Science teacher insists the earth is less than 10,000 years old
Richard Dawkins highlights UK education scandal
Eminent (and eminently sensible) scientist and philosopher Richard Dawkins interviewed a chemistry teacher at a ‘well-respected’ Yorkshire secondary school on TV last night. A teacher who stated - clearly and unashamedly - that he truly believed the earth was less than ten thousand years old.
A creationist, he has the gall to drag his personal religious beliefs into the classroom.
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.
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