This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

In Britain, creationist theory is evolving - Comments

leodavinci's Avatar Comment 1 by leodavinci

Disgusting. I honestly think that Youtube will be the battleground that will win or lose this war, you can force a pupil to read whatever you want them to, but you cannot restrict them in their own homes.
If you have a look at any religiously themed video (pick a random one) on YT you will see a strong majority on our side, it is heartening.

Sun, 16 Mar 2008 09:39:00 UTC | #137139

atheist1981's Avatar Comment 2 by atheist1981

Dawkins new to be released book about evolution is needed more than ever. I'll be jumping for joy when I get it in the mail one day.

Sun, 16 Mar 2008 09:40:00 UTC | #137140

emmet's Avatar Comment 3 by emmet

Mercifully, European countries have national curricula revised periodically by expert panels, not local school boards populated by non-experts. The only chance of a cab-driver having the slightest influence on the national science curriculum in Britain is if Richard takes up a new career behind the wheel after he retires from Oxford.

Sun, 16 Mar 2008 10:07:00 UTC | #137148

Partisan's Avatar Comment 4 by Partisan

I'm confident that this will never become popular in Europe.

Sun, 16 Mar 2008 10:10:00 UTC | #137150

Apathy personified's Avatar Comment 5 by Apathy personified

Well, it would appear that we have an escalating fight on our hands.
Personally, I have no problem with children being taught creatonism, IN RELIGIOUS EDUCATION classes, if you wanna teach something in a science lesson, it has to be science otherwise it becomes a pretty pathetic charade.
What really annoys me is that this is clearly a well financed and planned scheme, that is deliberately trying to undercut scientific thought and indoctrinate children, for some very dubious reasons.

Sun, 16 Mar 2008 10:10:00 UTC | #137151

Apathy personified's Avatar Comment 7 by Apathy personified

Ha, sorry i've just noticed the photo, a bearded old man, maleavalently grinning over a map of Britain, like some sort of bond villian

Sun, 16 Mar 2008 10:15:00 UTC | #137154

Geoff's Avatar Comment 6 by Geoff

Before everyone gets too scared, here's an excerpt from the official Government response to a petition last year:

The Government is aware that a number of concerns have been raised in the media and elsewhere as to whether creationism and intelligent design have a place in science lessons. The Government is clear that creationism and intelligent design are not part of the science National Curriculum programmes of study and should not be taught as science.

Full text here:

Sun, 16 Mar 2008 10:15:00 UTC | #137153

Thomas Byrne's Avatar Comment 8 by Thomas Byrne


Wake me when the world wakes up to reason.


Sun, 16 Mar 2008 10:21:00 UTC | #137158

KrisRamJ's Avatar Comment 9 by KrisRamJ

"I think they are fed up with not finding true happiness. They find having a bigger car doesn't make them happy. They get drunk and the next morning they have a hangover. They take drugs but the drugs wear off. But what they find with Christianity is lasting."

..or they could just try exercising their brains and thinking for themselves instead of being led by money/drugs/religion.

I'd never even considered the hardline koranic creationism though, there's another thin end of a wedge...

Sun, 16 Mar 2008 10:22:00 UTC | #137159

jhm's Avatar Comment 10 by jhm


Don't look now.

Sun, 16 Mar 2008 10:27:00 UTC | #137164

Double Bass Atheist's Avatar Comment 11 by Double Bass Atheist

As an American, I've always looked to European countries with envy. The secular, rational nature of your countries gives me hope that in can be this way one day here in the US. In other words, Europe (especially my friends in the UK) are an "inspiration."

When I read words like:

"There is a lot of American influence, and there are a lot of moral and political and financial resources flowing from the United States to here"

...I absolutely cringe!
Damn, this pisses me off!!!

We need your influence here, not the other way around!

Sun, 16 Mar 2008 10:27:00 UTC | #137165

Koreman's Avatar Comment 12 by Koreman

So, when evolution is banned everywhere and hospitals have been closed down by lack of medicine, what's next? Einstein? Quantum mechanics? Maybe children should be taught that nuclear power is just a trick of the devil cleverly deluding us. There is no such thing as atoms and molecules. Proof? You can't see them.

These people have serious mental problems.

Sun, 16 Mar 2008 10:30:00 UTC | #137169

epeeist's Avatar Comment 13 by epeeist

Comment #144557 by Koreman

So, when evolution is banned everywhere and hospitals have been closed down by lack of medicine, what's next? Einstein? Quantum mechanics?
Further down the line - expect things like geology, archaeology, anthropology and ancient history to be hit first.

