Richard Dawkins Celebrates a Victory over Creationists

In a recent thread, I proposed that intelligent design is dead – that the intelligent design movement (which combines the political demand to teach a form of creationism in schools as an alternative to evolutionary theory with a programme of pseudoscientific 'research' to prove that life on Earth was created) has failed in its objectives and has now run out of steam.

Of course, the thread quickly degenerated into the usual 'creationism is true!/no, evolution is true!' ping-pong match. A few ID supporters did attempt to post evidence for life in the movement, but all they were able to come up with were a few obscure papers, some of dubious provenance, that referenced intelligent design without necessarily supporting it. The summary result of that effort was to suggest that ID is indeed dead.

And today, we read of another defeat for the intelligent design movement, this time in the UK:

Richard Dawkins Celebrates a Victory over Creationists

Leading scientists and naturalists, including Professor Richard Dawkins and Sir David Attenborough, are claiming a victory over the creationist movement after the government ratified measures that will bar anti-evolution groups from teaching creationism in science classes.

The Department for Education has revised its model funding agreement, allowing the education secretary to withdraw cash from schools that fail to meet strict criteria relating to what they teach. Under the new agreement, funding will be withdrawn for any free school that teaches what it claims are "evidence-based views or theories" that run "contrary to established scientific and/or historical evidence and explanations".

It seems – and sensible people, who want their children properly educated, will breathe a sigh of relief at this – that in the UK, for the foreseeable future, intelligent design really is finished.

reply to post by Astyanax


I don't understand why they have to be mutually exclusive -

Surely evolution could be designed intelligently ?

Originally posted by skonaz
reply to post by Astyanax

 

I don't understand why they have to be mutually exclusive -

Surely evolution could be designed intelligently ?

Or indeed intelligence could have evolved?

Always hold a mirror to every argument.

Originally posted by mr-lizard

Originally posted by skonaz
reply to post by Astyanax

 

I don't understand why they have to be mutually exclusive -

Surely evolution could be designed intelligently ?

Or indeed intelligence could have evolved?

Always hold a mirror to every argument.

Touche' !

reply to post by skonaz

Yours was a very quick response, I must say. The thread's only been up five minutes.

Life may well have been created, but there is no scientific evidence to show that it was. Therefore, you cannot honestly teach creationism in schools as if it were true.

It certainly is possible that life was originally created, even if it isn't very likely.

What is intelligence?

can we create it? if so life could have been created?

if we cant, the unintelligence that created intelligence, is more intelligent then us?

As long as Schools know that

Evolution is a theory supported by a lot of evidence, test and observation.


Creationism is a belief without evidence.


Let the kids decide! i really feel bad for the kids with religious parents.

In my opinion schools shouldn't teach evolution or creationism exclusively as if they were true. They should teach both side by side, and present both ideas as possibilities to the students, without bias, so that students can make their own decisions for themselves. This may have been a victory for Richard Dawkins because he believes evolution is fact, but one fact I know is that evolution isn't 100% fact, and therefore the door should be left open for kids to choose for themselves rather than be taught one or the other. Even if evolution was taught in science class and intelligent design was taught in history class, that would be much more fair.

This is a good thing.

Intelligent Design should not be taught in schools.

Anything that is NOT USEFUL to people should not be taught in schools.

Evolution is useful. MANY things have been discovered because of evolution, MANY things have been discovered, and turned into a benefit for all of mankind, because of evolution. I can go and provide evidence if anybody would like.

If people want to teach there kids the Bible, and not Evolution, NO PROBLEM! We live in The United States of America, and unlike other places, we are "more than" tolerant of all religions and beliefs. Yes, the parents have to send there kids to private schools in order for them to learn the Bible, but that's how it should be.

I want my taxpayer dollars teaching students things that will BENEFIT the students.

However, I do make one concession:

I have no problems if (in relavant classes/ courses where evolution is taught), I have no problem with teachers saying, (and only once, as part of "Chapter 1" for example), "The Bible teaches that God created the heavens and the Earth and everything." BUT THAT IS IT. That one sentence should be the ONLY thing regarding creationism that should be mentioned in school.

Well, that's my 2 cents.

reply to post by oak123


Creationism/Intelligent Design only has a place in a comparative religions class. It has no basis in empirical data or historical record. Of course the ID/Creationist groups tend to lean towards a Christian worldview therefore they probably wouldn't be happy with it being taught in a comp. religions class as that would involve teaching all creation myths.

Because school is the place where we learn absolute truths...

Things you learned in school that are wrong

School is not about education its about indoctrination into societal norms

All this shows is as a country we are moving to a post-theological society and school is merely changing to reflect that.

Lets not get all high and mighty about how schools should be bastions of true knowledge, they are not and never have been.

Look up the protest that arose when school was first made mandatory in the US, many felt it was to destroy the power of the individual skilled labor, with the invention of the assembly line it became more important to have drones than free thinking trades men, but that's a thread all in of itself.

I am glad that schools are required to teach truth. If we consider, the intelligence that is clearly evident in the universe, with regards to Pantheism we can reconcile this debate with spirituality. If one is to believe that intelligence can arise from evolution, it would also stand to reason that intelligence can be present in non biological systems with sufficient complexity. It would appear that much of the universe exhibits self-similarity, so with this in mind, I certainly believe that there exists Universal intelligence of some sort.

I believe evolution is the most logical reason for how humans came to be. I don't think creationism offers any viable answers.

But I disagree with Dawkins, and many like him, who have a ravenous, vitriol-laced hatred towards anything religious and Creationist. Whether a creator god made us, or we evolved from lower life forms, why do we argue over this? I've always found this one of those interesting things humans do. Arguing over the origin of life. Aren't you here now? What does it matter how you got here?

Thanks for posting this and thank god they are not teaching creationism in schools. Pun intended.

Glad that his victory has been won if only in the UK for the time being, to get religion out of schools is a great thing.

I wish this had passed anywhere in north America as I would have been happier, but a battle one is a battle one.

Anything that takes any power away from religion is a good thing.

Thanks for sharing and good too see ya again.

Pred...

ETA: evolution is not intelligent, it is simply survival of the best adapted. Has nothing to do with intelligence, generally it has to do with the most well adapted to the environment.

I always describe evolution by a forest. If the forest consisted of trees that were exactly 10' tall and every tree was that exact height, and all of a sudden a genetic mutation happened and one of the trees became 11' tall, it would collect more sunlight and would have more offspring. As it has more offspring more trees would come up at 11' and that would become the new standard, so rather than 10' trees they would all eventually become 11' trees.

The same thing would happen if one of the tree had a genetic mutation that made it grow to 12' the cycle would continue.

That is a very simple example of evolution by natural selection.

I can't remember where I heard that. It always stuck with me though.

The only physical evolution I can see is the science behind body modification...that's about it. Science has created procedures which can change a bodies composition. If that's evolution then...no thanks,

This doesn't hurt creationist people whatsoever, all it really does is make non-creationists feel better about their own belief that everything is just a fluke. Many people feel that creation and evolution are both part of creation, and one doesn't exclude the other.. But of course the militant folks behind the barring of teaching anything about creation theory is really what this is all about.

This is also a prime thing that stalinist/marxist and communist ideals advocate as part of the societal indoctrination process.. Getting rid of any sort of divine power.. The goal is for everyone to believe that "The State" is everyone's God

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by skonaz

 

[..]

Life may well have been created, but there is no scientific evidence to show that it was.

If we are defining "evidence" as pure data, than true enough. But, "scientific evidence" as an interpretation of that data is something completely different. Or, if I may turn it around on you: Life may well have been the result of blind pitiless indifference, but there is no scientific evidence to show that it was. In other words (and I was slow to accept this) an Intelligent Design hypothesis is just as unscientifc as a Blind Watchmaker one. They are both philosophical positions and are only scientific in so-much as they are interpretations of the same [scientific] data. For what it's worth, I make a distiction here between ID and (special) Creationism.

Therefore, you cannot honestly teach creationism in schools as if it were true.

Agreed; nor should we teach ID or Blind Watchmaker. Stick to the science (e.g., common ancestry/mechanisms etc.)

It certainly is possible that life was originally created, even if it isn't very likely.

It certainly is possible that life has the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference, even if it isn't very likely. Or, if I may show off my intellectual chops: My philosophy is rubber, yours is glue, what you say bounces off me and sticks to you.

Lets keep science in the classroom... the culture war crap can stay on the inter-tubez.

Regards.

reply to post by predator0187


You say evolution is not intelligent, but I say it is definitely intelligent... Not like a thinking person, but definitely programmed to be... If not, then why does it have processes that would make a certain thing better over time? Why not worse? It seems to be making a choice there to improve upon things... And how can DNA know if improving should be desired unless it was imbued to do that somehow? Who is making that choice?

lets see, we should give opposing ideas equal time in the class room
like
not drinking battery acid won't kill you
drinking battery acid won't kill you

let the kids decide

that said
it has been found recently that DNA is effected by words sounds vibrations viruses vaccines gmo etc
maybe aliens too...

the leap that Man was a product of creationism aotomatically means there is a great huge invisible bearded man in the sky who wants me to vote conservative....

reply to post by alienreality
You're suggesting that evolution is a process towards an end-game - some inherent drive and intelligent motivation.

This *might* be the case, but as far as we currently know, it isn't and neither does the model require intelligence or design (programming) to have logical integrity.

In cases where organisms failed to adapt to the environment, they would become extinct or subsumed into the more successful species. In this way, loosely, you could have an answer to your 'why not worse' question.

That we are chewing over Creationism and evolution, on a system for communication using technology, doesn't make us *better* than a Homo Heidelbergensis or Neanderthal were back in their day. They are extinct whilst we are here to discuss if we're special or not.

It wasn't the *fault* of evolution, or a glitch in its programming - not every species can survive in a competitive environment. Also, even successful species can be met with extinction from fast environmental changes that exceed its capacity to adapt quickly enough - or their intelligence.