Academics fight rise of creationism at universities

Academics fight rise of creationism at universities

www.guardian.co.uk

A growing number of science students on British campuses and in sixth form colleges are challenging the theory of evolution and arguing that Darwin was wrong. Some are being failed in university exams because they quote sayings from the Bible or Qur'an as scientific fact and at one sixth form college in London most biology students are now thought to be creationists.

Earlier this month Muslim medical students in London distributed leaflets that dismissed Darwin's theories as false. Evangelical Christian students are also increasingly vocal in challenging the notion of evolution.

(visit the link for the full news article)

edit: note to mods, only just realised this story is from 2006, so please move to origins and creationism.

[edit on 29-1-2010 by john124]

I say let these A level students fail their biology exams and then they won't pollute the universities.

Writing "god did it" is about as useful as writing "uncle spaghetti monster did it in 23 days", and should be treated as such and given zero marks.

You will always get the nutjob creationists who are on mickey-mouse uni courses, but I'd hate to see the day when these people get biology A levels and onto degree level science courses at universities.

Sadly though, they may get a rubbish grade at A level and still get into a less established university. I wonder what some of the Biology lecturers in those universities are thinking about having to deal with this sort of rubbish.

www.guardian.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Wow. Is this an attack against a belief that is different than the traditional theory by Darwin? A different idea recieving widespread ridicule by the majority believers of Darwinism, it seems. True, they have no evidence, but you have any evidence against them? I think if you did, they wouldn't be taking these actions. Forgive me if I seem rude, but you seem extremely sure Darwinism is the correct method and even seem to be ready to ridicule and make fun of anybody who believes otherwise. Discrediting and expelling A level students for different beliefs is just outrageous. True, they quote the bible and believe in only a theory, but how dare you ridicule them for daring to think out of the box, for daring to stand up for what they believe in. We should, instead, be sitting with these students and see if we cannot find common ground and try to make connections. Who knows, maybe for once, this cooperation would bring some truth and help shed light on this great mystery we're all wrapped up in. Instead of making it a US vs. THEM thing, let's look at it as ONE side aimed at discovering the truth, one side representing one opinion while another side represents another opinion, the goal of both to discover the TRUTH. But, instead, we play these power games and ridicule these people and make it HARD for them to get along. Shame...

Best of luck and thanks for the thread.

reply to post by RadiatorOfTheLight

Is this an attack against a belief that is different than the traditional theory by Darwin?

Religion and science are completely different. Science is evidence based, whilst religious beliefs are based on faith.

Forgive me if I seem rude, but you seem extremely sure Darwinism is the correct method and even seem to be ready to ridicule and make fun of anybody who believes otherwise.

There's not a shred of evidence to support creationism, therefore it's ridiculous to try to associate it with science because faith is contradictory to the way science works.

People can believe whatever they want - what students choose to believe is simply not the issue, it's how they choose to represent a belief as an equivalent to science, which of course it isn't.

Discrediting and expelling A level students for different beliefs is just outrageous.

Nah, I said let them fail their A levels in science subjects so they won't pollute universities. If they have strong beliefs which contradict every single piece of scientific evidence then they have nothing of value to offer science at degree level. They should study theology or something else more appropriate.

True, they have no evidence, but you have any evidence against them?

Absurd and meaningless. Disprove the spaghetti monster or it must exist - that just isn't science.

True, they quote the bible and believe in only a theory,

Saying god did it is hardly a theory, it's a guess and a childish one as well. A "theory" of 7 day creation, with light on day 1 before the sun is created on day 4 is ridiculous. If offended by candor, then perhaps science and reality is not the place for them.

We should, instead, be sitting with these students and see if we cannot find common ground and try to make connections

Yes, like helping them find more suitable courses otherwise poor professors at university may end up having to teach students the basics in critical thinking that should have been reached by student many years sooner.

