The dangers of creationism in education

[Daniel_Marsh]

The dangers of creationism in education

Resolution 1580 (2007)1

1.   The aim of this report is not to question or to fight a belief – the right to freedom of belief does not permit that. The aim is to warn against certain tendencies to pass off a belief as science. It is necessary to separate belief from science. It is not a matter of antagonism. Science and belief must be able to coexist. It is not a matter of opposing belief and science, but it is necessary to prevent belief from opposing science.

2.   For some people the Creation, as a matter of religious belief, gives a meaning to life. Nevertheless, the Parliamentary Assembly is worried about the possible ill-effects of the spread of creationist ideas within our education systems and about the consequences for our democracies. If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights which are a key concern of the Council of Europe.

3.   Creationism, born of the denial of the evolution of species through natural selection, was for a long time an almost exclusively American phenomenon. Today creationist ideas are tending to find their way into Europe and their spread is affecting quite a few Council of Europe member states.

4.   The prime target of present-day creationists, most of whom are Christian or Muslim, is education. Creationists are bent on ensuring that their ideas are included in the school science syllabus. Creationism cannot, however, lay claim to being a scientific discipline.

5.   Creationists question the scientific character of certain items of knowledge and argue that the theory of evolution is only one interpretation among others. They accuse scientists of not providing enough evidence to establish the theory of evolution as scientifically valid. On the contrary, they defend their own statements as scientific. None of this stands up to objective analysis.

6.   We are witnessing a growth of modes of thought which challenge established knowledge about nature, evolution, our origins and our place in the universe.

7.   There is a real risk of a serious confusion being introduced into our children’s minds between what has to do with convictions, beliefs, ideals of all sorts and what has to do with science. An “all things are equal” attitude may seem appealing and tolerant, but is in fact dangerous.

8.   Creationism has many contradictory aspects. The “intelligent design” idea, which is the latest, more refined version of creationism, does not deny a certain degree of evolution. However, intelligent design, presented in a more subtle way, seeks to portray its approach as scientific, and therein lies the danger.

9.   The Assembly has constantly insisted that science is of fundamental importance. Science has made possible considerable improvements in living and working conditions and is a not insignificant factor in economic, technological and social development. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with divine revelation but is built on facts.

10.   Creationism claims to be based on scientific rigour. In actual fact the methods employed by creationists are of three types: purely dogmatic assertions; distorted use of scientific quotations, sometimes illustrated with magnificent photographs; and backing from more or less well-known scientists, most of whom are not specialists in these matters. By these means creationists seek to appeal to non-specialists and sow doubt and confusion in their minds.

11. Evolution is not simply a matter of the evolution of humans and of populations. Denying it could have serious consequences for the development of our societies. Advances in medical research with the aim of effectively combating infectious diseases such as AIDS are impossible if every principle of evolution is denied. One cannot be fully aware of the risks involved in the significant decline in biodiversity and climate change if the mechanisms of evolution are not understood.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

1.   Our modern world is based on a long history, of which the development of science and technology forms an important part. However, the scientific approach is still not well understood and this is liable to encourage the development of all manner of fundamentalism and extremism. The total rejection of science is definitely one of the most serious threats to human rights and civic rights.

2.   The war on the theory of evolution and on its proponents most often originates in forms of religious extremism which are closely allied to extreme right-wing political movements. The creationist movements possess real political power. The fact of the matter, and this has been exposed on several occasions, is that some advocates of strict creationism are out to replace democracy by theocracy.

3.   All leading representatives of the main monotheistic religions have adopted a much more moderate attitude. Pope Benedict XVI, for example, as his predecessor Pope John-Paul II, today praises the role of the sciences in the evolution of humanity and recognises that the theory of evolution is “more than a hypothesis”.

4.   The teaching of all phenomena concerning evolution as a fundamental scientific theory is therefore crucial to the future of our societies and our democracies. For that reason it must occupy a central position in the curriculum, and especially in the science syllabus, as long as, like any other theory, it is able to stand up to thorough scientific scrutiny. Evolution is present everywhere, from medical overprescription of antibiotics that encourages the emergence of resistant bacteria to agricultural overuse of pesticides that causes insect mutations on which pesticides no longer have any effect.

5.   The Council of Europe has highlighted the importance of teaching about culture and religion. In the name of freedom of expression and individual belief, creationist ideas, as any other theological position, could possibly be presented as an addition to cultural and religious education, but they cannot claim scientific respectability.

6.   Science provides irreplaceable training in intellectual rigour. It seeks not to explain “why things are” but to understand how they work.

7.   Investigation of the creationists’ growing influence shows that the arguments between creationism and evolution go well beyond intellectual debate. If we are not careful, the values that are the very essence of the Council of Europe will be under direct threat from creationist fundamentalists. It is part of the role of the Council’s parliamentarians to react before it is too late.

8.   The Parliamentary Assembly therefore urges the member states, and especially their education authorities:

19.1. to defend and promote scientific knowledge;

19.2. strengthen the teaching of the foundations of science, its history, its epistemology and its methods alongside the teaching of objective scientific knowledge;

19.3. to make science more comprehensible, more attractive and closer to the realities of the contemporary world;

19.4. to firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution and in general resist presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion;

19.5. to promote the teaching of evolution as a fundamental scientific theory in the school curriculum.

1.   The Assembly welcomes the fact that 27 Academies of Science of Council of Europe member states signed, in June 2006, a declaration on the teaching of evolution and calls on academies of science that have not yet done so to sign the declaration.

---

1 Assembly debate on 4 October 2007 (35th Sitting) (see Doc. 11375, report of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, rapporteur: Mrs Brasseur). Text adopted by the Assembly on 4 October 2007 (35th Sitting).
assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta07/ERES1580.htm

 

[pedja]

What a hysterical manifesto. Why are evolutionists always so paranoid?

The teaching of all phenomena concerning evolution as a fundamental scientific theory is therefore crucial to the future of our societies and our democracies.

 

[pedja]

Mohler, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, posted a response in his personal Web site on Monday, stating that the resolution is indicative of an increasingly secularizing society.

“When the official human rights institution of Europe has to explain that ‘some people’ believe that the divine creation of the universe ‘gives a meaning to life,’ this can only mean that Europe (at least as represented by the Council of Europe) has forgotten even its Christian memory,” wrote Mohler, who often appears on “Larry King Live” and other popular news shows representing the Christian voice.

…

Furthermore, the Baptist leader challenged the report to provide evidence of its claim that some advocates of creationism “are out to replace democracy by theocracy.”

“The group claims that such knowledge ‘has been exposed on several occasions’ but fails to mention even one such occasion,” stated Mohler.

While the resolution describes creationism as “an almost exclusively American phenomenon” but that some of its tenets were “tending to find their way into Europe,” Mohler noted a greater shift at work.

“The Council of Europe’s resolution is clear evidence of the fact that a secularized society desperately needs naturalistic evolution as the metaphysical foundation of its worldview,” he stated.

“Any threat to evolution is seen as a threat to democracy and human rights — and democracy and human rights are understood in an entirely secular framework as well.”

The Christian Post

 

[Deconi]

The dangers of creationism in education

Resolution 1580 (2007)1

1. The aim of this report is not to question or to fight a belief – the right to freedom of belief does not permit that. The aim is to warn against certain tendencies to pass off a belief as science. It is necessary to separate belief from science. It is not a matter of antagonism. Science and belief must be able to coexist. It is not a matter of opposing belief and science, but it is necessary to prevent belief from opposing science.

If “Science” feels concerned of opposition from “Belief” it is because whichever tenet is being “threatened” finds it does not have the evidence it purports to have.

1. For some people the Creation, as a matter of religious belief, gives a meaning to life. Nevertheless, the Parliamentary Assembly is worried about the possible ill-effects of the spread of creationist ideas within our education systems and about the consequences for our democracies. If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights which are a key concern of the Council of Europe.

Creationism will defeat itself if it does not have the evidence to support it tenet. What it holds to be ‘truth’, can be proven false if THE EVIDENCE cannot sustain it!

Same as science!

1. Creationism, born of the denial of the evolution of species through natural selection, was for a long time an almost exclusively American phenomenon. Today creationist ideas are tending to find their way into Europe and their spread is affecting quite a few Council of Europe member states.

No. Evolution is born of the denial of Creation. To say it was an American phenomenon is ignorant of facts already.

1. The prime target of present-day creationists, most of whom are Christian or Muslim, is education. Creationists are bent on ensuring that their ideas are included in the school science syllabus. Creationism cannot, however, lay claim to being a scientific discipline.

Creationism NEVER claim to restrict itself by the boundaries of ‘science.’

Science is limited.

1. Creationists question the scientific character of certain items of knowledge and argue that the theory of evolution is only one interpretation among others. They accuse scientists of not providing enough evidence to establish the theory of evolution as scientifically valid. On the contrary, they defend their own statements as scientific. None of this stands up to objective analysis.

Neither do some of the ‘scientific’ assertions. That is the problem. Science is interpretation of evidence and extrapolates some of that evidence to mean something! Sometimes, those extrapolations are ‘fanciful.’

1. We are witnessing a growth of modes of thought which challenge established knowledge about nature, evolution, our origins and our place in the universe.

We are experiencing an awareness that the investigations of the “established knowledge” is not supported by evidence.

1. There is a real risk of a serious confusion being introduced into our children’s minds between what has to do with convictions, beliefs, ideals of all sorts and what has to do with science. An “all things are equal” attitude may seem appealing and tolerant, but is in fact dangerous.

Children and adults have been in confusion for several decades now, if not centuries. The confusion can only be settled by Truth. Science is subjective. Today’s “truth” was yesterday’s suppositions and not tomorrow’s maybes; even contradictions.

1. Creationism has many contradictory aspects. The “intelligent design” idea, which is the latest, more refined version of creationism, does not deny a certain degree of evolution. However, intelligent design, presented in a more subtle way, seeks to portray its approach as scientific, and therein lies the danger.

****. Scientific findings have corroborated Creationist’s views rather than contradict it! It is “Science” which has found itself with many contradictions.

 

[Deconi]

1. The Assembly has constantly insisted that science is of fundamental importance. Science has made possible considerable improvements in living and working conditions and is a not insignificant factor in economic, technological and social development. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with divine revelation but is built on facts.

I don’t know about the theory of Evolution making any considerable improvement about any of the developments it “dreams” it has!

Science is of fundamental importance! It is the Divine tool provided to examine and utilize the materials provided for the developments mentioned above, and ACTUALLY has made considerable improvements in life! One of its tenets though is letting the side down!!

1. Creationism claims to be based on scientific rigour. In actual fact the methods employed by creationists are of three types: purely dogmatic assertions; distorted use of scientific quotations, sometimes illustrated with magnificent photographs; and backing from more or less well-known scientists, most of whom are not specialists in these matters. By these means creationists seek to appeal to non-specialists and sow doubt and confusion in their minds.

That’s a two way street.

1. Evolution is not simply a matter of the evolution of humans and of populations. Denying it could have serious consequences for the development of our societies. Advances in medical research with the aim of effectively combating infectious diseases such as AIDS are impossible if every principle of evolution is denied. One cannot be fully aware of the risks involved in the significant decline in biodiversity and climate change if the mechanisms of evolution are not understood.

Evolution has lent nothing to medical science in the sense that ALL THAT HAS BEEN LEARNT can be, and has been learned from the study of contemporary nature and life around us. We have kept and maintained the knowledge for future ref, but find that we have to modify some of those findings, because life grows and continues to adapt to its surroundings.

Evolutionists have taken that to support itself that we are evolving!

1. Our modern world is based on a long history, of which the development of science and technology forms an important part. However, the scientific approach is still not well understood and this is liable to encourage the development of all manner of fundamentalism and extremism. The total rejection of science is definitely one of the most serious threats to human rights and civic rights.

Science has not and CANNOT be totally rejected! It is a Divine gift, freely given!

