Faith, not science

Think that the intelligent design zealots are confined to the US? Think again.

A recent survey in the UK asked respondents what they thought best described the origin and development of life. 48% said evolution, 39% said creationism or intelligent design, and 13% did not know. More seriously, over 40% of respondents said that creationism or intelligent design should be taught in school science lessons. It can't be long before some people start pressing for the same thing here.

Regardless of your beliefs, there is a very simple reason why neither creationism not intelligent design should be taught in a science class: they are not science. By definition, science is about establishing the validity of hypotheses through measurement and experimental investigation. However, the validity of creationism and intelligent design cannot be tested in this way - they are matters of faith.

By all means allow creationism and intelligent design to be taught in religious education lessons, but keep them out of the science classroom.

Comments

[Yet Another Limey on 26.01.06 at 14:00]

I doubt most people in the survey really know what ID is.

The wording was probably something like:
Do you believe the world was created according to genesis in the bible.
Or do you believe that all of life can be explained by Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Or do you think God had something to do with the creation of life.

Anyone calling themselves a Christian (or most other religions) must go for same degree of ID, they must believe that God created the ‘laws of physics’ that allow life to exist at the very least.

So I’m not too surprised by the result.

[jake on 26.01.06 at 14:06]

I learned about the various schools of thought on God's existence in Philosophy. I came away convinced that God does exist. Others took a different tack.

When discussing religious beliefs I think it is important to keep a context of respect and I suspect that the introduction of religion into the science room would not aid in that effort.

[tong on 26.01.06 at 14:19]

Yup, concur, Theology is a great thing to study about, but seperately from science. I am not religious but believe people should be educated about what else there is in the world.

[sandgrownan on 26.01.06 at 14:33]

Now it is such a bizarrely improbably coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful [the Babel fish] could have evolved by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

[sandgrownan on 26.01.06 at 14:34]

ID is total bollocks, anyone with an ounce of critical thought would deduce that. Darwin himself was a man of faith. Theology is another thing, as tong says, and has a place in school BUT NOT IN THE SCIENCE CLASSROOM.

[loki on 26.01.06 at 14:40]

If schools are going to teach ID as science in schools, then it is surely appropriate that also teach as science the theory of the Flying Spagetti Monster as a means of creation, as well:

http://www.venganza.org/

[Marcus on 26.01.06 at 16:00]

Oh hitchbhikers and the flying spagetti monster in the same thread, Cool

I have a friend who's a Religious Education teacher in the UK. And apart from the fact that she's a dyed in the wool card carrying pagan (you get brought up in Devon with Dartmoor as your back yard and it's hard to not be) her lessions are more about morals and ethics than ID type discussions. My person opinion is that religion is fine for studing in schools (from a comparitive religon/morals/ethics point of view) but if you want have a faith then learn about it in church or from like minded people.

Obviously not a widely held view :)

[drew on 26.01.06 at 16:03]

The difference between the U.S. and U.K. is that the ruling party is not activily trying to force creationalism into the schools. Thank god there's no such thing as old rich white southern senators in the U.K.

[Fire on 26.01.06 at 16:08]

It's funny reading all the above. When science was teaching the earth was flat the bible was teaching otherwise.

[tong on 26.01.06 at 16:10]

It's funny reading all the above. When science was teaching the earth was flat the bible was teaching otherwise.

explain further?

[Bill Cook on 26.01.06 at 16:15]

I would favour more information rather than less being an Agnostic.

Whatever we cannot understand we call God as it saves wear and tear on the brain, Faith is a cop out as it gives the excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, or perhaps even because of the lack of evidence.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able to ? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able but not willing? then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing ? Then where did evil come from ? Is he neither able or willing ?

Then why call him God ?

Would it not make more sense to inquire why we are here rather than how we got here as we know we are here we just dont know why.

[Murmur on 26.01.06 at 16:28]

The Rev. George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said placing intelligent design ideas alongside the theory of evolution in school programs was "wrong'' and was akin to mixing apples with oranges.

"Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be,'' the ANSA news agency quoted Coyne as saying on the sidelines of a conference in Florence. "If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science.''