Sun, 16 Mar 2008 10:41:00 UTC | #137175

JanChan's Avatar Comment 14 by JanChan

Dawkins feels the effect. He said he is discouraged when he visits schools and gets questions from students who have obviously been influenced by material from Answers in Genesis. "I continually get the same rather stupid points straight from their pamphlets," he said.

Their same old arguments are coming up so many times that, as Hitchens would say, they aren't worth debating, all you can do is underline them.

Sun, 16 Mar 2008 10:47:00 UTC | #137179

Bonzai's Avatar Comment 15 by Bonzai


I think they do worth debating at least in the school setting as the students in the audience might mistaken a refusal to answer as inability to answer.

Sun, 16 Mar 2008 10:51:00 UTC | #137180

Geoff's Avatar Comment 16 by Geoff

If anyone is interested, AiG & Ken Ham are doing a series of talks in the UK next month:

Some members are going to be giving out flyers at the events (Steve Zara has been closely involved in the design of the flyer!).

More about it here:

and the flyer can be seen here:

I'm hoping to get to the Liverpool one on March 31st.

Sun, 16 Mar 2008 10:54:00 UTC | #137184

notsobad's Avatar Comment 17 by notsobad

There aren't more creationists. There are just more people willing to say they are creationists because they are convinced that calling it science or theory makes them smart.

Sun, 16 Mar 2008 11:01:00 UTC | #137187

the way's Avatar Comment 18 by the way

I am sure in this Celeb obsessed world that there are many atheist celebrities who would be willing/happy to put their names to a short piece telling children to think for themselves. Rowan Atkinson, Ricky Gervaise, Michael Stipe, Brian Eno, Brian May, Jodie Foster, Stephen Fry, Eddy Izzard and so on and on. There are so many of them, intelligent articulate and in the media entertainment front line. It is a resource that needs to be tapped. "Kids....Just say no"! Maybe the children will listen to their heroes.

Sun, 16 Mar 2008 11:03:00 UTC | #137188

Billy Sands's Avatar Comment 19 by Billy Sands

Sorry, THEORY??????????

Wonder if his doctrate was actually in radiochemistry - doubt it some how

Sun, 16 Mar 2008 11:25:00 UTC | #137199

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 20 by Steve Zara

Some members are going to be giving out flyers at the events (Steve Zara has been closely involved in the design of the flyer!).

Actually, just wording. Others have done far more, and deserve to take a bow.

Sun, 16 Mar 2008 11:36:00 UTC | #137207

Pattern Seeker's Avatar Comment 21 by Pattern Seeker

I think the last name of the founder of 'Answers in Genesis'(ha) actually says it all-HAM.

According to the dictionary the 2nd definition of 'Ham' states-
(noun), an excessively theatrical actor.

That sounds about right.

Sun, 16 Mar 2008 11:44:00 UTC | #137209

Zaphod's Avatar Comment 22 by Zaphod

""Evolution is a lie, and it's being taught in schools as fact, and it's leading our kids in the wrong direction," said McLean, chatting outside the chapel. "But now people like Ken Ham are tearing evolution to pieces.""

Another example of fractal wrongness.

Sun, 16 Mar 2008 12:09:00 UTC | #137218

Roy_H's Avatar Comment 23 by Roy_H

Comment #144526 by leodavinci on March 16, 2008 at 9:39 am
For example

These are excellent!

Sun, 16 Mar 2008 13:08:00 UTC | #137239

Inferno's Avatar Comment 24 by Inferno

I'll start taking creationism more seriously when it does two things:

1. Some respected atheist scientists agree with it.
2. It proposes that the "creator" is likely to be a highly advance alien, or a time traveller from the far future. Both of these being more likely than a superpowerful mystical spirit being called god.

Sun, 16 Mar 2008 13:48:00 UTC | #137249

Buddha's Avatar Comment 25 by Buddha

I just had brief visit to the Answers in Genesis website and the first thing I clapped my eyes on was this foul piece of bare faced dishonesty:

If dinosaurs evolved from amphibians, there should be, for example, fossil evidence of animals that are part dinosaur and part something else. However, there is no proof of this anywhere. In fact, if you go into any museum you will see fossils of dinosaurs that are 100% dinosaur, not something in between. There are no 25%, 50%, 75%, or even 99% dinosaursâ€"they are all 100% dinosaur!

How about Archosauria, Ornithodira, Dinosauromorpha etc. you truth distorting, lying scumbags!

Good luck to those of you who will be challenging them during their talks in the UK this month. If they come anywhere near Monkey World in Dorset, I shall give them both barrels!

