4thought.tv

I am pleased to see that Professer Reiss is tolerant of Christian beliefs. It is a little disturbing to note that a number of those in the clips completely close their minds to creationism and yet are perfectly willing to accept the THEORY of evolution not something which has been proven from all doubt.
I believe it is wrong to exclude creationism from science in schools and I believe it is wrong to put forward the evolution theory as an absolute in schools.

Creationism is a belief not scientific fact. If it is to be taught in Schools then it should be also taught alongside Scientology, Mormonism and the flying spaghetti monster (etc). Where all beliefs are taken as scientific fact from each religion/cult (delete as appropriate). Most people of a reasonable IQ will understand that these are viewpoints and not facts. If they do decide to maintain a belief in Creationism or anything else equally silly, well Darwin put it simply: survival of the fittest will always prevail (the fittest being the more intelligent individuals in this case). I am sure Archeologists will find texts from this generation and scoff at the notion that creationism was even considered.

Creationists can find common ground with Michael Reiss in dealing with the scientific arguments in science classes and not theology or religious faith. Creationists point to the inadequacy of darwinian mechanisms to explain the origin of biological information, to the fossil record for its witness to the abrupt appearance of complexity, and to the sophistication of living things as witness against the unguided tinkering processes of evolution. What we need is teaching ABOUT these issues. There is a controversy about what these evidences mean, and we are fooling ourselves if we think the controversy is artificial or not motivated by science.
A related issue are those who want evolution taught because it allows them to be intellectually fulfilled atheists. This is bringing an atheistic theology into the classroom and turning evolution into a religion. Those who oppose teaching about creationism in science lessons rarely oppose atheistic ideologies riding on the back of evolutionary theory - they are not being consistent.
Creationists want to teach ABOUT creationism and also ABOUT evolutionary theory. The evidences need to be evaluated and alternative theories need to be critiqued. This approach is fundamental to science.

This sounds like a good compromise, and would work well with every subject, not just science. Show what people used to think (earth being flat for example), show how scientific thinking helped people discover the truth, show the benefits that everyone can appreciate that resulted from this discovery, and mention that those who do not use the scientific method still hold these beliefs and from there warn the class about the dangers of denialism.

Tolerance is overrated, it's just something you do to be polite when you can't accept something, and can't be bothered to argue.
Creationism would be a superb topic for a debate though, it really seems to get people going.

I consider myself as an Agnostic who still has spiritual interests. Reasonable people I know, that have chosen to follow a faith today, believe that the religious texts about the Creation are symbolic; the seven days are not to be taken literally but as symbolic time periods, not actual days, these texts are seem to be more about moral issues. The religious texts are the “spiritual” side, Evolution the “worldly” side. I think both Evolution and the stories from many faiths about the creation of the world are wonderful. Creationism is an attempt by religious fanatics to hijack science.

Michael Reiss knows all about the Stalinist, dogmatic, intolerant stranglehold of evolutionary teaching on education, as when he was recently booted out of his top position in its Brain-Washing HireQuarky for actually suggesting the sort of things he here elucidates - a bitta tolerance - and he, despite supposedly being a Bible believer, actively anti-Creationist!
Have a look at the 'Expelled' film [it's probably on Youtube], and understand why the evolutionary mainstream are so terrified we might just discover that Random Big Bangs, Chance Chemical Soups & Trillions of chemical mistakes could not possibly TURN HYDROGEN INTO PEOPLE, however much Time it was given!!
Not only is the proof of Creation written all through life, Cosmo, Geo or Bio-LOGICALLY, but of our spiritual Redemption from its 'Fallen' state, for 'all who take life's waters free', from the only 'Way, Truth and Life'.

Creationism is anathema to any social progress. Fundementalists of any faith only want the dark ages to return, thats why their god teaches them to fly planes into buildings. To teach such nonsense in schools is to play into the hands of these people. Children are not born into a faith, they are born into life wich was not created by " Intelegent design". Religion is just a distractionary issue that people in power have been using for centuries and all that has achieved is mass murder and opression. Give reason and logical thought have a chance.