[tong on 26.01.06 at 16:29]

Intelligent Design in my opinion is basically a political tool by a Christian Government to get Christan religious teachings back into schools. A way around the law. Seems to be the modus operandi for western politics at the moment.
Allow choice through religious education. Not religious indoctrination.

[allandsundry on 26.01.06 at 16:32]

tong,

I believe Fire is simply pointing out that church doctrine, as far as it has sought to oppose science and the pursuit of knowledge in matters non-spiritual, has always been proven wrong. Always.

a.

[david on 26.01.06 at 16:33]

Have you ever realised how people who believe in creationism look really unevolved. Big hands and furry feet. "I believe god created me in one day". Yep looks like he rushed it.

Bill Hicks RIP

As they great man said, how do people who believe in creatinism account for dinosaurs and the lack of its mention in the bible?

[Silencio on 26.01.06 at 16:37]

I'm gonna bite cuz I think that a degree of faith is required in following evolution as well. So is the theory then that if it cannot be measured, it does not exist? Mind you, I don't want religion taught in schools. I just laugh at the degree of "rightness" many of you use in speaking about evolution. The way I figure it, unless you were actually there when it happened, you cannot ultimately prove or disprove anything about the start of life. All you have is a hypothesis about how things happened and how long it took to happen.

Additionally, many of you will read all manner of science journal professing some kind of test and result. Just like the Sunday Schoolers, this information is accepted without you personally witnessing the test. Sounds like a bit of blind faith to me.

PS: Remember when the all the planets and stars used to circle the earth? Oh and about that missing link.

[tong on 26.01.06 at 16:45]

Piltdown Man was my personal fave!

[sandgrownan on 26.01.06 at 16:50]

Silencio - it's alway useful to play devils advocate and second guess a hypothesis. That prevents it from being "Blind Faith" (Great band by the way) There was a feature in National Geographic a couple of years back titled "Was Darwin wrong?"

The answer was a conclusive NO, and in fact each day brings a new discovery that adds to the wealth of knowledge that backs up..and I hesitate to say, his theory.However, It's safe to say that it's no longer a theory: it's effectively fact.

If you can't measure it, does it exist? Probably not, I'm afraid. But that doesn't preclude faith either. As I said earlier, Darwin himself was a deeply religious man.

As for reading science journals and listening to a Sunday school teacher - hardly an appropriate analogy. And the point is that somebody in living history has prepared a hypothesis, devised an experiment to prove or disprove that hypothesis and then has gone on the draw a conclusion. There is no comparison.

[Fire on 26.01.06 at 16:52]

It is ironic that so many of you have such faith in science and such ridicule for those with faith. Science has NEVER proven anything.

[sandgrownan on 26.01.06 at 16:55]

Fire - are you serious?

[sandgrownan on 26.01.06 at 16:56]

like the earth isn't round? Proved hundreds of years ago before the famous photograph?
Have you any idea how utterly stupid that sounds?

[Triforce on 26.01.06 at 17:00]

Many years ago I chatted with a SDA member and he said that dinosaurs and the like did exist, but not millions of years ago as Darwinism would require, but were created same time as the other animals. But sin was responsible for those creatures dying off early and the whole carbon-dating process flawed because sin sped up the decay process, or something like that. Why no T-Rex spottings in the Bible? Heck, they didn't mention rhinos or giraffes either.

Anyway, religion can be interpreted to match up with science, or at least approximate it.

[Marcus on 26.01.06 at 17:06]

Fire,

I know people who can prove 2+2=4, this is mathematical proof, as opposed to just counting.

Science has proved lots of things. And even more importantly disproved even more.

I will deffinatly agree that there can be a cult of personality about scientists and science. But one of the points of science is that you make theories and then do experiments to support or disprove your theory.

I think you can understand science and still have faith (or belief) in something.

[Yet Another Limey on 26.01.06 at 17:15]

like the earth isn't round?

It isn't round it's an oblate spheroid.

I think some people's problem with science is that it keeps disproving itself.

You get to learn simple science at school
Then get told to throw all that away and learn better science at college
Then realise you can throw all that away and join the forefront of scientific thinking.

