±«Óătv

"...make pupils aware of "alternatives to evolution.""

There is also an alternative to rational consciousness. It's called...."LSD."

Teaching of creationism has no place in schools
Tuesday, October 02, 2007

I must congratulate the Belfast Telegraph for an excellent Opinion piece (September 27).

The teaching of creationism and intelligent design in schools is being used as a political football by fundamentalist political parties. But it's clear that, in any modern society, the teaching of religious explanations or theories needs to be kept out of the science class.

The teaching of science depends on an understanding of the scientific method. There is no scientific method required for a belief in the idea of intelligent design - rather such theories would require our schoolchildren to set aside rational thinking in favour of religious belief. Such teaching has no place in our classrooms. Natural selection, on the other hand, has a vast body of proof behind it.

If Northern Ireland is to forge ahead as a modern pluralist democracy we need to grasp opportunities rather than popularise the teaching of Biblical 'theories'. It is for that reason that your editorial was timely. It is for the same reason that the recent decision by Lisburn council to promote the teaching of creationism in local schools runs counter to modernism and rationality.

Jeffrey Peel, Vice Chair (Policy), Conservative Party in Northern Ireland

They say you can tell a man by his friends. Can you tell a councel by its supporters? If so, then there should be no doubt that the council decision had nothing to do with teaching science. Answers in Genesis, sigh. From their statement of faith, at

your can read the following:

6. No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

Yeah, that's really open-minded science. Be afraid for science education in the Lisburn area schools, be very afraid.

This whole debate is a bit of a red herring.

It's patently a disgrace that the council has decided to act in the way they have, but in the grand scheme of things (if that isn't a misleading term here!) it should have little to no impact.

Unlike in (limited) other UK jurisdictions, local councils here don't have a role in what goes on inside the classroom. Nor should they ever, if this example is anything to go by.

Lisburn Council could ask schools in their area to promote the Flying Spaghetti Monster if they wanted; it would make them look only marginally more foolish than they have here. The schools should just ignore their letters.

What would be of more concern is if those members of the council who voted for this also hold positions on the SE Education and Library Board.

If so, perhaps they should concentrate on understanding how they made the absolute horlicks of their finances that they did over the last decade, rather than looking for the origins of the universe.

jon

The DUP and the official Unionists on Lisburn Council have a strange notion of indoctrination. Apparently, some of them actually believe that it is a form of fascism not to teach theories other than the widely accepted theory of evolution in the classroom, yet they seem to have no objection to an RE syllabus which teaches an exclusively Christian lifestance, even though there are people of other faiths and of no religious belief in NI.
Indeed, according to the last census, 14% of the population have no religion at all. What provision is made for this sizeable minority? Why is Humanism not studied in Northern Ireland schools along with theistic philosophies, as it is in other parts of the UK, Europe and the Irish Republic?
Unionist support for creationism as an opportunity to open children’s minds to alternative theories might conceivably be taken more seriously if they actively supported the right of children to make their own mind up about religion in general, instead of having a specific version of it forced down their throat at every stage of their school life. Indeed, the teaching of evolution is probably the only counterbalance in the curriculum to this religious brainwashing
So, by all means, let us widen children's horizons, but not just in science classes and not just when it is to the advantage of our own particular narrow view of the world.

Jon, I think you're being too complacent. Many of these peope *are* on education & library boards and school boards of governors, and what we are seeing now is only the first couple of toe-dips by these mendacious fools into the water. Today LCC; tomorrow SEELB.

Roger is absolutely right; it is urgent that the Minister for Education accepts the principles established for England & Wales in relation to this.

The Kitzmiller judgement ( ) gives an accurate description of what Givan's "equal treatment" nonsense is all about, as well as a very clear description of the underhand activities of the advocates of Creationism & ID.

If Northern Ireland becomes the back-door into the UK for these fraudsters, our children, our economy and our society will be the losers. If anything, more Christians who are *opposed* to these people need to stand up and be counted - it is to the credit of Francis Collins and Ken Miller that they have done so, but it's a dreadful shame that no Northern Ireland religious leaders have spoken out against this creationist horseshit.

-A

Stop deluding yourselves - evolution is a fairy story for grown ups.

One of the most prominent ID advocates in N. Ireland is the most prominent scientist for the last 50 years is Genetics expert, Prof Norman Nevins OBE of QUB.

He is a staunch 6 Day Creationist - why doesn't Will the Crawler have him on his programme instead of indulging the atheist fundamentalists?

