Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Big Bang' in Britain over Creationism
Washington Times ^ | Sept. 22, '08 | Al Webb

Posted on 09/23/2008 8:49:33 PM PDT by T.L.Sink

One of the world's leading biologists, who is also an ordained Anglican priest, has sparked uproar in both religious and scientific circles by campaigning to teach creationism, along with evolution and the "Big Bang" theory in science classrooms. Creationism, an issue that has triggered furious debates in churches, schools and even courts in the United States, rejects Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and holds that God created the universe and all that goes with it - most of all, man - in six days. The Rev. Michael Reiss has truly stirred the pot - and the fury of his fellow scientists - by proposing that creationism has the right to a place in school lessons along with conventional theories of the evolutionary origins of man and the theory that the universe exploded exploded from a single point billions of years ago - the Big Bang.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: creationism; crevo; evolution
Two historical facts that are supremely ironic in view to those stated in the article: (1) When Darwin was at Cambridge Unversity he studied theology and thought of entering holy orders in the Church of England and (2) when Darwin published Origin of Species in 1859, the great public furor came NOT from the Church but from the scientific community!
1 posted on 09/23/2008 8:49:33 PM PDT by T.L.Sink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: T.L.Sink

And now intelligent ID now has more friend in the science department than it does in the school of theology!


2 posted on 09/23/2008 8:55:40 PM PDT by farmer18th (I had a brain transplant after college. (The original was ruined.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T.L.Sink

It seems the tide is finally turning against the Darwinian evolutionist’s.


3 posted on 09/23/2008 9:05:25 PM PDT by valkyry1 (McCain/Palin 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1

Hardly.


4 posted on 09/23/2008 9:10:10 PM PDT by Buck W. (If you push something hard enough, it will fall over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: valkyry1

A theory that has to rely on courts for enforcement is doomed to fail.

In free societies that is.


5 posted on 09/23/2008 9:23:05 PM PDT by tpanther (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: T.L.Sink
(2) when Darwin published Origin of Species in 1859, the great public furor came NOT from the Church but from the scientific community!

Yeah Joe, scientists were making statements critical of Darwin on all the TV networks at the time.

6 posted on 09/23/2008 9:29:32 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Does anyone remember the olden days when the US presidential election was boring?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
A theory that has to rely on courts for enforcement is doomed to fail.

In free societies that is.

A religious belief that has to dishonestly masquerade as science and fight its battles with PR flacks and lawyers instead of scientific evidence has already failed.

And will continue to fail unless a theocracy is imposed.

7 posted on 09/23/2008 9:33:44 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

What happens to the world when the most powerful nation for good, the nation that has advanced the exercise personal freedom, when it falls? Will another more righteous nation arise to take its place? If so, I wonder where I should move my family to?


8 posted on 09/23/2008 9:34:11 PM PDT by discipler (Symbolically GREEN to do our part to save the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

This is intellectual dishonesty on your part. You know very well that intelligent design arguments are advanced on the basis of the irreducible complexity of organism and not on religious belief. As a macro-theory on the origin of species, it has as much scientific basis as the macro-theory of evolution. Neither one of them has ever been verified in a laboratory. You can continue to be a kool-aid drinking darwinist if you want. Your days are numbered.

Besides, you couldn’t hold a candle to Rev. Reiss in a debate on biology. He has out evolved you.


9 posted on 09/23/2008 9:54:25 PM PDT by Juan Medén
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Juan Medén
As a macro-theory on the origin of species, it has as much scientific basis as the macro-theory of evolution.

False. ID and IC are not scientific theories. Look up the definition of a theory and you'll see why (try my FR home page; I have a lot of good definitions there).

Neither one of them has ever been verified in a laboratory.

Irrelevant.

You can continue to be a kool-aid drinking darwinist if you want. Your days are numbered.

What, are you going to impose a theocracy and do us all in? What will it be this time? The rack? The stake? Or will you come up with something more innovative?

The last time religions had that kind of power in western culture it was called the Dark Ages; the Enlightenment that followed means we don't have to kowtow to religious authorities any longer.

10 posted on 09/23/2008 10:10:21 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Juan Medén; All

You’re right. A person may accept or reject creationism (or evolution) but it’s not a religious or metaphysical view pretending to be science. That’s just the disparaging bias of secularists who don’t want to even consider another perspective. The question is why anyone with an open mind would object to presenting both views for consideration. If nothing else, it would encourage a RATIONAL debate and discussion. Today it’s as filled with invective and hostility as in the 19th century. In 1860 when Archbishop Wilberforce debated the Darwinist Thomas Huxley, he opened the debate by asking Huxley if he were descended from an ape on his grandfather’s or his grandmother’s side.


11 posted on 09/23/2008 10:35:24 PM PDT by T.L.Sink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Juan Medén

“...intelligent design arguments are advanced on the basis of the irreducible complexity of organism...”

