-
Picture: Kirktoons
Regular readers are likely to know of the news released this morning regarding a poll by Ipsos MORI, which shows that “29% of science teachers believe that creationism should be ‘taught’ in schools”.
Of course, this still means that 65% do not think it should be taught (with the remaining 6% undecided). What raised the blood pressure of Richard Dawkins and others though (Dawkins said “We have a national disgrace on our hands”) is the statistic that “73% of science specialists agreed that creationism should be ‘discussed’ in schools”.
So far, so scary. Is the state of science teaching really as bad as the poll makes it out to be though? Erm, probably not. In any scientific study it is imperative to determine what the figures actually say and how the questions are phrased, which may affect any results.
You can learn a lot more about these results by checking out the Ipsos MORI poll directly. Like any good study it lists a detail breakdown of all results, along with their caveats. The first thing to note that most teachers only “tend to agree” with the teaching and/or discussion of creationism if they agreed with exploring it, rather then support it outright.
More importantly, though, is the point raised by Ipsos MORI stating that “Survey respondents are not representative of all primary and secondary school teachers…nor of particular subject practitioners. Thus, it cannot be said, for example, that “65% of all teachers with a science background …” or “65% of all science teachers … disagree that creationism should be taught…”.” The teachers only said that their specialism was in science: in primary schools, teachers cover a whole range of subjects every day and so may not be scientists by background or training.
One should also consider the guidelines laid down regarding the definition of the rather woolly word “discuss”. They state: “There is a real difference between teaching ‘x’ and teaching about ‘x’. Any questions about creationism and intelligent design which arise in science lessons… could provide the opportunity to explain or explore why they are not considered to be scientific theories and, in the right context, why evolution is considered to be a scientific theory.”
Instead of discussing it as a plausible theory then, it could easily be the case that teachers are very much in favour of discussing creationism to demonstrate how flawed it is, and how it is an example of anti-scientific thinking.
If you think that even this should be verboten, then may I direct you towards this excellent article from the New York Times about a science teacher trying to teach evolution in the middle of the Bible belt. Faced with mass disbelief, the teacher calmly explained how it worked, and the whole ideology of science in gathering data and testing hypothesis. Slowly, even hardened seven-day creationists started to understand and learn about how powerful evolutionary theory is.
When I was a student at my local secondary school, we used to perplex our science teachers by asking about the “science” of weightlessness and extra-sensory perception, amongst other nonsense. By learning about why it is silly our overall knowledge of science and nature increased dramatically. It may be a sad state of affairs, but it is also naïve to believe that no schoolchild will ask questions about it and declare their disbelief in evolution.
Unfortunately, this question was not explored further, so we do not yet know what the overall consensus is. What we do know is that creationism is intellectually vapid, and that all efforts to present it as legitimate science should be resisted tooth and nail. But I don’t think we should fear an invasion of it into classrooms just yet - at least not in the UK.
If you enjoyed this post, why not subscribe to our RSS feed or follow us on Twitter? You might also consider making a donation to the Counterknowledge.com fighting fund.
Click here to sign up for free RSS updates.
Download the free 
Join 
18 responses
I don’t get why anyone would think it was bad that “73% of science specialists agreed that creationism should be ‘discussed’ in schools”?
When I was in high school, we ‘discussed’ the theory that the earth was flat. We ‘discussed’ the view that everything is composed of four elements. We ‘discussed’ the view that lead could be turned into gold.
I know this is the point that was made in the article (there is a difference between discussing and advocating); but I guess I’m just expressing my own bafflement that people would take it any other way.
Indeed. But when reading comments about this story most of them were simply “Why are people even in favour of discussing this? Gah!” and something similar.
So the alternative to “creationism” is what? A “random quantum fluctuation of nothing”? How does science distinguish “nothing” from “something”? Or are you claiming that at some sub-atomic level matter is eternal? That still fails to answer the question “Whence (does it come)?”.
