UK bans teaching of creationism in any school which receives public funding

[Lost_Wanderer]

Children in public* school are fed quite a lot of religion already. The religion of atheism, the religion of relativism, of secularism, of modernism, of Population Control. These are all religious ideologies and whatever Catholic sends their children to public school surely endangers their souls due to the lack of faith education and the amount of indoctrination in these dangerous tenets.

*I am an American and have used the American term for a government-funded school

What does your talk of politics and philosophy have to do with elementary school science?

 

[AClaire11]

I would note that many religious schools in the UK receive public funding and are “state schools,” so it’s not the same as a private Christian school in the US. In the UK, there are both state and private religious schools. Mostly CoE and Catholic, I believe.

However, the articles I’ve read say that it applies to teaching creationism as scientific fact in science or biology class. Schools can still have religion classes and explain how God created the world by guiding evolution, or however it is usually explained (my Catholic middle school didn’t teach evolution and my secular high school didn’t teach religion so I’m not sure).

 

[epan]

The first sentance in the Bible is, in the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth, sounds like creationism to me.

God creaated man in his own image, it does not say God created apes that evolved into man.

This is my faith, and science can teach what it wants.

I suppose you are opposed to modern medical care, too. Because without our understanding of evolution and natural selection, the biological sciences would not exist as we know them, and neither would medical science.

 

[anthony022071]

We are talking about school kids who want/need to learn about physics, chemistry, biology, perhaps a bit of geology, astronomy and the weather.

Could you please expand on how and where you want to fit in teachings on self-sufficient creative power, production of matter and order, human thought etc.?

Knowledge of God’s power over nature should be brought up wherever scientific explanations might lead people to think that nature works on its own,and that it has the ability to create matter,order,life,species and human thought. That is the way that some scientific explanations portray natural phenomena,and that is how many people think about nature,having been influenced by scientific explanations.

You might go into some of these topics in a class on philosophy. If something in nature cannot be explained through natural causes, then it’s not science.

The problem is that since scientists take the naturalistic view of nature,everything except certain miracles can be explained according to natural causes,however illogical the explanations may be.

Creation, meaning of life, ethics etc. belong in religion classes. I am very much for religious education, but not in a science curriculum.

The topic of creation is covered in science classes,but it is not called creation,it is called origins or beginning or production,and the power to create is attributed to natural causes and even nothingness.

Creation can mean God’s act of making things come into existence,or the act of things coming into existence,or the things that God has created. The doctrine of creation and divine providence is not just about God,as if he is not involved with nature,but about natural things themselves,and that is why it is necessary knowledge for the investigation of nature. Science is interested in causes and effects,just as philosophy and theology are. And the assessment of causes and effects should be logical,not naturalistic and mechanistic and reductionist. Even though science is limited to the study of natural things,this does not justify methodological naturalism. The naturalistic view is false,not only in philosophy but also in scientific research. It leads to false attributions and conclusions. Science should give logical explanations for natural phenomena,not abandon logic for the sake of its commitment to methodological naturalism.

 

[anthony022071]

There doesn’t have to be a disconnect. This is fundamentalistic thinking, not Catholic. Catholics have never shied away from the truth. We invented the scientific method for Pete’s sake.

The problem with creationism isn’t that it says God created the world. (Which is true, though not really a scientific matter.) It’s that it relies on and promotes a literal reading of Genesis with a six day creation and a six thousand year old earth. It has to completely ignore or distort all findings in science to get that number, and as such it doesn’t qualify as legitimate science at all and shouldn’t be taught in schools. Neither should we be teaching that the earth is flat or the sun revolves around the earth or any other faulty scientific theory.

The literal reading of the Genesis and belief in a six-day creation and a six-thousand year old earth did not originate with fundamentalist protestants. Catholics have always generally thought that way until about the 1960’s,when evolution theory came to be widely accepted in the schools. All the statements in the creation accounts in Genesis have a literal sense,even those that may have a figurative meaning,because language always comes with literal sense. And most of the statements can be taken as actually true,without uncertainty. There are only a few images that may be only figurative,such as the tree of life and the tree of knowledge and the serpent. But even if these images are figures,they still represent real things.

As for the findings of science,the theories of origins are naturalistic,and they use illogical causal relations and doubtful ways of measuring the ages of things. They attribute creative powers to nature that it does not have.

We should be teaching the best science we have available, and then helping our kids see that faith and reason are complimentary to each other. Creationism science unfortunately only perpetuates the myth that the two are at odds with one another, and that does more damage than teaching them evolution ever could.

Science is not the same as reason. it can be illogical. It uses a way of thinking called methodological naturalism,which makes it inadequate to properly explain certain things about nature - the origin of matter,order,life,species and human thought. These things are caused by the power of God. Faith and reason are complimentary,but not the doctrine of creation and naturalistic theories of origins.

The theory of evolution has done far more damage to people’s faith and reason than protestant creationism has. Many Christians have lost their faith in God because of their exposure to the theory of evolution,and many others (such as theistic evolutionists) have a deistic view of God’s relation to the natural world,and a naturalistic view of how nature works and how it originated.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

The theory of evolution has done far more damage to people’s faith and reason than protestant creationism has.

Funny, I’ve lost respect for religion because creationism espouses a view that dinosaurs and dragons were the same. As a kid, I was the little boy who enjoyed reading dinosaur picture books. As an adult, dragons have become my most favorite subject in the field of mythology and folklore.

You can imagine how I’m doubly insulted when fundamentalists have the gall to compare both. It’s like comparing a house lizard to Godzilla.

 

[Hans_W]

The literal reading of the Genesis and belief in a six-day creation and a six-thousand year old earth did not originate with fundamentalist protestants. Catholics have always generally thought that way until about the 1960’s,when evolution theory came to be widely accepted in the schools. All the statements in the creation accounts in Genesis have a literal sense,even those that may have a figurative meaning,because language always comes with literal sense. And most of the statements can be taken as actually true,without uncertainty. There are only a few images that may be only figurative,such as the tree of life and the tree of knowledge and the serpent. But even if these images are figures,they still represent real things.

Why is the serpent exempted from a literal reading? What about the earth and the sun, which one is moving?

We are not supposed to discuss evolution on this forum, and I can’t see any need to do so. Pius XII accepted evolution as a plausible theory back in 1950. Since then we have discovered mountains of new fossils, very reliable dating methods and brand new evidence from DNA studies. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming - and it is beautiful. In 1996 John Paul II made it clear that the Church fully accepted the theory of evolution as the origin of the human body from pre-existing living matter. The human soul, however, comes directly from God.

John Paul’s letter from 1996 is beautifully written. It clearly restricts science to the material and reserves the spiritual for God. Of course, as Christians we believe that God also created our bodies, but through the process of evolution. (He also created me, but through my parents).

There was a bit of a hiccup in 2005 when Cardinal Christoph Schönborn raised some issues with evolution and Intelligent Design, but things have been straightened out shortly afterwards.

As for the findings of science,the theories of origins are naturalistic,and they use illogical causal relations and doubtful ways of measuring the ages of things. They attribute creative powers to nature that it does not have.

Science is not the same as reason. it can be illogical. It uses a way of thinking called methodological naturalism,which makes it inadequate to properly explain certain things about nature - the origin of matter,order,life,species and human thought. These things are caused by the power of God. Faith and reason are complimentary,but not the doctrine of creation and naturalistic theories of origins.

Yes, science uses methodological naturalism as an assumption. If something cannot be explained through natural laws it is not science. In practice, scientists keep looking until they find a naturalistic explanation. Without this assumption, science would grind to a halt. Whenever we come across something unexplained we have to say “God did it” and quit our research. But if we then find a natural explanation, then God has been pushed out. The infamous God of the Gaps.

Concerning the “creative powers of nature”, do you picture God sitting in the clouds making snowflakes? Of course, nature is endowed with creative power to create beautiful crystals which give the illusion of being designed.

Methodological naturalism doesn’t entail ontological naturalism, which says that there is nothing beyond the natural world. That’s why scientists can be sincere Christians. I recommend you read Ken Miller’s book “Finding Darwin’s God”.

The theory of evolution has done far more damage to people’s faith and reason than protestant creationism has. Many Christians have lost their faith in God because of their exposure to the theory of evolution,and many others (such as theistic evolutionists) have a deistic view of God’s relation to the natural world,and a naturalistic view of how nature works and how it originated.

Firstly, evolution says nothing about the origin of life, nor does it address the origin of the universe. Secondly, there are many people who grew up as fundamentalists and then lost their faith because they realise that this worldview doesn’t match up with the real world.

Out of interest, what is the difference between “protestant creationism” and your type of creationism?

 

[anthony022071]

Funny, I’ve lost respect for religion because creationism espouses a view that dinosaurs and dragons were the same.

Creationism doesn’t say that dinosaurs and dragons are the same. That may be the belief of some creationists,but it is not part of creationism itself. And that belief is not a reason to lose respect for religion in general. It says nothing about Catholic religion.

 

[ringil]

Catholic religion.

And Catholic faith says nothing about a need to teach creationism in schools.

In fact, Catholic schools don’t teach creationism, ID, or the variants in science classes.

I know my child’s school doesn’t.

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

And Catholic faith says nothing about a need to teach creationism in schools.

In fact, Catholic schools don’t teach creationism, ID, or the variants in science classes.

I know my child’s school doesn’t.

How does the teaching of Genesis differ from the above? Why wouldn’t a Catholic school be teaching Genesis?

 

[ringil]

How does the teaching of Genesis differ from the above? Why wouldn’t a Catholic school be teaching Genesis?

A Catholic school would teach the stories of Genesis to kids in a religion class. As they got older they would be taught that the stories of Genesis are not to be taken literally.

The stories of Genesis would not- and aren’t to my knowledge for the most part- brought up in science classes.

You see. . . . because the Bible isn’t science.

So to other parents of kids in Catholic schools- and I know there are many of you- is Creationism, ID, . . . . ahem. . . . IDevolution being taught to their kids in science classes.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Creationism doesn’t say that dinosaurs and dragons are the same. That may be the belief of some creationists,but it is not part of creationism itself. And that belief is not a reason to lose respect for religion in general. It says nothing about Catholic religion.

It’s a mainstream creationist idea and you know it. Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, they’re both champions of mainstream creationism and insist on this joke. For all their education, they know nothing about dragons.

You can pitch me a different brand all you like but you’re just proving my point. How are you any different from cafeteria Catholics like me? You pick and choose what suits you about the creation of mankind just as I’d be accused of picking and choosing doctrine. This is what you suggest as an alternative to objective science?

Honestly, more power to the U.K. You can blast the scientific method to your heart’s content but it doesn’t make it less of a method instead of a worldview worth worrying about.

 

[anthony022071]

Why is the serpent exempted from a literal reading?

It isn’t exempted. It can be reasonably taken literally or figuratively. Either way,it should be taken as signifying Satan,who is real.

What about the earth and the sun, which one is moving?

It seems that both move. Scripture does not that either of them doesn’t move.

We are not supposed to discuss evolution on this forum, and I can’t see any need to do so. Pius XII accepted evolution as a plausible theory back in 1950. Since then we have discovered mountains of new fossils, very reliable dating methods and brand new evidence from DNA studies. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming - and it is beautiful. In 1996 John Paul II made it clear that the Church fully accepted the theory of evolution as the origin of the human body from pre-existing living matter. The human soul, however, comes directly from God.

Pius XII did not accept evolution theory as plausible. He only permitted the study of human origins on condition that there should be dialogue between those who believe in evolution and those who object to it. John Paul II never said that the Church accepts the theory.

John Paul’s letter from 1996 is beautifully written. It clearly restricts science to the material and reserves the spiritual for God. Of course, as Christians we believe that God also created our bodies, but through the process of evolution. (He also created me, but through my parents).

The theory of evolution is not a Christian belief. When God creates living creatures,he creates them immediately and individually,not through a gradual natural process. Immediate creation is how living creatures are seen to come into existence. He created you immediately through your parents,and he created our first parent immediately from the elements of the earth.

There was a bit of a hiccup in 2005 when Cardinal Christoph Schönborn raised some issues with evolution and Intelligent Design, but things have been straightened out shortly afterwards.

The points he made still stand. They were not straightened out. Some Catholic supporters of evolution theory objected to what he said and acted like he didn’t know what he was talking about.

 

[Hans_W]

It isn’t exempted. It can be reasonably taken literally or figuratively. Either way,it should be taken as signifying Satan,who is real.

It seems that both move. Scripture does not that either of them doesn’t move.

So, did the snake speak or not? Did God stop the sun to extend the day? There are plenty of passages in the OT which describe the earth as “fixed” and “unmovable”.
I find it crazy to have this kind of discussion in the 21st century.

Pius XII did not accept evolution theory as plausible. He only permitted the study of human origins on condition that there should be dialogue between those who believe in evolution and those who object to it. John Paul II never said that the Church accepts the theory.

Nor did they accept the theory of gravity or quantum mechanics, or any scientific theory for that matter. That is not the job of the Pope. Only scientists can decide if they accept a scientific theory or not.

The Pope can reject an idea if it goes against the teaching of the Church, abortion for example, or gay marriage. Science has nothing to say on ethics or moral matters.

The theory of evolution is not a Christian belief. When God creates living creatures,he creates them immediately and individually,not through a gradual natural process. Immediate creation is how living creatures are seen to come into existence. He created you immediately through your parents,and he created our first parent immediately from the elements of the earth.

You might be right on that point if you grow up in the Seventh Day Adventist church. But you are wrong when you speak as a Catholic. Our Church has accepted the theory of evolution. Full stop. You are not forced to believe it, but please don’t try and influence other people who are looking for the truth.

The points he made still stand. They were not straightened out. Some Catholic supporters of evolution theory objected to what he said and acted like he didn’t know what he was talking about.

No, Cardinal Schönborn didn’t know what he was talking about when he made his remarks, leaning towards Intelligent Design. He has been corrected by more informed theologians.

You criticized “protestant creationism”. You still haven’t told us how it differs from your convictions.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Do we really have to go through that whole thing again? Evolution as a scientific theory has been accepted by the Catholic Church in 1950. It has been reaffirmed over the years as we now have tons of more evidence.

It doesn’t contradict our belief that God created the universe, including us.

Exactly. I’ve never understood the problem with evolution or the fundamentalist approach to the Bible. It’s equally clear to me that (1) God created the universe and natural law and (2) the physical world operates in accordance with these laws set by a creator. Anyone who understands the Incarnation or geometry for that matter is already there. God infuses AND transcends physical matter and abstract concepts. He is in all creation and beyond. Creation is good (though fallen through our sin). It’s his plan we’re playing out here, not yours. I am not particularly happy about being a primate, but there’s not a whole lot I can do about it. I am certainly not going to deny reality to get around it. You ever see a chimpanzee put six million other chimpanzees in gas ovens? I wonder how they feel about being related to us.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Exactly. I’ve never understood the problem with evolution or the fundamentalist approach to the Bible. It’s equally clear to me that (1) God created the universe and natural law and (2) the physical world operates in accordance with these laws set by a creator.

According to someone here, such a view is deistic/naturalistic and contrary to the ‘Christian’ worldview.

 

[Hans_W]

According to someone here, such a view is deistic/naturalistic and contrary to the ‘Christian’ worldview.

This “someone here” has no idea what science is, nor does he/she speak for the Catholic Church.

Science only looks for natural explanations, but that doesn’t prevent a scientist from believing in God as being supernatural, being outside of nature. No, you don’t need to be a deist either. God is sustaining His creation at all times (that’s what I believe).

Look up Father Robert Barron on YouTube. He has done a couple of short videos, including a few topics on science, faith and reason, genesis, evolution and so on.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Science only looks for natural explanations, but that doesn’t prevent a scientist from believing in God as being supernatural, being outside of nature. No, you don’t need to be a deist either. God is sustaining His creation at all times (that’s what I believe).

I know rite? Besides, I don’t see why seeing God’s hands in nature at work is somehow exclusive to deism. It’s like saying skepticism is a trait exclusive only to atheist or optimism to New Agers.

 

[ringil]

So do the advocates of ID and such believe that these tenets should be presented in a public school?

If so, should they be presented even more so in a Catholic school, or in a parish school should they simply be teaching the Biblical stories as an account of life on Earth?

 

[anthony022071]

So, did the snake speak or not?

If Satan took the form of a snake,then the snake probably did speak. Satan can do that.

Did God stop the sun to extend the day?

God stopped the sun or the earth. He can do that.

There are plenty of passages in the OT which describe the earth as “fixed” and “unmovable”.

But it is not clear in what sense that is meant. It may mean that God has fixed the earth and made it unmovable in its existence and foundation and patterns. The earth is also fixed and unmovable in its preordained orbit.

I find it crazy to have this kind of discussion in the 21st century.

That’s because you take the scientific worldview,which is naturalistic,as a given.

Nor did they accept the theory of gravity or quantum mechanics, or any scientific theory for that matter. That is not the job of the Pope. Only scientists can decide if they accept a scientific theory or not.

Anyone has the ability to accept whatever theory they want. It does not require scientific training. Popes can hold opinions that are not part of the Church’s deposit of faith.

The Pope can reject an idea if it goes against the teaching of the Church, abortion for example, or gay marriage. Science has nothing to say on ethics or moral matters.

Some scientists do have theories about ethics and morality. They explain it as an evolutionary development.

You might be right on that point if you grow up in the Seventh Day Adventist church. But you are wrong when you speak as a Catholic. Our Church has accepted the theory of evolution. Full stop.

No,it hasn’t. The magisterium hasn’t proclaimed it as true and the laity does not hold it as a pious tradition.

You are not forced to believe it, but please don’t try and influence other people who are looking for the truth.

I will try to influence people to accept the truth.

No, Cardinal Schönborn didn’t know what he was talking about when he made his remarks, leaning towards Intelligent Design. He has been corrected by more informed theologians.

No. He did know what he was talking about. And he was only criticized by some scientists.

You criticized “protestant creationism”. You still haven’t told us how it differs from your convictions.

Fundamentalist creationists insist that the six days of creation are literal and that the world is only 6,000 years old. I don’t insist on six literal days of creation and I don’t believe that the world is only 6,000 years old. I hold that God creates species immediately,just as we see that individual creatures come into existence immediately,and that the six days of creation are real in some way,whether they are to be taken literally or figuratively.