July 31, 2014

Sometimes You Have to Take A Step Back: This writer beautifully addresses the evolution/creation conflict in the UK.

I love to hear myself talk. I love to read what I write. I take great pleasure in the pieces that I create, and I love, not unlike a serial killer, revising the scene of my kills...er, posts. You could say each page is a version of my very own blood slide.

So it's not often that I reproduce something with little commentary, but this post is one of those. Before we get started, though, a little background, aye?

In June, the United Kingdom banned the teaching of creationism in schools supported by government money. This has naturally caused some consternation for creationists, but overall, seems to be a good move.

This week, I ran across a letter to the editor that made the point beautifully. Take a look.

“Re Geoffrey Lover, promoting creationism in schools. (16/7/14) 
Schools do actually teach about creationism, in the same way that they teach about Islam and Hinduism - in Religious Education classes, which is where they belong. 
Just as teaching reincarnation instead of the life cycle in biology would be extreme and misguided, so is rejecting well-accepted science (contrary to your statement, it is estimated that over 99% of scientists believe evolution to be true, not ‘as many as believe in the Creation’). 
The problem with presenting religious ideas as scientific theories, is that to be a valid scientific theory, you need some tangible evidence. 
Interestingly, you state ‘you cannot prove something by assuming something else’, which is followed immediately by ‘well, I don’t like the idea that we’re here by accident, so we can’t be’. As a religious idea, that’s fine, but you cannot justify teaching Christian science because it ‘feels’ right, or because it’s scary to think that we’re alone in the universe. 
As for the statement ‘fact and proof do not feature in this theory’, I find myself wondering whether you have looked into it at all - it’s hardly appropriate to suggest an education debate while having complete ignorance of the topic.
There are a number of websites providing explanations of evolution and the huge volume of evidence behind the theory if you wanted to take a look. 
However, you are absolutely right that evolution is a scientific ‘theory’, which, if you go back to the dictionary, you’ll find is defined as a ‘well-substantiated explanation which is repeatedly confirmed through experimentation’. But don’t let actual evidence separate you from your beliefs - to paraphrase Tim Minchin, one can hope you might feel the same way about the ‘theory’ of gravity, and you might just float away. 
Kerensa Gaunt
I love this so much. I wish someone would just...hug this person for me. Hard.

I don't have any commentary to offer, because Kerensa said it all so well. May we all join in the wish that one day, everyone who has said, "It's just a theory," will float away.

No comments:

Post a Comment