Leading scientists and naturalists, including Professor Richard Dawkinsand Sir David Attenborough, are claiming a victory over the creationist movement after the government ratified measures that will bar anti-evolution groups from teaching creationism in science classes.
The Department for Education has revised its model funding agreement, allowing the education secretary to withdraw cash from schools that fail to meet strict criteria relating to what they teach. Under the new agreement, funding will be withdrawn for any free school that teaches what it claims are “evidence-based views or theories” that run “contrary to established scientific and/or historical evidence and explanations.”
. . . “It is clear that some faith schools are ignoring the regulations and are continuing to teach myth as though it were science,” Dawkins said. “Evolution is fact, supported by evidence from a host of scientific disciplines, and we do a great disservice to our young people if we fail to teach it properly. “
Always Question Authority
One of the beginnings of human emancipation is the ability to laugh at authority. ~ Hitchens
Always Question Authority 
Lucius,
“Evolution is nothing more than a Theory”
Firstly, you should really understand that scientists use the term theory very differently to lay people. Speaking of “just a theory” is oxymoronic. A hypothesis is elevated to a theory because the evidence is overwhelming and it has been tested exhaustively, is yet to be falsified and can be effectively used to make predictions. In other words it has explanatory power. Surely this makes it more valid than a belief by a large number of magnitudes?
What are we supposed to do, be dishonest and say, well, look at all the evidence here, there’s enough for a theory but you know what, I don’t like the sound of evolution and all it implies, so I’m going to pretend all this evidence doesn’t exist and belief in one of the myriad creationist myths, because you know what, they make me feel all warm and fuzzy.
I don’t particularly want evolution to be true, any more than I want to have two legs or presbyopia or a dislike of beetroot. I don’t even particularly want to be descended from a common ancestor with other primates. It’s just the way it is. It’s reality. So deal with it. Honestly.
And where do you think evolution has to go after it becomes elevated to more than a theory? There is nothing higher than “just a theory” in science. It is the pinnacle of knowledge and explanatory power.
“But tell me, did I speak that science was invalid?”
No you didn’t say it was invalid, you said that children should be taught all manner of things as if they were the equal of science. I find that downright terrifying because it is dishonest.
“It (science) has also provided more ills in this world than almost anything else, including religion”.
Has it? That’s nowhere near apparent to me. In any case, I can’t even conceive of an applied philosophy that wouldn’t result in some ills if applied by human beings, so I’m not sure what you’re saying here – perhaps that humankind shouldn’t take chances to better our understanding of the universe and ease our passage through this life?
“I advocated the giving to students a variety of options in which to chose what to believe”.
This is the point I was making. Surely we need to get beyond this need to believe. It’s infantile and it smacks of existential insecurity. If I go to a doctor for treatment the last thing I need is to just believe the medicine is safe and will work – I want empirical evidence that it is safe and it will work and in what circumstances it might not. I want to make an informed decision, so I quite reasonably demand a higher standard of evidence than belief. You might not and that is your prerogative – you might believe that dangling a crystal above your navel while drinking an infusion prepared from the dung of the lesser spotted weevil catcher can cure testicular cancer, but you have no right to tell children this is the case until you can provide evidence.
Teaching children that belief in itself is just as good a way of making sense of the world as understanding and analysing evidence is doing children a disservice. You made the point yourself that science can change – that is it’s strength, it’s not dogmatic – most beliefs are: they demand that you hold onto the belief, despite evidence to the contrary. How does that approach help human beings understand the universe (or cure cancer)?
Children can only make informed decisions if they are first taught epistomology and how to analyse evidence. Teaching them that all beliefs are valid would prevent them from using these tools. They would even use terms like “just a theory”.
“Surely people of reason have no need to fear the giving of options to the masses”
Oh yes we do. Science, in comparison with belief systems is the far more difficult to grasp. It’s knowledge base is a billion times larger than any belief system for a start. Given the options and told they’re all just as valid as each other, which one do you think children will choose, the most difficult? I don’t think so. We would end up back in the dark ages within a couple of generations, with the prevalent knowledge base coming from beliefs that simply make us feel better.
“And they certainly haven’t been able to show it (evolution) in action, only the results”.
