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

[Kelt]

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

That is entirely the same way as I feel Rob…with all the evidence, how on earth could an intelligent human REJECT it???
How then, do you feel about sharing 96% of your DNA with a chimp?

 

[edwest2]

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

Well said.

Ed

 

[Kelt]

---

Well said.

Ed

How then do you too, feel about sharing 96% of your DNA with a chimp?

 

[RACJ]

---

How then do you too, feel about sharing 96% of your DNA with a chimp?/QUOTE

This proves nothing, except that a single God created everything. We share 50% of our DNA with bananas as well, BTW. Never again will I eat TWO bananas at a sitting.
Even Richard Dawkins has pointed out that a single cell nucleus contains more information than the 30 volumes of the old Encyclopedia Brittanica. Lots of luck “evolving” one of those! Somehow, information such as this doesn’t often find its way into HS classrooms, so desperate are evolutionists to preclude the reality of a Creator from the minds of students. Rob

 

[Hans_W]

I will never understand how a single intelligent human can accept macro-evolution as true. Rob

Well, 400 years ago people felt the same when they were told that the earth is moving, not the sun.

One would think that 150 years is enough to get the message through. Obviously, not for everybody.

 

[Hans_W]

---

How then do you too, feel about sharing 96% of your DNA with a chimp?

Kelt, it’s not worth arguing with somebody with a closed mind.

I’ve met lots of creationists since moving into the English-speaking world. Many are highly educated people. Just a total mind block and not the least desire to look at the argument from another angle. If evolution was anti-religious or rejected by the Church, it would make sense. What makes me proud of being a Catholic is that the Church embraces modern science. But it doesn’t contradict Church teaching if you decide to live in the 19th century (when evolution was still a topic of debate).

I learned to ignore these people, but I do get really upset when that nonsense it taught to young people.

I just came back from an open day at a local university. My son is going to start studying next year (starts in February in this part of the world). He is probably going to go for Genetics. But whatever he decides, zoology, botany, general biology, genetics, marine biology, ornithology, etc., etc., central to all of these studies is a whole bunch of papers on evolutionary biology. I hope that not too many religious fundamentalists go into those studies. They are going to battle. Some may loose their faith.

 

[RACJ]

Well, 400 years ago people felt the same when they were told that the earth is moving, not the sun.

One would think that 150 years is enough to get the message through. Obviously, not for everybody.

Ahh…nothing as tempting a device as a straw man from centuries past, Hans. Actually, it is the naturalists whose minds are as closed as a freshly sewn straw man. Under the auspices of “science”, censorship of fresh ideas and independent thought flourishes. Rob

 

[Hans_W]

Ahh…nothing as tempting a device as a straw man from centuries past, Hans. Actually, it is the naturalists whose minds are as closed as a freshly sewn straw man. Under the auspices of “science”, censorship of fresh ideas and independent thought flourishes. Rob

Look RACJ, once you’ve learned a little bit about science then we can carry on our discussion about science.

 

[RACJ]

Kelt, it’s not worth arguing with somebody with a closed mind.
I just came back from an open day at a local university. My son is going to start studying next year (starts in February in this part of the world). He is probably going to go for Genetics. But whatever he decides, zoology, botany, general biology, genetics, marine biology, ornithology, etc., etc., central to all of these studies is a whole bunch of papers on evolutionary biology. I hope that not too many religious fundamentalists go into those studies. They are going to battle. Some may loose their faith.

Good luck to your son, Hans. You concede my point that many Christians lose their faith while studying origin theory. This need not be. All a prospective student need do is read Phillip Johnson’s “Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds” or a couple of his others by Johnson. Another is Lee Strobel’s “Case for a Creator”. Any student will be well prepared for the onslaught of irrational agnosticism about to greet him.

 

[boar2roar]

Kelt, it’s not worth arguing with somebody with a closed mind.

I’ve met lots of creationists since moving into the English-speaking world. Many are highly educated people. Just a total mind block and not the least desire to look at the argument from another angle. If evolution was anti-religious or rejected by the Church, it would make sense. What makes me proud of being a Catholic is that the Church embraces modern science. But it doesn’t contradict Church teaching if you decide to live in the 19th century (when evolution was still a topic of debate).

I learned to ignore these people, but I do get really upset when that nonsense it taught to young people.

I just came back from an open day at a local university. My son is going to start studying next year (starts in February in this part of the world). He is probably going to go for Genetics. But whatever he decides, zoology, botany, general biology, genetics, marine biology, ornithology, etc., etc., central to all of these studies is a whole bunch of papers on evolutionary biology. I hope that not too many religious fundamentalists go into those studies. They are going to battle. Some may loose their faith.

Uh belief in evolution will decrease religous faith in most cases, In the US its not uncommon to hear things like I dont believe in god I believe in evolution. Atheist and evolution are almost synonyms in common speech. So I wouldnt be crusading to hard for the evos case, they have enoguh help from the left and secularists. There are exceptions like kenneth miller and a lot of people but many completely turn.

 

[Hans_W]

Uh belief in evolution will decrease religous faith in most cases, In the US its not uncommon to hear things like I dont believe in god I believe in evolution. Atheist and evolution are almost synonyms in common speech. So I wouldnt be crusading to hard for the evos case, they have enoguh help from the left and secularists. There are exceptions like kenneth miller and a lot of people but many completely turn.

Is it that bad? Well, that explains a lot. But please keep that nonsense in your country. This thread refers to a European country.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You concede my point that many Christians lose their faith while studying origin theory.

If this is an argument against evolution, it is a very poor one. If someone’s Christian faith is founded on a rejection of human evolution, it is ill-founded and so you can’t blame evolution for the subsequent loss of faith. There may have been those whose Christian faith included geocentrism. When that was disproved, some may have lost their faith. But it would have been a very bad argument back then to say “We must maintain geocentrism or people will lose their faith.” First and foremost should be the truth. Speculation about the consequences of recognizing a truth should play no role in deciding if something is true. In the long run, more damage is done to the faith if we try to deny a truth.

 

[Kelt]

If this is an argument against evolution, it is a very poor one. If someone’s Christian faith is founded on a rejection of human evolution, it is ill-founded and so you can’t blame evolution for the subsequent loss of faith. There may have been those whose Christian faith included geocentrism. When that was disproved, some may have lost their faith. But it would have been a very bad argument back then to say “We must maintain geocentrism or people will lose their faith.” First and foremost should be the truth. Speculation about the consequences of recognizing a truth should play no role in deciding if something is true. In the long run, more damage is done to the faith if we try to deny a truth.

Absolutely! Well and succinctly put.

 

[RACJ]

If this is an argument against evolution, it is a very poor one. If someone’s Christian faith is founded on a rejection of human evolution, it is ill-founded and so you can’t blame evolution for the subsequent loss of faith. There may have been those whose Christian faith included geocentrism. When that was disproved, some may have lost their faith. But it would have been a very bad argument back then to say “We must maintain geocentrism or people will lose their faith.” First and foremost should be the truth. Speculation about the consequences of recognizing a truth should play no role in deciding if something is true. In the long run, more damage is done to the faith if we try to deny a truth.

Leaf, the fact that many people lose their faith after a naturalist indoctrination is NOT an argument at all, but rather it is a reason why I am so tenacious in my criticism of TOE. The theory asserts that blind forces have “created” all the diverse plant and animal life that we see today. This is pure rubbish, no matter how fervently it is believed by secularists.
Some people, sadly, simply accept what authorities tell them, and this has been the case in the lives of many former Christians. To posit that a frog, hummingbird or man is the culmination of millions of years of protozoan modification through descent not only cannot be proved, it is absurd. All peoples throughout the world would be wise to reject the idea that life is a secular “miracle”. I do understand that the tossing of 150 years which have been invested in the idea that blind processes can do a better job than God would be difficult, but all humanity would be the better for it.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Leaf, the fact that many people lose their faith after a naturalist indoctrination is NOT an argument at all, but rather it is a reason why I am so tenacious in my criticism of TOE. The theory asserts that blind forces have “created” all the diverse plant and animal life that we see today. This is pure rubbish, no matter how fervently it is believed by secularists.

It is also believed by faithful Christians.

To posit that a frog, hummingbird or man is the culmination of millions of years of protozoan modification through descent not only cannot be proved, it is absurd.

Just as it was once absurd to think that people standing on the opposite side the world are standing upside down. Yes, it is absurd, until you know better. Then it is just true.

I do understand that the tossing of 150 years which have been invested in the idea that blind processes can do a better job than God would be difficult

No only difficult, but unnecessary. Evolution is not in competition with God.

 

[RACJ]

It is also believed by faithful Christians.

Just as it was once absurd to think that people standing on the opposite side the world are standing upside down. Yes, it is absurd, until you know better. Then it is just true.

No only difficult, but unnecessary. Evolution is not in competition with God.

1. I know that some Christians believe in “protozoa to man” evolution. Sorry, but I do not see where God is needed in this scenario.
2. Some ideas start out absurd, and remain absurd, such as naturalistic abiogenesis and macro-evolution.
3. YOU may not see evolutionists as being in competition with theists, but most of the more notorious naturalists include destruction of faith as a goal. And they have met with phenomenal success in Europe, and more limited gains in America. Every soul lost is a tragedy, and for those who have been indoctrinated by the Darwinists, it is especially and needlessly sad. Rob

 

[LeafByNiggle]

1. I know that some Christians believe in “protozoa to man” evolution. Sorry, but I do not see where God is needed in this scenario.

Does it bother you that God does not seem to be needed to explain gravity too? Then why is it necessary to see exactly how God is needed to explain evolution?

1. Some ideas start out absurd, and remain absurd, such as naturalistic abiogenesis and macro-evolution.

Just calling them absurd over and over again does not make them so.

1. YOU may not see evolutionists as being in competition with theists, but most of the more notorious naturalists include destruction of faith as a goal. And they have met with phenomenal success in Europe, and more limited gains in America. Every soul lost is a tragedy, and for those who have been indoctrinated by the Darwinists, it is especially and needlessly sad. Rob

Ah, the atheist’s weapon! Evolution! You are so anxious to take this weapon out of their hands that you are willing to twist science to make it so. As I said before, doing things like this is going to cause more damage to the faith than reconciling the truth of evolution with the truths of faith, just as denying geocentrism to “save the faith” was ill-advised.

This is also the position of the Catholic Church, which has wisely not taken a position either for or against evolution, but is willing to let the chips fall where they may. But I see that you list yourself as Christian, not Catholic, so perhaps this is not very meaningful to you.

 

[RACJ]

Does it bother you that God does not seem to be needed to explain gravity too? Then why is it necessary to see exactly how God is needed to explain evolution?

Just calling them absurd over and over again does not make them so.

Ah, the atheist’s weapon! Evolution! You are so anxious to take this weapon out of their hands that you are willing to twist science to make it so. As I said before, doing things like this is going to cause more damage to the faith than reconciling the truth of evolution with the truths of faith, just as denying geocentrism to “save the faith” was ill-advised.

This is also the position of the Catholic Church, which has wisely not taken a position either for or against evolution, but is willing to let the chips fall where they may. But I see that you list yourself as Christian, not Catholic, so perhaps this is not very meaningful to you.

When you talk about gravity, you are talking a physical process which can be tested. Of COURSE, God is necessary for all laws of physics to exist. If you discuss “evolution” within a species, you are talking about DNA elasticity which exists in every creature.
But expounding about macro-evolution, or ideas about how complicated cells, organs, systems and organisms came into existence in the first place, scientists are way out of their league. To present as FACT theories which are merely speculation, usually of the zany sort, is to posit an obvious agenda.
Oh, you are correct. I am not RC. But, I do have many friends who ARE who believe exactly as I do, and are upset that the Church has not taken a strong stand against evolution.
So, why do you believe that God has a role in our existence? Where does he come in?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

When you talk about gravity, you are talking a physical process which can be tested. Of COURSE, God is necessary for all laws of physics to exist.

He is also necessary for all the laws of chemistry and biology to exist.

To present as FACT theories which are merely speculation, usually of the zany sort, is to posit an obvious agenda.

Any historical event is “mere speculation”. We have no proof that the craters on the moon were formed by the impact of ancient meteors. We cannot test it because it is in the past. Even if we did observe a modern meteor hit the moon and make a crater, that does not prove the other craters were also made the same way. So why do we believe it is so? Because that is the hypothesis that most easily explains the observations. As for the agenda of scientists who acknowledge evolution, their “agenda” is far from obvious, since many of those scientists are faithful Christians who just have no difficulty with the principle that seems to be giving you fits.

So, why do you believe that God has a role in our existence? Where does he come in?

I personally believe as the Church teaches, that God comes in everywhere, in the beginning, in the middle, and in the end. He makes possible every breath I take. What I see in evolution is His hand at work, continuing the beautiful and wonderful process of creation. I just don’t know why anyone would prefer God to be more like a sideshow magician, pulling a rabbit out of hat, which is what the fundamentalist Creationist alternative looks like to me.

 

[RACJ]

He is also necessary for all the laws of chemistry and biology to exist.

Any historical event is “mere speculation”. We have no proof that the craters on the moon were formed by the impact of ancient meteors. We cannot test it because it is in the past. Even if we did observe a modern meteor hit the moon and make a crater, that does not prove the other craters were also made the same way. So why do we believe it is so? Because that is the hypothesis that most easily explains the observations. As for the agenda of scientists who acknowledge evolution, their “agenda” is far from obvious, since many of those scientists are faithful Christians who just have no difficulty with the principle that seems to be giving you fits.

I personally believe as the Church teaches, that God comes in everywhere, in the beginning, in the middle, and in the end. He makes possible every breath I take. What I see in evolution is His hand at work, continuing the beautiful and wonderful process of creation. I just don’t know why anyone would prefer God to be more like a sideshow magician, pulling a rabbit out of hat, which is what the fundamentalist Creationist alternative looks like to me.

First of all, Leaf, I am an “old earth” creationist. God has existed forever in the past. I don’t believe that if God chose to create organisms whole, this would not make Him a “sideshow magician”. Now, I would not believe in macro-evolution even if it was presented theistically. But if you believe that God directed evolution, and that existence without Him is impossible, why are you satisfied to know that your views are eschewed in today’s biology classes? It seems to me that students are entitled to know that views such as yours exist, and that you may have a rational basis for it. If you or I are wrong, it would behoove the naturalists to blow us out of the water.
I believe that the reason that Darwinists are so adamant that criticisms of evolution be forbidden in schools is cowardice. They know that properly presented challenges and alternative views will prevail in the minds of millions of young minds.

:newidea: Blessings, Rob