How many times do you need to explain to them why the earth isn't 6000 years old... if they finally get it, then they are worth the effort. But my point was if they refuse to use logic and somehow pass with an E grade in biology after writing god did it on their exam paper, then the less established universities become polluted with these students. For those particular students it would probably be better for them if they just failed their A level in biology rather than holding their hands thru' the exams to ensure they at least pass, and also better for the universities who would not provide the same level of basic-level support nor desire to. And in fact why would they, and who would have the time to?

Who knows, maybe for once, this cooperation would bring some truth and help shed light on this great mystery we're all wrapped up in.

What has religion really ever taught us? Yet some cling to it in the hope it may one day mean something of relevance. Science answers "mysteries" every day, yet religious believers ignore these and hypocritically proclaim the truth will set people free. What they really mean is - they cannot be bothered to use their brains, because they prefer tidy little delusions instead.

instead, we play these power games and ridicule these people and make it HARD for them to get along.

That's exactly how different religions perceive and act upon each other and falsely perceive non-believers. Ironic that from the believers perspective those who choose not to believe in a faith are to blame. If only everyone would see the world as it is, and the evidence of this all around them - then people would get along.

[edit on 30-1-2010 by john124]

I wonder if these people still will not accept evolution 4 years latter.
It is pretty humorous really. How can anyone of them take themselves serious after admitting they believe God created earth in 6 days, all humans are the off spring of Adam and Eve and there 3 sons .. They only had sons right ? .. even if they had plenty of daughters, the bible says sleeping with your sister is uncool. right ? I don't get it ..


“You’re the retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt sex with a fish squirrel, congratulations!” now get over it

[edit on 30-1-2010 by nophun]

Meanwhile. China and India continue to train exponentially more and more students in the hard sciences, and are beginning to innovate in new biological, chemical, and physical sciences rather than imitate.

I'm not a "China will rule the world" thinker, but I'm not one to think the West can rest on its laurels and coast on past glories. And let me also say that I am deeply religious and this need have ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on belief in and practice of hard science at all. Only if you let it.

reply to post by john124


I agree with you in principle insofar as creationism is as useful/valid a theory as flat earth.
I also believe that it shouldn't be taught in high schools during adolescents' formative years lest they let scientists teach theoretical physics in sunday school. (btw, this isn't an attack on folks who embrace creationism, merely a just separation between empirical science and belief)

However ...

College is different ... there's no need to fear or reject any kind of information. In fact I would encourage it. If by that age one's reasoning skills can't separate the valid from the preposterous, origins of man is the least of their issues.

So let them teach it ... resisting implies there's something there to be feared.

[edit on 30 Jan 2010 by schrodingers dog]

reply to post by nophun

They only had sons right ?

No. Genesis 5.4:

The days of Adam after he fathered Seth were 800 years; and he had other sons and daughters.

.. even if they had plenty of daughters, the bible says sleeping with your sister is uncool. right ?

Only after some time, when the Law was given. It wasn't forbidden from the beginning so far as we can tell.

creationism is stupid...its totally self contradictory..

if everything needs a creator then so does the creator....creationists...you cant impose your rules on the theory of others but say your theory somehow can get by without this very same rule..

if a god can spring out of nothing...or can exist forever without the need for a creator..then so can the universe..

the 'god' theory doesnt answer any questions..it simply pushes the question one step higher..needlessly..

Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by nophun

 

They only had sons right ?

No. Genesis 5.4:

The days of Adam after he fathered Seth were 800 years; and he had other sons and daughters.

.. even if they had plenty of daughters, the bible says sleeping with your sister is uncool. right ?

Only after some time, when the Law was given. It wasn't forbidden from the beginning so far as we can tell.

so god changed his mind?...why would a perfect being do that?

reply to post by john124

A "theory" of 7 day creation,

Six days.

with light on day 1 before the sun is created on day 4 is ridiculous.

The Bible says that God himself gives off light. So, if the creation account is true, it makes perfect sense that light could exist before the sun did. (It's ridiculous to think that God, if he exists, wouldn't be able to create everything in six days, if he is omnipotent, as he's said to be in the Bible.)

reply to post by alienesque

so god changed his mind?...why would a perfect being do that?