“Creation” is simply the traditional term used to describe the relationship between that which self-exists and that whose existence is contingent. What Richard Dawkins seems incapable of comprehending is that the existence of a self-existent being is inferred. It is not asserted as axiomatic.
Kevin, I’m sure you can find all sorts of definitions of “Creation” that maybe me, Richard Dawkins, or American Musician Sean Combs aka P. Diddy would not understand. What point are you trying to make?
The definition of Creationism in this article, as its relationship to a popular and well known ‘opposing theory’ to Evolution is that all living creatures, fully formed, fully adapted to their habitat, unchanging, and without any biological ability to change in the future, poofed into existence, that there was no biological process that involved mutation and natural selection.
Science doesn’t care about the big philosophical question you’re posing because it doesn’t work by first determining the solution to existence and life and working backwards. It assumes only that something that is observable is meaningful, and that something that isn’t, can’t, and won’t be observed, directly or indirectly, having any measurable consequence other than hand waving and games of semantic non sense are not meaningful. From there, Evolution becomes evident by simply examining what we observe.
Kevin: The problem with your argument is that you are conflating two components of Creationism that are separable.
component 1: the aspect of Creationism that explains the First Cause of existence in general.
component 2: ALL THE OTHER assumptions about the way that things have progressed since that first cause happened.
I constantly hear creationists that are thinly-veiled permutations of this argument:
1) You cannot explain how the first something came out of nothing
2) Therefore, God created the heaven and the earth in six days and every animal was perfect and unchanging in its form.
It’s truly the most bizarre non-sequitur.
I don’t know if any of the above are science teachers but I am and have been confronted by a number of creationist and ID questions over the last twenty years. The first I remember is a boy asking me what caused the Big Bang and when I gave my answer he sniffily said that he believed in God and that God created the Universe. When I asked what caused God, he was bemused, especially when I said that his question and my question were in effect identical.
I was once confronted by an entire clas that had come straight from an RE lesson where they had been taught about intelligent design (very badly so far as I could tell). They were buzzing about flagella and “evolution is only a theory” until I took them through the science of what they were talking about and the meaning of the word theory in science.
More recently, a girl told me that she would never change her mind, no matter what I told her, and that God created the Earth, etc. I said that I had no intention of changing her mind on that, but I would suggest that before she dismissed evolution out of hand that she educated herself and looked at the evidence. She suggested that I do the same and find out about the creation. Which one would you like me to find out about first? I asked. Should I begin with Judeo-Christian creation or should I go for one of the major Eastern religions? Or perhaps Mayan? Polynesian? African?
The problem with “teaching” in any shape or form creation in a science lesson is that one has so much choice. Luckily, evolution is much less split on what the likely truth is.
“poofed into existence”
- that’s precisely the premiss on which evolutionism is founded. Or do you have another starting point?
“It’s truly the most bizarre non-sequitar.”
- and that’s a straw man argument.
It is intellectually dishonest to intentionally conflate the writings of William Dembski, for example, with what you are defining as “creationism” here.
I have a Master’s in Microbiology from Thomas Jefferson University in the States, and I am a Roman Catholic. With that being said, I think it is inappropriate to NOT discuss creationism in class. Humans can’t disprove anything, that is a basic tenet of Science. Unfortunately, Science is taught as if we know something and the “case is closed”, that is not the case. Especially in the case of “evolution”, scientists are continually ad hoc-ing Darwinian Evolution, its a fledgling science.
Its tyranny.
Creationism is not science; it’s religion and, therefore, not something that should be discussed in science lessons. Most Creationists proffer the O T as a science text book.
To discuss Creationism in science lessons is to given it a status which it hasn’t earned.
As the researcher who published this research, can I please make a small correction to your article? A couple of key words dropped out of your quote from our technical note. The survey IS representative of all primary and secondary school teachers by phase of teaching, sex, age and Government Office Region. It ISN’T representative by subject specialism (e.g. English versus maths versus science) or of particular subject practitioners (e.g. all science teachers).