That’s the problem—”irreducible complexity” is a concept that requires a greater leap of faith than evolution (not that evolution really reaqures one). Irreducible complexith is a farce.


12 posted on 09/24/2008 5:49:20 AM PDT by Buck W. (If you push something hard enough, it will fall over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: discipler
Will another more righteous nation arise to take its place?

No, another, more morally grounded culture, say, Islam, will take its place.

Leftists, secularists and atheists are cutting their own throats by trying to destroy the Christian foundation of our culture. A morally weak society will fall to one that isn't morally weak, even if the conquering culture is not righteous, but evil.

But, I guess in the case of the leftist/secular/atheists, they only believe that they are alive for 70 odd years and that no other portion of the timeline matters, as long as while they are alive they can do whatever they hell they want to.

13 posted on 09/24/2008 5:54:23 AM PDT by MrB (0bama supporters: What's the attraction? The Marxism or the Infanticide?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: discipler

What happens to the world when the most powerful nation for good, the nation that has advanced the exercise personal freedom, when it falls? Will another more righteous nation arise to take its place? If so, I wonder where I should move my family to?


I hope it won’t fall in our lifetimes. When it does I’m not certain another nation can or will take our place.

My brother and I were talking about if we had no choice but to live somewhere else, he picked Australia and I picked New Zealand, since we’d have a shot with the language there.


14 posted on 09/24/2008 6:47:57 AM PDT by tpanther (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Dissent from darwinism, not to mention resisting the godless agenda which has hijacked it, is NOT an attempt to inject religion into science.

Your theocracy sky is falling madness has been debunked thoroughly.


15 posted on 09/24/2008 6:51:27 AM PDT by tpanther (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MrB
No, another, more morally grounded culture, say, Islam, will take its place.

What is it about Islam that you think would make it succeed where Christianity has failed?

16 posted on 09/24/2008 7:01:12 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Not sure what you mean by “succeed” -

they WILL dominate and take over when America loses its moral grounding to secularist relativism.

Secularist relativism won’t stand up to the “wrong” that is Islam, and they will “win” by default, by not facing any opposition.

This is a recurring historical event, decadent, flailing cultures get taken over by those that have firm, set standards and beliefs. And then THOSE beliefs are “imposed” on that culture/society.


17 posted on 09/24/2008 7:08:33 AM PDT by MrB (0bama supporters: What's the attraction? The Marxism or the Infanticide?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MrB
they WILL dominate and take over when America loses its moral grounding to secularist relativism.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but the implication of what you're saying is that the only way to defeat militant Islam is to push our country further away from being a secular republic and closer to a governmental system with religious aspects.

When did the ideal of a secular, pluralistic republic become unfashionable?

18 posted on 09/24/2008 7:14:33 AM PDT by Citizen Blade (What would Ronald Reagan do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Juan Medén
You know very well that intelligent design arguments are advanced on the basis of the irreducible complexity of organism and not on religious belief

Right. ID proposes that we teach in science class that God is dead. That is hardly religious?

19 posted on 09/24/2008 7:17:36 AM PDT by E=MC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Blade

The question is, when did a set of standards of behavior become unfashionable?

Our country was founded on this principle:
John Adams: Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

So, it was not intended to be a “secular republic” as you claim. It was intended to be a republic founded in liberty, and that liberty was based on the assumption that the people being governed were of strong moral and religious foundation, not morally relativistic.


20 posted on 09/24/2008 7:22:15 AM PDT by MrB (0bama supporters: What's the attraction? The Marxism or the Infanticide?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MrB

The same people who reject cretionism as science will reject Islamic dogma just as well. The ones who can be forced into compliance are the ones who would make good dhimmis.


21 posted on 09/24/2008 7:24:31 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: MrB
The question is, when did a set of standards of behavior become unfashionable?

I don't think it has, at least not for the large majority of Americans.

So, it was not intended to be a “secular republic” as you claim.

If it was not meant to be a secular republic, then it could only be meant to be a religious republic. Which is what Iran is. I don't think that is what the Founding Fathers were aiming for.

22 posted on 09/24/2008 7:27:05 AM PDT by Citizen Blade (What would Ronald Reagan do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; metmom

Screaming you’ll be burned at the stake if Americans enjoy the freedom of teaching truth to our children is a GREAT strategy on your part...I sincerely hope nothing stops you!

Your dog still won’t hunt.

Here’s an accurate Indian name to consider:

“rotting dog”


23 posted on 09/24/2008 7:29:46 AM PDT by tpanther (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Blade

Read the Adams quote again.

The founders were depending on people to have internal controls in order to avoid the need for external controls, ie, they needed to be a “moral and religious people” in order to be able to live in liberty.

You’re falling for the leftist “top down” theory of governance. Every behavioral restriction, in your (and the left’s) paradigm, must come from a central authority or government.


