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

[Kaninchen]

When government and religion join forces, i.e, churches are co-opted by government dictates, the Church dies.

I expect that there’s an argument that this might be a response to but there’s no shortage of religious groups looking to set up publicly funded schools - just as the Catholic Church has for the past century and a half. Of course, you’re more an expert on Catholic education than the Catholic authorities in the UK.

 

[Kaninchen]

BTW, I do not believe that you or anyone else here is part of a conspiracy. I believe that you are wrong.

Fortunately, science lessons in the UK will not be disrupted by ‘creationism’ - people can waste their time on ‘creationism’ on threads on message boards instead.

 

[Kelt]

Fortunately, science lessons in the UK will not be disrupted by ‘creationism’ - people can waste their time on ‘creationism’ on threads on message boards instead.

Yes indeed…we must be vigilant though! Isn’t there a school in Gateshead that’s getting creationism through the back door? And some churches have big money…they will see new opportunities in Britain if we’re not careful.

 

[RACJ]

But by the time the ‘experiment’ had been finished and proved, the reader of the results would have evolved into a different species because it would have taken millions of years haha!!!
Understanding and imagining Time is your problem I fear.

I think that time is a device used by Darwinists to make the preposterous plausible. Argument by incredulity, it has been said here, I know. But really, I think that it is you evos who fire up your “willing suspension of disbelief” switches whenever a discussion turns to origins. There is no half-cocked idea that you won’t accept, as long as it fits in the presuppositional framework of naturalism. Blessings, Rob

 

[RACJ]

I expect that there’s an argument that this might be a response to but there’s no shortage of religious groups looking to set up publicly funded schools - just as the Catholic Church has for the past century and a half. Of course, you’re more an expert on Catholic education than the Catholic authorities in the UK.

I don’t want Darwin’s theory taught as fact in ANY school! Children should be taught to think critically and freely, and that is not being done.

 

[agnes_therese]

If what is presented is true, don’t you think an occasional human would sport a tail, just like Grandma’s of yesteryear? Recessive traits DO occasionally appear, you know. Rob

Yes, recessive traits do appear. Including vestigial tails.
humanpathol.com/article/S0046-8177(84)80079-9/references

 

[Hans_W]

Fortunately, science lessons in the UK will not be disrupted by ‘creationism’ - people can waste their time on ‘creationism’ on threads on message boards instead.

Yes, I would prefer spending my time fighting atheists rather than arguing with my fellow Catholics.

However, there is nothing you can do to get your message through to somebody with a closed mind. I hope that there are open-minded people listening to these threads.

 

[Hans_W]

So, you believe in billions of unplanned positive mutations which carried on through countless generations. As a Harry Chapin fan, I say Balderdash!
Let’s imagine a culture of protozoa in a Petri dish. Explain the first two or three steps which substantively changed the protozoa, and set them on a billion year journey to elephants, lions, dolphins and man. If you can, might scientists be able to intelligently design a repeat performance of this today? Thanks, Rob

RACJ, have you ever read Michael Behe’s book “Darwin’s Black Box”? Well, you should. He explicitly supports the common ancestry idea, that’s part of the theory of evolution which states that all living lifeforms are related, descendants of a common ancestor. Behe just sees a problem here and there with chemical pathways and structures which are too complicated in his view to have come about naturally. God must have stepped in from time to time.

You are not really on the ID side if you deny the common ancestry theory. Have you created your own splinter group of Intelligent Design? Or are you just joining forces with Young Earth Creationists, Old Earth Creationists, Gap Theorists, womanatwell’s Creation Biology, etc. etc. to fight against something you don’t like, something you don’t want to understand?

 

[Hans_W]

Yes, recessive traits do appear. Including vestigial tails.
humanpathol.com/article/S0046-8177(84)80079-9/references

There are hundreds of examples. One that I find fascinating is the switched off genes in birds which prevents the growth of teeth. Yes, you can produce a chicken with teeth if you “switch on” those genes. Obviously, birds are descendants of animals which sported teeth!

 

[RACJ]

RACJ, have you ever read Michael Behe’s book “Darwin’s Black Box”? Well, you should. He explicitly supports the common ancestry idea, that’s part of the theory of evolution which states that all living lifeforms are related, descendants of a common ancestor. Behe just sees a problem here and there with chemical pathways and structures which are too complicated in his view to have come about naturally. God must have stepped in from time to time.

You are not really on the ID side if you deny the common ancestry theory. Have you created your own splinter group of Intelligent Design? Or are you just joining forces with Young Earth Creationists, Old Earth Creationists, Gap Theorists, womanatwell’s Creation Biology, etc. etc. to fight against something you don’t like, something you don’t want to understand?

I’d be proud to be considered part of womanatwell’s Creation Biology team. I know that Behe believes in common descent. I believe in a common Designer. Rob
My objection is much simpler than womanatwell’s persuasive critique. I see hummingbirds which can flap their wings 200X per second in courtship, and the awesome gift of hearing which depends upon 18,000 fibers per ear that can fit on the head of a pin. These and millions of other wonders did NOT occur randomly! The hummingbird evolved one flap at a time, after years of nomadic wandering? The first several dozen flaps would have been useless for flight. The wings would have been nothing but a burden for the tiny organisms for millions of years.
Can you imagine the first flighted hummingbird? “Hey guys, I can fly!” Or a spider: “Lookie here what I’ve done. Catching bugs is so much easier since I figured out how to spin this silky web!” Rob

 

[Kelt]

I think that time is a device used by Darwinists to make the preposterous plausible. Argument by incredulity, it has been said here, I know. But really, I think that it is you evos who fire up your “willing suspension of disbelief” switches whenever a discussion turns to origins. There is no half-cocked idea that you won’t accept, as long as it fits in the presuppositional framework of naturalism. Blessings, Rob

Think of it this way…
Each woman stands next to her mother, she stands next to HER mother and so on down thought the generations. Each individual doesn’t differ much from the next - there are superficial differences in colouring/height/weight for example, but not so that they differ so much as to be seen suddenly as a different species. Now you go on doing this for thousands and thousands of years. As you look at the individuals immediate to each other, you can see no change…but take out very large chunks of time and you would see the difference. THAT’S the importance of TIME. TIME is what evolution is all about.
(As for argument by incredulity…you must be careful not to be a pot trying to call a kettle black…)

 

[RACJ]

Think of it this way…
Each woman stands next to her mother, she stands next to HER mother and so on down thought the generations. Each individual doesn’t differ much from the next - there are superficial differences in colouring/height/weight for example, but not so that they differ so much as to be seen suddenly as a different species. Now you go on doing this for thousands and thousands of years. As you look at the individuals immediate to each other, you can see no change…but take out very large chunks of time and you would see the difference. THAT’S the importance of TIME. TIME is what evolution is all about.
(As for argument by incredulity…you must be careful not to be a pot trying to call a kettle black…)

The possibility that Earth is a billion years old does not prove anything biologically, Kelt. You are saying that once upon a time, millions of years ago, “Grandma” was a paramecium. It may be a comforting thought for those who wish to delete God from Creation, but to me it’s wild speculaion. There are so many miracles that secularists take for granted, such as the wholly unnecessary splitting of the sexes. It’s actually sad that people believe this, but it’s tragic that so many wish to pass such conjecture along as fact to young people. Rob

 

[RACJ]

I think that folks on both sides might enjoy reading the following: crev.info/?scientists=a-e-wilder-smith
This article shows how thoroughly the wagons have been circled to protect naturalistic theory. Brilliant man, Dr. Wilder-Smith. Three doctorates is no mean feat.

 

[Kaninchen]

Yes indeed…we must be vigilant though! Isn’t there a school in Gateshead that’s getting creationism through the back door? And some churches have big money…they will see new opportunities in Britain if we’re not careful.

Well, that’s the point of the new regulations, of course.

I think the important thing is that children of parents with a firm commitment to YEC or the universe existing on the back of a turtle should have a science curriculum like that available to everybody else. Adam and Eve dancing with dinosaurs or turtle mulitiverse theory should remain a matter for their parents or RE teachers and the Government have, at last, made that clear.

 

[Hans_W]

I think that folks on both sides might enjoy reading the following: crev.info/?scientists=a-e-wilder-smith
This article shows how thoroughly the wagons have been circled to protect naturalistic theory. Brilliant man, Dr. Wilder-Smith. Three doctorates is no mean feat.

Yes, you might see him as the father of the Intelligent Design movement. He also has the dubious reputation of having been Europe’s leading creationist.

He wrote 16 books, the best-known one is titled “Man’s Origin Man’s Destiny: A Critical Survey of the Principles of Evolution and Christianity”. It apparently includes photographs showing dinosaur and human footprints together. These were proven not to be of human origin. Some photos have been falsified, some of the footprints were even carved.

I haven’t come across his most famous book, but I have paged through his 1989 paperback “The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution”. It contains lots of errors, which any biologist can point out to you. This book is sprinkled throughout with confusion and ignorance. It spans the whole spectrum from Young Earth Creationism to what we might call modern Intelligent Design creationism. He also spends a lot of time on attacking a naturalistic theory of the origin of life, which is not part of evolution.

Wilder-Smith was professor of pharmacology at the University of Illinois, but has done all his studies in Switzerland. Interestingly, Switzerland has the highest percentage of creationists of any European country, mainly restricted to their Protestant Churches.

In short, I wouldn’t use this man to disprove the theory of evolution.

 

[RACJ]

Yes, you might see him as the father of the Intelligent Design movement. He also has the dubious reputation of having been Europe’s leading creationist.

He wrote 16 books, the best-known one is titled “Man’s Origin Man’s Destiny: A Critical Survey of the Principles of Evolution and Christianity”. It apparently includes photographs showing dinosaur and human footprints together. These were proven not to be of human origin. Some photos have been falsified, some of the footprints were even carved.

I haven’t come across his most famous book, but I have paged through his 1989 paperback “The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution”. It contains lots of errors, which any biologist can point out to you. This book is sprinkled throughout with confusion and ignorance. It spans the whole spectrum from Young Earth Creationism to what we might call modern Intelligent Design creationism. He also spends a lot of time on attacking a naturalistic theory of the origin of life, which is not part of evolution.

Wilder-Smith was professor of pharmacology at the University of Illinois, but has done all his studies in Switzerland. Interestingly, Switzerland has the highest percentage of creationists of any European country, mainly restricted to their Protestant Churches.

In short, I wouldn’t use this man to disprove the theory of evolution.

I agree that people of all points of view are too quick to accept specious “evidence” if it supports their point of view. But just as with the recently trumpeted Ida and Ardi fossils which turned out to be hoaxes, the fact that many evos accepted of them as transitional does not prove or disprove anything.
One thing that I have noticed in these discussions is that all queries that people make challenging evolution are treated as Count Dracula treats the Cross. There is no rational path for directionless, random mutations to have created the eye, ear, brain, lung, wing, web, etc, yet everyone is supposed to accept the idea that “Evolution did it; Sit down and shut up!” No way! Blessings, Rob

 

[Monkey1976]

I agree that people of all points of view are too quick to accept specious “evidence” if it supports their point of view. But just as with the recently trumpeted Ida and Ardi fossils which turned out to be hoaxes, the fact that many evos accepted of them as transitional does not prove or disprove anything.

Ida isn’t an example of a hoax, it’s an example of science self-correcting. It’s easy for an anthropologist faced with an early primate fossil to fall into the trap of assuming that it is an ancestor in our line. Turns out that Ida is more closely linked to the lemurs and lorises. Still extremely valuable, but not a human ancestor. As for Ardi, can you cite the source which shows that it is a hoax?

One thing that I have noticed in these discussions is that all queries that people make challenging evolution are treated as Count Dracula treats the Cross. There is no rational path for directionless, random mutations to have created the eye, ear, brain, lung, wing, web, etc, yet everyone is supposed to accept the idea that “Evolution did it; Sit down and shut up!” No way! Blessings, Rob

Really?

• Eye
• Ears/Hearing
• Nervous system/brain
• Lungs/Swim bladder
• Wings/flight
• Spiderwebs

Not seeing much hissing and backing away here.

So much for that list. The sources above are single examples out of thousands of articles and papers regarding the evolutionary paths of each of the items you claim to be impossible. Got any more?

 

[RACJ]

Celebratory stories about Ida’s and Ardi’s human links were spread throughout the world, until they were quietly retracted. I agree that “hoax” may be too strong a word.
As for your kind attempts to point me toward explanations of how major organs evolved, I doubt that one person who believes in ID would be convinced by a single word in any of them. We are just supposed to believe that these unfathomably complex organs developed one step at a time, despite no evidence. All there is is conjecture. Creation is simply ruled out from the start, despite the fact that in all these examples, it is the most obvious and logical answer. Smacks of agenda-driven propaganda to me.
I appreciate your thoughtful responses, nonetheless. Rob

 

[Kelt]

I agree that people of all points of view are too quick to accept specious “evidence” if it supports their point of view. But just as with the recently trumpeted Ida and Ardi fossils which turned out to be hoaxes, the fact that many evos accepted of them as transitional does not prove or disprove anything.
One thing that I have noticed in these discussions is that all queries that people make challenging evolution are treated as Count Dracula treats the Cross. There is no rational path for directionless, random mutations to have created the eye, ear, brain, lung, wing, web, etc, yet everyone is supposed to accept the idea that “Evolution did it; Sit down and shut up!” No way! Blessings, Rob

The mutations have not been directionless, in that they haven’t just all happened any old how and hey presto! oops, there’s an ear!
Mutations happen all over the place - the one’s, small or large, that are beneficial to the organism and help its survival in some way - give it an edge over its competitors - get passed on to subsequent generations. Trees in a forest survive better if they can grow taller to get more light…another plant may develop bigger leaves in order to use more light in the shade of the trees which have become taller. The tall trees stop growing when the energy that’s needed to maintain their height starts to compete with the energy gained from being tall. ie, if being even taller needs more energy than you can make by being that tall, it’ll have to ‘develop’ another strategy or die out in that location.
Just because the organisms don’t have a ‘pre-planned’ programme, doesn’t mean that mutations are ‘directionless’.
It’s very simple really, once you get your head round it, and it’s so much more awe inspiring than a series of magic tricks. I suppose it’s a very human reaction to bring God down to a conjuror.

 

[RACJ]

The mutations have not been directionless, in that they haven’t just all happened any old how and hey presto! oops, there’s an ear!
Mutations happen all over the place - the one’s, small or large, that are beneficial to the organism and help its survival in some way - give it an edge over its competitors - get passed on to subsequent generations. Trees in a forest survive better if they can grow taller to get more light…another plant may develop bigger leaves in order to use more light in the shade of the trees which have become taller. The tall trees stop growing when the energy that’s needed to maintain their height starts to compete with the energy gained from being tall. ie, if being even taller needs more energy than you can make by being that tall, it’ll have to ‘develop’ another strategy or die out in that location.
Just because the organisms don’t have a ‘pre-planned’ programme, doesn’t mean that mutations are ‘directionless’.
It’s very simple really, once you get your head round it, and it’s so much more awe inspiring than a series of magic tricks. I suppose it’s a very human reaction to bring God down to a conjuror.

Kelt, if God is not a “conjuror”, perhaps there is no need for Him. Many millions have lost their faith, b/c naturalism purports to prove that God is unneceaasry for Creation. Where exactly does He fit in?
There is no evidence in nature that positive mutations pass down through all subsequent generations. Even the misleading peppered moth example used in millions of classrooms to illustrate evolution in progress turns out to show nothing of the sort. When the climate turned rainy again, the proportion of dark moths returned to normal.
I will never understand how a single intelligent human can accept macro-evolution as true. Rob