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

[Hans_W]

I…
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.

Look Antony022071, I don’t have the time, nor any desire, to discuss primary school science here. I just make a few brief comments here now, because other posters seemed to be interested in this topic and are open-minded.

Firstly, a “theory” in every-day language means a hunch, or a guess. In science a theory is the highest level of knowledge we can get. It means an explanation of a wide variety of observations and facts from various different disciplines.

Scientific theories are accepted or rejected by the scientific community. I said earlier that the Pope accepted scientific theories. This is not strictly correct. It is not for the Pope to accept or reject a theory. But a Pope or the Church could reject certain ideologies, or practices. For example, abortion, same sex marriage. Since science doesn’t deal with the supernatural, nor questions of the meaning of life, morals and so on, I cannot imagine a situation where the Catholic Church would disagree with any of the findings of science - strictly scientific findings, not applications of science.

In the past there were clashes, the most famous case was 400 years ago with Galileo, but the Catholic Church now fully embraces modern science. There are even a few scientific discoveries made by Catholic priests. The most prominent was the discovery and confirmation of the Big Bang theory by the Belgian priest Georges Lemaitre. He even had to convince Einstein, who first doubted it.

Please look up Father Robert Barron on YouTube. He has a lot of short videos dealing with all aspects of Catholic faith, including science and Bible interpretation.
A very good book written by Ken Miller, a biologist who is also Catholic, is “Finding Darwin’s God”. Very readable for the non-scientist, and very informative.

Of course, there are scientists who want to use science to highlight or enforce their atheistic worldview. Richard Dawkins is the most prominent one. However, these people are stepping outside of science - they don’t act as scientists anymore. They don’t speak in the name of science.

Again, I want to emphasize, science doesn’t deal with the supernatural. It doesn’t deny, nor confirm the supernatural. There are many deeply religious scientists. I am certainly not the only one. Any more questions, please just email me.

 

[anthony022071]

Look Antony022071, I don’t have the time, nor any desire, to discuss primary school science here. I just make a few brief comments here now, because other posters seemed to be interested in this topic and are open-minded.

Stop with the phony condensation. No one asked you to discuss primary school science. You are not saying anything that I have not already heard and read many times from the people who defend naturalistic theories of origins.

Firstly, a “theory” in every-day language means a hunch, or a guess. In science a theory is the highest level of knowledge we can get. It means an explanation of a wide variety of observations and facts from various different disciplines.

This does not answer the question as to whether a particular scientific theory is logical and worthy of belief. The truth about nature cannot always be gotten by piecing together a mass of converging evidence. Evidence must be used logically,not merely suggestively,as with the theory of evolution. Causes and effects must properly correspond. When we hear that a certain natural cause or process produces a certain result,we should ask ourselves whether the supposed cause really has the power to produce the supposed effect. It is not enough to speak of mechanisms or processes,the question is by what power things are produced or happen.

Scientific theories are accepted or rejected by the scientific community.

They are also accepted and rejected by anyone else.

I said earlier that the Pope accepted scientific theories. This is not strictly correct. It is not for the Pope to accept or reject a theory. But a Pope or the Church could reject certain ideologies, or practices. For example, abortion, same sex marriage. Since science doesn’t deal with the supernatural, nor questions of the meaning of life, morals and so on, I cannot imagine a situation where the Catholic Church would disagree with any of the findings of science - strictly scientific findings, not applications of science.

The popes can accept scientific theories as their own belief. The magisterium can reject scientific theories that go against church doctrine and reason.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

Communion and Stewardship,section 64:

< In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. >

The theory of evolution as it is commonly known is definitely materialist,reductionist and neo-Darwinian. It is futile and illogical to try to reconcile it with the Catholic doctrine of creation and divine providence.

In the past there were clashes, the most famous case was 400 years ago with Galileo, but the Catholic Church now fully embraces modern science.

