Survey: 1 in 3 British teachers think creationism should be taught

One in three.

One in three Brit teachers believes creationism should be at par with evolution

London, Nov 7 : One in three Brit teachers believes that the theories of creationism and intelligent design should be given the same status as evolution in the classroom, according to a new survey.

According to the survey of 1,200 teachers, 53 per cent thought that creationism should not be taught in science lessons, while 29 per cent thought it should, reports Timesonline.

However, 88 per cent said that if students raised the issue in a science lesson, they should be allowed to discuss it.

Creationism is based on a literal interpretation of scripture as an explanation for the origins of life.

Intelligent design is a more modern version, which says that life is so complex it cannot be explained solely by evolution.

According to National curriculum guidelines, creationism has no place in science lessons.

Last year, Professor Michael Reiss, a biologist and Royal Society director of education, provoked a furore by calling for creationism to be treated in science lessons as a legitimate ‘world-view’.

It’s nice to see a news article which calls intelligent design what it is – a “modern version” of creationism – but it’s still unfortunate to hear such a silly thing be called a “theory”. Maybe it’s stupid statements like this that have played into the awful science education of so many British teachers.

It should be of note that while creationism is rampant all over the world, including Britain, this was a survey of all teachers, not just science or biology teachers. Regardless, however, of one’s particular field, there’s little excuse for thinking magic is at all a legitimate world view.

How Natural Selection is Cumulative

Tale Of Two Snails Reveals Secrets About The Biochemistry Of Evolution

In the new study, Emilio Rol├ín-Alvarez and colleagues note that scientists long have known that animals of the same species can have different physical characteristics enabling them to survive in different habitats. One famous example is the different beak sizes and shapes that evolved in Darwin’s finches, enabling the birds to live on different foods in different habitats on the Galapagos Islands. Until now, however, scientists knew little about the invisible biochemical changes behind such adaptations.

To help fill those gaps, the scientists studied two populations of marine snails that live only a few feet apart on the Spanish coast. One group lives on the lower shore, typically submerged in water and protected from large changes in temperature. The other group lives on the upper shore exposed to daily changes in temperature, humidity and other environmental conditions. Tests with mass spectrometry showed major differences in about 12 percent of the proteins in the snail, a subset of proteins that apparently enables the snails to survive in different environmental conditions.

This is a wonderful example of the how natural selection works in a cumulative way. Rather than the misconception that entire organs and bodily systems come into existence in one fell swoop, this study of snails offers a taste of reality.

Notice that these snails have the same set of proteins. However, between the two groups, there are differences within the proteins. Essentially, the proteins are expressed differently. At least part of the reason has to do with differing levels of ATP, or energy. That is, these proteins are regulated slightly differently, but differently enough to allow for this species of snail to live in two distinct environments. This can be important in explaining the cumulative effects of natural selection – this is still one species of snail, but they have minute differences in just 21 proteins which allow for slightly different living conditions. If the snails continue to diverge and actually fully speciate (they are in a state of sympatric incomplete speciation now) – i.e., they cannot or simply do not produce fertile offspring – then it is highly likely that such an event would be contigent upon this first deviation in protein regulation.