What some have done with it have confounded others within their own discipline. What hope is there then of the layman understanding it, and “they” pose that ‘it is not well understood”???

Double language has been used repeatedly to disguise ‘floundering.’

1. The war on the theory of evolution and on its proponents most often originates in forms of religious extremism which are closely allied to extreme right-wing political movements. The creationist movements possess real political power. The fact of the matter, and this has been exposed on several occasions, is that some advocates of strict creationism are out to replace democracy by theocracy.

****! There is no ‘war on the theory!’ What it is, is SCRUTINY by analytical thought.

Scaremongering (“extreme right-wing”, “political power”) is a tactic that was commonly attributed to Religious communities by ‘knowledgeable idiots’!! Funny how the rat turns!

1. All leading representatives of the main monotheistic religions have adopted a much more moderate attitude. Pope Benedict XVI, for example, as his predecessor Pope John-Paul II, today praises the role of the sciences in the evolution of humanity and recognises that the theory of evolution is “more than a hypothesis”.

“Adopted?” “Much more MODERATE attitude?”!!!

The Church remains the same, now as it has always remained! She does not “fear” science but looks to see how the scientific finding is COMPATIBLE to what She professes!

 

[Deconi]

1. The teaching of all phenomena concerning evolution as a fundamental scientific theory is therefore crucial to the future of our societies and our democracies. For that reason it must occupy a central position in the curriculum, and especially in the science syllabus, as long as, like any other theory, it is able to stand up to thorough scientific scrutiny. Evolution is present everywhere, from medical overprescription of antibiotics that encourages the emergence of resistant bacteria to agricultural overuse of pesticides that causes insect mutations on which pesticides no longer have any effect.

Adaptation is limited. Evolution infers that ALL life commenced in like manner.

1. The Council of Europe has highlighted the importance of teaching about culture and religion. In the name of freedom of expression and individual belief, creationist ideas, as any other theological position, could possibly be presented as an addition to cultural and religious education, but they cannot claim scientific respectability.

If Evolution had scientific respectability, it wouldn’t even be an issue.

The Human Genome has been mapped! What then is there to fear? Is it that it has discovered that it cannot evolve without ‘intervention?’

1. Science provides irreplaceable training in intellectual rigour. It seeks not to explain “why things are” but to understand how they work.

Much better!! That is precisely correct.

Human intellect was given for a reason. Enquiry and Inquiry. Questions and Answers.

1. Investigation of the creationists’ growing influence shows that the arguments between creationism and evolution go well beyond intellectual debate. If we are not careful, the values that are the very essence of the Council of Europe will be under direct threat from creationist fundamentalists. It is part of the role of the Council’s parliamentarians to react before it is too late.

More scaremongering.

Science is limited to physical laws!

Where ‘arguments between creationism and evolution go well beyond intellectual debate’ is necessary for both to keep functioning. One pushes, the other pulls as they interchange from time to time. When science is limited, creationism posits ‘the impossible’ and science eventually catches up. When creationists become stagnant, science suggests ‘the unlikely’ and creationists move forward again. Etc etc etc

1. The Parliamentary Assembly therefore urges the member states, and especially their education authorities:
   19.1. to defend and promote scientific knowledge;

That sounds like a prayer!

19.2. strengthen the teaching of the foundations of science, its history, its epistemology and its methods alongside the teaching of objective scientific knowledge;

Hmm…

19.3. to make science more comprehensible, more attractive and closer to the realities of the contemporary world;

Hell….

19.4. to firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution and in general resist presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion;

Oh no!

19.5. to promote the teaching of evolution as a fundamental scientific theory in the school curriculum.

**IT IS A PRAYER!! **

1. The Assembly welcomes the fact that 27 Academies of Science of Council of Europe member states signed, in June 2006, a declaration on the teaching of evolution and calls on academies of science that have not yet done so to sign the declaration.

---

1 Assembly debate on 4 October 2007 (35th Sitting) (see Doc. 11375, report of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, rapporteur: Mrs Brasseur). Text adopted by the Assembly on 4 October 2007 (35th Sitting).

35th sitting??

REMAIN SEATED!

 

[swariffin]

Dear Daniel,

Why do you affraid of the creationist idea as compared (not as opposed) to the education. The RC believe that the story of creation as written in the Genesis came from the writer about 4.000 BC who was so amazed with God and believe in God. They believe that God is the creator. How God created things may not exactly as what was written in Genesis. What the writers wrote was his perception of such creation. There was no theory of big bang, nor the evolution at that time the Genesis was written. Did the Genesis writers were wrong? Not necessarily. The Bible is the book of faith not the book of history nor science.

 

[Crumpy]

For the ‘Catholic’ view on the interpretation of Genesis and the idea of creation, see **IN THE BEGINNING **by Joseph Ratzinger.

As he states in the more recent JESUS OF NAZARETH, scripture must be considered as a whole, and in this case, the idea of creation is expanded beyond Genesis, for example, in the first several verses of the gospel of John.

Although creation is not a popular topic even in Catholicism today, it is essential and fundamental to our faith, expressed for example in the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed, e.g. “I believe in God the Father, CREATOR OF HEAVEN AND EARTH…”

The facts of science are limited to what can be measured by its methods.

 

[Kaninchen]

Personally, I applaud the stance taken by the Assembly. This is one American import that Europe can certainly do without.

Parents who believe in this sort of thing have every opportunity to teach their children creationism or have their children taught creationism in their Churches, it could even be mentioned in lessons dealing with culture. There’s no reason why the rest of us should have to subsidize the preoccupations of particular religious sects or sub-sects in the science classroom or have our children waste their time on it.

It would be bad enough for those of us who are religious but for the huge number in Europe who are atheists, agnostics or just completely indifferent to religion to have to put up with such a situation would be egregious.

 

[pedja]

Dear Daniel,

Why do you affraid of the creationist idea as compared (not as opposed) to the education. The RC believe that the story of creation as written in the Genesis came from the writer about 4.000 BC who was so amazed with God and believe in God. They believe that God is the creator. How God created things may not exactly as what was written in Genesis.

Why not? It may as well be exactly how it was written down in Genesis.

What the writers wrote was his perception of such creation.

Doesnt make sense in the context of the 10 commandments and the scripture as a whole.

There was no theory of big bang, nor the evolution at that time the Genesis was written.

So what?

Did the Genesis writers were wrong? Not necessarily. The Bible is the book of faith not the book of history nor science

.

I guess you could then also say Jesus did not rose from the dead because it`s scientifically impossible.

 

[rossum]

Why not? It may as well be exactly how it was written down in Genesis.

No, it is extremely unlikely that it was “exactly how it was written down in Genesis”. According to Genesis there were humans [Gen 1:27] and cattle [Gen 1:24] on the earth during Creation Week; sheep [Gen 4:2] appeared soon after. There were also human habitations such as cities [Gen 4:17] within 130 years [Gen 5:3]. There is absolutely no evidence at all of any of these things from early rocks. We do find humans, cattle, sheep and cities from much later rocks but none at all from early rocks. All we find in early rocks is traces of single celled bacteria, which shows that if there were humans etc. then we would reasonably expect to find their remains alongside the bacteria. The available evidence shows that it is highly unlikely that the literal interpretation of the Genesis account is correct. You would do better to find a less literal interpretation of Genesis, one more in line with the evidence:“In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.”

St. Thomas Aquinas - Summa

rossum

 

[peary]

The dangers of creationism in education

Resolution 1580 (2007)1

1.   The aim of this report is not to question or to fight a belief – the right to freedom of belief does not permit that. The aim is to warn against certain tendencies to pass off a belief as science. It is necessary to separate belief from science. It is not a matter of antagonism. Science and belief must be able to coexist. It is not a matter of opposing belief and science, but it is necessary to prevent belief from opposing science.

Science warned about Global Cooling in the 1970s too…it was wrong.