24 posted on 09/24/2008 7:30:02 AM PDT by MrB (0bama supporters: What's the attraction? The Marxism or the Infanticide?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Sure, you can “reject Islamic dogma” - right before your head departs your body.

Understand the difference between the response to your “resistance” to the Christian worldview and your “resistance” to the Islamic worldview?


25 posted on 09/24/2008 7:31:51 AM PDT by MrB (0bama supporters: What's the attraction? The Marxism or the Infanticide?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
Dissent from darwinism, not to mention resisting the godless agenda which has hijacked it, is NOT an attempt to inject religion into science.

If you want to play in the adults' pool you need to demonstrate you can swim.

The movements that are critical of evolution admit they have no science to offer.

Come back when you have some.

26 posted on 09/24/2008 7:35:06 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
Dissent from darwinism, not to mention resisting the godless agenda which has hijacked it, is NOT an attempt to inject religion into science.

If you want to play in the adults' pool you need to demonstrate you can swim.

The movements that are critical of evolution admit they have no science to offer.

Come back when you have some.

27 posted on 09/24/2008 7:35:25 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Sure, you can “reject Islamic dogma” - right before your head departs your body.

There are plenty of atheists and agnostics in the military who are doing a very good job of protecting this country from militant Islamic dogma.

Understand the difference between the response to your “resistance” to the Christian worldview and your “resistance” to the Islamic worldview?

Of course. And, as an agnostic, I have no issues with us, as a nation, using all of the means at our disposal to resist militant Islam. If there was a strain of militant Christianity that threatened our freedoms (there isn't), I would support taking the same actions.

28 posted on 09/24/2008 7:43:39 AM PDT by Citizen Blade (What would Ronald Reagan do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Sure, you can “reject Islamic dogma” - right before your head departs your body.

Do you think I'm defenseless? That could be a potentially fatal mistake.

29 posted on 09/24/2008 7:46:07 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: MrB
The founders were depending on people to have internal controls in order to avoid the need for external controls, ie, they needed to be a “moral and religious people” in order to be able to live in liberty.

They were slightly wrong- people can be moral, without being religious. As an anecdotal example, I live in DC and know plenty of non-religious liberals who are moral people.

You’re falling for the leftist “top down” theory of governance. Every behavioral restriction, in your (and the left’s) paradigm, must come from a central authority or government.

No, I'm not. Your view is based on the mistaken assumption that a person cannot be moral unless they are religious.

30 posted on 09/24/2008 7:46:33 AM PDT by Citizen Blade (What would Ronald Reagan do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

What paranoia.

Considering how the evos turn on their own and chew them up and spit them out when they don’t tow the hardline evo party line, I suppose the projection is not unexpected.

They just don’t realize that not everybody is as intolerant as them and not going to react like them.

Very revealing......


31 posted on 09/24/2008 8:10:26 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: MrB
This is a recurring historical event, decadent, flailing cultures get taken over by those that have firm, set standards and beliefs. And then THOSE beliefs are “imposed” on that culture/society.

IOW, there's no avoiding having someone else's religious beliefs imposed on us - except to voluntarily embrace yours?

32 posted on 09/24/2008 8:10:45 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Blade; MrB

The atheists are riding the coattails of the morality of Christianity that once determined proper behavior in this country.

The moral decline that we’re seeing in regards to abortion, homosexual activism, promiscuity, euthanasia, etc, show what happens when that Judeo-Christian moral base is eroded.

Sure, for the time being atheists can be moral according to Judeo-Christian standards, but they have no reason to be and if those standards are removed, they will cease that moral behavior in time.

It’s happening now in spite of the fact that some individual atheists still see the benefit to themselves of moral behavior.


33 posted on 09/24/2008 8:17:05 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: metmom
The atheists are riding the coattails of the morality of Christianity that once determined proper behavior in this country.

I'm not even sure what that means. You're assuming that atheists and agnostics live moral lives because they are somehow trying to copy Christians. That does not make sense- atheists and agnostics live moral lives for their own reasons.

The moral decline that we’re seeing in regards to abortion, homosexual activism, promiscuity, euthanasia, etc, show what happens when that Judeo-Christian moral base is eroded.

Shouldn't the blame for this fall squarely on the shoulders of Christians who do not live up to Christian values? No one is forcing them to give up Judeo-Christian moral values. On the other hand, are you willing to give credit to atheists and agnostics (such as myself) who do not engage in any of these activities?

Sure, for the time being atheists can be moral according to Judeo-Christian standards, but they have no reason to be and if those standards are removed, they will cease that moral behavior in time.

Again, you assume that atheists and agnostics act morally due to some sort of cultural accident. That's not a correct assumption.

It’s happening now in spite of the fact that some individual atheists still see the benefit to themselves of moral behavior.

What evidence do you have that atheists and agnostics in this country are increasingly acting imorally?

34 posted on 09/24/2008 8:39:38 AM PDT by Citizen Blade (What would Ronald Reagan do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson