Russell
__
Oh totally, but I don't think anything or anywhere in this thread anyone has claimed or even hinted at anything otherwise. I think the reason people get so passionate about it because it is representative of larger struggles that humanity faces.
If you've watched the video and read about the proponents of creationist theory such as Gish, Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Behe and the others, and still think they are intelligent men unbiased by their religious beliefs (i.e. their arguments boil down to more than "it upsets my belief system") then fair enough. All I wanted to make clear was that was there is not a single reputable scholar in my field, or any of the other fields I have to work with that supports ID or creationism, and I consider that a consensus.
I never said otherwise. I said children shouldn't be taught whatever their teachers want. Major difference. It's about those beliefs then impacting the education of others, not the fact they hold the belief. The statistics about the proportion that believe creationism was intended as an indicator of the quality of science teaching, nothing more.
As Necuratul mentioned (and I thought was clear, many apologies if it was not) I use the word development purely in its broadest sense. Of course evolution has no direction, and we’re not the pinnacle. I consider “development” to be technological advances that mean we live longer, and our lives are easier and more comfortable, and that has come through science. Further I think that the knowledge of where we come from, and a deeper understanding of how the universe works (even if that brings us no material rewards) to be “development”. This is how I used the term, not in any pseudoscientific Victorian sense.
My two cents here, but I would argue that better scientific knowledge can "better" the human race - beyond what I consider to be the "development" mentioned above. Science can indeed be used for bad and good (by the way, would that suggest by inference that it is worth supporting anti-scientific sentiment to prevent the bad uses of science?), and humans have always fought wars, hurt each other, and done a plethora of negative things. But I would maintain this is almost always on the basis of religious belief, racism, or territorial disputes. If we were a more scientific society it could be argued that such minor differences as the colour of our skin, our spiritual beliefs, and our “territory” would cease to be such big deals because we would then understand where these physical and psychological differences come from and how truly inconsequential they are.
Agreed, for technological advance (distinct from scientific knowledge). But I think an interesting point here is that the first ever use of technology was stone tools. These allowed us to slaughter animals, which in turn gave us better nutrition to support a costly brain. The brain could then grow. Humans and technology have developed hand in hand: we would not be here if it wasn't for technological advance, so if our presence on the Earth is considered "good" then so should be technological advance.
Indeed, no problem there. It isn't important to them until they need, for example, antibiotics to cure a strep throat which in previous generations could have killed them. All I'm saying (other than the fact I think it's a very great pity that science isn't important to most people) is that science helps humanity in so many ways. I'm in 100% agreement that people should be able to believe whatever they like. But, their belief should never go beyond personal opinion and hold back science, and this entire debate is based on people's personal beliefs doing just that, especially in a young generation of future scientists! To use the example above, if they don't want to take life saving drugs because they are a product of the scientific processes they so dislike, fair enough. But if they are going to try and stop the rest of us making the most of these scientific developments they're going to need a far better reason than "it upsets my world view".
