Evolution In The UK

[ApatheticParasites]

I plan on going to Uni in the UK, and am seriously considering becoming a citizen there. I am going to become an evolutionary biologist and so I'm curious to see if anybody in the UK can fill me in on how evolution is viewed by the general population?

The anti-science environment I currently see in the states is nothing short of depressing for me and is certainly not a place I'd want to settle down and eventually raise a family. Is ID strong in the UK? I'd be very thankful for any info I can get as I leave for uni in about a month and I'd like to know a bit before I got there.

[DudeAlmighty]

Hmm, mostly evolution isn't questioned. I have, on occasion, seen a few letters in the Daily Mail and, I think only once, in the Express, but that's it. I have never, ever, hear Creationism being touted as fact on the radio or on the box. I can't think of any talk shows or anything like that (Like Bill O'Reilley (sp?)) that might exist which serves as a mouthpiece for folks like Hovind.

I'm not a very public person, but I like to keep clued up with several newspapers (besides the tabloids like the Express and Mail) and as far as I can tell, Creationism is rarely taken seriously.

[Monad]

Yeah the situation in the states is hard to even imagine sometimes - it seems ludicrous that creationism could even have a foothold. People here are better educated when it comes to basic biology and besides, everyone here knows David Attenborough is god :)

[premjan]

I think uncertainty breeds ritual and religion.

[DudeAlmighty]

^^

If I understand this correctly, it has crossed my mind a few times. A lot of folks I talk with on a daily basis don't really seem to care that much, and take evolution for granted. A few times, especially when I read the letters pages in newspapers, I get the distinct impression there are probably a few average Joes and Janes nodding their heads or frowning thinking "Never thought of that. Maybe it isn't such a crazy idea after all."

Despite this, I've never been exposed to public creationism. That is, in the media or on the streets (and Glasgow has more than it fair share of nutters).

[Alan the Atheist]

Creationism isn't really even in the churches over here. Well - I have visited 4 churches, and only one of them teaches creationism. One actually tought the perills of creationism whilst I was there by showing it to be biblically false.

There are also no creationists in my calss at school, and I have neveeeer seen anything creationist on tv or in the news.

In fact, we only learn about creationism through history lessons ;-)

Its all gud

[ApatheticParasites]

I cannot even begin to tell you how happy reading the above makes me. I truly was starting to believe the entire world was becoming like America but the more I hear from people I know in Western Europe and Asia(Couple friends living in Japan) it seems that America (with some exceptions) is actually a minority among westernized/industial nations.


Tonight I was talking to a friend of mine in London and when he was naming me a long list of openly atheistic politicians my mouth literally was wide open. I was in utter disbelief. I'm really glad to hear that the UK does not share the hostility towards science that is experianced here in the states.

[MorningLightMountain]

To my knowladge I've never met a creationist. Sure there are people I've met that don't accept evolution but thats because they dont really care and haven't bothered to look it up, it's just not a issue. I have lots of friends that are christian and whenever creationism I brought up it is ridiculed by all involved. The UK is pretty science friendly (I'm an organic chemist) and you shouldn't have any problems.

Which uni are you thinking of joining?

[Richard Forrest]

I cannot even begin to tell you how happy reading the above makes me. I truly was starting to believe the entire world was becoming like America but the more I hear from people I know in Western Europe and Asia(Couple friends living in Japan) it seems that America (with some exceptions) is actually a minority among westernized/industial nations.


Tonight I was talking to a friend of mine in London and when he was naming me a long list of openly atheistic politicians my mouth literally was wide open. I was in utter disbelief. I'm really glad to hear that the UK does not share the hostility towards science that is experianced here in the states.

Don't be so sure: there is a general lack of interest in science ("bohring!"), and though we don't have many creationsts, there is widespread belief in such bollocks as "crystal healing" (Cherie Blair seems to be a believer in this), astrology, and other new age garbage.

Science is badly taught in schools, and is being marginalised in our universities. Science courses demand equipment and facilities which are expensive, and the universities can make more money by churning loads of students through soft courses such as 'media studies'. The trend in UK higher education is to treat universities as purely commercial operations, in which research only takes place if funded by business, and in which courses are run only if the university can make a profit from the fees.

This leads to ridiculous situtations: a close friend of mine teaches engineering at one of our local universities, and has developed a highly successful course which has earned the university money by being run under licence in universities in the Far East. However, the accounts in the university reckon that they can earn more revenue by running arts courses, so they have decided to stop teaching engineering - this at a time when our politicians keep telling us that we should be training more engineers, and his students walk out of his course straight into well-paid jobs.

Because he has tenure, the university cannot sack him. So they have moved the remains of his department into the faculty of Fine Arts, pay him to do nothing, but insist that he come into the University 32 hours every week to do so.

It's not helped by the scientific illiteracy of many of our politicians and civil servants. An inordinately high proportion of our politicians went to Oxford or Cambridge and have degrees in non-scientific disciplines, a high proportion are lawyers, and too many come from the circle of Tony Blair's cronies.

Richard Forrest

[MorningLightMountain]

Science is badly taught in schools, and is being marginalised in our universities. Science courses demand equipment and facilities which are expensive, and the universities can make more money by churning loads of students through soft courses such as 'media studies'. The trend in UK higher education is to treat universities as purely commercial operations, in which research only takes place if funded by business, and in which courses are run only if the university can make a profit from the fees.

Well that is a problem. There are a lot of chemistry departments being closed down at the moment. I wouldn't be surprised if my department closed in the next few years. We need to be churning out more scientists and engineers to give us a high-tech industry.

[Richard Forrest]

Well that is a problem. There are a lot of chemistry departments being closed down at the moment. I wouldn't be surprised if my department closed in the next few years. We need to be churning out more scientists and engineers to give us a high-tech industry.

More to the point, our industries need to learn to value those engineers. I mentioned that the graduates from my friends engineering course walk straight into well-paid jobs: most of those are in Germany or the Far East.

Richard Forrest

[Monad]

Don't be so sure: there is a general lack of interest in science ("bohring!"), and though we don't have many creationsts, there is widespread belief in such bollocks as "crystal healing" (Cherie Blair seems to be a believer in this), astrology, and other new age garbage.

Science is badly taught in schools, and is being marginalised in our universities. Science courses demand equipment and facilities which are expensive, and the universities can make more money by churning loads of students through soft courses such as 'media studies'. The trend in UK higher education is to treat universities as purely commercial operations, in which research only takes place if funded by business, and in which courses are run only if the university can make a profit from the fees.

This leads to ridiculous situtations: a close friend of mine teaches engineering at one of our local universities, and has developed a highly successful course which has earned the university money by being run under licence in universities in the Far East. However, the accounts in the university reckon that they can earn more revenue by running arts courses, so they have decided to stop teaching engineering - this at a time when our politicians keep telling us that we should be training more engineers, and his students walk out of his course straight into well-paid jobs.

Because he has tenure, the university cannot sack him. So they have moved the remains of his department into the faculty of Fine Arts, pay him to do nothing, but insist that he come into the University 32 hours every week to do so.

It's not helped by the scientific illiteracy of many of our politicians and civil servants. An inordinately high proportion of our politicians went to Oxford or Cambridge and have degrees in non-scientific disciplines, a high proportion are lawyers, and too many come from the circle of Tony Blair's cronies.

Richard Forrest


I have to agree - there is a fairly strong current of post modernist and new age bollocks which is just as bad in some respects (I would argue post-modernism is probably more damaging to science on a global scale than creationism has so far been and in many respects opens the door to such wooly thinking that lets creationism and all sorts of supernatural nonsense in). So it's not all rosy.

[mirage]

Well that is a problem. There are a lot of chemistry departments being closed down at the moment. I wouldn't be surprised if my department closed in the next few years. We need to be churning out more scientists and engineers to give us a high-tech industry.
Yes. And what Richard and Monad said. We don't have many nutcase cretinists, but then our universities don't have the funding the ones in the states do. I wouldn't emigrate simply because of creationism if I were you!

[IamMoose]

We're subjects not citizens ya know ;). But yeah creationists and IDers are a rare breed here.

[MorningLightMountain]

We're subjects not citizens ya know

I was thinking that myself. :)

God save the Queen and may she...(mumbles under his breath) :devil3:

[IamMoose]

quite ;).

But APART from the unpleasant fact that we're technically subjects, I think the attitude towards evolution in this country is better than in the US..

[Richard Forrest]

quite ;).

But APART from the unpleasant fact that we're technically subjects, I think the attitude towards evolution in this country is better than in the US..

My kids tell me to shut up every time evolution is mentioned on the TV, as I tend to explode! It is almost inevitably misrepresented.

Typical current advert (can't remember for what, and wouldn't give them the oxygen of publicity (on a web forum? Ha!) even if I could ):

"You need to evolve to survive"

NO YOU FUCKING DON'T! "YOU" CAN'T EVOLVE - ONLY POPULATIONS EVOLVE! In any case, even populations don't "need to evolve to survive".

"Evolution is beautiful"
NOT IT ISN'T! It means that most living organisms die before they have a chance to reproduce. If you think that's beautiful, you're sick!


Richard Forrest

[Nialler]

You use the term "evolutionary biologist" in your OP.

Please, somebody, tell me that the term is redundant. I'm not a biologist, so I may be showing naivete here, and maybe "evolutionary biologist" is a real job description. If so, I think it should be changed. My understanding was that biologists almost invariably operate within the constraints of the evolutionary framework. The phrase rather seems to imply that it's possible to ignore evolution and yet be a biologist.

[IamMoose]

Well at least they MENTION evolution on TV ads here ;)

[anders]

Living in an environment pretty much like the British,You use the term "evolutionary biologist" in your OP.

Please, somebody, tell me that the term is redundant. I'm not a biologist, so I may be showing naivete here, and maybe "evolutionary biologist" is a real job description. If so, I think it should be changed. My understanding was that biologists almost invariably operate within the constraints of the evolutionary framework. The phrase rather seems to imply that it's possible to ignore evolution and yet be a biologist.
I think that it is proper to name the aspects of biology that you concentrate on. You could be an animal reproduction biologist, a plant taxonomy biologist, etc. An evolutionary biologist would work on possible mechanisms for evolution.

In Sweden, we shouldn't even have to coin a word like "creationist". We've got a fairly good education system instead. The few Internet sites I found for "kreationist" (Sw. spelling) refer mainly to very extreme factions. Even Pentecostal sites ridicule creationists.

On evolution views, my sister is a biology teacher. She once had a JW kid in class, who seemed to have been taught that evolution is a no-no. Like probably all biology teachers in this country, she told him "OK, I respect your views, but this is the way I teach it, and if you want to pass, you'd better learn it that way."

[MorningLightMountain]

Typical current advert (can't remember for what, and wouldn't give them the oxygen of publicity (on a web forum? Ha!) even if I could ):

"You need to evolve to survive"

NO YOU FUCKING DON'T! "YOU" CAN'T EVOLVE - ONLY POPULATIONS EVOLVE! In any case, even populations don't "need to evolve to survive".

"Evolution is beautiful"
NOT IT ISN'T! It means that most living organisms die before they have a chance to reproduce. If you think that's beautiful, you're sick!

:rolling:

Wow you seem quite miffed by it, maybe you've been debating creationists for too long. :p

I don't really notice at the moment but I might feel that way after a few more months on forums with creationists.
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[Richard Forrest]

:rolling:

Wow you seem quite miffed by it, maybe you've been debating creationists for too long. :p

I don't really notice at the moment but I might feel that way after a few more months on forums with creationists.
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

You should hear me when they wheel on a plesiosaur reconstruction.....

Richard Forrest

[Y.B]

In Sweden, we shouldn't even have to coin a word like "creationist". We've got a fairly good education system instead. The few Internet sites I found for "kreationist" (Sw. spelling) refer mainly to very extreme factions. Even Pentecostal sites ridicule creationists.

:eek:

(Creationists here are mainly Pentecostals)

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Well, you Brits do have a small AIG branch (http://www.answersingenesis.org/uk/default.asp) over there as well this this bloke (http://www.answersingenesis.org/events/bio.aspx?Speaker_ID=16) skulking about. Have they made much noise over there?

Jason

[MorningLightMountain]

Well, you Brits do have a small AIG branch (http://www.answersingenesis.org/uk/default.asp) over there as well this this bloke (http://www.answersingenesis.org/events/bio.aspx?Speaker_ID=16) skulking about. Have they made much noise over there?

Jason

There was a guy doing a lecture called "why God made bad bugs?" at my uni a few months back. He was described as a world renound creationist but don't remember his name. Was amazed that uni had allowed the lecture to take place but didn't bother to go and see it. Oh at least we seem a little batter off than the states.

[whichphilosophy]

I plan on going to Uni in the UK, and am seriously considering becoming a citizen there. I am going to become an evolutionary biologist and so I'm curious to see if anybody in the UK can fill me in on how evolution is viewed by the general population?

The anti-science environment I currently see in the states is nothing short of depressing for me and is certainly not a place I'd want to settle down and eventually raise a family. Is ID strong in the UK? I'd be very thankful for any info I can get as I leave for uni in about a month and I'd like to know a bit before I got there.

I haven`t heard of this being a problem in the UK, as we don´t take anything really that serious, especially since Monty Python. Hence extremists of any ilk are usually very rare.

I´d be very surprised if you came across religious intervention of any sort.I`ve never seen this as an issue.

As a theist of sorts who studied Religous Education (and nearly ended up teaching it) I did not consider the story of creation more than a metaphorical story of human relationships and values.

What I understand will probarbly happen is you will graduate with a good English University education, including quite a few parties great girlfriends during that time then be offered a job in America in a bible belt city.

Still if you were paid US$250,000 a year would you mind that? :jump:

Good luck on your studies.

[ApatheticParasites]

I'm thinking of attending Cambridge and I'm pretty sure I'll beable to get in. I graduated top of my class and never had a grade below an A, and the money isn't a problem.