Biology is obviously not your field. Apart from the fact that it is generally impossible to view evolution in action in larger organisms because it occurs a at staggeringly slow rate – nevertheless do some research on the Italian Wall Lizard which evolved a new organ in 25 years after being relocated to another habitat, take a look at the ongoing evolution of e.coli in labs, look up the ‘nylon eating bacteria’ that has evolved in industrial pipes in Japan over the past 70 years, the rapid evolution of pathogens such as the tuberculosis bacillum, or even the evolution of HIV and it’s jump from species to species etc etc.
Can you imagine the incredulity and frustration that biologists feel when they’re told that they have never observed evolution actually occurring, then get in their cars and drive to work in labs where they observe evolution occurring day in day out…. Is it any wonder that they lose patience with the creationist lobby?
Lucius, please acquaint yourself with the evidence and stop relying on beliefs. And listen next time you take science classes.
“This is of course not mentioning all the thousands of things that science cannot explain”.
What’s your point? You’re not seriously saying that because science can’t explain something at time X it will be unable to explain it at time Y? You’re not seriously proposing that we teach this sort of illogical nonsense to children are you? Or worse, that plenty of belief will get there before science.
An interesting exchange of views gentlemen but we are getting away from the point, are we not,
Surely we can’t allow this Creationism bilge to be taught in our school’s.
Pingback: SCIENCE’S “MOST BEAUTIFUL THEORIES” « As My World Turns
“There are many explanations for each and every single thing in this world”
No, they’re aren’t. This is postmodernist crap. There are explanations for which there is a degree of empirical evidence and ongoing investigation and there are explanations for which there is no degree of evidence and no investigation. Look at flat earth, demon possession causing mental illness, thunder caused by Thor etc etc. No matter how much you wish it or have faith in your favourite explanation it does not make it real – some explanations are simply not true.
Evolution by natural selection has a shedload of good quality evidence that is growing and growing. Creationist accounts have no evidence whatsoever to back them up – they simply act as wish fulfillment for theists. Children deserve to be taught the best science.
“each is proven by the methods held as valid under its system”
No it isn’t. Again, postmodernist crap. Only science has an internationally recognised systemised, methodological structure for investigation. And an incredibly successful one too. Let’s be perfectly honest here – Wiccans or Calvinists or Taoists or Hindus or Mahayana Buddhists, left to their own devices, would never have produced the computer you use to communicate your ideas around the world. What you’re saying, basically, is that we should ditch the best method we have and let anything go. I mean why would you bother to find out how the universe really works? There’s a plethora of explanations that are just as valid as each other. Just pick one you like the sound of and run with it.
Of course the logical conclusion to your attitude is that children shouldn’t be encouraged to analyse, debate, investigate, hypothesise, test – what would be the point? No explanation is any better than the others anyway.
If this actually happened in our education system we would risk returning to the dark ages in a generation or two.
Mr. Hill,
Thank you very much for the breath of fresh air!
It is so apparent that these anti-science apologists have never spent a day in a science classroom. I would bet you a sixpence that the majority of them are of the typical anti-intellectual American mindset; however, I know, you being a member of the reality based world, would not take that bet because statistics are greatly in my favor on that bet, not to mention that the sixpence went out of fashion circa 1980.
In Reason,
Madison
You signature is of interest. In Reason. But tell me, did I speak that science was invalid? I did not. I am an anti-dogmatist, though as so often happens when facing the dogmatic individual, they insist that their dogma is acceptable and indeed, the only correct way.
For your information, I spent a rather large amount of time both in science classes and studying the sciences on my own. Of course, I will not be surprised if you deny this, as just from the tone of both statements it is clear that neither of you believe that anyone exposed to science could chose to see the world in another way.
I said nothing about removing science from schools. Science is a valid path in this world and has provided many goods. It has also provided more ills in this world than almost anything else, including religion. Rather, I advocated the giving to students a variety of options in which to chose what to believe.
Surely people of reason have no need to fear the giving of options to the masses, for if your way is truly the only viable one, then they will no doubt chose it. Only tyrants and those fearful that their ways are not the only correct path need to bully others into believing by destroying the voice of all options.
Certainly such people of reason as yourselves are not thus?
Lucius Svartwulf,
We must define “dogmatism,” for the use of it in your initial correspondence displayed irony through use of the oxymoron “scientific dogmatism,” although I seriously doubt it was an intentional use of irony due to its serious attempt to make an invalid point verses its use as a display of intellectual humor.
