Should creationism be taught in British classrooms?

The New Statesman ^ | 04/11/2010 | Michael Reiss

[cookcounty]

Modern evolutionary thought does not allow for the supernatural.

Many scientists subscribe to the notion that "Nature is all there is" which is a philosophical statement but not a scientific statement. Science has a hard time making absolute statements, especially when singular events are beyond observed duplication. A little more humility from the "scientific community" would be appreciated on this score, but theirwidespread paranoia demands an absolutist mentality .

---------------

Question for theistic evolutionists: "Can God acheive an intended result by a process devoid of intentionality?"

[cookcounty]

"I didn’t think my reply suggested that. I have no problem with ID-ers. The ID just took a long time, from our POV."

Sorry for doing a little "lumping together" of my own. I didn't mean it as a philippic against you personally. But the fact remains that that the majoritarian view in science nowadays is that ID = Creationism. Which betrays serious sloppiness of thought ---on their part.

[kosciusko51]

Many scientists subscribe to the notion that "Nature is all there is" which is a philosophical statement but not a scientific statement.

Very true, but this is the crux of the matter in teaching evo vs ID. The evos will say that what they are teaching is "science" devoid of "religion", and that ID is "religion" devoid of any "science". The problem is that both have a philosophical presupposition that cannot be proven with the scientific method.

What needs to be pointed out is that any origin theory is based in a philosophical presupposition, and as such, has a certain amount of faith to it.

[MsLady]

True, it really doesn't matter to me, I'm grounded in the bible. More then just words, my experiences with God. I've seen God move in my life in so many miraculous ways(biggest, salvation and the after effects and I was healed of liver cancer 8 years ago,++++++++ so many more things) I have no doubts. My feelings were I needed to say what I believed. There are some that are confused, if what I say helps so be it.

If you believe in God, this won't change His mind about you :) He still loves us no matter what. Relationships are like that with God, there is still much I don't know. The more I learn, especially about God, the more I realize how little I know.

[UK_Jeffersonian]

Well, we'd like to know why the statement that creationism's influence is growing across the globe is BS.

The intelligent design "movement" was the last hurrah of creationism. It was a movement concieved, bankrolled and largely populated by conservative christians who publicly insisted that it had nothing to do with religion at all.

Epic fail.

That it failed to attract any significant base of support among scientists and professors came as no surprise to anyone not already bewitched by its philosophical chicanery.

What was surprising was its failure to accomplish its real goal: to drive a big enough "wedge" (as Phillip Johnson put it) of public opinion between what he saw as philosophical naturalism and the classroom that ID would end up having to be taught despite, and contrary to, the opinions of the vast majority of scientists and researchers.

In a nation like the US where the majority of the population believes in some sort of special creation, this seemed a very real possibility, which is why the reaction from Eugenie Scott & Co. was so vehement.

But what happened?

School board members who attempted to introduce ID found themselves looking for work after election time even in conservative counties. Judges with conservative track records on other issues failed to see the validity of ID as a legitimate scientific theory. Scholars and theologians at conservative schools who were initially excited by it came to find its arguments uncompelling enough that they were not willing to trumpet them publicly. The few researchers who remained publicly supportive of ID were denounced by their own collegues and exist as borderline academic pariahs.

In short creationism (along with its red-headed, back-stairs stepchild the ID movement) failed in an environment more ripe for its success than any other western, democratic country on the planet. It failed to a degree that I think surprised even its most vehement detractors.

If creationisms attempt at intellectual respectability cannot succeed in conservative, religious colleges or rural Pennsylvania, it cannot succeed anywhere.

[kosciusko51]

bewitched by its philosophical chicanery

Nice set of loaded words there. Let us not forget that the modern evo have their own "philosophical chicanery" going on: they claim that all that exists is matter and that there is no God. While they don't know everything, they discount the possibility of something that is not unreasonably possible.

Let me expand. How did life occur? We don't know, but it can't be God. How did the universe begin? We don't know, but it can't be God. They have already rejected a definite possibility for rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.

[massgopguy]

As part of an elective Theology course? YES!

[valkyry1]

Good post!

[SeekAndFind]

You’re describing influence in terms of their acceptance by those in institutions of learning, organizations, etc.

I think the author is referring to the GENERAL PUBLIC and what they believe. In this regards, he seems to be telling us that creationism seems to be gaining in acceptance.

For instance, CBS has been doing a yearly poll on public acceptance of evolution since as far back as I can remember.

This poll (1991) had 47% for creationism (God created man 10,000 years ago) and 40% for evolution.(man evolved God guided the process). However an addition 9% also believed in evolution (man evolved God wasn’t involved) End numbers 47% to 49%

A follow up (1997) to the last poll, with the same numbers came out 44% creation 39% evolution with God and 10% pure evolution. End numbers 44% to 49%

In 2005, they told us that their poll results show that most Americans do not accept the theory of evolution. Instead, 51 percent of Americans say God created humans in their present form, and another three in 10 say that while humans evolved, God guided the process. Just 15 percent say humans evolved, and that God was not involved.

This number, I think has been increasing every year in favor of creationism INSPITE of what is happening at our institutions of learning.

*THAT* I think is what the author is referring to.

[BrandtMichaels]

See Part II for evidences of a global flood.

Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html

Part I dispels the upside down logic of evolution.
Part III is questions, answers and a debate challenge.

[BrandtMichaels]

Sorry but you could not be more wrong. Evolution is historical (aka hysterical) science. Evolution stands logic on it’s head to try to explain nature. The Dover PA case did not involve any “conservative, religious colleges of rural Pennsylvania” higher learning insitutes.

See my post #30 in this thread for more truth than you’ll
find in all of the evolution textbooks combined. If the
government would quit funding evolutionary science then
it would literally dry up and blow away.

[kosciusko51]

The interest thing to me about the Dover PA case is that the judge in the case is an alumnus of a certain prep school. The alumni magazine from this school had some interesting comments. Most viewed this as a way to annoy what they perceived as conservatives, and did not really discuss the merits of the case.

I wish I had kept the magazine, but was so disgusted with the lot that I threw it away.

[telebob]

I see the creationist camel has its nose under the FR tent again.

Just when I was getting ready to cough up a few hundred for the Freepathon.

Let me be the first to say...’This belongs in Religion’.

[SeekAndFind]

Let me be the first to say...’This belongs in Religion’.

I used to post this in the Religion forum, but was requested to move it to this forum ( I believe GodGunsGuts got permission from Jim to post it here).

[Rummenigge]

“Never does chaos create order.”

That is true - but order can form in a chaotic system if the chaos increases elsewhere.

[Rummenigge]

I don’t agree.

Science is not based on faith but on putting up a thesis without any faith, knowing it may be wrong. It’s only based on observation and logical links to other observations and the point is not to regard it as truth for all time but a temporary base of work until obeservations are made that make your thesis obsolete or incomplete or wrong.

In fact faith is a problematic attitude for a scientist since they are certainly tempted and do fall in love with their theories all the time - but the philosophie is - and that is what every scientist gets tought and what every priest is forbidden: To not fall into love with theories, models, interpretations etc. but to test them, make your own and put them to a discussion.

It is the essence of science to be unfaithful.

[Rummenigge]

There is no way science can proof or resume that ‘there is no god’.
In fact it is impossible to proof that angels, elfs or the like do not exist.

There are areas of incertainty and they are big.

But only because we don’t know jack about what things are in these areas it doesn’t mean on the other hand that there is a god.

Science doesn’t say ‘there is no God’ it just says - we don’t see him.

Jesus walked - perhaps - over the water. But there is a lot of indications, that makes it to hard to believe. We even have a better theory - one that has more logical connections to other observations and results of interpretations and is much harder to attack: The bible contains stuff, that is made up.

So why consider a second best theory ?

[kosciusko51]

We even have a better theory - one that has more logical connections to other observations and results of interpretations and is much harder to attack: The bible contains stuff, that is made up.

And your proof that the bible has fiction in it is what?

So why consider a second best theory ?

In your mind, it is the second best theory. To me, the idea that an intelligent and logical mind has been created by random events is far poorer than the idea that a more superior intelligence created a lesser one.

[BrandtMichaels]

You claim “The bible contains stuff, that is made up.”

I say prove it or pack it up and go home! The Bible is unique among all other books. And it shows many clear signs to be divinely inspired by God as does creation itself.

To make such an outlandish claim, you obviously have never seriously studied His Word nor the many heavily researched books and articles as well as archeological science itself which shows the Bible to be trustworthy and true.

Psalm 22 was written at least 800 years before Jesus Christ walked the earth yet it alone provides numerous fulfilled prophesies describing the details surrounding the crucifixion. Science can not begin to compete with His Word and has no answer for any of the wondrous and miraculous claims in the Bible.

[kosciusko51]

The problem with your statement is not science, it is scientists. We have seen over and over again in the scientific community a certain penchant for holding on to theories, even when shown to be false, because there is a certain desire for them to be true. AGW has shown this in bold stripes.

The problem is that every scientist does fall in love with their own theories or models. For instance, is the speed of light constant? There is some good evidence that it is not, but there a strong resistance from the physics community not to accept the theory. Einstein refused to believe quantum mechanics because, as he put it, "God does not play dice." (and, no, I am not saying that Einstein believed in God, I am just quoting him).

Also, I have yet to see a controlled experiment that conclusively proves ToE over ID. What I see is the equivalent of forensic scientists looking over a crime scene trying to figure out what has happened, but who have been told that the perpetrator is not their man, and that they should abandon any line of inquiry that proves otherwise.