I was quite happy thinking that there are 180 degrees in a triangle, or that if you multiply speed and time you get distance, or multiply current and resistance to get voltage, or electrons spinning round atoms like planets in a solar system.

All that learning just to find out none of is quite true.

I often think that Darwin's theory of evolution is still hanging around because there hasn't been a bright enough biologist born to come up with the next big step.

In some ways I'd prefer ID to be taught in schools as it's easier to point out it's flaws, which might allow our next bright biologist to come up with something new without being constraied by the current dogma that Darwin was right and all else is wrong.

PS Marcus, a good mathematician can prove 2+2=anything they want it to, it's just a matter of what axioms you use.

[Marcus on 26.01.06 at 17:19]

Yet another..

so if anything=4 I'm right ;)

[allandsundry on 26.01.06 at 17:20]

tong,

Okay, perhaps I misunderstood Fire's original post. I can only think it's because I could not fathom it.

My apologies.

Fire,

Evolution is derived from evidence. It is a theory, yes, and it is not perfect, no, but it was arrived at in a painstakingly manner.

ID or creationism, on the other hand, began with the theory and seeks to selectively force evidence to fit it.

Which method would you trust?

a.

[sandgrownan on 26.01.06 at 17:26]

YAL - oh you pedant - alright, it's flattened at the poles and slightly fatter in the southern hemisphere, but that's not the point I was making and you know it.

The point about science that you make is correct, but rather than disproving itself it adapts as our reasoning, experimentation and discoveries improve. It's not a problem.

It teaches people to be critical, to back up statements with proof, to be analytical and provide conclusions.

The statement that Darwinism is dogma however, is wrong.

[sandgrownan on 26.01.06 at 17:41]

Science by its very nature encourages criticism, doubt, new research, new ideas, and improving the vat of knowledge. But everything is an evolution of what we know now, rather than a big breakthrough.

Darwinism has not been "disproved" by a super bright biologist because there hasn't yet been such an earth shattering discovery. Don't you think many alternative hypothesis have been kicked around? And none really fit the evidence.

[Bill Cook on 26.01.06 at 18:28]

In those parts of the world where learning and science have prevailed, miracles have ceased; but in those parts that are still barbarous and ignorant, miracles are still in vogue !

Men have had the vanity to pretend that the whole creation was made for them, while in reality the whole creation does not suspect their existence.

[sandgrownan on 26.01.06 at 18:35]

Bill - absolutely not, vanity has nothing to do with it. That's the real philosophical question - what's the purpose of all this, if in fact there is a purpose? There may not be one at all!

[hotspur on 26.01.06 at 19:01]

“Why no T-Rex spottings in the Bible? Heck, they didn't mention rhinos or giraffes either”

Hang on, I’m not standing for blasphemy. I happen to know from reading the Bible (the chapter on Christmas) that Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem on a Rhino.

[Marcus on 26.01.06 at 19:08]

Doesn't the miracle thing also tie in with science /technology being so advanced people without experience of them would call them magic or miracles.

I mean would people 2 generations ago have believed that I could communciate with people I have never met all over the world. And also that I could carry around all the knowledge in the palm of my hand. Or that I could conjure and destroy demons with my hands.

If you extrapolate the advances technology/science had made over the last one hundred years and assume that these advances keep the rate of change that has been seen over this time, would we the ones that couldn't differentiate common technology from magic or miracles.

[SmokingGun on 26.01.06 at 19:25]

"Science has NEVER proven anything."

Try this trick the next time you're in church.

I learned just last night that one can stick your hand in boiling molten lead and it will not get burned. All you have to do is dip your hand in water first and make sure the lead is really hot. The steam will insulate your hand.

I wonder who it was who first tried this particular science project. I'd like to shake his hand. Just to see if it's still there.

God I love playing with fire.....

[Ethiops on 26.01.06 at 20:14]

Some would argue the people in the bible never lived; which would explain why we don't have any of their bones on display anywhere in world museums.

Some would say the bible is 100% misunderstood african astrology.

[Bill Cook on 26.01.06 at 20:17]

Sandy,

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.

[sandgrownan on 26.01.06 at 20:51]

Hey Bill, but look on the brightside, if there is no purpose we can spend our 4 score and ten skiing.

