Do more than half of British parents really think so-called intelligent design and creationism should be taught in school science lessons?
A survey that the Guardian is citing seems to say so.
If it’s true, then evolution isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, because 54 per cent of the British parents polled don’t seem to have evolved much in the brains department.
However, the statement these parents agreed with, as the Guardian has it, is this: “Evolutionary theories should be taught in science lessons in schools together with other possible perspectives, such as intelligent design and creationism.”
That’s not the same as saying creationism and intelligent design should be taught alongside evolutionary theories. The statement seems to be saying that intelligent design and creationism are going to be taught anyway, and do you think it would be a good idea to have evolution taught at the same time?
One assumes that the Ipsos Mori survey – which questioned 11,768 adults from 10 countries – was a bit more comprehensive in its questioning, but the Guardian story doesn’t make it very clear.
Was there a statement, for instance, that asked you to agree or disagree along the lines of “There should be no place for creationism or intelligent design in the school curriculum”?
Or, better still, “Those who believe in creationism are lunatics. Are you one of them?”
On second thoughts, that might not be an entirely fair question.
No comments:
Post a Comment
We welcome lively and challenging comments. However, please try to stay on topic, be polite and do not use abusive, racist or sexist language, and do not incite your readers to violence or other antisocial behaviour, or your comment will be deleted. This isn't censorship: it's a case of staying within the bounds of decency and having an eye to the law, although we realise the law will be different in different countries.
We do not bar anonymous comments at the moment, but we would prefer that those commenting play fair and use their name or at least a regular nom de plume. It does show a confidence in your convictions. We know, too, that it's easy to use a false name and be effectively anonymous, but, again, we appeal to your sense of good practice. Even a wacky nom de plume is better, since at least readers will come to know that contributor and maybe remember her or his previous comments.
Blatant commercial advertising will be removed.
Comments should not be construed as necessarily the policy or opinion of the Pink Triangle Trust.
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.