Also yes there is such a thing as an Evolutionary Biologist. While pretty much all biologists work with evolution to some degree(I'd imagine it would be quite hard to not do so), What interests me most is evolution itself. Afterall even though we know a great deal I'm quite sure that there are some unanswered questions and things waiting to be discovered.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_biology


Also creationism is not quite the only reason I'm leaving the states. A big part of it is that I'm 18 and wanting to see new places, experiance new things, meet new people, and most certainly immerse myself in the many historical places that the UK has (also I plan on visiting many other places in Europe). Another reason is that from my friends in the UK I have heard that atleast half of the british population is religiously apathetic and claim no particular religious affiliation. That atheism is quite common, especially around my age group.


I've lived in the suburbs of a small hick town all my life and I guess I'm just eager to get as far away as I possibly can.

[Monad]

Good for you

[Albion]

We're subjects not citizens ya know.

Speak for yourself. :)


Far as I know, I'm both.

[IanC]

I'm thinking of attending Cambridge and I'm pretty sure I'll beable to get in. I graduated top of my class and never had a grade below an A, and the money isn't a problem.

Have a look around Cambridge first, I personally didnt like it. Nice place, but the attitude is terrible (only masters allowed on the grass, gates of the college locked at midnight, apparently no real nightlife).

Also beware that applying to cambridge will help you get into places like Durham, but a lot of other places will automatically reject you.

However, great resources and a good name to have down. Its up to you, but I decided not to go there (much to my schools annoyance). If you want any info on the place, I have quite a few friends heading there (to uni) later this year

The anti-science environment I currently see in the states is nothing short of depressing for me and is certainly not a place I'd want to settle down and eventually raise a family. Is ID strong in the UK? I'd be very thankful for any info I can get as I leave for uni in about a month and I'd like to know a bit before I got there.

No strong ID movement (I didnt realise so many people actually believed in this over in the states). Extremeism is being made illegal soon, too.

Be aware that science jobs are scarce in this country, speaking as a son of two scientists. Also, moving from the states, you will probably find things very expensive, particularly petrol (sorry, gas, :P )which is roughly $8 a gallon. Still, its a great place, and you get to be as sarcastic as you like.


Ian

[Per Ahlberg]

Originally posted by ApatheticParasites
I'm thinking of attending Cambridge and I'm pretty sure I'll beable to get in. I graduated top of my class and never had a grade below an A, and the money isn't a problem.

Originally posted by IanC
Have a look around Cambridge first, I personally didnt like it. Nice place, but the attitude is terrible (only masters allowed on the grass, gates of the college locked at midnight, apparently no real nightlife).


Well, I have to say, I loved Cambridge - and ended up spending six and a half years there as an undergraduate and PhD student (Girton College, 1982-89). The social life was great, we were allowed to walk on the grass - generally true throughout the university except in a few specific places such as Trinity Great Court - and we could get into college anytime during the small hours simply by ringing the doorbell at the porter's lodge. The "gates locked at midnight" policy is basically a security thing, useful for ensuring that your stuff isn't stolen and that you can walk around college in safety at any time of day or night. The city itself is indeed beautiful, with some of the finest Late Gothic architecture surviving in Britain. King's College Chapel is a particular gem.

The beauty of the Cambridge academic system, the "tripos", is that you do not have to choose your subject focus right away. In your case you would sign up to read "Natural Sciences", and would be able to choose from a very broad range of courses in life and earth sciences during your first year. It is only in your third year that you really specialize - in my case I chose to read Zoology, but my first two years had included zoological, botanical and earth science courses. By the way, Jenny Clack offers a course covering the origin of tetrapods (an other aspects of early vertebrate evolution) to third-year zoology students.

I would say go for it, ApatheticParasites, but good luck with whatever choice you make.

Cheers, Per

[moxdevil]

I study history at Sheffield University and there are loads of fundies here, i jest not. Some i know personally within my department. And i know two who are studying biology because i invited myself to a Christian talk where all the usual superficial attempts at self-criticism were expressed but eventually finding that actually the 'good book' teaches everything that is needed!

Of creationism in general in the UK there is barely a mention, though there was an issue with a technology school in Gateshead that is sponsored by Reg Vardy (a creationist to my knowledge) a few years back. It seems the head of science was a creationist- Y-E or O-E i'm not sure? As for ID i don't know of any unless they are skulking around the general creationist groups. Still we do have a Christian Science centre in town.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Creationism and ID here are here, and in a significant amount. It is just that British apathy and reserve (“don’t make a fuss�) mean that the matter is not of great public concern. One simply doesn’t speak up in social situations; one must not appear too earnest. (See Kate Fox’s book Watching the English for the rules here.)

Which is why Richard’s kids tell him to shut up, much like my wife does. Even my daughter (nearly seven) has picked up on it “Oh no, don’t mention evolution to Daddy�; “Don’t listen to this, Daddy, it’s about God�, and so on.

On the one hand, science education is done well enough that people vaguely know about evolution, and Dawkins is of course well known and his books very popular (consid’rin’). TV programmes, most especially from the BBC but on other channels too, are unashamedly ‘evolutionist’, and while they may provoke a few letters, nobody takes much notice. Evolution is the status quo, and we Brits don’t like to upset the status quo.

On the other hand, there are initiatives such as the Vardy bunch and Emmanuel College in Gateshead; there is a creationist museum in Portsmouth (plastic dinosaurs de rigueur, of course); and I have encountered a handful of creationists in real life.

My first pet creationist -- the one who got me into all this -- was a Hampshire County Council IT bod and former physics teacher: he responded to a small ad of mine on our intranet about geology books... and I proceeded to flatten him with information and evidence.

A woman with whom I chatted regularly at the bus stop saw me reading Futuyma, and challenged me about it with some usual drivel, but retreated into “well my husband knows more about it than I do� when I showed her suitable pictures.

And a work colleague -- who when I first got the job noticed my Darwinfish tie clip and said she’d been praying for someone to get the job who would be “fulfilled� by it -- was apparently very creationist, though I never got the chance to bring the subject up :devil3:.

So creationism is here; in some decent-sized minority; bubbling under the surface. The difference is that the minority is smaller than the US (where it’s a majority), the subject is less often brought up, and the UK creationists are not organised -- they’re just people and small groups wittering to themselves and occasionally writing letters.

The scary thing is that there is a vast appetite here for pseudoscientific babble. The ‘New Age’ section of (normal, ie non-university-type) bookshops is invariably bigger than the pop science section... and that’s not counting the religion section. From crystals to ghosts to horoscopes, the UK is immersed in antiscience twaddle. What worries me is that if the US creationist organisations get a foothold here, the British are not really prepared to fight it... and are potentially susceptible. We cannot even cite church and state separation, since the Queen is both head of state and head of the Church of England, and Prince Charles is a new-age airhead.

There is an old (Chinese?) curse that goes: May you live in interesting times.

[Doubting Didymus]

Bah. Church state separation is possibly the least effective defence against creationism I've ever encountered.

We don't have any either, and yet our church is further from our state than just about any western nation. (Meanwhile, I just referred to australia as a 'western nation', as it commonly is called. What the fuck is up with that? We're further east than most of the east.)

Meanwhile, I have to wonder if you're being paranoid, Oolon my chum. It's a long way from big new age sections in bookshops to massive well-organised political groups backed by fervent majorities, and even when you have those, a-la the U.S., they don't seem to achieve anything like you'd expect them to. Extreme creationism is still kept out of most curricula and only the weakest, rather pathetic watered-down creationist 'diclaimers' and 'teach the controversy' initiatives ever really seem to get anywhere, and those are really quite non-threatening in the scheme of things.

When I consider how little the very large, popularly supported cretionist movement in the U.S. has actually acheived in all this time, I really have no concerns about the future of the U.K. or Australia. I'm not even that concerned for the U.S.

[Xrikcus]

seen a few letters in the Daily Mail and, I think only once, in the Express, but that's it.

Last time I saw letters in the mail was a couple of years ago and I got the last word as I recall ;)

We have a Christian group at the university who have meetings and have a tendency to leave their adverts around... but they seem fairly innocuous, never been to any of their meetings so I don't know whether they're a bunch of nutty creationists or not... it doesn't seem hugely popular though.


I'm thinking of attending Cambridge and I'm pretty sure I'll beable to get in. I graduated top of my class and never had a grade below an A, and the money isn't a problem.


Funding there really isn't a problem, and it's possibly the best place in the world to study biology. An excellent choice :) It's also fairly Christian oriented though in activity, as is Oxford... quirk of their long history, but I don't think in any particularly offensive way so my contacts tell me. As mentioned the attitude is fairly poor, it put me off applying and a friend was accepted and turned the place down for similar reasons. Although, had their course been the best around I might have applied even with the attitude, for Computer Science Cambridge just isn't at the top in course content though. Biology is a different matter...

I would agree with the worry about new age stuff... but that I hope is a fad.

[Richard Forrest]

Which is why Richard’s kids tell him to shut up, much like my wife does. Even my daughter (nearly seven) has picked up on it “Oh no, don’t mention evolution to Daddy�; “Don’t listen to this, Daddy, it’s about God�, and so on.

Actually, my kids tell me to shut up because they've heard it all before and are utterly bored by my outbursts! They are interested on other things.

Richard Forrest

[Oolon Colluphid]

Meanwhile, I have to wonder if you're being paranoid, Oolon my chum.
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me. :p

Sure, it's probably mostly that I'm attuned to these things, so I perhaps see a mountainous problem where others see a molehill one. But the fact remains that creationists are around, and the only reasons we don't have a US situation is because they lack numbers and influence. As the saying goes, all that's necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing... and British apathy leaves us vulnerable. Stand up for anything, and you're regarded as a radical, as too earnest. Look at Thatcher; look at Scargill; look at how we view Ian Paisley; look at Dawkins; look, conversely, at the triumph of Blair's 'third way' politics at election time. Passion is reserved for football. With the right sophistry -- and let's face it, that's what creationists are good at -- we are sitting ducks for the creationists' propaganda machine.

Then again, the same reserve, apathy and anti-radicalism may well work against creationists too. Our weakness is possibly the best defence we have!

[Oolon Colluphid]

Actually, my kids tell me to shut up because they've heard it all before and are utterly bored by my outbursts! They are interested on other things.
That's what I meant too, at least as far as my wife is concerned ;). People just aren't interested.

Thing is, not being interested means snake oil can get sold with little resistance to those who have not given X much thought before. Point being, snake oil selling is what US creationists are good at, and here we have a substantially untapped market.

[Doubting Didymus]

Then again, the same reserve, apathy and anti-radicalism may well work against creationists too. Our weakness is possibly the best defence we have!

This is what I think also. Political apathy might make a creationists job easy, but religious apathy, present in such powerful concentrations on both our island homes, means that they will never have the support to even get off the ground.

[chieftain]

There is quite a worrying development in the UK, which is the planned massive increase in the number of privately-funded schools (not private schools, as they're free to the pupils, but are partially funded by private companies or foundations rather than exclusively by the state).

Quite a few of these are funded by religious organisations, including some creationists, as the national newspaper The Observer
reported yesterday (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1544143,00.html):


The next wave of privately-funded City Academies includes at least one school planning to teach children creationism - the doctrine that the earth was created by God and that the Darwinian model accepted by scientists is therefore wrong.


Quite scary.

And don't forget that the Blairs are both very religious (she's Catholic and he regularly attends Catholic services, despite actually being CofE). Although there's no evidence of either being fundementalists, it does mean that they're much more open to increasing the influence of religious institutions than most other policitians (who, as other posters have noted, tend to be atheists or at least not very religious). Plus, Cherie is a sucker for lots of the new-age rubbish.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Creationism isn't really even in the churches over here. Well - I have visited 4 churches, and only one of them teaches creationism.
So, like, 25% then...? :eek: :D

Seems about right. Oh, it may not be official CofE policy, but it's simmering under the surface. A quick Google of UK pages for evolution creation brings up, for instance, these organisations, churches and signs of activity:

www.paulsgrove.org.uk/faqs.htm:
Paulsgrove Baptist Church, Portsmouth

www.csm.org.uk:
Creation Science Movement
PO Box 888
Portsmouth
PO6 2YD

http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk:
Biblical Creation Society
PO Box 22
Rugby
Warwickshire
CV22 7SY

www.e-n.org.uk/2002-05/1817-Creation-vs-evolution-in-school.htm

Practical suggestions

The following represent a few serious suggestions of possible tactics.

* Get your church to rally to the cause. Be a creation-science church rep. Alert the minister and the teaching elders to the urgency of addressing this issue in their regular preaching. Urge them to read up on the relevant scientific issues and provide your/their congregations with suitable ammunition. It is a tragic fact that relatively few evangelical preachers and teachers have really grasped this nettle. Pass on Ken Ham's books, Evolution - the Lie; Creation evangelism. [Be prepared to spend your money by putting the truth about!]

* Subscribe ASAP to Creation Magazine (c/o Answers in Genesis, FREEPOST MID18566, Leicester LE2 2ZA) or to Origins (the magazine of The Biblical Creation Society, PO Box 22, Rugby CV22 7SY). These will provide you, your family and your friends with excellent contemporary relevant information. When you've read them, pass them on.

* Organise Creation meetings. Show videos to interested neighbours, colleagues and friends. Invite able speakers (AIG can provide or recommend them).

* Promote Creation understanding by stocking and selling Creation books, videos and literature.

* Put Creation science literature in your local public library.

* Make answersingenesis.com your home page on the internet browser.

* Send your kids to school with Creation literature to show to their teachers.

* Engage with the media. Write to your local newspapers and the BBC and ITV programme producers challenging their 'religious' propaganda. Recommend that they consider an alternative (biblical) explanation of the data.

* Evangelise the lost. You will find the issue of Genesis and origins quickly comes up without forcing it. Salvation only really makes sense when we have adequately explained what sin and accountability are. This requires you to talk about Creation, Adam and Eve and the Fall.