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.

Creationism is a belief without one shred of evidence from anywhere...not from the bible not from the Koran not from scientific study.
Those calling for it to be taught in schools as a valid world view should be so very ashamed of themselves

'I believe it is wrong to put forward the evolution theory as an absolute in schools'

No one has ever suggested that evolutionary theory is an absolute...it has never been taught as such...but it is by far the best explanation available today, and evidence is still coming in to support the theory unequivocally from every scientific disipline that encroaches into evolutionary processes..
It is overwhelming...creationism as an explanation is just not required.

And rational folk believe it is wrong to promote fairy stories without evidence as fact
And creationism is a fairy story.

What a good idea. Perhaps we should have witchcraft and alchemy on the syllabus as well.

Steven Law talks about evolution being science fact, It is nothing more than theory and a bad one at that. It is full of statements that have not a grain of fact and to suggest that everything came from a big bang and then managed to randomly come together to form our universe and our planet which is so unique and then we evolved from slime is just too far fetched. If a big bang did occur then where did the elements come from when there was nothing in existence before this explosion. In thinking themselves wise they became FOOLS.

Not far into the Bible there is a passage which states 'A thousand years for us is but a day to our Lord', or words to that effect; add a few noughts to the thousand and you have a more realistic understanding of Creation; - the two DO complement each other, with lateral thinking... why WOULD an infinite Being only take six days??? Yes it should be taught, - with the right context.

Should creationism be taught in schools? NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What next, a talk from the Flat Earth Society?

I feel that creationism has no place in the science lessons of our schools this is a place for established fact.
Although if people do wish to learn about this subject religious study lessons would be a place were it could be talked about as long as it is done so in a balanced way showing all views on creation.
I feel as a leader in the Kemetic (pagan) faith that it is a unbalanced area as pagan views on creation are still not talked about in schools.
As pagans are know among one of the top percentages of faiths in the country their views should also be heard. Even more so as when looked into we can see that at their core there is a much closer relationship to the scientific fact than we find in creationism.
The main thing here is balance and to know were these views belong and were they should be talked about in our schools with a clear definition between what we believe and what we know as fact.

I think it is dishonest of Professor Reiss he is happy to wheel out his academic qualifications which are impressive however not to mention he is also a PREIST in the C of E kind of miss leads the audience that he is speaking from a totally unbiased position and undermines his position of being reasonably liberal by making the concession that creationism is not a science but is happy that it should be taught in schools and fails to mention that creationism is simply a US Fundamental Christian movement attempt to bring Christian dogma into US schools and is an ‘umbrella’ term hiding the fact that different Christian organisations use it to mean totally different things based on their own interpretations of Genesis (OT) Of course this is an old tactic the Roman Catholics use the Jesuits to undermine genuine scientific theories to promote the Dogma of God the creator and the Pope as the final arbiter of ‘truth’ in schools. The plurality of faiths and non-faiths in this country would make the teaching of any one religious belief in State Schools as it is discriminatory and an affront to the beliefs of others.

4thoughtlessness

What ought we to make of Channel 4’s 4thought.tv run this week: ‘Should creationism be taught in schools?’

This vignette vehicle for (presumably) anybody to get their mug on TV and grind their favourite axe, or pick some particular bone of contention, is all well and good. But whether or not one adopts the position of refusing to debate creationists – because all you do is debate an idiot; or because it plays into the ‘teach the controversy’ trap, thus affording a non-argument undue publicity – a champion of ‘free speech’ immediately corners him/herself when objecting to them being provided a public platform from which to enunciate their anti-enlightenment superabsurdity.

Should creationism be taught in schools? No. Such a stance is not an affront to free expression: those who need to lap it up are at liberty to go to their respective obliging house of worship and have it preached to them (– ideally when they’re old enough to decide for themselves). Neither is it an intrinsically anti-religious one: science is well practised and taught by many religious people. But a science teacher who teaches creationism in flat contradiction of evolution (under the fork-tongued guise of providing all viewpoints for consequently informed minds to decide freely for themselves on the question of the emergence of species and diversity of life) dismisses in a swipe the bounteous evidence from biology, palaeontology, geology, cosmology and more. Such a ‘science teacher’ irresponsibly fails in his duty. Young earth creationism is entirely a faith position – and a completely potty one at that.

