Skip to main content

A Small Victory in the U.K.

Image
By
While sometimes the struggle against the pseudoscientific tripe that is creationism seems never-ending, those of us on the side of science and reason occasionally get a win. This we have done in the past week; in yet another slap against creationism, the British government announced that "free schools", (local schools, often religious in nature but funded by the government and usually exempt from the educational curriculum of Britain), often called "faith schools" will lose funding if they attempt to teach creationism as science. Make no mistake, this is a victory for science. While Great Britain has traditionally ranked very high in public acceptance of evolution, the spread of these "faith schools" has led to a growing fear that this will be used to spread the religious doctrine of creationism. I am very grateful to Richard Dawkins and David Attenborough for spearheading this effort, making sure that Britain doesn't slide back from knowing and understanding what evolution is and why it is important. Now, at the very least, if British children are to be indoctrinated into the delusion of young-earth creationism, it won't be done on the public dime.

On the flip side of this good news, Answers in Genesis continues its missions to Great Britain, including one recent event in which a Ph.D level "scientist" spoke with a group of skeptics--though it wasn't made exactly clear as to whether or not it was a Creation-evangelism, Christian mission or a mixture of both that seems to be the forte of that organization. This isn't the first effort by Answers in Genesis in Britain; a few years ago Ken Ham himself spread his message of discord and confusion there.

As always, the good news comes with the bad. An important victory has been won, but not in this country. The fight for good science continues.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

By
Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...
18 comments
Read more

How I Left Creationism

By
There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...
23 comments
Read more

What Creationists Don't Understand

By
There are quite a number of concepts that one could successfully argue that creationists fail to understand; whether this is out of a simple lack of knowledge or willful ignorance is hard to say and certainly can't be generalized to every creationist. Some, the everyday creationist, I would like to think simply haven't been exposed to the evidence. Others, the holders of Ph.D's in various fields, especially in the sciences, who happily reject evolutionary theory are willfully ignorant (John Whitmore comes to mind). But I think there is one idea that creationists of all stripes simply fail to understand; evolution is based on solid, visible evidence. Evolution is not some tenant of a "science religion" that descended down to Darwin from on high, it is an explanatory framework based on quite a lot of facts and mountains of evidence. It is evidence that leads to the conclusions of evolution, that life changes over time and, given the long history of the earth, all ...
Post a Comment
Read more