No,it doesn’t. The natural sciences are naturalistic in perspective,which means that some scientific theories attribute to nature powers that it does not have,thus conflicting with Catholic doctrine and reason.

There are even a few scientific discoveries made by Catholic priests. The most prominent was the discovery and confirmation of the Big Bang theory by the Belgian priest Georges Lemaitre. He even had to convince Einstein, who first doubted it.

He did not discover that there was a big bang,he conceived the theory about it. The theory cannot be demonstrated as true. And there is no reason to think that God would create the universe through an explosion.

 

[anthony022071]

Please look up Father Robert Barron on YouTube. He has a lot of short videos dealing with all aspects of Catholic faith, including science and Bible interpretation.
A very good book written by Ken Miller, a biologist who is also Catholic, is “Finding Darwin’s God”. Very readable for the non-scientist, and very informative.

I have heard what Father Barron has said about science. He has not endorsed the theory of evolution as true. But he did ridicule the theory that the universe created itself from nothing. It does not seem that he can ultimately accept scientific theories of origins as true,because they are naturalistic,portraying nature as self-sufficient.

I have read what Ken Miller has to say about the theory of evolution. He cannot give a logical argument for it or why he thinks it is compatible with the doctrine of creation. Like other theistic evolutionists,he just avoids the specific problems of evolution theory and speaks in generalities and platitudes about how there is no contradiction between faith and science,or faith and reason,that science and the Church are not enemies,that the Bible does not teach science,and so on. I read one speech that he gave in which he briefly touched upon the objection to common descent theory,that there could have been many different species in the beginning rather than one primordial ancestor for all species. He could not give a logical explanation for why there could not have been many species in the beginning or why there had to have been only one common ancestor,he only defended the idea of common descent as what the evidence suggests. But the evidence only suggests common descent if we go along with the naturalistic view and appearances rather than on proper causation.

Of course, there are scientists who want to use science to highlight or enforce their atheistic worldview. Richard Dawkins is the most prominent one. However, these people are stepping outside of science - they don’t act as scientists anymore. They don’t speak in the name of science.

The problem isn’t just the scientists who promote an atheistic worldview,it is also the scientific theories of origins themselves. The ‘scientific’ worldview is naturalistic,and it is expressed through scientific theories. The way in which things are explained scientifically can be as harmful to people’s faith and reason as when scientists deny that God is involved with nature. And scientists do not necessarily step outside of science when say that,because methodological naturalism already makes that assumption. When scientists explicitly deny that God is involved with nature,they are speaking from methodological naturalism and the explanations that proceed from it.

Again, I want to emphasize, science doesn’t deal with the supernatural. It doesn’t deny, nor confirm the supernatural. There are many deeply religious scientists. I am certainly not the only one. Any more questions, please just email me.

Methodological naturalism does deny the supernatural. Science does deal with the supernatural wherever scientists study things that have to do with God’s power,namely,the origin of matter,natural order,life,species,and human thought.

 

[edwest2]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Correct on all points. While the Church considers scientific knowledge that appears to relate to creation and our first parents, it cannot exclude Divine Revelation as well. The Church has always issued pointed and very nuanced encyclicals that tell the whole story. Yes, God was a direct causal agent in creation.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Hans_W]

Methodological naturalism does deny the supernatural. Science does deal with the supernatural wherever scientists study things that have to do with God’s power,namely,the origin of matter,natural order,life,species,and human thought.

I don’t like to become personal, but you don’t have the foggiest idea of what science is all about. You are not alone. Some 46% of your compatriots reject everything what we have learned about God’s wonderful creation. They believe that Genesis tells us everything. That’s all there is to know.

It seems mostly the English-speaking world, and in particular the US. In the rest of the world modern science and Christianity live in perfect harmony. I suppose you use all the amenities which modern science has given us over the last 200 years. The Amish Christians are at least honest and reject all the new technologies.

I just quoted your last statement. That shows us how totally ignorant you are, not only in basic science, but also in Philosophy. As it happens, I am just busy writing a 100,000 word thesis on the distinction between methodological and ontological naturalism. You dismiss the topic in two sentences. So much for your knowledge and your willingness to learn.

 

[edwest2]

I don’t like to become personal, but you don’t have the foggiest idea of what science is all about. You are not alone. Some 46% of your compatriots reject everything what we have learned about God’s wonderful creation. They believe that Genesis tells us everything. That’s all there is to know.

It seems mostly the English-speaking world, and in particular the US. In the rest of the world modern science and Christianity live in perfect harmony. I suppose you use all the amenities which modern science has given us over the last 200 years. The Amish Christians are at least honest and reject all the new technologies.

I just quoted your last statement. That shows us how totally ignorant you are, not only in basic science, but also in Philosophy. As it happens, I am just busy writing a 100,000 word thesis on the distinction between methodological and ontological naturalism. You dismiss the topic in two sentences. So much for your knowledge and your willingness to learn.

The amenities you refer to have nothing to do with the topic. Applied sciences, including the development of new technologies, are not related to the topic. On the other hand, what is the practical result of disbelieving the current theory of creation being taught? I’ve asked this many times and have received no reply. On occasion, what I do get is a type of anger or accusations.

I took a specialized course in electronics and among my fellow students were those studying electrical engineering. Again, there was no mention of this topic during my studies.

Best,
Ed

 

[Monkey1976]

The amenities you refer to have nothing to do with the topic. Applied sciences, including the development of new technologies, are not related to the topic.

Ever taken modern antibiotics? Or been successfully treated for a viral infection? Thank evolutionary biology. Do you use electronics that aren’t based on vacuum tubes? Thank modern physics. Do you use gasoline, oil, or coal? Thank geology.

On the other hand, what is the practical result of disbelieving the current theory of creation being taught? I’ve asked this many times and have received no reply. On occasion, what I do get is a type of anger or accusations.

First, evolution is not a theory of creation, it’s a theory of development. Second, the practical results of disbelieving the evolutionary model are:

• Wilful blindness to evidence
• Reduces miracles to the mundane
• Forces God into the mold of a trickster (How else do you explain fossils?)
• Forces the universe away from an orderly, predictable model into God playing Minecraft

The definition of a miracle is an occurrence which violates known scientific principles. Science has no answer for how life came to be. There are several hypotheses, but nothing that fully explains how inanimate matter gained - with no change in its makeup - the elusive property of life. What we do have is ample evidence showing how that life progressed from single-cell organisms, to multicellular organisms, to simple animals and plants, and so on until the modern day. What none of that evidence covers - or even claims to address - is how we gained our rational soul.

I took a specialized course in electronics and among my fellow students were those studying electrical engineering. Again, there was no mention of this topic during my studies.

Best,
Ed

Nor would there be. That’s electronics, not biology. What there likely would be mention of is things like quantum mechanics, which makes exactly the same claims about God and the human soul as evolution: Exactly none.

 

[edwest2]

Ever taken modern antibiotics? Or been successfully treated for a viral infection? Thank evolutionary biology. Do you use electronics that aren’t based on vacuum tubes? Thank modern physics. Do you use gasoline, oil, or coal? Thank geology.

First, evolution is not a theory of creation, it’s a theory of development. Second, the practical results of disbelieving the evolutionary model are:

• Wilful blindness to evidence
• Reduces miracles to the mundane
• Forces God into the mold of a trickster (How else do you explain fossils?)
• Forces the universe away from an orderly, predictable model into God playing Minecraft

The definition of a miracle is an occurrence which violates known scientific principles. Science has no answer for how life came to be. There are several hypotheses, but nothing that fully explains how inanimate matter gained - with no change in its makeup - the elusive property of life. What we do have is ample evidence showing how that life progressed from single-cell organisms, to multicellular organisms, to simple animals and plants, and so on until the modern day. What none of that evidence covers - or even claims to address - is how we gained our rational soul.

Nor would there be. That’s electronics, not biology. What there likely would be mention of is things like quantum mechanics, which makes exactly the same claims about God and the human soul as evolution: Exactly none.

The following is from a member of the National Academy of Sciences:

the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/16649/title/Why-Do-We-Invoke-Darwin-/

Peace,
Ed

 

[Monkey1976]

The following is from a member of the National Academy of Sciences:

the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/16649/title/Why-Do-We-Invoke-Darwin-/

Peace,
Ed

Amusing that the first linked article in the footer of that page is discussing antibiotic resistance, a topic whose study relies heavily on evolutionary biology. There’s also the mapping of genes, the creation of new proteins…

 

[edwest2]

Amusing that the first linked article in the footer of that page is discussing antibiotic resistance, a topic whose study relies heavily on evolutionary biology. There’s also the mapping of genes, the creation of new proteins…

There is no practical purpose for evolutionary biology. None. Bacteria have a built-in ability to counter harmful substances called horizontal gene transfer. Viruses have the built-in ability to alter their outer protein coat. Other things have been found:

nature.com/news/2006/060119/full/news060116-10.html

Creating new drugs still involves a highly expensive trial and error process. There is no simple way to test samples except by exposing individual containers to different compounds, one by one.

The human genome is poorly understood.

Peace,
Ed

 

[freeRadical]

I see nothing wrong with this.

Me either. I am okay with this.

 

[freeRadical]

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.

It also says God created the Earth in 6 days…

 

[ringil]

*]Forces the universe away from an orderly, predictable model into God playing Minecraft
.

That’s hilarious. Thanks for the laugh! I hope I can get the chance to use this on someone one day. As it is- the only folks I discuss evolution vs. Biblical literalism is here on CAF.

I do know that these folks are in a small minority among Catholics though. I want lurkers to know that.

My personal belief is that some of this problem is due to a fundamentalist/evangelical infection in the US Church.

 

[Rin]

First, evolution is not a theory of creation, it’s a theory of development. Second, the practical results of disbelieving the evolutionary model are:

• Wilful blindness to evidence
• Reduces miracles to the mundane
• Forces God into the mold of a trickster (How else do you explain fossils?)
• Forces the universe away from an orderly, predictable model into God playing Minecraft

Thank you, especially for the last point, I needed something to make me smile before leaving for the airport .

And yes, ID reduces God into “occasional tinkerer” instead of “eternal sustainer” of the Universe. It may fit well with Protestant theologies, but it clashes completely with a traditional, Catholic understanding of God’s role in the universe.

 

[Rin]

My personal belief is that some of this problem is due to a fundamentalist/evangelical infection in the US Church.

I think so too. It is fairly unique for American Catholicism - I think I’ve encountered one European Catholic who rejects evolution. However, Evangelicals and Fundamentalists in Europe still often reject it, and at least where I live, those movements were imported from America. Even Methodism (I have no idea what Methodists usually believe about this by the way) was imported from America - kind of interesting that it went from Britain to the States and then from there to Scandinavia!

In any case, these trends lead me to believe the influence is primarily American, and primarily Protestant. As I mentioned in the previous post, ID is also deeply problematic from a Catholic perspective. It puzzles me that Catholics fall for it.

 

[ProVobis]

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

Okay but is it science that says the light you see coming from the Andromeda Galaxy was emitted over 2 billion years ago?

 

[edwest2]

I think so too. It is fairly unique for American Catholicism - I think I’ve encountered one European Catholic who rejects evolution. However, Evangelicals and Fundamentalists in Europe still often reject it, and at least where I live, those movements were imported from America. Even Methodism (I have no idea what Methodists usually believe about this by the way) was imported from America - kind of interesting that it went from Britain to the States and then from there to Scandinavia!

In any case, these trends lead me to believe the influence is primarily American, and primarily Protestant. As I mentioned in the previous post, ID is also deeply problematic from a Catholic perspective. It puzzles me that Catholics fall for it.

Intelligent Design makes a lot of sense. I’ve never read anything written by Protestants or watched any video made by a Protestant group.

Peace,
Ed

 

[ringil]

Intelligent Design makes a lot of sense. I’ve never read anything written by Protestants or watched any video made by a Protestant group.

Peace,
Ed

Intelligent Design was invented by Protestants and the vast majority of it’s proponents are fundamentalist Christians.

 

[anthony022071]

I don’t like to become personal, but you don’t have the foggiest idea of what science is all about. You are not alone. Some 46% of your compatriots reject everything what we have learned about God’s wonderful creation. They believe that Genesis tells us everything. That’s all there is to know.

It seems mostly the English-speaking world, and in particular the US. In the rest of the world modern science and Christianity live in perfect harmony. I suppose you use all the amenities which modern science has given us over the last 200 years. The Amish Christians are at least honest and reject all the new technologies.

I just quoted your last statement. That shows us how totally ignorant you are, not only in basic science, but also in Philosophy. As it happens, I am just busy writing a 100,000 word thesis on the distinction between methodological and ontological naturalism. You dismiss the topic in two sentences. So much for your knowledge and your willingness to learn.

You have not shown and cannot show that I don’t know what science is about. Nor have you shown that you know what it is about. You just make questionable generalizations and statements that are not to the point.

I am not against science per se,but naturalistic explanations that attribute powers to nature that nature cannot possibly have. I reject the theory of evolution primarily because it goes against reason and logic,not because it goes against my personal faith. The theory is incompatible with Catholic doctrine because it is illogical. If a scientific theory proposes causes and effects that don’t correspond,then it goes against reason and logic,and thus it is incompatible with the Catholic doctrine of creation and divine providence,even if many Catholics think it is compatible with their faith.

In regard to methodological naturalism,it is not just about the fact that science cannot test the supernatural. It is a way of viewing and explaining things,not a way of testing things. It is an assumption that all natural phenomena can be adequately explained with natural causes alone. This is an indirect way of saying that nature is all there is. If God is involved with the workings of nature,if he is the causal power behind certain natural phenomena,then obviously those phenomena cannot be adequately explained with natural causes alone. The naturalistic view leads,in some cases,to false attributions of power to natural causes. It leads to explanations that falsely portray nature as self-sufficient and self-creative. That the supernatural cannot be scientifically tested does not justify methodological naturalism,because scientific work is not only doing tests and research,but also explaining causes and effects. This requires logical thinking,not the assumption that natural causes are
always adequate.

Methodological naturalism and ontological naturalism both exclude the supernatural. They both view the natural world as if God’s power is not present. Ontological naturalism is not philosophical by itself,it is just a false perspective. There is nothing philosophical in saying only nature exists. Anyone who doesn’t believe in the supernatural can say that,without having been influenced by naturalistic philosophy and without philosophical elaboration. On the other hand,methodological naturalism is implicitly ontological,because if knowledge of God’s power over nature is always ignored,then natural things always appear as the only causes. We cannot separate the natural world from the power of its Creator without falling into the error of ontological naturalism. God is distinct from the natural world,but he is not separate from it. His power is the cause of the existence of matter,natural order,life,species and human thought.

The naturalistic view is ontological and false whether it is expressed by philosophers or adopted for the practical purposes of science. So the distinction between ontological naturalism and methodological naturalism is only a difference of context and expression.

 

[edwest2]

Intelligent Design was invented by Protestants and the vast majority of it’s proponents are fundamentalist Christians.

I don’t think that’s factual. Can you provide a reference that confirms your statement? Meanwhile, there are scientists who know that living things don’t just look like they were designed but were designed.

uncommondescent.com/

Peace,
Ed