1.   For some people the Creation, as a matter of religious belief, gives a meaning to life. Nevertheless, the Parliamentary Assembly is worried about the possible ill-effects of the spread of creationist ideas within our education systems and about the consequences for our democracies. If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights which are a key concern of the Council of Europe.

I don’t think Europe has to worry about Creationism…Europe is quite atheist and secular.

1.   Creationism, born of the denial of the evolution of species through natural selection, was for a long time an almost exclusively American phenomenon. Today creationist ideas are tending to find their way into Europe and their spread is affecting quite a few Council of Europe member states.

Europe needs to concern itself with its Muslim immigrants, some of whom are more of a threat to the stability of western democracies than the doctrine of Creationism.

1.   The prime target of present-day creationists, most of whom are Christian or Muslim, is education. Creationists are bent on ensuring that their ideas are included in the school science syllabus. Creationism cannot, however, lay claim to being a scientific discipline.

Let it. Creationism can be easily refuted by scientific knowledge.

1.   Creationists question the scientific character of certain items of knowledge and argue that the theory of evolution is only one interpretation among others. They accuse scientists of not providing enough evidence to establish the theory of evolution as scientifically valid. On the contrary, they defend their own statements as scientific. None of this stands up to objective analysis.

But they tell the truth. There is not enough knowledge in the natural sciences to argue Darwinian evolution as a scientifically valid truth.

 

[peary]

1.   We are witnessing a growth of modes of thought which challenge established knowledge about nature, evolution, our origins and our place in the universe.

And the paradigm shifts once again, as it always does.

1.   There is a real risk of a serious confusion being introduced into our children’s minds between what has to do with convictions, beliefs, ideals of all sorts and what has to do with science. An “all things are equal” attitude may seem appealing and tolerant, but is in fact dangerous.

If the education system would actually ‘teach’ this sort of thing wouldn’t be happening.

1.   Creationism has many contradictory aspects. The “intelligent design” idea, which is the latest, more refined version of creationism, does not deny a certain degree of evolution. However, intelligent design, presented in a more subtle way, seeks to portray its approach as scientific, and therein lies the danger.

On one hand, you want scientific explanation. On the other hand, when evidence points to the possibility of Intelligent Design, you ignore it.

1.   The Assembly has constantly insisted that science is of fundamental importance. Science has made possible considerable improvements in living and working conditions and is a not insignificant factor in economic, technological and social development. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with divine revelation but is built on facts.

Oxymoron: a ‘theory’ is not built on “scientific facts”. What a stupid statement. LOL

1.   Creationism claims to be based on scientific rigour. In actual fact the methods employed by creationists are of three types: purely dogmatic assertions; distorted use of scientific quotations, sometimes illustrated with magnificent photographs; and backing from more or less well-known scientists, most of whom are not specialists in these matters. By these means creationists seek to appeal to non-specialists and sow doubt and confusion in their minds.

Let Creationists have their day in court, I say.

1.   Evolution is not simply a matter of the evolution of humans and of populations. Denying it could have serious consequences for the development of our societies. Advances in medical research with the aim of effectively combating infectious diseases such as AIDS are impossible if every principle of evolution is denied. One cannot be fully aware of the risks involved in the significant decline in biodiversity and climate change if the mechanisms of evolution are not understood.

Embracing and applying an unproved theory has had serious consequences for the development of our societies (i.e., communism and socialism). Advances in medical research has effectively cut-off the life support of untold millions of human beings through technological murder - abortion. It also is resulting in inter-specie cross-development; i.e., human/animal hybrids which are just around the corner. Science cannot give us moral leverage, nor does it seek to do so.

 

[Deconi]

No, it is extremely unlikely that it was “exactly how it was written down in Genesis”. According to Genesis there were humans [Gen 1:27] and cattle [Gen 1:24] on the earth during Creation Week; sheep [Gen 4:2] appeared soon after. There were also human habitations such as cities [Gen 4:17] within 130 years [Gen 5:3]. There is absolutely no evidence at all of any of these things from early rocks. We do find humans, cattle, sheep and cities from much later rocks but none at all from early rocks. All we find in early rocks is traces of single celled bacteria, which shows that if there were humans etc. then we would reasonably expect to find their remains alongside the bacteria. The available evidence shows that it is highly unlikely that the literal interpretation of the Genesis account is correct. You would do better to find a less literal interpretation of Genesis, one more in line with the evidence:“In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.”

St. Thomas Aquinas - Summa

rossum

I don’t know how you see anything other than creation in your citation above!

From a single cell fossil to an explosion of diverse fossils? How is that speaking AGAINST creationism?

You’ve ‘seen’ a rock form haven’t you? Did those single celled bacteria ‘hold still’ for eons whilst the rock formed around them?..or is it more plausible to suggest that a sudden catastrophic occurrence ‘surprised’ and entrapped them within molten or exploding matter, later to become the ‘early rocks’??

Wise man, St Thomas.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

The aim of this report is not to question or to fight a belief – the right to freedom of belief does not permit that. The aim is to warn against certain tendencies to pass off a belief as science. It is necessary to separate belief from science. It is not a matter of antagonism. Science and belief must be able to coexist. It is not a matter of opposing belief and science, but it is necessary to prevent belief from opposing science.

A proposition cannot be true in religion and false in science.

It is surprising that such an eminent group of people would not understand this elementary philosophical principle, which the Church has proclaimed for many hundreds of years.

 

[rossum]

I don’t know how you see anything other than creation in your citation above!

I am not making points against creation, I am criticising the literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2. The 6 day/6,000 year YEC interpretation is not in agreement with the evidence. There are no Cambrian cows as we would expect if the YEC interpretation were correct.

From a single cell fossil to an explosion of diverse fossils? How is that speaking AGAINST creationism?

It is not, it speaks against the YEC interpretation in which there is no progression. Under YEC all the different kinds were present from the first week, with the number of kinds reducing over time - there are now no non-avian dinosaur kinds. The evidence shows a development over time which is not consistent with the YEC interpretation.

You’ve ‘seen’ a rock form haven’t you?

I have seen the remains of Pompeii, and I have also seen film of the Mount Saint Helens eruption. Rock can form quickly as well as slowly.

Did those single celled bacteria ‘hold still’ for eons whilst the rock formed around them?..or is it more plausible to suggest that a sudden catastrophic occurrence ‘surprised’ and entrapped them within molten or exploding matter, later to become the ‘early rocks’??

My point about the bacteria was that if we can find the reamins of bacteria then we should also reasonably expect to find the remains of other contemporary organisms. Since we do not it is reasonable to conclude that only the bacteria were present at that time, contrary to the YEC interpretation.

Bacteria can die because they run out of food. If there are no other bacteria around to eat their remains then those remains can be buried, whether quickly or slowly. See here for a whale skeleton that has been on the seabed for 18 months and is already partially buried in the sediment.

I have no problems with catastrophes - the Burgess Shale fauna was buried by a series of underwater landslides.

rossum

 

[rossum]

A proposition cannot be true in religion and false in science.

In the Catholic religion the host is transformed into the body of Christ. In science the host remains unleavened wheat. Both statements are true because science and religion use different sources of truth, scripture and the material world respectively.

rossum

 

[swariffin]

Why not? It may as well be exactly how it was written down in Genesis.

Doesnt make sense in the context of the 10 commandments and the scripture as a whole.

So what?

.

I guess you could then also say Jesus did not rose from the dead because it`s scientifically impossible.

Sorry for just coming back to this thread. The only thing I want to say that bible is not a book of science. You must distinguish science and belief. Science is science and faith is faith. They are different in the essence. You cannot discuss science based on the bible. The same thing of faith. You cannot discuss faith based on science. If somehow in the future that science really in accordance with the scriptures, wow, my faith will even grow larger I think. But still, it is faith which will save not science.

 

[Metaron]

What a hysterical manifesto. Why are evolutionists always so paranoid?

I know; the only way they can convince me that macro-evolution is true and literal creationism is not is if the Catholic Church says it is no longer a view to be held. But I don’t think that will ever happen; their simply is too much in favour of Creationism. See my thread in philosophy, Creationism an Option?.