Creation vote surprise

[ManlyBacker]

JESSICA SHEPHERD

LONDON: More than half of British adults - 54 per cent - believe intelligent design and creationism should be taught alongside evolution in school - a proportion higher than in the US.

An Ipsos Mori survey questioned 11,768 adults from 10 countries on how the theory of evolution should be taught in school science lessons.

In the US, of 991 adults responding to the British Council survey, 51 per cent agreed that evolution should be on the curriculum alongside other theories, like intelligent design. Across the 10 countries, 43 per cent agreed with this statement: ''Creationism holds that the origins of humanity and the Earth are recent and divine.

''Advocates of intelligent design argue that some features of the universe and nature are so complex they must have been designed by a being of higher intelligence.''

Scientists, including Steve Jones and Lewis Wolpert, expressed shock at the numbers backing tutoring on creationism. And Christine Blower, acting general secretary of Britain's National Union of Teachers, said: ''It would be wholly wrong to include creationism in the science curriculum.''

Fern Elsdon-Baker, head of the British Council's Darwin Now program, said: ''Overall these results may reflect the need for a more sophisticated approach to teaching and communicating how science works as a process.''

Guardian News & Media

http://www.smh.com.au/world/creation-vote-surprise-20091026-hgqo.html

 

[Matabele]

bla bla bla, another clown making the false assumption that science and creation are mutually exclusive.

 

[ManlyBacker]

bla bla bla, another clown making the false assumption that science and creation are mutually exclusive.

Not true.

From Wiki again the "term is more commonly used to refer to religiously motivated rejection of natural biological processes, in particular evolution, as an explanation accounting for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth" and this is specifically how it is being used in this case.

What they are saying is that creationism is not science. It isn't. There have been many, many failed attempts by these nutters to prove that intelligent design principles are based in science, and the bankrolling by ignorant churches of these theories has resulted in the misleading of a large number of the population. I consider that worrying.

There is nothing, based on our knowledge today, that anyone can put forward to say that science and creation (encompassing the formation of the universe and the chemical structures that are available to form life) are mutually exclusive. However, Creationism as an alternative theory to the facts of evolution on Earth carry no weight.

 

[Matabele]

Well I'm an evolutionist so I must be going to hell.

 

[Dan]

If there is a hell matas

 

[clontaago]

The  following is an actual question given on a University of  Washington chemistry  mid  term..

The answer by one student was so 'profound' that the professor shared it with  colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well :

Bonus  Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?

Most  of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant.

One  student, however, wrote the following:

First,  we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need  to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a  soul gets to Hell, it will not leave.. Therefore, no souls are  leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the  different religions that exist in the world  today.

Most  of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we  can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as  they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase  exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in  Hell because Boyle's Law states that in
order for the temperature and  pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand  proportionately as souls are added.

This  gives two possibilities:

1.  If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase  until all Hell breaks loose.

2.  If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell,then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes  over.

So  which is it?

If  we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, 'It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you,' and  take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then  number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic  and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that  since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any  more souls and is therefore,extinct.......leaving only Heaven,  thereby proving the existence of a divine being
which explains why,  last night, Teresa kept shouting 'Oh my  God.'

 

[Matabele]

I don't know why that bloke is wasting his life studying chemistry.  He should switch to law.  Good effort though.

 

[The Gronk]

I don't know why that bloke is wasting his life studying chemistry.  He should switch to law.  Good effort though.

studying chemistry....what an idiot

 

[Matabele]

Yep.  Fast track to a life lived around the poverty line with the greatest thing to aspire to a gig on "beauty and the geek".