Science teacher insists the earth is less than 10,000 years old
Richard Dawkins highlights UK education scandal
Richard Dawkins interviewed a chemistry teacher at a ‘well-respected’ Yorkshire secondary school on TV last night. A teacher who said that he truly believed the earth was less than ten thousand years old. What a twat.
You wouldn’t enjoy seeing The Nurse livid, gnashing her teeth and tearing out her own hair. It is a great challenge to remain calm in the face of such outrageously provocative nutterdom.
The Nurse wonders why people these days insist on confusing religion with science. Why blur the boundaries?
At school in the 1960s and ’70s she remembers that science was taught in science classes and religious studies was taught during RE lessons. The two didn’t mix. One was true, the other wasn’t. And on a common sense level, everyone knew it.
Okay, loads of The Nurse’s fellow pupils believed in god. Mostly because they were too dippy at that age to think for themselves. But they certainly didn’t believe that the bible contained historical, factual truth. Few, if any, of us were that stupid.
The Nurse doubts that anyone with an ounce of common sense would believe that the bible was ever intended to be taken as fact. Surely it was supposed to be read as allegorical, speaking figuratively rather than literally, representational rather than factual?
Far from inspiring a second renaissance and a new age of wisdom, Darwin’s great truth is still being ignored by countless billions of people. And now they’re getting to your children too. If The Nurse had a kid at that school she’d rip the teacher’s head off and post it down his silly throat. Then she’d do the same to the Headmaster.
The Nurse advises parents to check their child’s school has religion and science in proper perspective. Schools never used to get so confused and mixed up. It is a very recent thing and it needs to be nipped in the bud. The Nurse’s fingers are itching at the thought of a spot of brutal yet effective bud-nipping. But it’s up to you lot… she’s imprisoned in this dismal place for the rest of her life.
Parents, please take matters into you own hands and demand enlightened progress rather than a slow slide backwards into ignorance and superstition.
They’ll be burning atheists at the stake next.
Ref: http://www.acorscadden.com/atheism/biology-teachers-degree-revoked/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb/17/evolution-versus-creationism-science
bremblebeck wrote,
But isn’t it equally invalid for evolution to be taught without leaving any room for other possibilities?
Link | August 29th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
max johnson wrote,
Thank you for your very interesting blog
Very useful blog
http://www.youtube-youtube-youtube.com
Link | November 5th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Selma from dental supplies wrote,
it would be nice if everyone just dumped this silly religion business so we could get on with learning and making the world a better place.
Link | November 10th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
JTK wrote,
No, its not. If the other possibilities were science, they would already be in the science classes and evolution would not be.
Link | November 10th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
chris wrote,
“But isn’t it equally invalid for evolution to be taught without leaving any room for other possibilities?”
This comment is just thinly veiled ignorance using false innocence to attempt to hide an agenda. The fact is that superstition and religion (redundant, I know) do not belong in the same classroom. There is absolutely nothing scientific about religion, superstition, or anything supernatural. Suggesting that creation be taught alongside evolutionary theory is akin to requesting astrology be taught next to astronomy, alchemy next to chemistry, Intelligent Falling next to the theory of gravity.. you get the gist. But to humour you, I’ll answer your question. Maybe I’ll cure some of that ignorance.
Science always leaves room for other possibilities! That’s how it works. Make an observation, a prediction, test by experiment, evaluate its validity. Modify, refine or discard the idea as needed. Rinse, repeat. When there is a legitimate, objectively observable record of something that supports creation, science will accommodate it. As of now, there is exactly zero evidence of this sort. So it stays out of the science classroom. End of story.
Now quit crying because your superstitions aren’t supported by science. Quit picking and choosing what scientific advancements you want to listen to. You can’t discard evolution and then jump onto an airplane. Or maybe you can. If so, get off of the computer. They actually run on magic, and when you use them, baby Jesus cries.
Link | November 11th, 2008 at 6:50 am
Etum wrote,
@ bremblebeck
No, teaching evolution is NOT as invalid as teaching creationism. Even if future scientists happen to find that evolution is wrong (which, given all the evidence that supports the theory, seems highly unlikely), it is still the very best theory we have that explains how life came to be what it is today. It is based on observable facts, as opposed to creationism, which is based on absolutely nothing.
Link | November 11th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Alexander wrote,
No.
There are large gaps right now in our understanding of gravity, just as there are in our understanding of evolution. We have no idea what keeps galaxies in their current formations, for instance, and have had to ‘make up’ large quantities of unobserved objects and forces to make the theory fit. The reason we teach gravity as it is taught now is because that model produces useful predictions, and no more useful model exists.
Why should evolution be approached differently than gravity? The existence of flaws in our understanding doesn’t mean that we should throw out the proverbial books. We teach what we *do* know with certainty, and describe what that likely means. Students are welcome to conclude on their own, when presented with the facts of the fossil record, laboratory biogenesis, and observable bacterial evolution, anything they like.
To conclude, evolution enables us to predict all of the above findings, as well as conclude that diseases will continue to mutate. ID, on the other hand, asks that we abandon the ability to predict biological change, as it is controlled by some unpredictable outside force. Regardless of the fact the ID lacks any facts to support it, it is useless, and therefore even if it was correct it would belong alongside English literature: outside of the science classroom.
Link | November 11th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
indigoandblack wrote,
No.
As of right now, there *are* no other scientific theories on the table to be given equal time. (Be sure you understand what “theory” means to science.) Creationism isn’t science: it’s a concept with origins in mythology (whether or not you want to admit that that’s what “religion” is).
Link | November 11th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
The Nameless wrote,
No, it is not. As long as a “theory” (as creationist types like to call it) has more evidence backing it up than any other, it is the likely truth.
Also, just because evolution is taught doesn’t mean there is no room for other possibilities. If someone tells a kid that gravity pulls them to the Earth, they are still free to believe that it’s actually an invisible unicorn pushing their head down.
Link | November 11th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
anon wrote,
Other possibilities such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Evolution is a more accepted scientific theory than gravity. Does god keep you stuck to the planet?
Link | November 12th, 2008 at 12:01 am
Pewpewarrows wrote,
@bremblebeck, Show me another scientific theory that has substantial proof and I’ll gladly accept it being taught alongside evolution.
Until then, evolution should be taught in the same vain and manner as other scientifically-accepted theories such as gravity and the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Sure, you could argue that there are possibly other explanations as to why things fall down, but I don’t see you arguing heaven and earth to get those ideas placed in the classroom, now do I?
Link | November 12th, 2008 at 12:06 am
Zyphix wrote,
At breblebeck:
So far there are not any valid possibilities to be taught beside evolution.
Link | November 12th, 2008 at 12:17 am
Brian wrote,
@#1 (bremblebeck):
No, because of your word “possibilities”. That word leaves so many “options” open that it would take lifetimes to document them all.
Yes, because if there are ever any scientific theories, tested and re-tested over and over again, all following the accepted scientific methods, they would indeed be taught in a science classroom — with the backing of the entire scientific community.
The problem with this particular teacher claiming that the Earth is less than ten thousand years old is that he cannot scientifically back up his claims with evidence. Could he be right? Sure. But if you accept his claim with no evidence, you also have to accept other claims (every single god in every single religion for example) with no evidence.
Science classrooms should be kept for teaching current scientific knowledge, and the progression of such. The teacher’s opinion is perfectly within his rights, but should stay out of classrooms to allow students to interpret data and come up with conclusions on their own, all based on evidence.
Link | November 12th, 2008 at 12:27 am
Garrett wrote,
It WOULD be, if there were any other valid alternatives.
Before you invoke the name of “theory,” I invite you to look into the scientific definition of theory.
Real scientists know that Evolution is a fact, as well as a theory. It is not disputed in in intelligencia circles. This should clear up any misinformation you have been a victim of. Glad I could be of help.
=]
Link | November 12th, 2008 at 12:56 am
ehutch wrote,
of topic but.. are you aware that there are gay animals? well, there most certainly are. deal with it.
Link | November 12th, 2008 at 1:11 am
Sha wrote,
Bremblebeck, no it is not invalid. Evolution is the best way of describing the world we have now. Could you imagine teaching Astrology along with Astronomy, Alchemy and Chemistry, Leaching and Medicine?
Link | November 12th, 2008 at 1:38 am
Tomte wrote,
Just curious, who exactly is “The Nurse”? Why does this stray from it’s initial topic about the teacher who says the world is less than 10k years old? Why do you appeal by saying “They’ll be burning atheists at the stake next.”? Any link available to this interview in question?
Lots of questions at once.
This seems to me like the usual propaganda atheists use, or for that matter, any religious people. They find some idiot spouting nonsense, crucifies him and makes sure everyone knows that this person of authority is an idiot…. and so it goes on.
Sometimes I understand why religious people call atheism a religion.
(I’m an atheist myself, or agnostic at least, so don’t come bashing down on me thinking you’ve found a creationist)
Link | November 12th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Jack from Baby Names wrote,
Religion shouldn’t be mixed with science…they are of different views!
Link | November 29th, 2008 at 3:59 am
Scy wrote,
Should be stripped of teaching credentials without a doubt.
Perhaps we should teach alchemy next to chemistry. Sick to DEATH of these ignorant fools They have no place in society. We need to give them an island.
Link | February 3rd, 2009 at 6:19 am
Kayree wrote,
Humans have rights. I’m sure even The Nurse agrees, that to speak is amoung those certain rights. If the teacher chose to voice their opinions on such matters, it is absolutely assinine to prevent them their rights. In a recent international poll, 47% of participants “outright” and “convincibaly” disagreed and refused Darwin’s arguement. Add to those another 7-10% who hushed their arguements due to fear of being subjected to this blatant and ignorant attack people such as The Nurse direct at them. Darwin himself refuted much of his theory. Taking the “missing link” into account. Where is it?
We have the monkey.
We have the human.
But where, oh where, has our missing link gone? Oh dear, the bottom of the ocean? I’d prefer to state, yes, I dare to state that there isn’t one. Because while we are similar to primates, we ourselves are not directly related. Our chromosomes match up differently. This would be to suggest they mutated SO correctly that we ourselves are deformed monkeys with the ability to talk and to distinguish out surroundings the way people do.
I suggest you all watch a movie called “Expelled”. It is not taught from a Christian, Catholic, Jewish, or even creationist point of view. But it provides meaningful insight into this world we live in and also deals with the theories many of you probably indulge in.
I pray for you, even if you hate me for it, I have the right to speak.
And speak I must when called “stupid” or “ignorant”.
Link | March 26th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Bible Study Man wrote,
“If The Nurse had a kid at that school she’d rip the teacher’s head off and post it down his silly throat. Then she’d do the same to the Headmaster.”
Are you serious? Perhaps natural selection at work here. Have we forgotten morals?
Link | April 18th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Consulting Rooms Harley Street wrote,
Of course there is a possibility that evolution taught in schools (and elsewhere) is not 100% accurate. However, it is likely that it is mostly accurate given the evidence.
The important difference between science and religion is that science is based on evidence and religion is not. We should not be taught religion as fact, as there is no evidence to support it. It is basically the equivalent of me making up a story about man eating cheese and then finding out it is true. The chances of any religious beliefs being accurate are virtually no existent.
Link | August 11th, 2009 at 11:03 am
5530 Blog wrote,
Gods book is the rule book.
Follow the rules.
He is the umpire.
He calls the balls and strikes.
You are but dust.
Talk to your creator and ask Him.
Link | September 3rd, 2009 at 1:24 am
Avery wrote,
There are many methods that can be used to find the actual age of the earth, as various effects can be measured over a period of time and used to establish the historical time line.
The Shrinking Sun
Since 1836, observations of the sun indicate it is shrinking about five feet an hour. Studies show this has been true for at least 400 years. At this rate, 100,000 years ago the sun would be twice as large as it is today. Twenty million years ago the sun would have touched the earth.
The Moon’s Dust
Interplanetary dust and meteors is depositing dust on the moon at the rate of at least 14,300,000 tons per year. At this rate, if the moon were 4.5 billion years old there would be at least 440 feet of dust on the moon. The astronauts, however, found a layer only 1/8 to three inches thick. Three inches would take only 8000 years. Even evolutionists believe the moon is the same age as the earth, giving the earth’s age as only 8000 years.
The Magnetic Field
The earth has a magnetic field that is constantly decreasing due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The half-life of the magnetic field is 1400 years. Only 2800 years ago the magnetic field would be four times as strong as it is now. Only 10,000 years ago the magnetic field would be as strong as a magnetic star and be a nuclear power source as the sun. For this reason the earth could not be more than 10,000 years old.
The Earth’s Rotation
The rotation of the earth is gradually slowing down at about .00002 seconds a year. The lost energy is transferred to the moon. The moon, therefore, is slowly moving away from the earth at about 4 centimeters a year. This would put the moon in contact with the earth less than 2 billion years ago. Yet, if the moon were closer than about 11,500 miles, the moon would be broken into tiny pieces, much as the rings of Saturn.
The Missing Helium
Helium is generated as radioactive uranium decays. This is known as radiogenic helium, and is the primary source of helium in the earth’s atmosphere. If the earth were really 4.5 billion years old as claimed by the evolutionists, the atmosphere would be saturated with this helium. But it isn’t. Where did it go? It can’t escape to space. The simple answer, of course, is that the earth isn’t really that old.
The Comet Mystery
Comets, as they orbit the sun, are literally torn apart by gravitational forces, internal explosions, and solar winds. Short period comets can’t exist for more than 10,000 years. Most astronomers believe that comets originated at the same time as the solar system. That limits the age of the solar system to about 10,000 years.
Link | September 10th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
Ida Ljunqvist wrote,
10.000 years ago to now wow what a science
Link | September 23rd, 2009 at 1:49 am
Rory from Miracles, Signs and Wonders wrote,
The most common ‘proof’ of long ages is radioactive dating.
However, reliability of radioactive dating depends on a number of unproveable assumptions, so the age of the earth cannot be determined by observational science. These unproved and unproveable assumptions include the rate of radioactive decay being constant, no daughter atoms in the beginning, and no parent or daughter atoms added to or taken from the rocks.
Whenever we do see rocks form today, we always see daughter atoms in the beginning, so evolutionary dogma contradicts observational, true science. The fact is we can’t possibly know the beginning state of the rocks or if radioactive decay processes have remained constant throughout all time, and without knowing if these foundational assumptions are true, the long age house rests on loose sand instead of the Rock.
Since the age of the Earth cannot be proven by observational science, educators and schoolbooks should present the different worldviews of an intelligent Creator as well as naturalism, and allow students to make their own choices, instead of brainwashing them with the intolerant religion of evolution.
Link | September 24th, 2009 at 7:21 am
Herb Shallcross wrote,
Interesting to see the Nurse all in a huff about teaching something that isn’t substantiated by science in schools. Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” can’t be shown in British public schools without telling the little ones that it doesn’t represent both sides of the issue, and the tykes must be told about nine(or is it eleven?) whoppers old Al tells in the movie.
The man-made global warming hypothesis doesn’t stand examination using the scientific method. Some of the most important research at the Hadley Center at East Anglia University, and NASA has been shown to be fudged, and fraud has been discovered by those trying to cover it up.
If the nurse really believes science is superior to religion, she should learn what science is, and fight against hucksters attempting to abuse the average dope’s misunderstanding of science in order to get money and power for themselves.
Link | December 27th, 2009 at 8:52 am
Herbert L. Shallcross III wrote,
Congratulations, Avery!
While I think it very likely that the age of the universe is much more than 10,000 years, I realize that is just a belief, based on incomplete information. More important, I understand that science is always, by definition, open to new evidence. There is no such thing as “Settled Science”, or “Scientific Concensus”.
There are lay people with hardened ideas, of course. Even in the face of contradictory evidence, for example, lots of people believe in the fraudulent manmade global warming hypothesis, and want massive governmental intervention to combat it.
In my country, the United States, at one time we understood that the rights of man plus the power of government equals a constant. Any increase in government power comes at the expense of individual liberty. I personally believe the whole manmade global warming hoax was perpetrated to forward the creation of a universal totalitarian government.
Link | January 9th, 2010 at 6:19 pm
Stan from More Youtube Views wrote,
I am a christian and a believer in evolution. You can not overlook the science that is presented,
But you can not overlook all of the people that WITNESSED first hand all of the miracles that god and his son did. I witness them every day even after his death.
Link | April 18th, 2010 at 10:07 pm
Joy from Medical Uniforms wrote,
Eventhough we have different religions, we have different beliefs in life. One thing is for sure we have only one GOD.
Link | June 24th, 2010 at 10:14 am
Dr. Carol Galliano from Baton Rouge cosmetic dentist wrote,
weird. but interesting. Too each his own.
Link | August 20th, 2010 at 12:17 am
belmont nc homes wrote,
I believe in God and Jesus and all that good stuff, but I might be more inclined to believe believe the earth is closer to 5 billion years old than 10K. I’m not saying this guy is wrong at all, but it is tough to dispute science. And then you could say God Made the science to support the belief in an older earth just to keep “faith” alive. I like the fact that the bible and science often disagree with each other. I think it keeps life interesting. What about that burning bush is the bible? Or Jonah being swallowed by that whale? Did that stuff really happen? I think what it boils down to is that folks are going to disagree. We don’t have to do a science project to figure this one out
Thanks for posting the article
Link | May 21st, 2011 at 6:57 pm