I hope this is helpful.
Hi Fiona, thanks for the comments. I tried to discuss the fact that ’science teachers’ is a vague definition which cannot be readily applied to any poll results in this case (see the paragraph starting “More importantly though…”), but it’s good to have more details on this particular point.
Kevin,
Evolution is NOT founded on the idea that something “poofed into existence.” In fact, evolution doesn’t concern itself with when, where, how, or why life began. That’s abiogenesis and another field of science. Evolution is merely the scientific theory of descent with modification. Life must already exist for evolution to take over. That’s why comparing “creationism” to evolution is like comparing apples to oranges.
Stephen –
There is one point in your comment that actually has some truth to it, which is that science (along with history and mathematics and just about every other field of learning) tends to be taught as if “the case is closed”, as if the current state of knowledge is guaranteed to be a lasting state. In actuality, of course, the answers we think we know today may well be replaced tomorrow by better answers.
On every other point, however, you are depressingly wrong. In particular, to claim that it is a “basic tenet of Science” that “humans can’t disprove anything” is so incredibly wrong that the mind boggles trying to imagine how you could have ever passed a science course, let alone (supposedly) achieved a Master’s degree in a scientific field. It is a basic tenet of science that humans are capable of disproving certain hypotheses to the point that, as practical possibilities, they can be dismissed. If someone wishes for one of those disproved possibilities to be taken seriously again, the burden of proof is squarely upon them to come up with a reason WHY it should be, and support that reason with evidence. This is the BASIS of science. How could someone trying to get it right get it so 100% wrong? Are you, in fact, trying to get science right — or just to steal its authority?
Why are people so opposed to the idea of a creator?
Has anyone disproved the existence of God yet?
Why can’t creationism be discussed as an option? or do we live in a police state where people aren’t allowed to make up their own damn minds even if that seems irrational to someone else who prefers evolutioniaty / evolutionism.
For Dan: I for myself believe in the flying spaghetti monster . It’s living between Mars and Jupiter. It’s invisible though it is a duplicity, i.e. the holy pan and the holy noodle. Can you disprove it ?
The question you ask sounds awkward to me. Think the other way around : why, in fact, should anybody NEED the idea of a creator ? Besides who created the creator ? And finally: do you know any atheist who ever thought of bombing believers to change their mind ?
This discussion shows the need to have qualified science teachers teaching science in schools. Science is all about opening your eyes to reality, and letting the truth come through your eyes. Religion is about faith. Without saying one is right and one is wrong, can’t we at least agree that they are two different things, and they should be taught in different classes?
Each time people have tried to mix the two, religion and its credibility eventually loses out. Do you REALLY want science teachers “teaching” your religion? They would do so, and in a predictably disrespectful fashion.
Visit countries with “official” religions, and then tell us that making this part of Christianity (let’s be honest about which religion we’re talking about) “official” will help the Christian religion. You would see by visiting those countries that it would probably have the opposite effect, and breed cynicism and distrust of “the government’s” religion.
Certainly in the UK where public education is often so abysmal it’s a luxury to teach anything other than maths, grammar, reading, writing and the basics of science and politics. Why bother children with problems that the greatest adult minds have been deeply puzzled by?
Basic education is the key to enlightenment for if a child is versed comprehensively in accessing his or her own information through a thorough grasp of language then for the remainder of his/her life all information within the human experience is always available. There is absolutely no need for major issues to do with the origin of time and matter to be introduced at this level of education.
One of the greatest and most original thinkers of the 20th Century, Ludwig Wittgenstein put it superbly, ‘what we do not know, we put pass over in silence’. And many many things we simply do not know, at least not in a sense that can be weighted and balanced.
Sorry made a typo in that Wittgenstein quote, it should read.
‘What we do not know, we must pass over in silence.’