Sun, 16 Mar 2008 13:51:00 UTC | #137250

Bonzai's Avatar Comment 26 by Bonzai

Other than saying evolution is wrong what is the central "theory" of creationism? What are its positive contents?

Let's say by some disaster the creationists are allowed equal time in the biology class room what are they going to say? I mean, it would only take a few second to finish their syllabus because it is just one sentence "God did it."

Looking at the bright side like the Monty Python advised, at least you can save some money on text books if these clowns get their way and exams are going to be really easy.

Sun, 16 Mar 2008 13:55:00 UTC | #137252

Teratornis's Avatar Comment 27 by Teratornis

In reply to comment #144553 by Double Bass Atheist :

"There is a lot of American influence, and there are a lot of moral and political and financial resources flowing from the United States to here"
We need your influence here, not the other way around!

This is probably small comfort, but the U.S. appears likely to suffer much greater economic damage from the imminent decline in the world's production of conventional oil than Europe will, because Europe's economy is about twice as efficient overall in terms of energy, and similarly with respect to the premium form of mobile energy: liquid fuels from petroleum. I.e., most European nations burn much less petroleum per unit of GDP than the U.S. does.

Virtually all national economies appear likely to take a mighty blow from declining oil production over the next several decades, but the U.S. will really get creamed since at least half the population here lives in suburban sprawl and is utterly dependent on personal automobiles, both physically and psychologically. (I think the psychological addiction to automobility is actually a more serious problem than the mere physical addiction, because we could greatly reduce the physical addiction with some straightforward rearrangements, but the psychological addiction blinds people to the need to get started on the rearrangements while there is still time.)

In theory, the U.S. has plenty of wind resources to make up for the energy loss from declining petroleum, along with the proven technology to exploit wind economically. The U.S. wind industry is booming as is the case in other countries. But it's starting from practically zero in terms of overall energy production, there is no magic way to get electricity from wind into the existing motor vehicle fleet, and most people in the U.S. seem too stupid to figure out how to telecommute to work with existing technology, so the U.S. appears to be in for a wrenching economic transition.

I would imagine that while the U.S. is struggling to cope with its almost inconceivable yet imminent disaster, the international influence of the U.S. can only decline. People here are going to be more concerned with how to span the great distances from their McMansions to offices and big-box stores every day. When gasoline (petrol) hits $15/gal here, suburban evangelicals aren't going to have the disposable income to support their own missionaries.

Instead they will be sending all their money to Saudi Arabia, to support Saudi Arabia's Wahhabi missionaries. And no, that is not exactly progress.

Sun, 16 Mar 2008 13:55:00 UTC | #137253

Thomas Byrne's Avatar Comment 28 by Thomas Byrne

Why to they keep equating atheism with hedonism? Hedonism is a choice amongst atheists and I myself lived that life in my early 20's but, I just grew out of it. Gradually. No trumpets, no parade, now I immerse myself in books on various topics to keep my mind active and exercised. I never felt I had to cling to the life preserver of Christianity or any other religion to mend ways which I never thought needed mending because I didn't have the AA style guilt culture to make me feel debased, to lower me down to a miserable wretch so that it could build me back up again to be a man. (whatever that even many roads must a man walk and all that) More indication that religion is for those with weak constitutions.

Sun, 16 Mar 2008 14:19:00 UTC | #137268

Bonzai's Avatar Comment 29 by Bonzai

Sanderson said the British government is taking over funding of about 100 Islamic schools even though they teach the Koranic version of creationism. He said the government fears imposing evolution theory on the curriculum lest it be branded as anti-Islamic.

Excuse me?! This is the most stupid thing I have read.

Sun, 16 Mar 2008 14:31:00 UTC | #137273

D'Arcy's Avatar Comment 30 by D'Arcy

Isn't it amazing how a few thousand dollars can buy so much influence into what is taught in British (and no doubt other) schools. These pissquicks of a bygone age are now so determined to push their fantasy that science must now fly out the window.

Mr White is reported as saying:

He says that when he is asked to speak to science classes, he challenges the accuracy of radioactive dating which shows the world to be thousands of millions of years old and says that the Bible is a more accurate description of how mankind began. He personally believes the Earth is between 6,000 and 12,000 years old.

If Mr. White is so certain of his viewpoint, why doesn't he challenge the scientific basis of radiometric dating head on, by getting his own view published in a respected scientific journal? My suspicion is that the man has more chance of passing through the eye of a needle than he has of getting his view thus published. But maybe Mr. White will prove me wrong!

Maybe velociraptors used to play with children after all!

Sun, 16 Mar 2008 15:17:00 UTC | #137290