Photosales
niJobfinder
niCarfinder
Home Delivery
Propertynews
Darwin versus Creationism - the great debate
Wednesday, 28 January 2009
Just weeks before naturalists prepare to commemorate the bicentenary of the birth of Charles Darwin, it was reported that a third of science teachers believed creationism should be taught in their lessons.
Just weeks before naturalists prepare to commemorate the bicentenary of the birth of Charles Darwin, it was reported that a third of science teachers believed creationism should be taught in their lessons.
Last month’s Ipsos Mori poll showed that 37% of primary and secondary teachers felt creationism should be ‘taught’ alongside evolution and the Big Bang theory, while 65% agreed that creationism should be ‘discussed’ in schools — statistics that would no doubt have Darwin rolling in his grave.
It is perhaps testament to the ongoing impact of the evolutionary scientist’s work that the debate over how to tackle alternative versions of the origin of the world is still waging on, some 150 years after he published The Origin Of Species.
But what exactly do creationists believe, why all the controversy and what actually is or should be discussed in the science classroom?
CREATIONISM EXPLAINED
Millions around the world, including Jews, Muslims and Christians, have long shared the belief that God created the universe and everything in it.
But ‘Young Earth Creationism’ is the more specific belief that the earth has only existed for the last 6,000 years and that each species was created separately by God — as suggested in Genesis, the first book of the Bible.
Scientific evidence, meanwhile, indicates that the planet and all the species on it developed over a period of 4,000 or 5,000 million years.
As an ordained Church of England minister and a leading biologist, Professor Michael Reiss is perhaps better placed than most to speak on the subject.
Reiss resigned from his post as director of education at the Royal Society in September 2008 after saying that creationism should be discussed in science lessons if students raised the issue. The society said some of his comments could be misinterpreted, which could damage its reputation.
“I’m entirely comfortable with the scientific understanding of the age of the universe, the evolution of life and I’m not a creationist or never have been,” he says.
“But what’s interesting is that there is a very large number of people who live within a creationist world view. As somebody who works in science education, one of my interests is what should we do with young people who have creationist views or come from creationist families?”
Reiss says that some 40% of children in the US are thought to hold creationist views. However, creationism is not uniquely a Christian belief.
Reiss believes the growing number of creationists in the UK is partly due to “an increasing tendency in Christian churches to insist that a creationist understanding of scripture is valid” and partly because of the growing Muslim population.
“By and large, Muslims are more likely to be creationist than non-Muslims,” he says.
There are several different interpretations of how exactly God created the universe, all of which could be called creationist.
The book of Genesis in the Bible describes how God made the heavens and earth in just six days, then rested on the seventh.
Non-creationist Christians believe the story in Genesis is simply a metaphor, while creationists fall into two camps — some believing the days to be literally 24 hours and others advocating a ‘Day Age’ belief that each day represents an eon.
A BRIEF HISTORY
In the 1600s it was seen as an important task to try and establish the age of the world from evidence in The Bible.
Irish Anglican archbishop James Ussher did just that, and in 1650 published a chronology of the world that calculated the date of creation as October 23, 4004BC, thus paving the way for Young Earth Creationism.
Two hundred years and much scientific thinking later, Darwin would revolutionise our understanding of how all life came about, which in turn shaped creationist thought.
Dr Mathew Guest, a lecturer in theology and religion at Durham University and contributor to forthcoming volume Genesis After Darwin, picks up the story.
“Within the last 150 years, there have been various attempts among certain Christian camps to establish creationism with greater rigour, in response to the rise of Darwinism,” he explains. “In the mid 1800s, groups like the Plymouth Brethren viewed the bible as a document by which we can map the history of the world, from its origins to the end times.”
Then came the fundamentalist movement in the United States in the early 20th century, which published pamphlets affirming what they saw as the “non-negotiable core of Christian faith”.
But Guest says evolution was actually accepted by some early fundamentalists.
“In the pamphlets published as The Fundamentals, some writers acknowledged the legitimacy of evolution, they didn’t have a problem with it — it was accepted by some as the means by which God created the earth, and was not a focus of controversy or division.”
The 1920s saw the controversial Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee, where local teacher John Scopes was put on trial for teaching evolution — which was then illegal under state law.
The case was overturned, but the trial drew the attention of the media and the public with important consequences for the status of the creationist cause.
“In the United States, the media so ridiculed proponents of the pro-Genesis account as backward, uneducated and ignorant, that they became discredited in the eyes of the public and retreated from public life,” Guest says. The 1960s saw the development of the Creation Science movement, which attempted to find geological evidence for Bible stories like the flood recounted in Genesis.
“The 1980s saw the emergence of intelligent design, which attempts to use the methods of science to establish an alternative set of explanations to Darwinism about the origins of the world, but it doesn’t rely on the Bible,” Guest says. “It looks for design in the world and presents that as evidence of an intelligent designer.”
WHAT IS TAUGHT IN SCHOOLS?
Reiss was on the working party that drew up the Department for Children, Schools and Families’ advice to schools about how to tackle creationism in 2007.
It stipulates that “the theory of evolution lies at the heart of biology and should be taught at key stage 4 and in GCE advanced biology. Creationism and intelligent design are not scientific theories and do not form part of the science National Curriculum”. But the guidelines also recognise the need to “respect” students’ religious views if questions about creationism arise in science lessons.
“I’ve taught in schools and I’ve taught post-grads and undergraduates and over the past 25 years I’ve met lots of creationist pupils,” Reiss says.
“If we ignore their point of view, what happens in my judgment is they’re less likely to ever really get to grips with understanding the scientific theories of evolution and the history of the universe.”
CREATIONISM vs DARWINISM
As Darwin’s bicentenary approaches there are staunch advocates on either side who make any hopes of some kind of reconciliation seem unlikely.
“It polarises people and I don’t think that’s necessarily helpful,” says Guest.
“The classic example is Richard Dawkins (author of The God Delusion). There you have someone who is not only passionate about what he sees as the groundless nature of creationist ideas but also about alerting the public to the potentially damaging consequences of believing in them.
“Dawkins’ work is valuable in raising such important questions within the public sphere, but it risks reinforcing a perception among the public that there are simply two different, mutually exclusive positions available to them. The range of possibilities available and the diversity of people advocating each of them means that the situation is simply much more complicated than this model might suggest.”
So what of the future for creationism?
“One future which I hope we don’t have in the UK is that we become more and more like the situation in the US, in other words, a larger proportion of people are creationists and it becomes more and more difficult to discuss and teach evolution in schools and society becomes increasingly polarised,” Reiss says.
“Another possibility, which the optimist in me hopes is the case, is that precisely because there is now more discussion about these issues, we end up with a consensus about the role of education in both RE lessons and science lessons teaching in this area and there’s eventually a better understanding among people both of science and religion.”
- Text Size
Comments
33 Comments
michael ou refuse to look at the whole picture... definition of a bigot!
what if all scientists went about their research the way evolutionists do...we'l just ignore the most likely cause of the effects we see and we will find out how it all happens!
the Bible is not a lot of stories written thousands of years ago...get yourself a copy of halleys handbook to the bible and have a look at the scientific archaelogical evidence for those stories you just disgard with your intellectual disdain.
perhaps then when you relaise that the Bible is in fact accurate regarding history and geography, you might open your mind .
Ken I merely dealt with the evolution theory as it appears in our textbooks taight to kids in school and university.
As for the kinds of animals thing...what evidence is there for evolution between genus and family..remember fossils prove something lived and died not proof of offspring of a different kind
Posted by David | 10.02.09, 00:35 GMT
Well what a complete load of rubbish, thats all I can say. Creationism has absolutely no place in any science lessons.
“If we ignore their point of view, what happens in my judgment is they’re less likely to ever really get to grips with understanding the scientific theories of evolution and the history of the universe.”
So we ignore their point of view, so what? Their 'point of view' is invalid as it was made up by men writing the stories thousands of years ago.
I turned on a programme on bbc this morning and found one discussion was whether Evolution or Creationism was the correct theory? I had to pinch myself that I wasn't in the US Bible belt.
Posted by Michael | 08.02.09, 10:35 GMT
Ken,
Would you like to tell us which books you have read that run contrary to: 'the big bang theory' & 'the doctrine of uniformity' by Hutton, Lamarck,Lyell, Darwin etc,etc. You might also like to name the person/persons who can lay claim to the to most correct, natural history hypotheses as confirmed by exploration of the solar system.
Posted by jock | 08.02.09, 00:24 GMT
David, your summing of of 5 types of evolution is stunning in its ignorance. The big bang and the 'creation' of elements is hardly evolution or chemistry, instead physics. Very complicated physics, as far as I can tell.
The development of life forms from fairly basic chemical compounds is not evolution, either (and yes, you're right, this is largely not understood).
Evolution of different kinds of life form from a single form of life is well proven, but the mechanisms by which it occurs are not known. That does not mean that evolution is not fact. This "birds are still birds" talk is creationism 101, found on every creationist website, and is just nonsense.
The ignorance is caused by something being complicated and hard to understand. If the alternative is presented as "god did it, isn't he wonderful, aren't we all wonderful, isn't everything wonderful", well, people who are too stupid, or too lazy, or too indoctrinated will continue to believe it.
Posted by Ken | 06.02.09, 17:14 GMT
David,
I congratulate you on your well written & informative post re the religion of evolution. If you haven't already done so, may I suggest you read: The Facts of Life by Richard Milton, paper back edition 1993 Gorgi books. I think you will find the authors revelations re the dating methods by which religious evolutionists arrive at 4.6billion years as the age of Earth, most interesting.
Posted by jock | 05.02.09, 10:53 GMT
Evolution is a broad term. There are five distinct categories of evolution. Cosmic (the big bang) Chemical (the original elements evolving into the entire periodic table..alchemy!?!) Organic (those elements combining to evolve life...pasteur anyone?) Macro (those life forms evolving into other kinds of life forms) and Micro evoution (small changes within kinds).
Their is only scientific evidence for the last form, micro evolution, all the others are believed by faith. so please remove the religion of evolution from our science classes.
Some desperate people have tried to claim that some new species have been observed to evolve. But invariably we find they are the same species with a different beak, ridge, colour or some other minor variation.
There is no scientific evidence for changes from one kind to another, birds are still birds, dogs still dogs, there is absolutely no evidence that one type of animal has ever turned into another type of animal at any point in history.
Posted by David | 04.02.09, 16:56 GMT
Conor,
I sleep the sleep of the innocent, let Zolpidem be thine to gulp wherewith to dope thy conscience thus to grasp but forty winks, whilst early to bed & early to rise renders me the paragon of wisdom that I am.
Posted by jock | 03.02.09, 22:32 GMT
" statistics that would no doubt have Darwin rolling in his grave"
not hardly, since in Darwin's time, creation science was science class
Posted by cs211 | 03.02.09, 22:05 GMT
Good stuff
5 39 this morning? May I recommend Zolpidem?
Posted by conor | 03.02.09, 11:57 GMT
Conor,
The current discussion everywhere is the global economic crisis caused by global economic experts who haven't a clue how to undo the destruction they wrought.
But dont worry, I am working on the problem via other channels & the solution will be the imposition of a 3% ceiling on housing loan interest rates subject to review in 2015.
Posted by jock | 03.02.09, 11:47 GMT
Jock,
What is the current discussion on The Daily Record's website?
Frying all food, Robert Burns (no one outside Scotland cares) or fighting in Glasgow
Posted by conor | 03.02.09, 08:17 GMT
Conor,
The answer to your question is: No, I did not mean rhetoric as in rhetorical & rhetorically. I meant rethoric as in baiting a petty minded fool who - bereft of reasoned thoughts of his own to transcribe - resorts to paraphrasing the self defensive rhetoric of those who made him their proselyte.
Posted by jock | 03.02.09, 05:39 GMT
LOL Prof Jock did you mean rhetoric?
dogx2 Dawkins......good one
Posted by conor | 02.02.09, 11:41 GMT
Niko,
Conor is clearly ignorant of the dark side of professorial history & thus, in his ignorances, portrays himself a convert thereof by paraphrasing the dark side's self-defensive rethoric.
Posted by jock | 02.02.09, 10:40 GMT
Shug,
this medium/public forum is not the place to discuss/debate wisely reasoned volumes of scientific opinions that run contrary to orthodox professorialism.
As for your question. You should not assume that I believe the biblical tale re Noah etc, but rather that there is deep sedimentry evidence to the effect that this planet may have been lashed by a gigantic comet tail that rained down water & silt to the extent that, on a global scale, left low laying areas flooded & ultimately raised the earths sea levels by some 7meters.
Natural history denied to preserve the careers & social prestige of professorialists who got it wrong shall, I predict, be humanity's waterloo.
Posted by jock | 31.01.09, 01:55 GMT
"Is not such the belief of all supremacists & particularly those who are the beneficiaries of the over-generous public funding heaped on the world's non-productive, curiosity science divisions?"
Jock is right. He has revealed the hidden truth, the heart of the decades - nay, centuries! - long conspiracy.
It's not about the research; it's not about finding out how nature works; it never has been.
Scientists are in it for the money and the power.
Posted by GalapagosPete | 30.01.09, 16:06 GMT
Jock,
Am I to assume that you believe there is scientific evidence for a worlwide flood and that mainstream science denies the evidence?
I think you would have a hard time showing that Darwinists (as you describe them), cosmologists etc deny the role of catastrophic events but you would have a harder time showing a worldwide flood. I think all christians need to be mindful that the bible was 'inspired' not dictated and at a time when the known world was a lot smaller! Biblical literalism is an open goal for the current crop of dogmatic atheists and I believe shows a lack of understanding of scripture and ironically a lack of faith in those who regard themselves a christian.
Posted by Shug | 30.01.09, 12:49 GMT
Conor said "The only opinions which matter are those of the experts, that is, people with qualifications in the area and in particular those with published research mainly in peer reviewed journals." Then may I ask why do you participate by commenting? If you think it's futile to debate it then why waste your time even posting? By your own first post you debunk the debate and opinions of others on the topic before they have started, yet you continue to offer your own opinion. By your own logic your own opinion is worthless, so why do you comment in the first place? Perhaps you don't think your opinion is worthless, merely those of others?
Posted by Niko | 30.01.09, 11:50 GMT
This "discussion" would be more interesting if people didn't have access to the internet and therefore couldn't reguritate information found on different websites. It is full of people pretending they know what they are talking about and are well read. I suppose many "journalists" get paid for doing this!
The only opinions which matter are those of the experts, that is, people with qualifications in the area and in particular those with published research mainly in peer reviewed journals.
Posted by conor | 30.01.09, 08:22 GMT
Shug,
Your comments on this issue suggest to me that you ought to study the bible in conjunction with the confirmed natural history of our solar system & its catastrophic impact on earth & human history.
Whilst it is true to say that the bible is replete with the emotionally contrived religious chaff of ancient scholars trying to explain the cause of catastrophies of global dimension, it is equally true that it is our only historical record of such catastrophies.
Darwinists, theoretical cosmologists & geological uniformitarians all deny the undeniable evidence that the catastrophic spontaenity of natural physics has shaped & reshaped the earth on numerous occassions. Hence the reason they put patronising feathers in the caps of attack dogs like Dawkins.
Posted by jock | 30.01.09, 07:51 GMT
33 Comments