The Free Dictionary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dogmatism) defines dogmatism as follows:
1. Arrogant, stubborn assertion of opinion or belief.
2. A statement of a point of view as if it were an established fact.
3. The use of a system of ideas based upon insufficiently examined premises.
Please note that the three definitions have one thing in common, neither are based on fact! Therefore, comparing religious dogma i.e., creationism to science is a false equivalence; a typical logical fallacy routinely committed by religious apologists, and persons with weak mathematical, and/or science backgrounds.
I do agree with you “dogmatism, is still wrong;” however, dogmatism concerning this matter is wholly one-sided, and it side’s with the religious apologists.
“Science is a valid path in this world and has provided many goods. It has also provided more ills in this world than almost anything else, including religion.”
I would be interested in seeing your documentation that backs-up that statement, but somehow, I feel I may never live to see that day. I have a feeling that was just pulled out this air as if it were fact. Yes, people of past, and present have used science to kill, but only religious persons have actually killed, and continue to kill, in the name of religious dogma.
“Surely people of reason have no need to fear the giving of options to the masses, for if your way is truly the only viable one, then they will no doubt chose it.”
If your conclusion in this statement is that the masses “will no doubt chose (sic)” the viable option if given the choice, I would like to see the premise on which that conclusion is based, considering the extremely weak assumption that the masses are people of reason. In the anti-intellectual United States of Lowbrowlandia the masses are clearly NOT people of reason.
These “options” of which you speak are nonsensical, and as has been shown scientifically, and legally, have absolutely no business in the science classroom. They are not valid; therefore, they are not “options.” They are nothing more than personal opinions. I leave you with a quote that seems so apropos.
Personal opinion, which is not informed by evidence, is not of interest.
~Richard Dawkins
In Reason,
Madison
Ah, this is most fun. Permit me to respond.
As to your definition, let us break it down, and I shall show you your dogmatism.
1. Arrogant, stubborn assertion of opinion or belief
Let’s see, the insistence that yours is the only viable and rational system on the planet and refusal to even consider the validity of another opinion or belief, Check
“If your conclusion in this statement is that the masses “will no doubt chose (sic)” the viable option if given the choice, I would like to see the premise on which that conclusion is based, considering the extremely weak assumption that the masses are people of reason. In the anti-intellectual United States of Lowbrowlandia the masses are clearly NOT people of reason.”
So by your reasoning, they must be forced to wisdom, because they are too stupid to come to it on their own, and your wisdom is the only one. My my, that sounds an lot like religions like Christianity and Islam.
Hmm, that is certainly arrogant. Double Check.
2. A statement of a point of view as if it were an established fact.
Ah, now if you truly followed the Path of Science and its teachings you would realize that science provides only Theories, but never facts. Ask any scientist and they will tell you that Evolution, Gravity, etc, are only Theories that science has to explain the world we live in. Despite all the evidence in the world, it remains a Theory for the simple fact that Science has been proven wrong before and will be proven wrong again, as more data and technology comes about.
Therefore, by scientific reason, Evolution is nothing more than a Theory based on Current Evidence, and Subject To Change. And if Science is allowed to put forth its Theory (Not its Proven Fact) then by rights it must respect the right of others to put forth their own Theories.
You, however, act as if your science was an Established Fact, rather than recognized theory.
3. The use of a system of ideas based upon insufficiently examined premises
This one is interesting. For instance, you would claim that Science, which has only been around in its present, recognized, “scientific” form for a couple centuries has sufficiently examined its premises, but that other ways of looking at the world, which have been around for thousands of years have not.
Remember that arrogance thing you mentioned?
This is of course not mentioning all the thousands of things that science cannot explain. For example, while science can cause changes with meds for various psychological conditions, it cannot explain how these meds actually work. In the case of Evolution, Science can show some of the steps in the process, but not all of them (I seem to recall a couple new additions in the last ten or so years). And they certainly haven’t been able to show it in action, only the results. Hence it being a Theory.
Oh, and as for those ills I mentioned, I think starting with the Atomic Bomb, poison gas, meds whose side effects are worse than the sicknesses they cure, and the creation of dogmatic atheists is a good place to start. how about you? 😉
Dogmatism, even “scientific” dogmatism, is still wrong. There are many explanations for each and every single thing in this world. Using the state to push one version of dogma over another, when each is proven by the methods held as valid under its system, is an abuse of power and an insult to the rights of people to make up their own minds how they see the world.