Finally, remember that 'Creation versus Evolution' is not merely some fringe issue that doesn't really concern the real nitty-gritty of the Christian life and the gospel. The New Testament authors collectively affirm the historical nature of the Genesis narrative. The doctrines of Special Creation (e.g. John 1.3; Acts 4.24; 14.15; Col.1.16); Fall (e.g. Rom. 5.12,14,17,19; 8.19-20; 1 Cor. 15.21-22); The Patriarchs (e.g. Matt. 23.35; Lk. 3.34-38; Heb. 11.4-7,23; 1 Jn. 3.12); Flood (e.g. Matt. 24.37; Lk. 17.26; 1 Pet. 3.20; 2 Pet. 2.5, 3.5-6); Confusion (Babel) and Dispersion (Acts 17.26) permeate the NT gospels and epistles. Anyone who says that the controversy merely concerns whether Genesis 1 is poetry is sadly deluded. Jesus prophetically said: 'For if you had believed Moses, you would have believed Me, for he wrote of Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how shall you believe My words?' (John 5.46-47). May God raise up more and more foot-soldiers and not a few mighty warriors who, like the sons of Issachar (1Ch 12.32) who had understanding of the times, know what Israel ought to do!

www.stjameswestgate.org.uk/creationvevolution2.htm

www.amen.org.uk/cl-north/99_feb.htm

www.c-r-t.co.uk/index.html:
Creation Resources Trust
PO Box 3237
YEOVIL
BA22 7WD

... and so on.

[Oolon Colluphid]

And don't forget that the Blairs are both very religious (she's Catholic and he regularly attends Catholic services, despite actually being CofE). Although there's no evidence of either being fundementalists, it does mean that they're much more open to increasing the influence of religious institutions than most other policitians (who, as other posters have noted, tend to be atheists or at least not very religious). Plus, Cherie is a sucker for lots of the new-age rubbish.

PRIME MINISTER'S QUESTIONS - 13/3/02

Dr. Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park): Is the Prime Minister happy - [Hon. Members: "Yes."] Is the Prime Minister happy to allow the teaching of creationism alongside Darwin's theory of evolution in state schools?

The Prime Minister: First, I am very happy. Secondly, I know that the hon. Lady is referring to a school in the north-east, and I think that certain reports about what it has been teaching are somewhat exaggerated.

It would be very unfortunate if concerns about that issue were seen to remove the very strong incentive to ensure that we get as diverse a school system as we properly can. In the end, a more diverse school system will deliver better results for our children. If she looks at the school's results, I think she will find that they are very good.

Commons Hansard 13/3/02: column 886-7
So as long as the kids get good GCSEs, schools can teach any old claptrap.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Fascinating Matthew Parris article on Blair and science (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1065-237325_1,00.html)

Dr Tonge’s question would hardly have been tricky for any Prime Minister with philosophical grip. If Tony Blair was a creationist then the right response was clear: he should have said so, and resigned at once. If he was not, then he should have replied that he was happy for a school to tell children about other beliefs, but when these had been comprehensively exploded the students should be told so and told why.

I don’t think Mr Blair is a creationist, but an unequivocal personal commitment to Darwinism was somehow too much for him. After doubting aloud the balance with which the Emmanuel story had been reported, this is what the Prime Minister told Dr Tonge:

“In the end, a more diverse school system will deliver better results for our children. If she looks at the school’s results, I think she will find that they are very good.�

We look forward to Mr Blair’s views on Noah’s Ark, the Tooth Fairy, and whether the Earth goes round the Sun or vice-versa. But no matter: this row will die with the week that bore it. Richard Dawkins, the Professor of Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, is right, the schools inspectorate should take another look at Emmanuel, but the position they will encounter (to which the school will swiftly move if it is not there already) will be that creation is taught as faith, while evolution is taught as science.

[...]

Science is different and that is why, momentarily on Wednesday, Tony Blair seemed to shudder before it. In science the question dwarfs the man. In science, small, weak, ugly, unfair men may nevertheless make claims which are true, while the modern fair and strong may be still wrong. In science, bona fides are not what counts.

In science, things must be true or false. Much — most — remains foggy, but because knowledge is incomplete not because the truth does not exist. The optimum is not sought by placing thesis and antithesis side by side, then triangulating. In science it does not follow that because one group says God created the world in six days while another says he did not, then maybe we should look again at the timescale.

The Third Way would have the Great Flood as — well — perhaps medium-sized, and Copernicus would, er, have a point, but possibly be pushing it too far. The Third Way thinks policy can be settled by opinion polling. Science knows that the whole world can be wrong. The Third Way celebrates diversity. Science asks who is right.