Thinking denominations have progressed beyond literal interpretation of scripture, as exemplified by one or two of the contributors, such as Laura Horner, the Anglican founder of CrISIS (Creationism In Schools Isn't Science), an organised petition campaign. An embarrassment to their religions, creationists irrelevantly exclude themselves from the (sometimes) more nuanced ‘science vs religion’ debate, as invoked on pragmatically important matters. Teaching creationism in schools is stultification of children’s intellectual and critical faculties necessary to the approaching of arguments worth having. Listen to Monday evening’s contributor, Sam Scott Perry, venture in all seriousness that humans and dinosaurs must have co-habited on this planet – because the Book of Genesis tells us so. Or Abdul Aziz confess, in effect, to using faith as an excuse for refusing to make the effort to understand life’s complexity, and opting for the simple appeal of creationism’s media-age distortion (the oxymoronically labelled ‘intelligent design’).

Quite what Channel 4’s programmers, in their radical edginess, consider they are achieving with this weeks’ 4thought.tv theme is questionable. In wanting to ‘educate’ or provoke ‘thought’, they’ve fallen into the trap, and potentially contributed to the undermining of evolutionary theory – and the demonising of scientists – in the public eye. Promoting scriptural literalism as fact fosters a childishly irresponsible mindset. It ought neither to be propagated in schools, nor propagandised on TV.

An acceptable approach by the presenter, but I would like to see evolution to be presented as a theory with all the arguments both for and against.

Thank you Michael Reiss. Yes please, more open discussion on all contentious subjects in schools. - This from a child whose charismatic and popular physics teacher easily influenced his students by means of studied silence, holding high & reading Communist Party magazines in class (the grateful start of the end to an already horrific relationship with my father). Curious young minds are impressionable, and encouraged discussion protects by offsetting such vulnerability.

i agree with Professer Reiss creationism should be taught in schools but not alongside sciance that is what religious education lessons are for as creationism starts with belief and tries to add science evolution starts with science and tries to add belief

Prof Reiss is obviously an expert in his field , respect due . I have heard an interesting thought though regarding the definition of an expert , an ex is a hasbeen and a spert is a big drip under pressure . There are many clever people who think they know what is best for children to be taught in our schools . I am totally in favour of God being in our schools . To teach children that we are descended from monkeys etc is frankly hilarious and offensive to the monkey world .

I am happy for creationism to be discussed in school, along with other religious beliefs from all persuasions, but only in the context of providing children with information about the world and people. I'm not sure if there is a subject taught in schools these days like that. However, it should not be taught as a science as it is not, its just what people in the past used to help them explain their existence, to give some meaning to life.

These days we have a lot more evidence of how life developed, despite what some people have already commented. There is plenty of evidence for evolution (as opposed to creationism) and evolution is happening all around us still today. People might not like him, but read some of Richard Dawkins books on the subject and plenty of others.

Michael Reiss argues for tolerance of those with different beliefs: but there is such a thing as hogwash.

Creationism is essentially a conspiracy theory, up there with holocaust denial and Prince Philip killed Diana, but much more widely held and insidious. It requires that something like 98.5% of the world's scientists are either deluded or in wilful denial of the literal truth of Genesis 1 - 3. The other 1.5% are fundamentalists from America's Bible belt. There are and never could be any creationists who have not also signed up for the whole package of an infallible Bible, a literal (and perhaps imminent) Second Coming, eternal damnation for most of humanity (especially homosexuals). The position is ideological rather than scientific, and acutely embarrassing to most educated Christian, even those of a conservative persuasion. For example, the near-fundamentalist Nicky Gumbel, the Alpha Course man, will not put his name to it: and he is typical in this regard of British evangelicals.

