Dear God.



How will you get a job with your "Biology" "degree" from such a "college"?[/quote]



It's not where I'm getting my degree, I'm transferring soon. I'm going for nutrition my degree will be from San Jose State University. This community college has an amazing anatomy collection (better than a lot of universities around here) so I'm glad I was able to take anatomy here instead of SJSTU.



In animal bio it was made clear it wasn't a scientific theory in general bio not so much. The bio department is actually pretty good, it's what this school is known for. I was originally a bio major but switched to nutrition because I lack the fine motor skills needed for biology. I still like parasites and I still microbs but it isn't going to be my job.

The bio department is good? How can you possibly reconcile that claim with the fact they teach Creationism?



And how exactly does one need good fine motor skills to study Biology?



Part of me is thinking I shouldn't even bother asking.

[quote name="Johnny"]The bio department is good? How can you possibly reconcile that claim with the fact they teach Creationism?



And how exactly does one need good fine motor skills to study Biology?



Part of me is thinking I shouldn't even bother asking.[/quote]



Intelligent Design not creationism, there is a difference.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design





Motor skills required? Lets see dissections, I cannot physically cut in a straight line much less dissect out a sciatic nerve in our frogs (recent experiment in physiology). I cannot physically do finite things that are required of researchers and yes biology teachers. I could do the degree but I'm not sure I could do the job so I turned to my second love nutrition.

ID was developed by creationists for the express purpose of injecting creationism into schools, specifically science classes.

True, but it doesn't mean that the bio department at my college sucks because one professor taught it as an actual theory and the difference I got from his lecture on it (and evolution) was ID means (the way he taught it) that a creature is deisgned ultimately by nature, not god, to do it's direct goal to fill it's niche. Creationism is a supernatural force creating it.

[quote name="Noyka"]
[quote name="Johnny"]The bio department is good? How can you possibly reconcile that claim with the fact they teach Creationism?



And how exactly does one need good fine motor skills to study Biology?



Part of me is thinking I shouldn't even bother asking.[/quote]



Intelligent Design not creationism, there is a difference.[/quote]



Actually they are basically the same thing.



But that point in semantics was clearly not important.



Do you then have any answer to: "The bio department is good? How can you possibly reconcile that claim with the fact they teach Creationism/Intelligent Design?"

Our anatomy collection, the fact we have cadavers (a lot of schools around here don't) we're known for our bio department. That was one teacher, one professor. I don't know why you can't understand that.

I've had four classes 3 our of the 4 didn't teach it as an equal theory (two didn't even mention it).



http://www.westvalley.edu/sci/bio/biology.html

Anyone trying to argue that Creationism and Intelligent Design are not the same thing needs to shut the fuck up right now. This was already proven in the courts that ID is just a fucking rebranding. I'm tired of this ID/Creationism bullshit and it should not ever be in any school presented as a theory nor be anywhere near anything remotely related to science education unless as a joke to be ridiculed.

Writing a whole department off because of one lecture by one professor is absolutely rediculous.

If you are studying Biology in college, and there you are taught Creationism/Intelligent Design, then that is complete justification to write off the whole department. It's enough to write off the whole college.

Any science department that would allow it needs to be reformed to EXCLUDE it. It is an insult to the entire field of science. and fuck anyone who defends it.

Nobody is defending intelligent design I'm just tired of people writing off EVERYONE for the actions of one or two.

[quote name="Noyka"]Nobody is defending intelligent design I'm just tired of people writing off EVERYONE for the actions of one or two.[/quote]

It is indicative of the department's discretion that it was allowed to occur in the first place.

i'm curious oinka, was it a part of a class, or a class by itself?

[quote name="abzu"]
[quote name="Noyka"]Nobody is defending intelligent design I'm just tired of people writing off EVERYONE for the actions of one or two.[/quote]

It is indicative of the department's discretion that it was allowed to occur in the first place.[/quote]



Not in the slightest. Evolution is taught as the main theory even in that class Intelligent Design was taught as a theory with evolution in General Bio and in Animal Bio it was taught as a theory (false) along with Spontaneous Generation. Was it wrong that it was taught in that one class, yes does it represent the whole department hell now.

[quote name="cat hallucination"]i'm curious oinka, was it a part of a class, or a class by itself?[/quote]



It was one lecture we only had one question on the test on it.

[quote name="Noyka"]Was it wrong that it was taught in that one class, yes does it represent the whole department hell now.[/quote]



i don't think its wrong that it was taught at all. people can take from education what they want. it coincides with my recent thread about human progression and spirituality. you can't teach people what to believe. its their choice and that's okay. in this sense, the teaching isn't responsible for what is learned. it may even be a good thing that intelligent design is taught so you can understand it and communicate better with the minority who subscribe to it. scientists and atheists are just as much a part of society as religious people, so its good for all of us to learn about eachother and communicate and progress on a level plane. teaching all different beliefs in the same semester and class room could kindle the flame for different people to challenge each other and learn from it.

The teacher never did say it was correct he said it was a theory. I also had two teachers present global warming as a theory which was refreshing as more and more science is coming the contradicts it's validity.

[quote name="Noyka"]
[quote name="abzu"]
[quote name="Noyka"]Nobody is defending intelligent design I'm just tired of people writing off EVERYONE for the actions of one or two.[/quote]

It is indicative of the department's discretion that it was allowed to occur in the first place.[/quote]



Not in the slightest. Evolution is taught as the main theory even in that class Intelligent Design was taught as a theory with evolution in General Bio and in Animal Bio it was taught as a theory (false) along with Spontaneous Generation. Was it wrong that it was taught in that one class, yes does it represent the whole department hell now.[/quote]

It is indicative of the department's discretion that it was allowed to be taught in a Biology class as a valid theory in the first place.

A Review of the Beginnings of the Great Regression 2000-2025, by Xanthur Mohammed Klurklod

12/8/2112



excerpt



"Traditionally strong religions had been in recession for forty years, with celebrity culture filling the vacuum. However lax privacy/slander laws, yet to be reformed by the Schwarzenegger Act of 2019, meant that even celebrities were fallible and the idea of heroes and achievement diminished. Moral relativism had been raging unchecked for half a century and the early unregulated days of the internet meant that for every theory or argument backed by peers and publishing, there was an opposing theory argued with equal capacity (all of it at a level of discourse unintelligle to the general public). And in the realms of policy, workplace reform laws meant that any proposal - no matter how insane or ridiculous - had to addressed with the same equal intellectual weight as any other proposal thus placing the brakes on intelligent thinking through creating a backlog of suggestions and ideas which could not be disrespectfully discarded.



As Opprobrian Neurolingual Grammar now reveals, certainty is the baseline for human existence even if means sacrificing intelligence. People longed for the certainty provided by religion but could not abandon science altogether as its fruits were undeniable. The first attempt to find middle ground between the two started with Creationism which evolved into Intelligent Design. Despite the obvious fallacies with the theory, it found great support with the general public and was the first movement of the New Age to push religion into science. The general unconcious was finding a way of bringing certainty to science. This was the warning sign.



Pre-Unification, this was seen as a uniquely American foible. However other countries noticed their populations embracing the theory, much to the dismay of the British who had always considered their American friends slightly retarded. And when results came back from the first successful runs of the Large Hadron Collider revealing - amongst its innumerable surprises - that the universe is best described as being two dimensional, this gave birth to both the Flat-Earthists and the Copernicans. The Spierian Algorhythm most famously was able to provide the best unification theory since Einstein, and it became easy for Flat-Earthists to then use the algorhythm to 'prove' that the Earth was a disc, not a globe.



This precipitated a rush of Religious Science into education and common thought. People who had common sense ie; knew that the wouldn't fall off the globe if they sailed over the horizon - were branded Sceptics, Deniers, and sometimes Commoners (due to their habit of screaming "It's simple common fucking sense, you idiots"). Air travel and transportation receded. With the lack of travel, ignorance and xenophobia multiplied. Science and technology, now with arbitrary qualities of what constituted reality and divorced completely from results, regressed. Western governments, already weak from the Teenager Recession ("like teenagers with a credit card", Guernard, 2034) were on the brink of fall down in a giant display of homosexuality as industry, science, and technology fell to the stupidest human population seen since the Middle Ages. This dark period of Regression lasted almost two decades.





And then Islam conquered the earth and everything was OK again."

Evolution, yes. Big bang, no.



I still don't understand that if we evolved from Apes, why are there still apes? Unless it's a bump up system. Chimps evolved into gorillas, gorillas evolved into africans, and those chimps evolved into gorillas, etc.

[quote name="Uber Grim Kvlt"]Evolution, yes. Big bang, no.



I still don't understand that if we evolved from Apes, why are there still apes? Unless it's a bump up system. Chimps evolved into gorillas, gorillas evolved into africans, and those chimps evolved into gorillas, etc.[/quote]



well it is still just a theory. and if we all evolved from stardust, why aren't we all cats?



you're thinking, thats good, but the ideas you're proposing are just intro to philosophy thought experiments...which is good too. but i hope you're not too set on them being "right" or "good points" because if so, you qualify as delusional.



no offense...just realize that you might be talking out of your ass. its okay, everyone does it.