4thought.tv

Abdul - Christians and Muslims agree on creationism and that surely is a good thing! I couldn't agree more - creationism should be given a voice in schools. Afterall why should one theory (evolution) be given precedence over creationism.

Evolutionists are given a voice to teach their faith, why not creationists?

Note that this is a MATHS teacher and a man of religious faith, you have to ask why this is not a science teacher in fact why is no science teacher filmed in this series? As a science teacher this film shows only ignorance amongst teachers of different disciplines I cannot calculate Surds and so I do not presume to lecture on them, This gentleman clearly does not appreciate the complexities of Evolution or even the significant discoveries made by modern science. Does he realise that we have complete fossilised evidence of the evolution of Whales From land mammmals to Marine mammals? The enormous genetic, physiological evidence? And to presume a designer is to promote laziness. He joins the ranks of thinkers such as Paley who suggest a designer in the absence of knowledge as opposed the ranks of thinkers that discover. Discovery is Science and those discoveries are backed by scientific rigour not whimsical assumptions.

I'm a maths teacher and I believe the Koran is the word of god. God wrote that the world was created in 6 days but here I am to redefine "6" and "days" in order to try and make my holy story fit with what I can't deny from my smattering of scientific knowledge. I don't know *anything* about evolution though, so I'm going to pretend that evolution can't be explained scientifically because I really really want the answer to be goddidit, and I'm not going to try and learn anything about it either because I really really want the answer to be goddidit.
Teach yourself, "teacher".

This man is wrong. To say it is the "only plausible conclusion" is absolutely wrong. The theory of natural selection (not "Evolution" is proven beyond all doubt. I run a YouTube Channel that refutes all this nonsense. It is the same old lies coming from the United States totally discredited.

The Theory of Evolution is not based on a leap of faith. It is based on a wealth of empirical evidence. Creationists often latch onto the word 'theory' because they believe it implies statistically significant uncertainty. It does not - it is simply that science refuses to make claims of absolute truth, knowing that new evidence may modify or even disprove said theory. Creationism, in contrast, makes a religious claim of absolute truth, based on zero empirical evidence.

If you believe that the complexity of life is incontrovertible proof of creationism, I suggest that you look into emergent properties and processes. You're a maths teacher, so you should be able to follow them. Complexity arises naturally all the time. The implication of believing in a designer or creator is that the believer is incapable of viewing the universe outside of an anthropocentric perspective. Just because you can't imagine a universe that does not require consciously purposeful impetus doesn't mean it is not the case.

Has anybody noticed that the religious right wing tend to trot out people with qualifications in things other than evolutionary biology to try to discredit evolution in favour of their ridiculous myths?

Until this maths teacher ditches his religious bias and examines the evidence IN DETAIL, his opinion on this subject is worthless.

A perfect creator wouldn't leave an appendix inside people that randomly tries to kill you. Yes it can help store friendly bacteria but that's nowhere near a strong-enough trade-off, as shown by the fact that the advantage was only recently discovered. Choosing to put an appendix in people is like hiring a tealady with a hobby of making bombs, yes it's nice to have a cup of tea every now and then, but that's not worth having your office blown up when Ethel manages to finish her latest project.

I think people that believe in creationalism like those in the film will most likely want it taught in Schools so that it is promoted. You either believe in one or the other. People with common sence should question creationalism as how can dinosaurs exist as they died millions of years ago and apparently the world was created 6k years ago. I bet many that believe in God question it too as most people alive are educated and can work out truth from fiction. I didnt realise that creationalism was taught in schools. I definately would not want creationalism taught in schools as a fact. Discussed may be but definately not as fact as it is not fact and just a fairy story.

This guy talks a lot of sense!! The problem with creationism is that the idea is communicated incorrectly, and the possibility that God created everything is lost in the defficiency of the creationist theory. This guys is correct - the Bible does NOT say that the creative days were 24hrs long! He is also correct about life's complexities being far too difficult to be understood by anything other than Intelligent Design. Irreducible complexity and other modern I.D. Theories are far too compelling to ignore! And Anthony Flew's book "There is A God" is a MUST READ for anyone who is willing to look at the issue with an OPEN mind!

Joanne. Creationism isn't proposing something that we can measure, test or for that matter even understand. If God created the Universe, where did he get the pwoer to do so, and why can we not see any detectable evidence of his existence.Saying God created the Universe, doesn't exactly explain anything. It just bumps the questions one layer further back.

I would love to reply to all those comments but time is of essence as Im sure you will all agree. So I've decided to make a few points.

Firstly, evolution is NOT scientific fact although some scientists claim to have evidence to support the theory which I can understand coming from a science background. Evolution however is not fact otherwise there would not be people from the scientific community who reject evolution.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=660

Secondly - the complexity of the cell:
Evolution does not explain how you get life(a living cell). There is no concrete explanation for it from the scientific world therefore there is an ASSUMPTION made into how a cell is formed and infact also for the rest of the story (Without scientific proof) for how you eventually get humans (This is a leap of faith is it not?).

Thridly - some things 'non scientific'; using your common sense is a valid source for reaching conclusions. So if i say there is a 1 in a billion chance I will win the lottery tonight its fair to say that I wont win it and absurd to assume that I will. So it is absurd to say that a protein or a cell for that matter will occur through much smaller possibilities. But this sort of assumption is consistently made by evolutonists. So they ultimatley say evolution is possible rather than probably.
Propoganda - The propoganda machine of evolutionists (Not of them to be fair) fail to mention that science 'points' towards evolution (althought i disagree) but rather say that evolution is a fact. This sort of claim is an insult to science.
There are many self professed athiests in our comunity who know nothing about science but have somehow become experts in science and claim evolution to be true.