[hclincha]

I never thought that Christian creationism had much of a foothold outside the US of A. I never heard of it untill I started a Uni intro course in philosophy, and there it was used as an example of pseudo-science. Completely off topic, the University of Bergen's natural sciences faculty is the place I have met the largest concentration of actually christian people.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Having said all that...
I'm curious to see if anybody in the UK can fill me in on how evolution is viewed by the general population?
My guess:

Apathetic acceptance: 75%.
Vocal acceptance: 5%.
Apathetic denial: 10%.
Vocal denial: 5%.
"What?": 5%

Small print: Percentages can go down as well as up. Your education is at risk if you do not keep up repayments on Darwin's work or other loan secured on it. 84.7% of statistics are made up on the spot.
Is ID strong in the UK?
No. Creationism here is still the unsophisticated biblical sort, as far as I can tell.

Then again, US cultural exports always arrive late here. We are at the Wimpey Bar stage of creationism. My fear is that McDonald's are eyeing us up.

[MorningLightMountain]

FUCK! Never thought it was THAT bad! :eek:

But then again I'm pretty much on the outskirts of the UK and I tend to hang around with other scientists so might be insulated. The only indication of fundamentalism in the UK I got was with Christian Voice because of the Jerry Springer play.

What could be done before the rot sets in? :banghead:

[Oolon Colluphid]

FUCK! Never thought it was THAT bad! :eek:
I forgot the best (worst) one:

Noah's Ark Zoo Farm, Wraxall, Bristol (http://www.noahsarkzoofarm.co.uk/).

[Xrikcus]

Ah... nasty. Same tired old arguments, too. Interesting that their year of creation is somewhere around 20kBC. Is that a common date?

[IanC]

On a lighter note though, when you come to the other side of the pond, you get bigger pints!

American pint: 473ml
British pint: 568ml (also known as an Imperial pint, because we are so great)

Ruuuuule britannia!

However, much of this beer may be warm...

[NottyImp]

However, much of this beer may be warm...

Yes, but it's meant to be. Ice-cold Real Ale? Yuk!

[Oolon Colluphid]

They don't call it real ale for nothing! It has flavour. Sorry, 'flavor'.

[NottyImp]

They don't call it real ale for nothing! It has flavour. Sorry, 'flavor'.

You can chew some of it. :D

[MorningLightMountain]

I forgot the best (worst) one:

Noah's Ark Zoo Farm, Wraxall, Bristol.

Talk about lying for christ!

This shit should be illigal as they are blatantly lying.
Here is my fav (most infuriating) bit

"Natural mutations occur very rarely, less than one in a million generations :angry:

[MorningLightMountain]

Talking about ale; I'm a bit partial to some abbot or old speckled hen.

[NottyImp]

Talking about ale; I'm a bit partial to some abbot or old speckled hen.

Then you have impeccable taste. We have a couple of real ale pubs in Nottingham now that regularly stock beers from "micro" breweries, and I love trying the different beers they have on.

[Oolon Colluphid]

You coming to our UK gathering then? See Lounge thread for det-ales!

[NottyImp]

You coming to our UK gathering then? See Lounge thread for det-ales!

I might... let me check the thread.

Edit:

Yeah, a possibility - all seems a bit up in the air currently?

[MorningLightMountain]

Then you have impeccable taste. We have a couple of real ale pubs in Nottingham now that regularly stock beers from "micro" breweries, and I love trying the different beers they have on.

Thanks. I've thought about brewing my own as a couple of friends did it and their stuff was mighty tasty :love:. Unfortunatly I haven't gotten round to it as I've been busy these last few months. Local beer festival will be on next month, can't wait! :D

[Richard Forrest]

Then you have impeccable taste. We have a couple of real ale pubs in Nottingham now that regularly stock beers from "micro" breweries, and I love trying the different beers they have on.

You should go up the A46 to Leicester and try 'The Vaults' on New Walk. 12 real ales, rotated every week, and good food to boot. Last year they served over 800 different beers. Of the ones I've tasted some have been more . . . interesting . . . than others, but never bad, frequently excellent, and sometimes superb.

Richard Forrest

[NottyImp]

You should go up the A46 to Leicester and try 'The Vaults' on New Walk. 12 real ales, rotated every week, and good food to boot. Last year they served over 800 different beers. Of the ones I've tasted some have been more . . . interesting . . . than others, but never bad, frequently excellent, and sometimes superb.

Sounds good, although in the general run of things I rarely find myself in Leicester. I take it you must know "Bunkers Hill" then, Richard? Not as good as the pub you describe, but a decent effort nonetheless.

[moxdevil]

Probably already posted elsewhere on the forum, but... Dawkins on Emmanuel debacle- http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Media/2002-03-18badscience.shtml

Also- http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Media/2002-03-14ofsted.shtml

Anyone remember the proposed Christian theme park that hit the papers in the UK? And in Yorkshire! :eek:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,1443745,00.html?gusrc=rss

As said by Oolon, we do often adopt something a few years down the line after America.