No, he didn't "change his mind". How can he change his mind when he never outrightly said it was okay to start with? He simply allowed it because it would've been the only way for life to multiply.

Then he forbids it later for the benefit of man. This isn't difficult.

reply to post by alienesque

if everything needs a creator then so does the creator

Not if the creator is beyond time.

if a god can spring out of nothing...or can exist forever without the need for a creator..then so can the universe..

About that...does science not teach that the universe did indeed have a beginning?

This is a classic example of the poor quality of education being given in our universities. The instructor should always preface a class instruction by noting the difference between the science and the faith.

That being said, God could make it like it is, right? Therefore, you find Him still allowing you a choice to believe science or have faith. Since this existence is a test of your love for God, per the Bible, you can have your cake and eat it, too. You can agree that the scientific evidence shows a long period of formation, while at the same time you can agree that God made it that way in whatever length of time He needed, like six days.

The core problem with our society is the failure to find suitable solutions for both sides. You may also find this in Congress. It's tearing us apart. I think we all need to sit down and find areas of agreement.

[edit on 1/30/2010 by Jim Scott]

Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by alienesque

 

if everything needs a creator then so does the creator

Not if the creator is beyond time.

the creator is beyond time..

that has to be the lamest excuse for not answering a question.... i worship the god who created god -who created god =infinate..

reply to post by fatdad


Think what you will, but that is what the Bible teaches; God is eternally existent. He simply has always existed and always will. Thus, God is beyond time.

An eternally existent being has no need for a creator.

reply to post by octotom

Six days.

Six, seven, or 23 days, it's still all nonsense.

The Bible says that God himself gives off light.

Then why create the sun?

The Bible says that God himself gives off light. So, if the creation account is true, it makes perfect sense that light could exist before the sun did.

Aren't you forgetting the countless other stars that were around when the sun was a cloud of hydrogen gas.

So, somehow god created all of these billions of years older stars on the same day as the sun was created, yet god could magically shine light using some unknown process before then, and god lives outside of time yet his creation is measured in days when time can stand still for him? Hmmm....

What about the other part of the EM spectrum, could god fart x-rays using his magic?



[edit on 30-1-2010 by john124]

reply to post by octotom

.does science not teach that the universe did indeed have a beginning?

You're forgetting science only teaches what we've understood so far, and that's as far back as half a billion years after the earliest forms of matter existed. It's a pitiful excuse to criticise science because it hasn't discovered everything, when religions have discovered nothing.

The problem here, IMO, is that people who ridicule others for expressing their beliefs are doing it with irrational, emotionally based communications.

I don't think the problem is a lack of understanding for the Bible, but a lack of willingness to accept anything even remotely related to it. Very un-empirical to reject any information based on personal bias alone!

This kind of behavior only strengthens the case of the faithful, who are usually able and willing to give a reasonable, emotionally stable response to express themselves.

I see mockery, ridicule, and a whole lot of hate. Perhaps those who have shared theirs with the rest of us have inadvertently provided a very visible and obvious justification of the need for religion. Whatever has produced this unreasoning, illogical, inflammatory hatred is definitely not useful in future scientific endeavors of any kind. Or any other, for that matter.

If one chooses to understand, one will. It sounds simple, but many fail to understand how much the open mind contributes to the finding of answers.

Hopefully, emotion can be managed and not run rampant. Again, this seems to show a NEED for some time of belief system, to offset all the negativity.
Thanks for making religion relevant again with poorly-reasoned arguments and barely-disguised contempt.
That will really make your point more acceptable? Think, friends. Make your point in a rational manner, with respect, and more people will get your point.

In peace and the interest of diplomacy...

welll isn't this interesting. i can't help but chuckle cause i promised myself i would never get in another evolution vs. creationism debate, and so i won't. but just remember, a person's intelligence or sanity is not gauged on their ability to believe in metaphor, symbols or invisible concepts. afterall, schrodinger's cat is in the box.