Finnaly, if there is anyone out there who can convince me in a proper scientific manner why evolution is true I am ready to accept the challange and also reject a creator (which I have concluded from common sense).

Anyone who can't get their head around evolution may as well just believe in creationism.

Deemac, you made a good point and also probably forgot to mention that the 'atmosphere' used by Miller in his experiment is widely accepted as not like the atmosphere of the early earth. However even if it had been true all you get is amino acids. This is NOT life!! 100s of amino acids need to be put together to make a protien. Even then you dont have life!!

Abdul

Before I discuss evolution can you tell me how old you think the earth is?

Abdul doest make any sense to me. Every point he makes is either not backed up or weak and sounds like he is trying to convince himself he believes we are created.

Evolutionists need a leap of faith - the only leap of faith needed is believing that the abundance of consistant, supporting evidence, since Darwin isn't all made up.

Creation is the only plausible conclusion one can arrive re the complexity of life - No explanation given so just his opinion, based on...?

Islamic scholars say so - Right. And they are believers in the same thing as you with a fancy title suggesting they know more than everyone else.

Complexity of cells mean they must be designed - No true. and again explanation to support.

Ridiculous waste of time listening and only goes to back up Stephen Laws excellent line about some people being 'intellectually unreachable' because they like what they know and thats that.

Can't believe this guy is a teacher!

On Common sense

What you refer as “common sense” is what I understand “easy to accept”.

Example

“Dad , where do babies come from ?”

Reply 1 – They are dropped from the sky by god.

Reply 2- Well son , your mother FSH levels rose so that triggered a hormone surge that resulted on one of her intra abdominal reproductive glands to produce a mature follicle and...

Reply 1 makes “common sense “to the mind of 4 years olds 4, but reply number 2 not so much.

It transpires that is easy to accept it as is far more simple and does not require a lot of abstraction.

However is also false.

Abdul just been reading about Dendrochronology currently that gives us data back 11,000 years, and is slowly extending backwards. Hard to say how far back we could eventually get, some Scientist think they might be able to go 12000+ Calender years perhaps more. This is irrelevant if you think the word is older than that anyway. Only mention it as some people favour 6000 years as the date for creation.
Also interesting the Genesis Rock retrieved by Apollo 15 has an estimated age of 4.5 Million believed to be part of the Moons core.
Guess it has very little to do with Evolution or even creationism, really it's just Biology Geology.

Who can argue with this logic? And good to hear a religious person arguing against creationism. Sadly the people who try to promote this rubbish. It's vital that we all stamp down on these nutters at every turn. Tony blair didn't help with his foundation schools and other stupid schemes ( and I say that as a labour party member). We must not let these extremist sects get any purchase in schools. They are more dangerous than the bnp!

I feel proud that I went to a Catholic high school run by nuns yet I was never taught Creationism as a factual story. I was taught about Charles Darwin and the Theory of Evolution devoid of religious poisoning of what is fact and always will be fact. I did not realise how ahead of its time my school was in that they believed a good education meant leaving out the fairytales so the students could actually succeed in life instead of living a life based on fabrication. I respect other's choice to immerse themselves in belief of a higher power but I really wish that the school system respected my beliefs too.

The parts of this series which worry me the most are the light it throws on our education system as it stands. A young man can simply rote learn sufficiently to get excellent grades at scientific subjects, when he is clearly unable to think critically; a maths teacher who does not understand the phenomenal scope which is allowed by the scale of time and random mutations, and therefore clearly does not grasp probability and chance

yh yh sir well done bow school rocks

I totally concur with the view of Laura Horner that creationism should not be taught in schools. I have complained to teachers at my daughter's primary school at the way that religion is introduced at such an early age (from age 5).
I strongly believe that to teach "Christianity...and different beliefs about God", to quote the National Curriculum, to key stage 1 children (and any children below the age of 10 for that matter) is not just completely unnecessary but anti-learning and irresponsible.
Religion closes down the critical faculty. Why introduce concepts that may stunt or derail a child's natural desire to work things out? To learn?
Their immature young minds are emotionally and intellectually vulnerable to the claims of teachers talking about God. No matter how carefully a teacher believes they are introducing concepts of comparative religion, a 5 yr old will want to know what is TRUE and REAL. It is unfair to confuse them with CONCEPTS and BELIEFS. Children should be taught FACTS. Once they have assimilated enough facts and are sufficiently mature to properly grasp the concept of religion, then belief systems can be introduced.
My 6 yr old does not attend a religious, denominational school, yet I find that it is I who educates her about the stars, planets, nature and basic scientific ideas, while she comes home telling me that she has been praying to Jesus and that "all my teachers believe in God Dad, even the headmistress." It enrages me that I should even be having these discussions with her.
I hope that the way she is being raised at home will equip her with the intellectual tools she will need to navigate the waters of science and belief once she is older - other children may not be so fortunate.
But why should children so young be faced with such potential quandaries? I do not want my children force fed religion as fact, no matter how unintentionally - yet the National Curriculum currently makes this unavoidable.
I agree with those who have called for a public commission to be set up to discourage the teaching of religious doctrines to children.

"Creationism is the only way to explain the complexity of life" through the weasel filter: "I don't understand the concept, therefore it doesn't exist".

That is not a valid argument.

Nick, my example was not taking into account that there is a 1 in a billion chance of something happening for 3.5 billion years. it was a simple abstract analogy for something that has a very low probablity. You clearly failed to understand that.

Where is the proof that 'random mutations; took place for 3.5 billion years ago? and why are you taking my example of probability into account for 3.5 billion years? It is not the right figure. You need to question your own calculations not mine!

The argument against teaching creationism in schools is that it is a fundamental dogma of particular religions and these religions do not allow discussion, debate or questioning of their 'faith' based truths. It is not taught as a possible alternative explanation of the creation it is preached as unquestionable fact. The unfortunate truth is that it will not stop at creationism along with fear and superstition will be used as a way of thoroughly and systematically indoctrinating and subjugating the minds of children with the aim of discouraging independent thought or the acceptance of other opinions.

if he hasn't got the nous to pick up any popular science book on evolution that will explain the processes involved then he shouldn't be teaching AND he really shouldn't be offering an "informed" opinion on national TV.
"leap of faith", "only plausible", "convincing enough" and "rational " are words that just show his ignorance and closed mindedness. Why would an omnipotent entity need 6 stages to do anything anyway? Human children have evolved to believe what their elders/parents tell them as you don't get many "learning by the error of your ways" opportunities when their are lions about on the African plains. That is why they can't be left to make up their own mind and why it should only be taught in RS.

I do agree that creation myths should be taught in schools, but not in science until it can demonstrate itself as science.
What I want to comment on is the statement about 'a leap of faith' that evolution has to take. As this is not defined my guess is to suppose that the speaker is not aware about the extent of the independent empirical evidence supporting evolution.
If there is an explanation better than evolution for explaining the distribution and appearance of life on earth then I have yet to hear or read it.

Why Should creationism or any other theology have to be considered or measured by scientific means?

Evolution is not a theory, it's a FACT. I don't see how the "rational conclusion" can be that some mystical man in the sky (that we never, ever get any communication from) made everything according to his designs. Religion should be kept out of the classroom.

This guy doesn't understand, or doesn't want to understand, the theory of evoulution. He is clearly too heavily influenced by the religion that he has been brought up in to accept it. A bit worrying that he is a teacher

if you way up all the evidence and do any scientific research, you would see how creationism is just bunk.

What a tainted and medieval take this man has on the way evolution has progressed.
If any proof of the power that single celled organisms have in changing and evolving just take a look at the Flu virus or the common cold virus.

Just shows how people can be brainwashed by religion! I will believe in creationism when somebody can convincingly explain, who created the creator? If a creator can exist without being created, why can't life also?

Creationism _should_ be discussed in schools but should be kept _out_ of the science lab. Science lessons are there to teach pupils the facts accepted by the scientific community. Creationism is _not_ accepted by the scientific community and so has no place in science lessons. Perhaps it would be better placed in RE lessons? What do you think?

The argument that the complexity of life is proof of a designer is fundamentally flawed, the designer must be even more complex & therefore taking the ‘logic’ of creationism must also have been designed by some intelligent being. Who created the creator?

Creationism is nothing more than a ghost story in any religion the only things taught in school should be based in fact and proven knowledge. I believe that with time and constant stringent investigation science will prevail and finally discover and prove the origin of life on our planet. To believe in god is to not want to find the truth. There is to much in our universe alone to pass it off as the work of some higher being. My personal opinion is that time, space and mass are infinite, no beginning or end. And life with the right conditions will just happen. Keep religion out of school!!!! Except religious studies for those who wish to study it.

Schools should only teach science, and should cover religion from a scientific standpoint. Otherwise any whacky irrational viewpoint will demand to be taught in schools. There are two contradictory accounts of creation in the book of Genesis, Christian creationists either ignore or deny this, yet they continue to demand public resources to promulgate the views of non-scientific middle east tribes of thousands of years ago.

Abdul needs to develop a true understanding of Charles Darwin and the evidence behind the theory. His argument is boarderline ignorant and childish. Study Dawrins book with the passion you study the quran and you will see the world in its true glory.

Thank goodness this man is teaching Maths not biology.

Creationism should only be discussed in R.E. never science. Yes evolution is a theory but a theory is an argument that is backed up by evidence and there is a huge amount of evidence that supports evolution yet there is none for creationism. And no, a few half thought out 'fairy tales' in the Quran, Bible, whatever, does not constitute fact. Fact is based upon evidence not faith. Finally, if these religious texts are such wonderful troves of knowledge then how come there's no mention of the dinosaurs or any of the other weird and wonderful creatures that came before and after them? Creationism is for people who need faith not for people who want answers.

The speaker expressed a religiously-inspired opinion that the life seen today, and individual cells, are so complex that they must have had a designer ie God and they seemingly could not have evolved to be what they are by purely naturalistic, unplanned, mechanisms and processes.

This is not an alternative scientific theory but a critique of a key scientific theory. So creationism - whether in Muslim, Christian or non-church schools - should only be examined in Religious Studies and not in science.

What about Thor isn't he the true god? or perhaps it was the ancient greek or ancient egyptian gods which are correct. Religion is just geographical and only corresponds to you by the type you are mostly taught from youth and the period which you are alive on this planet. If people still say that there is a god, no matter what religion you follow, well there must be a lot of souls burning in hell as he is so fickle in the way of each religions right or wrong way to follow him.

If somebody needs to believe in a mythical god having "created" all life on earth then these peoples lives are missing something. Where is the proof of anything that a so called god has done? All i see is throughout history religion has been the single biggest cause of war and death,even now as i type Innocent people are dying. The conclusion-God didn't create life but religion of all faiths destroys it!

The idea that the complexity of cells and proteins explicitly implies a designer is quite frankly ludicrous. There is ample scientific evidence (far outside my understanding) to explain evolution, and what gaps there are will no doubt one day be filled in.

To disregard this and assume that because science cannot yet answer all of our questions, it must be incorrect smacks of ignorance, of clinging on to the notion that the simplest solution must be the right one.

This show frustrates beyond belief. Why is this rubbish even on TV?

It is important to first understand science. Science is based on logical deduction from first principles based on undeniable physical evidence. Facts are facts as a result of this process, not made up "willy nilly". If a scientific theory does not hold up to the evidence, it is not a valid scientific theory. Evolution does not attempt to explain what it cannot. It explains fact, which is corroborated by hard evidence. This is the approach of science. Surely faith is very useful with respect to what lies far beyond the known, i.e. String Theory for example predicts multiple universes, which we cannot test at the moment. However, the theory does unify two very important theories of physics (relativity and quantum mechanics). So, although the theory is valid, it predicts higher "things" which we do not understand and can not (yet) test. Surely these truly unknown higher concepts are where faith comes into its own at a personal level. However, religion surely should not restrict or impose on hard factual scientific discovery. 2+2=4 not 3, and yes the Earth is round - just try falling off the edge of it. The true power of both (religion and science) surely come when one has a mature grip on both of them.

Creationism shouldn't be taught in science in schools at all. Perhaps it has a place in RE as part of explaining what other people believe in, but creationism isn't science. It’s based on an (as of yet) untestable hypothesis so cannot be accepted as a theory.
Evolution on the other hand has been tested repeatedly and proved. Just one example I can give is E.coli in culture over a number of generations evolving to be able to utilise a different chemical as an energy source in the span of only a few years. Over three billion years anything is possible.

One misconception people seem to have is that evolution is a belief. It isn't- if someone manages to scientifically disprove evolution and its mechanisms the scientific community in a testable and verifiable way, people will abandon the theory of evolution. There is no faith involved.

Seriously? People are questioning whether a concept first dreamed up over 2000 years ago should be taught to the next generation? I thought we, as a human race were trying to move forwards, not backwards. Science doesn't know EVERYTHING, but religion doesn't KNOW anything. It's a faith. Nothing more than a blind stab in the dark. The theory of evolution is first of all seen by some people in the wrong context. A scientific theory is different from a regular theory; In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. With the theory of creationism, believers are basically saying "well, I don't know how we got here, it all looks a bit complicated to me. I bet it was God that did it". Unfortunately, the existence of a God can neither be proven nor dis-proven. The theory of evolution, however, is based on observations. It is not a blind stab in the dark. I would be interested to know if the maths teacher in the video has read 'On the origin of the species', by Charles Darwin. While it is not complete there is infinitively more evidence for evolution than for a god (the bible/Koran/any other text which is based purely on faith, not fact doesn't count). The theory of creationism should be taught as part of a religious education class; as a means to teach tolerance and empathy towards people of faith, but it should never be taught alongside science or as part of a science class. Science is based on fact and things we can see and observe. Religion is based on faith; things we blindly believe with no evidence what so ever.

Why evolution or creationism (intelligent design)? why shouldnt't evolution be part of an adaptive intelligent design to allow life to develop in changing environments and to produce intelligent life forms. We already have adaptive computer programs which evolve to changing environments. It annoys me that anyone who supports the intelligent design theory must be religous, I am not religous (in fact I think that teaching religion to children is a form of brainwashing), and I can't see why intelligent design and evolution have to be considered as opposites.

No. Creationism is a myth, God is a myth, we should not teach creationism in schools. You cannot just say that something is so just by saying it, you must have proof to back it up. Saying that creationism is the origin of life cannot be backed up with anything, it is purely a belief. In today's society, fact is is much stronger that belief. It's not that we can prove that evolution to be correct, but more that we can prove that creationism is incorrect.

What has happened to poor Britain that this drivel is allowed to be given air?

I'm incandescent with rage that this medieval claptrap has reached such volume.

Creationism is nonsense.
Evolution is well established and scientifically as proven as it could be with a wealth of evidence. Please lets not allow this sort of make believe be perpetrated on our children.
I do defend his right to express his ideas and expose them to the light of open discussion.

Scientists and others who dismiss creationism are obviously themselves guilty of irrational thinking. The truth lies beyond the limits of science. Put in simple terms, science itself has proven that the spontaneous generation of life from inert elements is not possible, therefore to say that it 'happened by accident' is to admit to a creationist 'miracle'. Science proves that there is no such thing as a causless cause. Matter and energy interchange but are immutable; nothing can not generate everything, 0+0=0, 0x0=0, therefore the fact that everything came from nothing again is a miracle. Nothing can be without end nor beginning. What came before time began? Where does eternity end? where does infinity begin and end? If you believe only in science then, the corollary is that you believe in these miracles which contradict science. The answer does not lie within the mortal realm; it lies in the spiritual dimension, mysticism and metaphysics, i.e. creationism is the only LOGICAL explanation - as many rationally thinking scientists accept!

Most definitely not. I have no doubt that this young man is honest and earnest but his thinking is deeply flawed. He assumes that a rational view of life should accept the hand of a designer because of life's complexity. The evidence, incomplete as the theists quite rightly and rather persistently point out, does not suggest any design; only time, something like 4 billion years worth, and a system that "weeds out" organisms that do not function well enough to survive in the environment (as it exists at their time) and hand on their genetic makeup to future generations.
The reductionist argument that life must be created because it is complex is empty and plays to the forces of ignorance and superstition. If this young man thinks like that perhaps he should examine his own field: mathematics has many examples of complex systems arising from simple rules, for example the Mandelbrot set and fractal geometry.

To even believe that there is an invisible magic man in the sky who you talk to and who talks back to you is sheer stupidity but to believe in creation and treat any religious text as fact defines a total moron of epic proportion.

HaHa misguided fool, some day mankind will tell jokes about the days when men believed gods.

I have to agree with others. This mans beliefs were expressed as inescapable facts. Sorry but they are just his beliefs and they are different from millions of others who believe different things. Lets keep those religious beliefs different to science.
The test of science is evidence to disprove the theory. If the facts don't match, you ditch the theory. With belief you just keep on believing. You would not propose the bible as a text book for physics.

Hi there everybody. My name is Antony and I'm a Quaker. My views don't represent the entire community though as there are many beliefs, different to my own, within it.
Basically I believe that evolution and creationism go hand in hand. I keep on hearing these same old arguments and quite frankly I find them annoying.
My view on this is similar in one aspect to the one given in the video - a day to God is longer than 24 hours. Much longer. Millions or billions of years perhaps. My view of God though is more similar to Spinoza i.e., God is Nature. For me God is the energy that flows through all things; Animals, trees, rocks, the entire universe - omnipresent. Although I believe in God I also believe in evolution. Perhaps more controversially though, I believe that God evolves too.
Anyway, I barely know anything about either evolution or creationism so I will stop with my little rant.
In response to the question of 'should creationism be taught in school?'. It just seems glaringly obvious. Yes, it most certainly should. Why? Because it is a massive part of the rich culture that has evolved on this beautiful planet.
Thanks for taking the time to read me
Antony.

That was amongst the most badly conceived, factually devoid, ontologically non-committal, and unconvincingly expressed arguments against evolution I have ever heard. Creationists should be proud that they have such an erudite advocate.

I firmly believe this should be taught in schools. Once you have taught this idea, then work your way through all the other religious ideas for the creation of the world, finally finishing up on the Flying Spaghetti Monster as that is just as valid as all the rest. The place for this is in RE.

While you are doing that you can show them the science of what really happens, they can see all the EVIDENCE and understand why evolution makes a mockery of creationism.

Evolution, as with all modern science, is scrutinised over and over again, as seen recently with the CERN results. To question religion is impossible as believers with stubbornly refuse to listen to other arguments, repeating tired 'anti-facts' and then choosing to be ignorant about scientific discoveries that are accompanied with in depth discussions and research. Evolution is not a faith, a faith is followed without questioning the facts, what is written is what is right. Science is a study, a discussion and can and must, like species described in evolutionary evidence, adapt. Religion is an opinion, a belief, science goes further than this, it does start with an opinion and belief, but then continues to search for and go beyond the facts, rather than accept them at face value. Besides, creationism is already taught at many schools, it's a lesson called religious studies. That should be where it stays. Science should be kept as it is, open minded and accepting to new developments, rather than giving an old and rigid story as fact. People should be encouraged to question, not just sit and listen, something tells me science is more fitting to this than creationism.

Are Flu Viruses examples of evolving organisms?

To Abdul:
If complex life requires a designer - then the designer who must be even more complex must also be designed and created by an even more complex designer in return?
If the designer created the earth - then did he make a mistake with Mercury? Or Venus? Or Mars? And how does he manage all this while listening in on everyones thoughts? Maybe that's why he messed up on the other planets?
In any case - all this is a waste of time as my religion is way better then all the various religions in existence today.

In short: No.

Mr Aziz states 'Evolutionist theories are based on a leap of faith' and 'Creationism is the only plausible conclusion'

I am a person who is not fully swayed by any argument, but this is a very bold thing to say.

Im not fully educated on these matters and will probably get an ear bashing from other people, but the evolution theory has millions of archives containing facts and figures, backed up by sound explanations and physical proof.

Creationism however is a theory dominated by religion. As many people are aware, each holy writing has been broken down and generally contain alot of contradicting and ultimately bogus material. The premise behind religion however; in terms of how you live your life - generally being a peaceful but strong person, is intriguing and does make sense. But to place all your faith in a 'God' and dismiss other, more coherent theories, is ignorant.

Things should stay as they are - RE classes in schools/colleges which touch on the basics and premise of religion and creationism.

Creationism is offensive to an educated person, it is not and can never be a science. Creationism it nothing but modern spin on a stone age fairy tale used to keep the simple happy and under control. It cannot be tested in any meaningfully scientific way and cannot be explained without resorting to the word "faith" or the supernatural.

I love how people who don't understand science try to attack it. If you disagree, fine, but back it up. don't try to dismiss evolution, then in the same sentence, prove that you have no understanding of it. This mans use of the complexity of a cell being evidence for a creator is laughable by anyone who has studied biology even at GCSE level! there is compelling evidence that mitochondria, the powerhouse of a living eukaryotic cell, and just one of many smaller parts of each cell in every living thing, may have orginally been free-living prokaryotic cells, similar to bacteria, then later incorporated into larger cells. the larger cell benefits from the energy produced by the mitochondria, the mitochondria has a food source. small steps like this that create radical, far more complex beings. the complexity of life, when examined at a biological, atomic, or even the beauty of the universe as a whole, is awe-inspiring, but "goddidit" is a cop-out answer. wishful thinking in the face of overwhelming evidence from every scientific field. The truly facepalm part of this is that the science teacher at the school this man works at could have explained this to him over a five minute chat. I'm sure. he's made a fool of himself on national television simply because he failed basic biology.

Mr Aziz has misunderstood evolution (and presimably has been mislead about the existence of any evidence for creationism, for surely he agrees that something should only be taught as science if it has some evidence to support it if it?) Evolution's power to explain complexity through a very simple process (i.e. small step by step changes) requires no "leap of faith". To suggest it does indicates either a complete misunderstanding of the beautiful simplicity of evolution or a malicious desire to misinform.

Evolution is probably the most tested theory ever and it has always passed each test with flying colours. It is no more sensible to dismiss evolution than to dismiss the fact that the Earth goes round the Sun. To suggest creationism, for which there is no evidence, should be taught on the same terms as evolution makes no sense. If you were to do so then you may as well teach the theory that invisible pigs live in the moon in science lessons, as it is as well supported by the evidence as creationism.

Teach creationism in RE lessons if you have to, but as the courts in the US concluded, as creationism has no scientific basis, it has no place on the science curriculum.

Abdul- Creationism isn't taught in schools because it is an opinion (albeit held by many), in the same way I could believe that an invisible, yet adorable, cosmic penguin created all life on earth. Neither theory has ANY evidence to back it up, and thus it is only an opinion. It may be hard for us to see that life has evolved by chance, and far easier to believe the cosmic penguin did it (I'll leave out the problem of the infinitely complex deity as a simple solution to life), but the point, the ENTIRE POINT of scientists is to identify a problem, then observe why it is so, and link the results. So just like every other scientific conclusion we've drawn up and been unable to reject on grounds of new evidence running contrary to what was previously thought, evolution is sound. No two ways about it. Scientist aren't some great big anti-religion, confirmation biasing gang out to give creationists a bad day, they just record what is there, what is REAL. If evolution was even slightly dodgy, they'd all laugh at it and go back to trying to understand what had actually happened.

The theory of evolution is as solid as the theory of gravity, or any other scientific theory we have gathered. Why is it that creationists only have trouble with evolution? We don't know how life originally started. GASP! Neither do we know why gravity is the weakest fundamental force. But you still believe in gravity, right? Maybe you shouldn't. Even though a theory of gravity with no evidence is totally ridiculous, I'm sure you could lend it credibility by saying 'God did it, in a few days that were actually longer than days! Stupid scientists with your reason, and looking at things and understanding them! A book told me different!'

All praise the invisible, yet adorable, cosmic penguin.

The most ironical part of this is that we're a product of our evolutionary past. Each fork in the branch, each tiny mutation that has brought us to the ultimately flawed species that we are is the result of the blind process of evolution.

As one with scientific training in the natural sciences I absolutely despair at the height of arrogance that is doctrinated monotheistic religion.

The peak of evolution we are most certainly not. Take us below sea level, we die. Take us above 15000ft, we cannot breed - the conquistadores found that out. We are pretty fragile compared to other species! A few days without water and we die. A look at our dna shows just what a mess that is, littered with mistakes and evolutionary cul-de-sacs.

If you want to tout your superstitions then by all means to it in your religious education classes under 'miscellaneous crackpot ideas', but don't ever compare it to a scientific theory (please look up the description of theory before using that old lame excuse). There is no place for creationism in scientific education, not now, not ever.

The Theory of evolution a religious belief?! Oh dear Abdul! - a teacher should know that science proceeds by forming and testing hypotheses which are then strengthened or disproved by verifiable evidence. Evolution has strengthened as a theory over the last 150 years to the point where only the very poorly read continue to discount it. Those that do discount it must believe that dinosaur bones were planted by God only a few thousand years ago, along with fossilised sea creatures half way up mountains. They must disbelieve in carbon dating and all other forms of chronometric analysis that corroberate evidence of evolution over hundreds of millions of years. The first requirement of creationism is to abandon critical judgement and proven repeatable investigation methods, then to ignore the masses of evolutionary evidence and to believe in magic. If we are to have creationism in the classroom we might as well insist on teaching Harry Potter as a factual account of a real wizard boy. Of course, we can't actually disprove that a real Harry Potter defeated a real Lord Voldermort but we probably don't need to spend too much time trying because there is no verifiable evidence that it is anything more than an enjoyable fantasy. Teacher, educate thyself.

I am glad that Abdul Aziz has presented what he considers is the mainstream Moslem belief regarding creationism. From what he says it seems reasonable to believe that mainstream Moslems believe that the earth is older than 6,000 years and can accept geology and an earth of about 4.5 million years old. And that they accept some evolution within species.

However I think there might be evidence that cells and proteins can come into existence in a scientific experiment and therefore don’t need to be created by God, which counters Abdul Aziz belief. Also he says Creationism should be taught but what he describes in not the type of Creationism that is campaigning to be taught in science lessons. That type of creationism rejects the fossil record and believes that most of the fossils were formed in the great flood about 4,500 years ago.

In a post he states, “The theory Evolution from simple to complex organism cant be scientifically verified so therefore it is a faith.” It is true it can’t be reproduced by experiment, but the fossil record shows how small changes to some animals can lead to a different animal. I think there is evidence that a land mammal developed into the whale and the evidence shows the nose moving up the face and into an air hole in the back.

In Religious Education lessons the forms of creationism believed by the main religions can be taught as being part of that religion and how far they accept or deny the scientific evidence.

Open your eyes.....

As an athiest I don't believe there is a God, but if I was proven wrong then I'd hold my hands up and say ahh well I was wrong. Very much in the same way science does when it's disproven. i.e. This is the better medicine to give the patient as the last one reacted badly. <<<<< I know bad example

Religion is like the media, you read it or heard about it and so you must believe it? No, examine the evidence before making a decision

Absolutely agree that this should be taught in schools but not in the sense of 'the ONLY plausible conclusion' as stated but as one of two theories.
It should also be considered a scientific issue rather than one of theology and science teachers shuld not shy away from it.
All science is in some respect a 'leap of faith' and our children should be taught this and be taught how to differentiate between good theories and bad theories. In the case of creationism vs evolution I would like to see children taught the reasoning behind these theories and the evidence for one vs the other. Also the merit of each theory in terms of it's usefulness in understanding the world. It could go on to be a stimulating and life changing debate in critical thinking in considering the arguments for and against the two theories.
We must stand up to those who claim that their theory is the 'only plausible' one and ask our children to ask questions and teach them how to make rational decisions.

According to the Sunday Times (as reported by TV and the Mail) it gets worse. Professor Steve Jones complains that Muslim biology students are walking out of lectures on evolution, complaining that it goes against the Koran.
Spurred on, it seems, by that paragon of scientific education, the interior decorator "Harun Yahya" from Turkey - in turn encouraged by American Christian creationists.
I'm afraid, Abdul, that your approach can only help this denial to take hold.

If God created the universe and everything in it, chances are that he would be quite good at writing. So, if he meant 7 "ages" he wouldn't have said 7 days, and there would not be all the conflicting statements found in all the religeous texts that require self proclaimed "scholars" to interpret them for us. They would be the best written and least ambiguous in the world. We can therefore write off all religeous texts as written by man and make up our own minds on the evidence before us.

Creationism can be taught in RE and nowhere else. 'Creation Science' or Scientific Creationism' are misnomers: there is no science in them.

Creationism is nothing more than the force-fitting of scientific observations into the Biblical timeframe of Genesis and all fail; all of the arguments put forward by creationists are rightly laughed at by scientists.

If creationism is allowed to be taught in science lessons, why not go the whole hog and teach astrology, crystal healing, tarot reading, etc. All equally balmy pseudo-science.

All this video consists of is one long appeal to ignorance. Evolutionary theory explains perfectly well how complexity in living organisms arises and even if it didn't it would still not justify the conclusion that complexity = designer. He tries to appear reasonable and intellegent but his argument demonstates a complete failure to understand the basics of both evolutionary theory and logic. As for teaching children both sides and letting them decide, should we also teach alternatives with other theories such as germ theory, plate tectonics etc. or does "teaching both sides" only apply to theories which contradict particular interpretations of religious sctipture?

It is utterly pointless trying to debate with someone who believes the world was created in 6 days or 7 days or that god dug a bunch of holes in Lyme Regis and dropped a load of dinosaur skeletons in for people to find thousands of years later. It's like trying to argue with someone who thinks Tuesday is on a Sunday.

I'd like to make a slight ammendment to something 'Gareth' said earlier. He said the video is "one long appeal to ignorance". I'd insert the word 'willful' in there - the video is one long appeal to willful ignorance. When a person genuinely believes in creationism, at least in the developed world, then ignorance of the facts has to be combined with a strong desire to deny, or avoid seeking out, evidence. Ignorance can be forgiven, willful ignorance cannot.

Creationism is an article of faith and therefore has nothing to do with science (faith being defined as belief without reason). I object strongly to the teaching of any religion or belief-requisite theology to children but doubly so for the teaching of creationism. The reason being that creationism is blatantly anti-science. Creationism denies science. They are mutually exclusive.

Creationism, as well as being absurd, is a done deal. This is just one way in which it is anti-science, specifially anti- scientific method. The scientific method dictates that theories be strengthened, modified, or dispensed with in the face of new evidence. With creationism there is none of that. It's all written down and cannot be changed. Goddidit, end of (fairy) story. How is that compatible with science, or even theory?

It was mentioned earlier that children should be taught to differentiate between good and bad theories, and I agree. The way to do this is by teaching them the scientific method alongside those theories that best explain observation and evidence such as evolution, relativity and quantum mechanics. In this way, children can evaluate any new theory they might hear about against the requirements of the scientific method. For example, if they come across the idea that a god created the universe, or that we have an invisible mind called a soul that goes to live in a nice house in the sky when we die, or that Santa is a real person or that Elvis lives on the dark side of the moon with the Flying Spaghetti monster, they can quickly come to their own conclusions about whether it's worth further consideration.

We should no more teach creationism in schools than astrology or mediumship or any other woo-woo. To suggest we isolate creationism from all the other nonsense we could teach is to subscribe to the canard that religious beliefs must be given respect, simply for the reason that they are strongly held. We are told this day in day out, and it's even enshrined in law. A scandalous situation.

I'd also argue that creationism is more damaging than any of the examples I listed - mediumship, remote viewing or what-have-you. Creationism is so anti-science and even anti-logic that it's not too melodramatic to term it an attack on truth itself. Biology, cosmology, physics, chemistry - almost all scientific disciplines need to be partially or wholly rejected in order to believe in creationism. It isn't so much a question of an unsupported belief, it's more a perversion of logical thought. If such reason and evidence as supports evolution and the cosmic timeline is thrown out then what can be sensibly evaluated? Would you trust somebody who is not able to apply basic reasoning and logic? I wouldn't.

To Abdul:
I am going to show you how you have no freewill under your creator.
Your God possess infinite knowledge and power – he is everywhere and he is time itself, he is the past the present and he is the future. Anything less and he could not be God !
This means he knows you inside out. He knows what went through your mind yesterday, what is going through your mind now and he knows what will go through your mind tomorrow.
In short he has already judged you and there is absolutely nothing you can do to make him change his mind about you – because you know what? God can never be wrong either !
Ergo you have no freewill – your future is pre-ordained – by God your creator. Do what you want – say what you want – God knew you would do it. So what on earth is your life all about?

Absolutely ridiculous - Channel 4 how dare you give airtime to the propagation of creationism lies - it's very irresponsible of you... All it's done is give people on this comment forum false hope.

I am appalled that C4 has broadcast this dangerous drivel.

Utter rubbish, this man should not be a teacher; he clearly (like most creationists)has no understanding of natural selection, cell division, or the mechanisms involed in the biolgical evolution. Quite frankly if he ever poured out his un-scientfic, medeival clap-trap to my children in a classroom, i would take direct action and have him removed from the school or take my children elsewhere. Also Channel 4, shame on you for even broadcasting this rubbish!

i agree that creationism should be taught and not presented as fact, after all, all of us who are commenting on this saying creationism shouldn't be taught...must have learnt what creationism is at some stage, and we made the decision that it is drivel, so why then cant a school teach students about it, and see what the kids come out thinking

NO!

Creationism is just an attempt to suppress science and replace it with mysticism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

How can Mr Aziz say that the probability of evolution is too remote - what's the probability of having a fully formed God by chance?

To the viewers, please do not take this as the view that ALL Muslims or teachers or believers - Mr. Aziz is only stating HIS opinions. Yes there are evidence to back-up the Theory of Evolution but there are in other places to contradict this. So for those who disagree, this man is still not wrong. To the people that agree, this man may not be right. But being a Muslim myself, to understand about the world please do your own research, seek knowledge; I've done my scientific and philosophical research and I don't agree with the Theory of Evolution, but hey, that's me right?
All I will say is this, believe what you believe in but let it not close you mind to others' opinions. Be open. Do justice to others opinions.

A 5000yr old creation myth of a Bronze Age nomadic Hebrew tribe is not science and has no place in the biology curriculum of any civilised technologically advanced nation in the 21st Century. There should be no religious indoctrination masquerading as science. Vulnerable and malleable young minds should not be fraudulently bamboozled by devious religious zealots. There is more empirical evidence in support of the fact of evolution than there is to support the existence of a heliocentric planetry system and a spheroidal Earth.The UK is pre-eminent in the world of genetic and biological research precisely because this country had the good fortune to be the home of Charles Darwin and we have never allowed Religion to deflect us from the path of increasing scientific discovery in the Biological sciences. Modern Biology would be unintelligible without a profound understanding of Evolution in the same way that Chemistry would make no sense without the Periodic Table of Elements,Genetics without DNA,Geology without Plate Techtonics,Physics without Newton,Einstein and Quantum Theory and Mathematics without Algebra,Geometry and Calculus etc.

Abdul Aziz is flatly wrong about the agent of Evolution. Evolution does not proceed by the roulette wheel of Random mutation it proceeds by the ruthlessly NON-RANDOM process of NATURAL SELECTION working upon mutations of which 99% are inevitably weeded out. For NATURAL SELECTION to ensure that a mutation becomes a dominant feature of a population of biological organisms it must confer upon an organism a better than 50% chance of surviving long enough to reproduce. This is why evolution has taken so long because it proceeds painstakingly slowly by small survival enhancing increments which ultimately accumulate to produce incredibly complex organisms. Mathematical models have been created based on the criteria which are known to have influenced human evolution from the common ancestor and these models have shown that by applying the ruthless NON RANDOM principles of Natural Selection as control variables Homo Sapiens could, in theory, evolve in a mere 1000 generations. In fact there has been about 240,000 generations since the common ancestor, more than enough time for several evolutionary cul-de-sacs to be experimented with and weeded out.

In summary

Your arguments have been debunked one by one.

1-On common sense, I have explained that people of lower intellectual capacities might accept the argument that a god has made something rather than understand complex explanations or physics.

2-The point about the “creator creates itself” is one that causes a lot of amassment, and it creates more questions than answers.

3-On mathematical probabilities, you have been explained, using the paradox of the lottery, how your theory is also wrong. One hopes your pupils are not reading this otherwise it can be a bit embarrassing.

4-The earth was not created in six days, or six “celestial” days or any days of any kind. In fact the Earth is still being formed. It was formed by the laws of nature and not by any gods.

5-The “theory” of evolution is not a theory, is a scientific fact. The PC name is Evolution. As you would like Mohamed to be addressed as “the prophet” Mohamed (pbh). Please take note.

6-Abiogeneis explains the origin of life on Earth without a creator.

7-The is not a single gram of evidence for the existence of the god that you propose and yet you question gaps in Evolution and Abiogenesis.

8-Every culture has produced a story about the origin of life, Earth and the Universe, they are just ….stories and nothing more.

9-The only reason you are not prepared to accept most of the above reasons is that you FEAR the consequences of doing so.

Creationism should not be taught in schools as undermines the intellect of our children and creates unnecessary and artificial conflict between science and religion.

Being extremely obtuse is not a compelling argument.

Truth lies beyond the limits of science. 'Truth' and scientific 'fact' are totally different concepts and most scientists seem unable to understand the difference. Aetheists are irrational thinkers because God can not be disproven. 'God' is the name used for the creative principle which any rational thinker must acknowledge as essential for existence itself. 'Everything' can not come from 'nothing' however you seek to explain it. Science itself proves conclusively that life can not generate spontaneously from inert elements. It is essential that creationism is taught in schools. The soulless, sterile, nihilistic, false concept of atheism must not be allowed to corrupt vulnerable young minds and leave vacant space to be filled with the virtual reality science fiction concepts which exclude essential philosophical concepts of truth and virtue and largely replace them with evil and nightmarish concepts where 'termiators', and other phantasmagorical inventions of disturbed minds blast anything in their way with weapons of mass destruction. We should listen to proponents of truth if the entire population are not to end up on tranquilizers and antidepressants. As Prof C. G. Jung said: 'The facts of the human soul may ultimately prove to be the arbiters of all truth and error.'

I believe that both creationism and science/evolutionary theory should be taught in schools...and they both are taught...through subjects such as theology/philosophy/R.E and science!!!