Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Who are the British Creationists? Should it be discussed in School?

Just Who are the British Creationists?

This is the question posed by the BBC site (hotlink above) prompted by a comment by Professor Michael Reiss (BBC Link) where he thinks that Creationism should be allowed to be discussed in a Science lesson if a pupil brings it up. From what I gather this is purely from the point of view that this would then enable the teacher to point out, in his view, that Creationism had no scientific basis and that Darwinian molecules to man Evolution does. He believes it is better to open dialogue in order to hopefully 'educate' a person in a real scientific view.  To quote:

"However, if a young person raises creationism in a science class, teachers should be in a position to explain why evolution is a sound scientific theory and why creationism is not, in any way, scientific."

Now this created a complete overreaction by some more vocal evolutionary evangelicals in the scientific community. I am not sure if they just read the media and believed the misquotes and assumptions made and got all emotional rather than approaching it 'scientifically' and finding out some facts first. However this has led to Professor Reiss being pressured into resigning his position as 'Director of Education' of the Royal Society (BBC Link).

All I can say is what does this tell us about the scientific community in this country. Are they so arrogant or threatened when anyone mentions Creationism that they react like this. If they are so sure they are right and Creationists are wrong then why are they so threatened by one of their own suggesting lets actually engage these young people in the classroom in the hope of convincing them that Molecules to Man evolutionary theory is the only scientific viewpoint.

As Dr Ross Rosevear, curator of the Genesis Expo museum and part of the UK Creation Science Movement, says in the first article I linked too.

"All we are saying is that it is not unreasonable to present an alternative explanation of how life began,"

The article fails to mention that he is a Biochemist who used to lecture at the University of Portsmouth and knows his stuff. He is not some ignorant crackpot with is head buried in the sand. Neither are most true Creationists, who have usually read widely both sides of the debate and are either actual research scientists or lay people with a scientific interest. I count myself in that second category. Many I know are former Evolutionists who realised the argument is in no way as cut and dry as the likes of Dawkins would like everyone to think.

So I am one of these British Creationists. I am not ignorant, stupid, blind or unquestioning. I question everything! This is why I 'AM' a Creationist when I looked at what I was taught in science class and what I was being bombarded with in the media. It didn't all fit and make logical sense.

I do believe genetic mutation coupled with natural selection causes changes/adaptations in the animal kingdom but only within kind. The straw man argument used that Creationists don't believe in Evolution is nonsense. Humans have artificially done to dogs for hundreds of years what would have taken thousands of years naturally to accomplish and they are still 100% dog and always will be. Just one example. No amount of this process could create the complexity and diversity of life we have today from a single common ancestor.

In some respects I think it will be difficult for teachers to deal with children who raise the Creationists viewpoint in class. They, the teacher, will have no understanding of it and likely the child will know more than them. They may end up losing any authority with the young people when they are unable to counter a strong Creationist argument or show Darwinian Molecules to man Evolutionary theory is in fact provable in science...... cause it isn't!

No comments: