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

[TEPO]

There is no “magic” within the light of physics. God created physics. That’s why everything works. Nothing exists on its own, outside the design of God. Did you ever wonder why the freezing, melting and boiling points of water fall exactly where humans can utilize them, and life can exist? Or why the sun is perfectly positioned in relation to us, or why the earth’s tilt and rotation are suited for life? Or why the moon is the exact distance away from us to allow for total solar eclipses, which in turn has allowed scientists to test theories of physics.
Wherever you look, if you are observant, you see intelligent design. Rob

Well I all that’s true then maybe it’s time to prove it. I’ve given all I can here to help. But when we talk over each other we’re not actually helping each other. Why do you think my hypothesis would not help your case?

I for one think that proving mutations to be ‘ordered’ is highly provable. I see the “randomness” for exactly what it is - a misunderstanding / lack of good science.

 

[TEPO]

I agree. Intelligent design is the answer. Life does not just look like it’s designed, it was designed. Fortunately, Christians have the critical knowledge we need, and all people need, to understand reality as it is.

Peace,
Ed

IOW, what you’re saying is you’re not interested in influencing the sciences? You do understand me right?

We both agree mutations are not random nothingness…

 

[Hans_W]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arthur C. Clarke
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic

That’s from the non-scientist, non-expert point of view.

Go back to the 18th century when the brothers Montgolfier launched their first hot-air balloon - peasants beat it up after landing. Only birds can fly. Anything else must be from the devil.

Go back to the 19th century - people who for the first time saw a locomotive, crossed themselves. It surely must be the devil pulling a carriage without horses. It blows out smoke as well. It wasn’t magic for James Watt who developed the steam engine and for the engineers who built the locomotive.

Imagine people in the 19th century seeing a TV set or a cellphone. That surely would have been magic to them.

Today, we are not shocked anymore. Scientists have discovered the Higgs boson. So what. People don’t know what that is anyway. Many have lost this sense of wonder because science and technology come up with new surprises every day. Science is seen, by many, as an explanation for everything. But that’s scientism, not science. And real science gets the blame.

 

[edwest2]

IOW, what you’re saying is you’re not interested in influencing the sciences? You do understand me right?

We both agree mutations are not random nothingness…

The sciences, in the 1800s, were glad to proclaim God’s hand in their work. When and how it became the inviolate inviolate, I don’t know.

Mutations are not random nothingness.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Skeptic92]

There is no “magic” within the light of physics. God created physics. That’s why everything works. Nothing exists on its own, outside the design of God. Did you ever wonder why the freezing, melting and boiling points of water fall exactly where humans can utilize them, and life can exist? Or why the sun is perfectly positioned in relation to us, or why the earth’s tilt and rotation are suited for life? Or why the moon is the exact distance away from us to allow for total solar eclipses, which in turn has allowed scientists to test theories of physics.
Wherever you look, if you are observant, you see intelligent design. Rob

I’m unsure if I like the term “design” as that puts across the connotation that God is like a watchmaker. I would also distinguish “Nothing exists on its own…” to instead be “Nothing exists on its own, outside of the will of God”; for it is God that wills things to be how they are. Instead of ‘design’ I would say that what you are describing appears to be agents acting for an end; which would imply teleology. The difference here is that the object of enquiry of the natural sciences is preserved; no good scientific theory needs to make reference directly to God, as God is not an object of scientific study. Whilst ultimately the causal powers of the things that exist are all derived from God, and upon Gods existence they depend, that is the object of Metaphysics/Ontology/Natural Theology and not the natural sciences.

Let it be clear; it isn’t the methodological naturalism of the natural sciences that is the problem. For to study the object of the natural sciences requires that we keep to the natural order of the material world. What is a problem, however, is the metaphysical naturalism that can be sneaked through the back door alongside it. Presenting us with a deficient understanding of causality; this isn’t remedied by imparting the supernatural directly into the methods of the natural sciences. As that would be improper to their object of study.

 

[RACJ]

Well I all that’s true then maybe it’s time to prove it. I’ve given all I can here to help. But when we talk over each other we’re not actually helping each other. Why do you think my hypothesis would not help your case?

I for one think that proving mutations to be ‘ordered’ is highly provable. I see the “randomness” for exactly what it is - a misunderstanding / lack of good science.

I have no problem with scientists trying to prove that mutations are not random. In my mind, simple probability logic proves this. Rob

 

[TEPO]

I have no problem with scientists trying to prove that mutations are not random. In my mind, simple probability logic proves this. Rob

…

Exactly my friend. I see it the same as you, especially with your spiderweb analogy. It’s obvious to many other people just like us.

It’s just a matter of time before it becomes recognized by science. It will happen. I want to be a part of it.

 

[edwest2]

I’m unsure if I like the term “design” as that puts across the connotation that God is like a watchmaker. I would also distinguish “Nothing exists on its own…” to instead be “Nothing exists on its own, outside of the will of God”; for it is God that wills things to be how they are. Instead of ‘design’ I would say that what you are describing appears to be agents acting for an end; which would imply teleology. The difference here is that the object of enquiry of the natural sciences is preserved; no good scientific theory needs to make reference directly to God, as God is not an object of scientific study. Whilst ultimately the causal powers of the things that exist are all derived from God, and upon Gods existence they depend, that is the object of Metaphysics/Ontology/Natural Theology and not the natural sciences.

Let it be clear; it isn’t the methodological naturalism of the natural sciences that is the problem. For to study the object of the natural sciences requires that we keep to the natural order of the material world. What is a problem, however, is the metaphysical naturalism that can be sneaked through the back door alongside it. Presenting us with a deficient understanding of causality; this isn’t remedied by imparting the supernatural directly into the methods of the natural sciences. As that would be improper to their object of study.

Yes, the inviolate inviolate. A few words from Cardinal Ratzinger:

Monod nonetheless finds the possibility for evolution in the fact that in the very propagation of the project there can be mistakes in the act of transmission. Because nature is conservative, these mistakes, once having come into existence, are carried on. Such mistakes can add up, and from the adding up of mistakes something new can arise. Now an astonishing conclusion follows: It was in this way that the whole world of living creatures, and human beings themselves, came into existence. We are the product of “haphazard mistakes.”

What response shall we make to this view? It is the affair of the natural sciences to explain how the tree of life in particular continues to grow and how new branches shoot out from it. This is not a matter for faith. But we must have the audacity to say that the great projects of the living creation are not the products of chance and error. Nor are they the products of a selective process to which divine predicates can be attributed in illogical, unscientific, and even mythic fashion. The great projects of the living creation point to a creating Reason and show us a creating Intelligence, and they do so more luminously and radiantly today than ever before. Thus we can say today with a new certitude and joyousness that the human being is indeed a divine project, which only the creating Intelligence was strong and great and audacious enough to conceive of. Human beings are not a mistake but something willed; they are the fruit of love. They can disclose in themselves, in the bold project that they are, the language of the creating Intelligence that speaks to them and that moves them to say: Yes, Father, you have willed me.

Source: “In the Beginning….” A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall excerpts from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI)

Peace,
Ed

 

[Hans_W]

I agree. Intelligent design is the answer. Life does not just look like it’s designed, it was designed. Fortunately, Christians have the critical knowledge we need, and all people need, to understand reality as it is.

Peace,
Ed

Agreed, but keep ID in the religion class. It has no place in science.

And to forestall your next argument: Science does not contradict an intervention from outside the natural world.

 

[Hans_W]

I’m unsure if I like the term “design” as that puts across the connotation that God is like a watchmaker. I would also distinguish “Nothing exists on its own…” to instead be “Nothing exists on its own, outside of the will of God”; for it is God that wills things to be how they are. Instead of ‘design’ I would say that what you are describing appears to be agents acting for an end; which would imply teleology. The difference here is that the object of enquiry of the natural sciences is preserved; no good scientific theory needs to make reference directly to God, as God is not an object of scientific study. Whilst ultimately the causal powers of the things that exist are all derived from God, and upon Gods existence they depend, that is the object of Metaphysics/Ontology/Natural Theology and not the natural sciences.

Let it be clear; it isn’t the methodological naturalism of the natural sciences that is the problem. For to study the object of the natural sciences requires that we keep to the natural order of the material world. What is a problem, however, is the metaphysical naturalism that can be sneaked through the back door alongside it. Presenting us with a deficient understanding of causality; this isn’t remedied by imparting the supernatural directly into the methods of the natural sciences. As that would be improper to their object of study.

 

[anthony022071]

The Catholic Doctrine on the Theory of Evolution

youtube.com/watch?v=VVWLwjpJxNs

Catholics and Evolution

youtube.com/watch?v=4UwRj9hCtVs

God and Evolution: The Problem with Theistic Evolution

youtube.com/watch?v=9WHB_kMasMs

 

[edwest2]

Agreed, but keep ID in the religion class. It has no place in science.

And to forestall your next argument: Science does not contradict an intervention from outside the natural world.

The evidence is plain. Science is inviolate - it cannot study the supernatural since it is outside its remit. However, thread after thread is started here that tries to convince people: “Your Bible is wrong, here, here and here because science tells us so.” That evidence speaks to an ongoing plan to introduce a totally nonscientific ideology into the Truth. What God has revealed.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Hans_W]

The Catholic Doctrine on the Theory of Evolution

youtube.com/watch?v=VVWLwjpJxNs

Catholics and Evolution

youtube.com/watch?v=4UwRj9hCtVs

God and Evolution: The Problem with Theistic Evolution

youtube.com/watch?v=9WHB_kMasMs

Fr. Peter Damian Fehlner in the first video is a hardcore creationist. He does not represent the Catholic’s Church position.

Jay Richards in the other two videos stands in for Intelligent Design. Again not the position of the Catholic Church.

What is your point?

 

[Hans_W]

The evidence is plain. Science is inviolate - it cannot study the supernatural since it is outside its remit. However, thread after thread is started here that tries to convince people: “Your Bible is wrong, here, here and here because science tells us so.” That evidence speaks to an ongoing plan to introduce a totally nonscientific ideology into the Truth. What God has revealed.

Peace,
Ed

Science is not inviolate. It corrects itself all the time against new evidence.

I wouldn’t say science cannot study the supernatural, rather it doesn’t study the supernatural.
It’s like saying a locomotive cannot fly, so it is limited. Well, it doesn’t fly because it’s not built for flying.

I assume you accept that the universe was not created in six days?! Does that mean the Bible is “wrong”? Of course not. It means that we cannot take everything in the Bible in a literal sense. St Augustine told us that already 1600 years ago. He would embrace modern science if he lived now.

Don’t get influenced by all that atheistic propaganda! (I am starting to get the hang of your expression)

 

[womanatwell]

Agreed, but keep ID in the religion class. It has no place in science.

And to forestall your next argument: Science does not contradict an intervention from outside the natural world.

I’m not sure what this argument would be. All I would ask of your arguments is to allow for the possibility that God made life in a direct supernatural way. That would in no way have to stop people from researching chemistry, physics and thermodynamics of the cell.

I don’t understand why it is acceptable to many Catholics for God to supernaturally create the universe directly but not life or humans. There are those who also look for scientific explanations for Christ’s healing of the lepers and even resurrection. Science is the study of Created objects and a problem is when Christians do not allow for even the possibility that God may have decided to create something directly other than in the Big Bang.

There are many problems in the theory of totally natural evolution. I have a post about a particular set of facts about histone proteins, including images, comparing them with bacterial DNA-organizing proteins. I will give you a preview:

An average E. coli bacterium is about 1-2 25,000th of an inch and yet each organism has millions of DNA bases that need to be organized and compacted so the code can be copied at the right times to produce proteins, the working molecules of the cell, and other products. The proteins make energy from light sources, manufacture the cell wall, participate in reproduction, and all the other processes needed for life. Yet another job is the bending and organization of DNA.

Besides having its variety of shapes, another way DNA is regulated is by the proteins which bend and condense it. They can move from one part to another so that a particular gene is either copied or not depending on the needs of the cell. There are several proteins which bend and regulate DNA in bacteria, one of which is HU. There can be as many as 15,000 HU proteins in one bacterial cell. These particular structures each have 94 amino acids, their own subunits which have to be in order for the protein itself to fold and then bend the DNA.

Please feel free to visit at:

womanatwell.blogspot.com/2014/02/histones-stand-alone.html

 

[RACJ]

I’m not sure what this argument would be. All I would ask of your arguments is to allow for the possibility that God made life in a direct supernatural way. That would in no way have to stop people from researching chemistry, physics and thermodynamics of the cell.

I don’t understand why it is acceptable to many Catholics for God to supernaturally create the universe directly but not life or humans. There are those who also look for scientific explanations for Christ’s healing of the lepers and even resurrection. Science is the study of Created objects and a problem is when Christians do not allow for even the possibility that God may have decided to create something directly other than in the Big Bang.

There are many problems in the theory of totally natural evolution. I have a post about a particular set of facts about histone proteins, including images, comparing them with bacterial DNA-organizing proteins. I will give you a preview:

An average E. coli bacterium is about 1-2 25,000th of an inch and yet each organism has millions of DNA bases that need to be organized and compacted so the code can be copied at the right times to produce proteins, the working molecules of the cell, and other products. The proteins make energy from light sources, manufacture the cell wall, participate in reproduction, and all the other processes needed for life. Yet another job is the bending and organization of DNA.

Besides having its variety of shapes, another way DNA is regulated is by the proteins which bend and condense it. They can move from one part to another so that a particular gene is either copied or not depending on the needs of the cell. There are several proteins which bend and regulate DNA in bacteria, one of which is HU. There can be as many as 15,000 HU proteins in one bacterial cell. These particular structures each have 94 amino acids, their own subunits which have to be in order for the protein itself to fold and then bend the DNA.

Please feel free to visit at:

womanatwell.blogspot.com/2014/02/histones-stand-alone.html

You have more intricate knowledge of science than I could ever hope to have, and you express yourself in a way that leaves naturalists virtually speechless. It is so obvious to me when you look at human anatomy that we did not “evolve” one cell, one organ at a time. The TOE is little more than protozoan magic. Thank you for caring enough to politely express, in a simple way, the mathematical impossiblity of our lives being “grand accidents”. We should never accept taking a seat in the back of any “science” class. WE have Truth on our side. Rob

 

[edwest2]

Science is not inviolate. It corrects itself all the time against new evidence.

I wouldn’t say science cannot study the supernatural, rather it doesn’t study the supernatural.
It’s like saying a locomotive cannot fly, so it is limited. Well, it doesn’t fly because it’s not built for flying.

I assume you accept that the universe was not created in six days?! Does that mean the Bible is “wrong”? Of course not. It means that we cannot take everything in the Bible in a literal sense. St Augustine told us that already 1600 years ago. He would embrace modern science if he lived now.

Don’t get influenced by all that atheistic propaganda! (I am starting to get the hang of your expression)

If you would stop making assumptions about me, I’d appreciate it. “embrace modern science” is the old “other religious people embrace it, why not you?” non-sequitor.

Peace,
Ed

Best,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I’m not sure what this argument would be. All I would ask of your arguments is to allow for the possibility that God made life in a direct supernatural way. That would in no way have to stop people from researching chemistry, physics and thermodynamics of the cell.

I don’t understand why it is acceptable to many Catholics for God to supernaturally create the universe directly but not life or humans. There are those who also look for scientific explanations for Christ’s healing of the lepers and even resurrection. Science is the study of Created objects and a problem is when Christians do not allow for even the possibility that God may have decided to create something directly other than in the Big Bang.

There are many problems in the theory of totally natural evolution. I have a post about a particular set of facts about histone proteins, including images, comparing them with bacterial DNA-organizing proteins. I will give you a preview:

An average E. coli bacterium is about 1-2 25,000th of an inch and yet each organism has millions of DNA bases that need to be organized and compacted so the code can be copied at the right times to produce proteins, the working molecules of the cell, and other products. The proteins make energy from light sources, manufacture the cell wall, participate in reproduction, and all the other processes needed for life. Yet another job is the bending and organization of DNA.

Besides having its variety of shapes, another way DNA is regulated is by the proteins which bend and condense it. They can move from one part to another so that a particular gene is either copied or not depending on the needs of the cell. There are several proteins which bend and regulate DNA in bacteria, one of which is HU. There can be as many as 15,000 HU proteins in one bacterial cell. These particular structures each have 94 amino acids, their own subunits which have to be in order for the protein itself to fold and then bend the DNA.

Please feel free to visit at:

womanatwell.blogspot.com/2014/02/histones-stand-alone.html

I agree with you completely. Thank you for posting this.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Hans_W]

I’m not sure what this argument would be. All I would ask of your arguments is to allow for the possibility that God made life in a direct supernatural way. That would in no way have to stop people from researching chemistry, physics and thermodynamics of the cell.

I don’t understand why it is acceptable to many Catholics for God to supernaturally create the universe directly but not life or humans. There are those who also look for scientific explanations for Christ’s healing of the lepers and even resurrection. Science is the study of Created objects and a problem is when Christians do not allow for even the possibility that God may have decided to create something directly other than in the Big Bang.

There are many problems in the theory of totally natural evolution. I have a post about a particular set of facts about histone proteins, including images, comparing them with bacterial DNA-organizing proteins. I will give you a preview:

An average E. coli bacterium is about 1-2 25,000th of an inch and yet each organism has millions of DNA bases that need to be organized and compacted so the code can be copied at the right times to produce proteins, the working molecules of the cell, and other products. The proteins make energy from light sources, manufacture the cell wall, participate in reproduction, and all the other processes needed for life. Yet another job is the bending and organization of DNA.

Besides having its variety of shapes, another way DNA is regulated is by the proteins which bend and condense it. They can move from one part to another so that a particular gene is either copied or not depending on the needs of the cell. There are several proteins which bend and regulate DNA in bacteria, one of which is HU. There can be as many as 15,000 HU proteins in one bacterial cell. These particular structures each have 94 amino acids, their own subunits which have to be in order for the protein itself to fold and then bend the DNA.

Please feel free to visit at:

womanatwell.blogspot.com/2014/02/histones-stand-alone.html

Welcome to CAF, Kay, and thank you for giving us a link to your website.

Please keep in mind that, as far as I know, all participants on this threads believe that God created this universe, including us.

I went through the trouble of reading through the whole article you copied from. The author, Frederic Nelson, a pediatrician, obviously supports the Intelligent Design view. He speaks against basing science on methodological naturalism and his arguments (from the text you quoted) are leaning on the argument from incredulity.

Do you believe that ID is the correct answer? I ask because you also have links on your website to Creation Wiki and the Institute for Creation Research. You also seem to have links to James Shapiro and his “The Third Way” movement, which again is criticized by W Dembski, one of the spokespersons of the ID movement.

I assume you know that the theory of evolution is accepted by virtually all biologists. There are tens of thousands of specialists in this field who are committed Christians, Evangelicals and Catholics. You are free to believe whatever you want, but keep in mind that the Catholic Church has had experts, theologians and scientists, looking at this issue and has no problem with theory as proper science. Of course, we Christians accept that God has given us a soul. But that’s outside of science.

I believe, and I am certainly in company of most Catholics, many scientists and the vast majority theologians, that Creation Science, Intelligent Design and The Third Way, and whatever else there is, are neither science nor faith.

 

[Rau]

I believe, and I am certainly in company of most Catholics, many scientists and the vast majority theologians, that Creation Science, Intelligent Design and The Third Way, and whatever else there is, are neither science nor faith.

I note that the deficiencies (if that is the case) of the theory of evolution which are pointed to in numerous posts on this thread are well within the scope of Science to identify. I find it strange that many of faith, but limited science background, feel so confident to claim science is blind to these “deficiencies”.

I also find it odd that some feel that the manner in which God acts to create the universe must be in a manner which is in a sense “immediate” and can be pointed to (eg. mutations). It is a mistake to assume that the point at which He set wheels in motion, and where those wheels might lead, can be readily discovered by Man.