Creationists are not rational people. They suffer from a kind of cognitive impairment which makes it impossible to carry out a sensible debate with them. (I've tried.) They can be pleasant enough, but they are right and that's that. Giving these deeply deluded heretics a platform represents a basic failure to apply academic rigous. Creationism is scientifically and religiously false. Not only does it have no place in the classroom: it has no place in the pulpit either.

Science including evolution is based on tons of evidence that is constantly peer reviewed whereas creationism is based on faith with no credible evidence to back it up. The science curriculum is no place for creationist ideas, creationism should stay in the religious education classes.

There is a problem with the title "Should creationism be taught in schools?" do we mean should creationism should be discussed? Sure. In a religious class where the topic should be discussed and argued over.
Should it be taught in the science class? No way ever. Why ? Because the vast majority of scientists ( and we are talking thousands) in the relevant field know that it would invalidate all the work proven over the last 150 years in the fields of evolutionary biology,biology,zoology,geology,history,paleontology,neuro-science,psychology,genetics and many more. Basically we would have to replace the current science curriculum with a theologically based one and go back to pre-enlightenment understanding of the world.
Are scientists engaging in an atheist conspiracy ? No. Science is a hugely competitive enterprise and is scrutinised in pains taking detail by all concerned and is faith neutral. It would be implausible for them all to conspire on this scale.
Furthermore, you don't have to be an atheist to support evolution. The last two popes have. The arch bishop of Canterbury does. The Jesuits do. All you need is an understanding of the evidence and a brain freed from dogma.
Finally, I would like to point out that as expected all those in the films for were not practising scientists. Even the mathematics teacher would not have been taught how to think scientifically at degree level. Can you imagine if it were the other way round and scientists were lobbying for what should be taught in the RE lesson? Do you think they would be taken any more seriously?

I think this was a well balanced video by Michael Reiss.

My education must have been poor. Until I read the comments on here this week I hadn’t heard of the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory of how we got here. Is there only one accepted truth to this theory or are there many versions? Please can someone tell me where it comes from and the basic outline of the theory?

I understand that Creationism believe in some evolution within species. I also thought it took a long time for these changes to take place. Do Young Earth Creationists have to speed up the time it takes to fit the 4,500 year they have for the process?

I note that Lee Turnpenny states, “Quite what Channel 4’s programmers, ... consider they are achieving with this weeks’ 4thought.tv theme is questionable. In wanting to ‘educate’ or provoke ‘thought’,”
I have watched all the videos and I have responded on this forum. I have also read information from other internet sites because Channel 4 has stimulated my interest in this subject. It hasn’t changed my overall view, but I know a lot more about what Young Earth Creationist believe and wish to be taught in schools.

So I say, “Well done Channel 4”.

1. Neither evolution nor creation are truly scientific. They happened once
and cannot be repeated. Therefore both can only interpret the evidence that
supports their case that they can find on this planet and the stars.
2. The evidence that supports the creationists view is far more convincing
than that for evolution. This is why they block publication of the
scientific evidence that creationists can provide; they always resort to
ridicule.
3. I have been interviewed on radio about 5 times, and each time I issue a
challenge to any evolutionist listening to have an open public debate on
"The scientific evidence supports Creation". I have never received a
response.
4. I challenged Prof. Steve Jones to a debate when he lectured locally. He
refused.
5. I spoke on Talk Sport and was told I would be on for 30 minutes. So huge
was the response that I was on air for 73 minutes when commercials were
removed. Such is the interest when people hear the evidence that
creationists can provide.
6. I have spoken at 2 local top schools for about 8 years. They are so
fascinated that they take me off to an empty classroom for further
questioning for another 45 minutes. THIS IS ALWAYS THE RESPONSE WHEN PEOPLE
HEAR THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR THE FIRST TIME.
Malcolm Bowden.

Michael Reiss has assumed that Evolution is science. In reality it is merely a hypothesis. As one scientist put it, it is 'a fairy tale for adults'. Evolution has now assumed the position of an orthodoxy even though there is no proof for it. Mere speculation, and incredibly improbable speculation, is all it is.

If we give time in the education system to creationism, surely we should give time to discussing Big Foot and the fairies at the bottom of our gardens? Tolerance is one thing, but we cannot afford to give any credence to ancient nonsense and the scientifically blind people who think the earth is less than 10,000 years old, which is exactly what will happen if we allow it to be added to the curriculum. Humankind needs to wake up from of the middle dark ages and abandon all the superstitious nonsense that has given leave to so much segregation, hate and violence for millennia. Once we free ourselves of ancient superstitions and accept that only we are accountable for what happens in the world, not some invisible omnipotent being, then we can empathise with all our fellow humans and fully take responsibility for making the world a better place to live in.

These two quotes sum it up nicely:

“There are good men who do good and bad men who do evil, but for a good man to do evil, it takes religion.”

“Man created god in his own image, intolerant, sexist, homophobic and violent.”

It is sad to see how on one hand creationists distort the Bible account by claiming that Creation occurred in six literal days.

But equally disturbing are those professors of 'science' who disregard the basic scientific objectivity required to understand that evolution merely attempts to explain changes within the species, occurring as a result of clever genetic design, which in turn results in incredible adaptation.

They fail to answer a fundamental question: where did it all come from, before it even began to change and adapt?

When answering this question, essentially 'How did life begin?', please avoid theories like: 'A meteorite from outer space, with just the right ingredients that added to a 'magic formula' that 'happened to be present in the sea' just at the 'right time' and with the 'right amount of energy' provided by a 'casual storm' that 'by chance' formed a special soup that began to evolve into life as we know it today...". An answer like that might be worth a degree and a nod by Richard Dawkins, but could not be further from the truth.

The 'chances' of that happening are so remote, they are inestimable.... It's far, far easier and more logical to believe in an intelligent Creator than to have blind faith in suppositions and unproven theories such as those.

After all, when science discovers things that are already there, inevitably (and very likely) someone gets a pat on the back and possibly a Nobel prize, just for writing intelligently about such things, but no one dares give credit to The Intelligence that put them there in the first place.

How can they say that Evolution is a 'fact' when the only fact is that no one agrees on its fundamental theories in full and when basic questions like the one above, and others, remain unanswered, like:

Is any form of life really simple?
Where did any instructions come from?
Has all common life descended from a single ancestor?

On the basis that science forces opinions on others, simply because it is fashionable, and on occasions justified, to symbolically replace Darwin on the pedestal of common belief, without giving God a 'proper' chance, I ask: Is it reasonable to believe the Bible?

At the risk of not getting a degree, I say a resounding yes, but only if we let the Bible speak for itself, for example by letting it say how its very first verse is utterly scientific: "In the beginning", an unspecified amount of time ago, "God created the Heavens and the Earth"! Can anyone say: "Rubbish, I was there, it's not true"?. To the contrary, the more you delve into science and let the Bible speak for itself, the more evidence you uncover of how beautifully logical and consistent its account of Creation really is.

When asked publicly by Jonathan Ross if he believed in God, Sir David Attenborough's humility and courage came to the fore when, after a lifetime dedicated to programs describing evolution, he said:

"It is a possibility I cannot discount".

So, yes, absolutely, The Bible account of Creation should be taught in schools and so should science, but only the kind of science that is not afraid of confrontation, proof and debate (its very creed) and is willing to give God and the Bible account of Creation a proper chance.

The two sides are completely compatible if you just add a few noughts to one of them, for goodness sakes!!! Why would an Infinite Being only take six days over His creation??? 'A thousand years' (Make that a billion) is but a day to our Lord. There is no argument then! Wake up!!!

Darwin, it seems to me, was intent at correcting the classification system of his day, the so called Natural System since it was not based on the laws of genetic variation and inheritance which he had observed. In the process he found himself confronted by the religious bigotism of his day, hence his defensive position in relation to the principles of "multiple Creation", as he called it, or the idea that God created each variation rather than letting genetics do their work, something the Bible clearly does not teach.

In the conclusion of his book "On the Origin of Species" Darwin freely admits to the possibility of an original act of creation and points to genetic variation when he states:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling
on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved".