29% of UK teachers favor teaching creationism

HI Oni, I wish. No, the UK has creationists as well. In fact we have quite a lot of state-funded religious schools, although most are not creationist. I believe there are a few Evangelical Christian, Jewish and Islamic schools that do push creationism, but they are thankfully a minority.The national curriculum dictates what must be taught in lessons here, but it does not preclude the teaching of other topics, such as creationism. UK ministers have criticised the teaching of creationism as science, but no action has been taken to prevent it. Given some of the people who once "taught" me, I would be hesitant about automatically labelling UK teachers as "Intellectuals". Having said that, I'm wouldn't put much faith in this poll. 1210 respondents does not sound very convincing to me, especially given that the survey was self-selecting and had a response rate of only about 11%. With numbers like that, it wouldn't take much for a strong bias to creep in. Of course, it's pretty worrying that a result like this can be reached at all, but I'm a bit sceptical about it.From the article;

quote:

---

Thirty-one per cent of respondents and 18% of the 248 science teachers in the sample said they thought creationism or intelligent design should be given the same status as evolution in the classroom, although this question did not specify whether it was referring to science lessons or the curriculum in general.

---

31% just seems surprisingly high for such a strong statement. I mean, equal time? That is quite a bold statement. I find it hard to believe that many teachers, from right across the board, would show so much support for creationism. Tellingly...

quote:

---

Twenty-two respondents said they had been pressured to teach creationism or intelligent design by their school.

---

Only 22 can be bothered to do anything to actively promote creationism. This is not surprising. Creationism just isn't that strong an issue over here. Most people aren't interested. Those who are tend to represent fairly small groups of Evangelicals. Religion as a whole is much less a visible issue here than in the US, more a private matter. When creationism does encroach on schools it is in the religious schools. Creationism in the comprehensive system (the bulk of public-funded schools) is nigh on unthinkable. What specific kind of creationism would you teach in a multi-cultural inner-city school. without upsetting someone? I would say (c), but as to whether it is growing or not, I couldn't say. I doubt that the demand is there to make up any large scale movement for creationism in UK schools. Most Christians here are Anglican and they're generally not creationist. I think the main difference though, is the less prominent role that religion plays in British society.Mutate and Survive.PS: By the way, search your car for drugs indeed! Very funny! There must be some back there somewhere...

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

No it isn't.We didn't win that empire by praying for it Faith. We got it by invading other peoples' countries and slaughtering any who resisted. The British Empire, like all empires, was corrupt evil and a great shame on our nation. None of the benefits that British rule brought to its subjects could be worth the blood price they paid. It belongs in the past. As per your definition of "true Christians"? Vanishingly few and fewer with every year.

And the British Empire was one of them. What right had we to govern India? We got it at gunpoint and by horse trading with other thieves and brigands. What right had we to govern any of those places? Only the right of might makes right. We took them by force so that we might pillage them. That's how gangsters behave. We lost those "blessings" because the people we had robbed took back what was theirs. But yes, the British treated their subjects appallingly and paid the price for it, but by far the greater price was paid by their victims. Apparently, you see this as part of God's plan. It seems like a monstrous plan to me.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

Don't patronise me please. I am well aware of how modern Indians view the Raj as a double-edged sword. But the fact remains that they threw the British out. Do you think they would welcome being conquered again? Perhaps a few more massacres would help them out some more. Dinesh D'Souza is a liar and a scoundrel, but insofar as we might accept his point, what difference does it make? Do you truly believe that the British Imperialists stole and killed for the benefits of the conquered? Do you imagine that Britain fought the Opium Wars out of piety or humanitarianism? They didn't, they acted out of greed, pure and simple. They wanted to exploit the markets and resources of the countries they invaded. If that is the behaviour of godly men, then I am relieved that your God has become marginalised in the UK.Mutate and Survive

Hi foreveryoung, None of it matters. Only the actions and their motivations matter. The truth is that Britain acted out of greed and arrogance. That their actions had some positive outcomes does not mitigate this.I understand that the imperialists of the time did not view themselves as evil, but what does that matter? Hitler did not view himself as evil. The slave owners of America did not view themselves as evil. Men will always find a justification for their evil acts. It should not surprise us that the Imperialists of the past sought to shroud themselves in piety and claim divine support for their criminal acts, but for Faith to do the same, in the Twenty-first Century, is profoundly offensive. a) That isn't true, India was a collection of prosperous nations before the East India Company got involved.b) For many Indian citizens today, they might as well be living in the Dark Ages for all the good it does them.

quote:

---

Poverty in India is widespread, with the nation estimated to have a third of the world's poor. In 2011, World Bank stated, 32.70% of the total Indian people fall below the international poverty line of US$ 1.25 per day (PPP) while 68.7% live on less than US$ 2 per day.[1]

​

According to 2010 data from the United Nations Development Programme, an estimated 37.2% of Indians live below the country's national poverty line.[2] A 2010 report by the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI) states that 8 Indian states have more poor people than 26 poorest African nations combined which totals to more than 410 million poor in the poorest African countries.

​

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_India

---

c) If Britain had not "colonised" India, then the world might have been spared the tragedy of partition, a tragedy that is still claiming lives to this day. Obviously, but that is the wrong question.All that matters is whether Indians of the time wished to be governed by outsiders. Given the numerous attempts to resist or oust the British, it would seem a safe bet that they did not. I understand and to an extent I agree, but the same can be said of many appalling situations. A similar point might be made of US slavery; many people of African descent now live comfortable lives in a developed nation, where instead they might have been born in poverty in Africa. But does that mitigate the evils of slavery, even by a little? I would say that it does not.Mutate and Survive

Fine, but you are wrong. It was the result of men, with guns, stealing and murdering others. Do you truly believe that God rewards murderers and plunderers? I wish that too.A viable alternative would be for you to learn about a subject before you opine on it. These are the same arguments that are used as apologetics for slavery. Tell that to a modern German.For the record, I don't think that the people who created the Empire were evil, but I do regard their actions as evil. Sometimes good people can be persuaded to do evil things and invoking "the blessings of God" is a frequent justification for bad behaviour. Bad enough that the Empire builders engaged in this kind of offensive rationalisation themselves, without you doing it too. The British Empire was nothing more than the Mafia with a navy. There's nothing "blessed" about it.Seriously Faith; what do you think Jesus would have done? Invade other countries and subjugate them? Do you think Christ would have started a war to defend his right to sell opium? Really?Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

You argue further on in this post that motivations do matter; That is an argument based upon motivations.The point is that motivations matter. If the British had primarily been interested in educating people or bettering their lives, they could have done so without subjugating them and exploiting their resources. They chose not to do that though. They chose to take those countries at gunpoint. That they found rationalisations for doing so means little to nothing. Well first, I am not convinced that the good achieved is greater. The truth is that Britain meddled so much in the affairs of other countries that it is impossible to guess what might have happened had they been left to fend for themselves.But this is really not the point. The point is that Britain had no right to rule these nations. They didn't earn them, they weren't given them, they stole them. If that happened to your nation, you would not be grateful and nor should anyone else be expected to be grateful for being subjugated by a foreign power. You really don't know that. It is just as likely, if not more likely, that the Nazis viewed their actions as justified. It is a sad fact of human psychology that almost no-one regards themselves as being evil, no matter what evils they commit. Do you seriously imagine that millions of Germans thought of themselves as the bad guys?As for the British imperialists not realising that what they were doing was wrong, I doubt very much that the immoral nature of walking into another country and taking it for themselves was lost on them. They just found ways to rationalise it, that's all. That's what people always do when they commit immoral acts for profit. This is patently untrue. Slave owners repeatedly sought to justify the practise against those who opposed it. They too often invoked divine support. I really don't think that is how rationalisation works. The process of rationalising an action typically prevents the conscious realisation that the act is immoral. It protects the conscious mind from the discomfort of having to admit that one's actions were wrong in the first place. This process is what allows people who do terrible things to continue thinking of themselves as being "good", despite evidence to the contrary. If it worked the way you describe, it would not be such a tempting prospect. To be fair, I don't think that is what Faith was trying to say. Nonetheless, portraying one of the most sorry and shameful chapters in British history as a "blessing" is repugnant. As a Brit, I react to it in much the same way as a modern German might, upon hearing someone say that the Third Reich was a blessing from God.Mutate and Survive

What you said and what I took objection to was this; What I am trying to get through to you is that the end of Empire is not even remotely sad. The Empire, for all the good you might find to say about it, was deeply unethical and immoral. It stands as a giant blot upon my nation's copybook. I find it distasteful that you should seek to downplay this or portray it as some sort of lost halcyon age. Pious, naive fantasizing. The Empire wasn't founded on some nebulous blessings Faith, it was founded on guns and ships. Glory to God for his bounteous blessings of firearms and warships! Praise him for granting us with the power to kill and enslave people more efficiently than they can resist! Praise Jesus and pass the ammunition!If God ever did bless my country, then the Empire was part of the process of squandering that blessing, not a result of it. Its loss is not sad. Rather, we should celebrate the independence of former colonies. Can't you see that claiming those places as "colonies" and those people as "subjects" was a wrong in and of itself, regardless of how they were subsequently treated? Fair enough, but saying that we were the "least nasty conquerors" is a little bit like calling someone the "tallest midget". Fair enough. Those are weasel words. Those people regarded themselves as True Christians every bit as much as you do. But I know what you're going to say; they weren't filled with the Christian spirit. Well all I can say is that you've changed your tune. In your first post you bemoaning their loss. now you accuse them of not showing Christian spirit. Well which is it?

​

and possibly India could have evolved into something similar to Canada or Australia in their relations with their conquerors.

​

a) How highly do you think the Native Australians regard their conquest? Or the indigenous peoples of Canada? How grateful do you think they are for genocide?

​

b) India and the UK have a pretty good relationship actually, as we do with many Commonwealth countries. The Empire is in the past for the most part. I just don't think that making apologetics for it is any way to improve those relations. Any culture must own up to its past misdeeds and the Empire is certainly one of Britain's, just as the genocide of indigenous peoples is one of America's. You shouldn't be viewing it through rose-tinted glasses.

​

Mutate and Survive

Faith, Canada and Australia have good relations with the UK and the same system of government as the UK for one reason; they killed most of the people who were already living there, marginalised the rest, stole their land and installed their own system of government. That's why we're so close. That's why we share the same head of state. many of the pre-Empire Indian nations were self governing.But yes, if the British had gone to India in a "spirit of help", they could have done great things and helped India become stronger. They didn't do that though. Instead, they ruthlessly exploited the place and its peoples. that's why I challenged the nostalgic view of empire you expressed in your first post. Actually, it seems like we are now in agreement; the Empire was not an example of a vanished utopian era of British Christianity. In fact, it was exploitative and distinctly unchristian. So when you said that it was sad that the sun had gone down on the Empire, you misspoke. Fair enough. Sadly, I can attest to this from personal experience. India is an amazing country to visit. It is vast, varied and beautiful. I met some wonderful people there. But I also witnessed the most disturbing kind of poverty. The sad truth is that at the lowest levels of Indian society, the very poor, were badly off under the Mughals and Rajahs, badly off under the Raj and in many cases, they're still badly off now. Fortunately, India is a genuinely developing nation, with a growing economy and good prospects for the future. It is still held back by corruption at all levels, but there is reason to be hopeful.Mutate and Survive