[Keith on 26.01.06 at 21:03]

I noticed a lot of people are mentioning faith and religon as though they are one in the same, is it not possible to have faith but not be religious? Please someone let me know. There is also the issue of the church and state. i believe that church should be kept out of politics, however especially in Bermuda the church has major influence on laws that are made (i.e casino's). As far as ID is concerned it would be a good idea to teach it in school but DEFINITLY NOT in the same class as science.

[Full Fullish on 26.01.06 at 21:44]

Keith, of course it's possible to have faith and not religion. I'm not religious in the slightest, however I have loads of faith, faith in myself.

[Slowhand on 26.01.06 at 21:45]

The Bible is not the history of man or of the earth, so why would you want it to mention dinosaurs? The Bible has a purpose, but that is not it.

In order to believe the THEORY of Evolution, there must be a level of faith, as there are too many 'missing links' otherwise it would be a fact. There are some Creationists that do not believe in God, so bundling all Creationists together in one religious group will not work.

I have my own 'theory' of how things began, and I like to think that I have imparted that to my children along with all the reasonings involved, encouraging them to prove to themselves as I have done. They have been exposed to other theorys, even though they attend a Catholic school, and I think it is important that they be aware of other beliefs, so as long as they are taught that such things are not the 'end all and be all' I do not have a problem with it.

[Uncle Elvis on 26.01.06 at 22:04]

"There are some Creationists that do not believe in God, so bundling all Creationists together in one religious group will not work.

Wait... WHAT? How can that be? Can we get a link to this?

[Bill Akin on 27.01.06 at 06:24]

Well, when the spanner slips on a bolt, I call on God for reperation. I do know as well that my knucles bleed just the same.
Regards,BillA

[sandgrownan on 27.01.06 at 08:24]

I have to debate just one point Slowhand - evolution is not a theory. Nothing to do with faith, just a look at available evidence. It may get modified as we discover more, but it is, to all intents and purposes, a conclusion based on the available evidence. A fact.

[Bill Cook on 27.01.06 at 08:36]

Quite so indeed,

Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence !!

[Shark on 27.01.06 at 09:19]

To the topic ID and creationism should be kept out of a science classroom as they are not scince.
Personaly i belive in god and science. Science can infact support god. An example is that the Bible says the world was created in 7 days. I dont take this literaly as what is a day to God? To us a day is 24 houres, but to God it could be several million years or longer (which supports Dinosures fossils and all that). To evolution i think god gave creatures the ability to adapt and survive. It all comes down to how it is interpreted.

[Silencio on 27.01.06 at 09:48]

Sandgrownan,

"If you can't measure it, does it exist? Probably not, I'm afraid."

Can you give me the precise mathematical formula for measuring love, hate, good and evil? Cuz according to scientific theory of measurement, it just doesn't exist!

[Marcus on 27.01.06 at 10:44]

Silencio,

You can measure something without needing a precise mathematical formula.

I can measure love in how my wife looks at me when I do something nice for her.

I can measure hate/anger in what I would do to someone who hurt her.

Good and evil are harder (and both easier) as I'm not hugely sure they do exist. It's said evil to kill a baby (until baby turned out to be Pol Pot or Hitler). It's said to be good to protect your family from bad things until doing so means that you're taking land/protection/life etc from someone else's family. Spanish Inquistion/Crusades?

Good and evil are used as ways of exusing ourselves of our bahaviour and pretending that we would never do what someone else has done.

[sandgrownan on 27.01.06 at 10:46]

I was thinking in terms of the existance of God, but Silencio, you make a good point. Love, Hate, are emotions however, and I suspect that they can be measured in terms of specific brain activity. For example, we know depression can be treated by drugs in some caes, because there's actually a physical chemical imbalance to correct.

So, I hear you, and it's a clever argument, but not conclusive.

[Marcus on 27.01.06 at 10:51]

Sandgrownan,

Better answer than mine. :)

[sandgrownan on 27.01.06 at 11:04]

I still prefer Douglas Adams' explanation!

[Marcus on 27.01.06 at 11:24]

you got a link to that, I can't remember if off the top of my head. As long as you're talking about 42 ;)