Should Schools Teach Creationism?

Debate held in the National Library of Scotland in February 2009 and organised by the Institute of Ideas and the Humanist Society Scotland.

Debate Outline

The debate over Creationism is one of the hottest flashpoints in the battle between secularism and religion. While the US has seen extended conflict over the theory of evolution, new challenges to Darwinism under the guise of intelligent design (ID) have arisen in the UK. Concerns centre on school science education, from Sir Peter Vardy's Emmanuel Schools Foundation to the controversial teaching packs distributed by the anti-evolution group Truth in Science. Although the Royal Society and much of the scientific establishment have denounced the teaching of Creationism, and the Royal Society's embattled director of education resigned last year after causing controversy by suggesting teachers should discuss Creationism in class, a recent MORI poll revealed that over 40% of the public believe that creationism or ID should be taught alongside evolution in school science classes.

While few seriously endorse the literal Biblical story of Creation, ID on the other hand claims to highlight Darwinism's shortcomings on scientific grounds. Evolution is 'just a theory' after all. Surely in the spirit of encouraging critical thinking we should 'teach the controversy'? As science is about questioning received truths rather than establishing certainties for all time, does this not permit a more flexible approach to science education, where debate is encouraged? Further, the sheer complexity of evolutionary theory leads ID advocates to claim it is best to cultivate a critical eye in pupils, rather than have them take as truth a misunderstood Darwinian theory.

Is science, or 'scientism', just as fundamentalist as religion, arrogantly claiming to know everything, or are doubts such as these a reflection of scientists' failure to make the case properly for what science does have to offer? Is this merely another case of the 'balance fallacy' the mistaken belief that even falsehoods should be given air time? Or should schools teach creationism in science lessons?
Speakers:

* Alex McLellan, Founder and Executive Director of Reason Why
* Dave Perks, Head of Physics at Graveney School in London
* Christopher Brookmyre, Novellist, including Boiling a Frog
* Julian Baggini, writer and philosopher
* Marc Surtees, Edinburgh Creation Group and Paradigm Shift
* Chair - Dr Tiffany Jenkins, Institute of Ideas

For downloads, links and more information please visit:

http://seraphmedia.org.uk/nls-creation/

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• ECG
• Alex
• McLellan
• Dave
• Perks
• Christopher
• Brookmyre
• Julian
• Baggini
• Marc
• Surtees

[NevilleRhysBarnes]

Both sides in this debate were pathetic. Some of the creationist comments would have been torn apart by any competent debater.

[SqueakerAlpha]

@TruthIsLife7 code of Hammurabi .

[SqueakerAlpha]

absolutely YES, all creation stories from every culture in the world. Bumba the african vomit god would be a real favorite in grade schools. Unless the creation story has a solid scientific foundation though it doesnt belong in science classes.

[TruthIsLife7]

@leflipmo Sorry, but leading atheists and Darwinists in the past and present have gotten influence in science and banned scientific research that conflicts with their a priori assertions and fired, demoted and harrassed scientists who rationally think the evidence of science points to God. Some of the 1000s of cases of this hindering of science is documented in the book "Slaughter of the dissidents" by a former atheist with several Ph.D. degrees. An interview is here: watch?v=YlUEYHOwP4E

[leflipmo]

@TruthIsLife7 Atheism hasn't done anything in science, not good not bad. Scientists have done much in science, whether they were christians, jews, muslims or atheists matters not. If you by making up "facts" of your own try to prove something or think this is going somewhere I shall step away.

[TruthIsLife7]

@leflipmo You have been taught 100% fiction. Christianity was directly responsible for building most of the foundations, processes &pioneering most of the fields of science. Almost never has it hindered science. Atheism has done that an astronomical amount more than any religion ever has. In the rare cases Christianity did hinder science, it was usually because it had wrongly accepted pagan concepts or because it was concerned about the harmful use of science to human life (ex: chemical weapons)

[TruthIsLife7]

No, Christianity didn't borrow from other earlier religions very much if at all. No ancient culture is within light years of the morals of of the Bible. However God did speak to people in many different cultures in ancient times as well as the present. It's another fallacy that God only speaks to Christians and Jews. Even in the Bible, probably the most famous prophecy/vision was given to a Babylonian king.

Humanism may have improvements, but also 100% certain has made things worse for people.

[leflipmo]

@TruthIsLife7 ...that would somehow mean we should cling on to them and not consider any other, probably a better way to find out what's good, and more than that, what's better for us.

Secular humanism is a world view. A pursuit of well being for everybody and going away from the worse.

You don't see any major changes with humanism, more like steady small improvement, but mainly what you DON'T see secular humanism "do" is making things worse for people. Hardly you can claim that not to be true.

[leflipmo]

@TruthIsLife7 Like I said before, religion is not the reason for the improvements in science. Most of the time religion has been hindering the progress of science.

I have to say that mostly our values and moral philosophy is based and has developed from religion, BUT it is very well known that the main religions have borrowed their values from earlier polytheitic religions.

So it's a logical fallacy to assume that because some of the values and morals of a religion are good for human kind...-->

[TruthIsLife7]

and on the below..it is an irrefutable fact that whether it's the French Revolution or the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, the atheist states all considered religion their worst enemy, largely because of atheism. There are even Christian communists, so that wasn't the major driving force. Communism itself isn't necessarily anti-Christian....however it would possibly be an enemy of pseudo religion, the same type that Jesus criticized that was more concerned with comfort than service and justice.