Sam Hanna, #7

So let me get this right. You think that defending God and Creation means it's appropriate to attack Will Crawley with childish name-calling? You also think that others will take you or your God more seriously because you engage in this kind of personal attack? That makes a LOT of sense.

Since when did Norman Nevin become an expert on this issue? What evidence does he have that Francis Collins, John Sulston, Francisco Ayala, Ken Miller etc do not have? If he has such evidence, why has he never published a single word of it in the many papers he has authored or been a co-author in?

Preaching to the Crescent Church is one thing; publishing in the scientific literature quite another. I would be surprised if the majority of his former colleagues (he is retired) even *know* he is a creationist.

-A

Sam Hanna I am certain that Norman Nevin doesn't need your kind of insulting recommendation. If you bothered to check your facts you'd realise that Norman was part of William Crawley's big Darwkins programme which looked at Creationism and ID theory. The same programme that had the Id defender Andy McINtosh on it. That's hardly excluding the creationist voice from the programme, is it? Why do creationists (and fundamentalists generally) allow their rhetoric to run away with them and throw out these kind of agrressive and uninformed comments? This just serves to make creationists look even more disconnected form reality (and good manners) than they need to. Sigh.

Those who hold to Evolutionary theory are - perhaps unwittingly - lending support to the view that - we came from nothing; are here for no reason, and are headed nowhere. Why do we insist that young people are to have no alternative to this philosophy of despair?

Surely they should be allowed to think through the issue for themselves - including both the flaws in evolutionary theory and the scientific evidence which is consistent with the Creationist view?

Bible-believing Christians have nothing to fear from genuine scientific enquiry.

Philip, that's an interesting point you make - that there is some evidence "consistent with the Creationist view".

I presume, then, that creationists have never stepped outside their houses and looked up in the night sky at that little smudge just a bit down from the big "W" of Cassiopeia? If you look through a telescope, that little smudge consists of billions of stars, and you can see them and measure their velocities and periods of cyclical luminosity (if they're Cepheid variables) or the sizes of their novae and supernovae. And everything you see there happened over 2 million years ago. You can look at other galaxies even further away, and they're doing the same thing. That should be enough to flush creationism down the shitter right there.

A creationist goes round to visit his granny whom he hasn't seen in 3 years. He has to push through six accumulated feet of unopened letters and bills and catalogues inside the front door. The place is full of cobwebs. Under an inch of dust on the kitchen table he finds a note: "Just popped out to the shops; back in 5 minutes". Reassured, he sticks the kettle on to make granny a nice cup of tea when she gets back.

Except that the electricity has been cut off.

Creationists are fools. That is a fact. *Why* they (some of whom are probably quite *intelligent*) persist in such rampant buffoonery is an interesting psychological question, but hey.

-A

In 11, Philip Campbell wrote:"Bible-believing Christians have nothing to fear from genuine scientific enquiry."

Science is not concerned with reverence for any ancient texts, whether it is the bible, the koran, the gita or tales from the Arabian nights. Science makes progress on the basis of observation, hypothesis and experiment. Stories of miracles, talking snakes, pillars of salt, flying carpets and the like have nothing to do with science.

However, scientific enquiry and science education can indeed be disrupted by religious believers who insist on their unscientific beliefs being treated as science.

There is evidence in the Old Testament that Moses, the author of Genesis, believed that the Earth is flat. How long until the bible supporters demand that schools teach Flat Earth as well as Round Earth "theories"?

Les! I'm really going to have to demand that you put up some evidence for Moses being the author of Genesis, since that flies in the face of scholarly opinion and the fact that Genesis (and the other books) are authored/compiled from a period well into the divided monarchy of Israel, and indeed possibly even in exile.

Assuming Moses existed, he was dead for centuries before these stories were first written down.

But I would like to know how "bible believing Christians" know whether god wants them to believe Genesis 1 or Genesis 2 - it would seem that naive literalism creates a contradiction. In fact, one might even suggest that the author of Genesis knew perfectly well that these were just folk tales, and not a description of actual events.

I agree with you about the authorship of Genesis Amenhotep. There are too many contradictions and inconsistencies if Moses were to be the author. Just one indication of the different timelines is the renaming of Laish to Dan in chapter xviii. That is reported to have happened shortly after the death of Samson, supposedly in 1120 BC, more than three centuries after Moses supposedly lived around 1450 BC. Is Moses supposed to have been able to look three centuries into the future to write about things that would not happen anywhere near his life time?

greets,
Peter