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

[Rin]

I didn’t pose a complicated hypothesis. And the evolutionary account of how species came to exist is not simpler than saying that species are immediately created as individual creatures.

I’m afraid you haven’t thought through the ramifications of your proposal - it would become extremely complicated to explain away all the things that clearly point to shared ancestry. “God became bored and invented object-oriented programming” doesn’t really work.

The conclusions of empiric research are not non sequiturs unless the supposed antecedents and consequents (causes and effects) do not correspond. It is a question of what has the necessary power to cause what else. Antecedents or causes can be logically inferred from consequents or effects by considering what kind of power is necessary and proper to produce the effects. As St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Bonaventura would say,every effect has its proper cause. And they considered the natures and attributes of things. That is how they proved by reason the existence of God and his power over creatures.

I’m afraid your knowledge of formal logic and philosophy of science seems to be lacking. Conclusion from consequent to antecedent is one of the most basic of fallacies in formal logic. Not to worry - universities tend to forget about these things nowadays

That said, inference is, yes, possible. That is because inference in this context is not a conclusion, as opposed to deduction.

There are conclusions in science. Conclusions are obviously drawn from evidence and research,so it doesn’t make sense to deny that there are conclusions. The fact that other tests can yield different results and that theories can be discredited does not mean that there are no conclusions in science.

By conclusions, I meant final conclusions, as in “we conclude, this is positively proved and can never be disproved”. If you believe such conclusions are possible, please see the previous paragraph. If not, then forgive me, I should have been clearer. There are indeed conclusions, but they’re never final - they can always be disproved later.

That is a non sequitur. Your belief that evolution theory is as near to being certain as possible does not mean that all alternative ideas are ad hoc or a products of ideology or irrational. And anyway,the main definition of ad hoc is ‘for the particular end or case at hand without consideration of wider application’,which does not mean something is badly done.

Hm no it’s not. I did not say that all alternative hypotheses must be ad hoc etc (because that would most certainly have been a non sequitur), I said that those I’ve seen to date are - simply because they’re posed by people who have ideological reasons to pose them. Everyone else is aware that there is at this time not sufficient data to pose a better hypothesis (which is why we regard the theory as a theory), and hence they’ll refrain to do so unless extraordinary evidence turns up to facilitate such a dramatic event. It would be the dream of virtually any attention-seeking biologist who specializes in the field.

Lastly, again, your education in philosophy of science seems to be lacking (as is mine, by the way - but at least I have more than the average doctoral graduate of physics does, which is depressing really); the term “ad-hoc” has a very specific meaning with regards to hypotheses in science. I encourage you to look it up.

 

[Rin]

…those who dare think outside scientific theory are immediately targeted as religious, and are dismissed as Creationists. To me, this indicates an ideological influence -which is more than simple knowledge… An it’s all empowering -students are not only expected to understand scientific theory, they are expected to practice it every day in all their dealings. That’s wrong.

You’re strawmanning a bit here. Most people here (including me) are Catholics, and we have no reason or wish to “target people as religious”.

Personally, I don’t dismiss people who dare to think outside the scientific theory as Creationists, but as unscientific. “Unscientific” doesn’t even mean “bad” in all cases - it just means it has nothing whatsoever to do in a science class.

There are, also, many way to be unscientific - denying climate change and cooking up anti-vaccine conspiracy theories perhaps being the two most common examples in addition to Creationism/ID. They’re not always held by the same people, so there would be no reason for me to suspect someone of being a Creationist just for thinking outside the scientific method. When people start challenging the theory of evolution through means classical of Creationism, however, then yes of course I’m led to believe they are Creationists.

All that said, I actually agree with you on your last sentence - universities no longer teach philosophy of science as mandatory to all students, which creates a lack of understanding of the method among scientists. This is scary.

I am actually quite critical of placing too much faith in science - the method has its purpose and gives great results, but for once it can’t prove anything. I’d really like for people to get that into their heads. That said, for those few who have realized this, but then use that to attack hypotheses or theories of their choosing that they don’t like, I’d like to see some getting-into-heads of just how close to proved something can actually be. Evolution is among the closest of the close. It is not possible to reject it without rejecting science - not unless or until extraordinary evidence surfaces. Even then, it would probably only cause a change to the theory of evolution, not the fact of evolution - we’d still have a theory of evolution, just a different one.

Which is why I prefer to argue the non-existence of an external world if I want to have fun. It’s just so much more satisfactory than evolution.

 

[anthony022071]

I’m afraid you haven’t thought through the ramifications of your proposal - it would become extremely complicated to explain away all the things that clearly point to shared ancestry. “God became bored and invented object-oriented programming” doesn’t really work.

It wouldn’t be complicated. It is actually too simple for evolutionists to accept. The structural and genetic similarities do not by themselves say anything about shared ancestry. There is nothing to prevent different species with many similarities from coming into existence separately,even from a naturalistic point of view. And there is no logical or biological reason for why all species must have had a common ancestor. If one life-form can come into existence at all,why cannot other similar life-forms come into existence separately from the first? Genetic material is composed of proteins and amino acids,which in turn consist of several chemical compounds. But those elements,which are common to all genetic material, do not entail common ancestry. So why should we think that genetic similarities entail common ancestry?

I’m afraid your knowledge of formal logic and philosophy of science seems to be lacking. Conclusion from consequent to antecedent is one of the most basic of fallacies in formal logic. Not to worry - universities tend to forget about these things nowadays.

Sorry,my mistake. When I read antecedent and consequent,I thought you meant a cause and effect sequence,not a mere sequence of time.

But if drawing a conclusion from consequent to antecedent is a false way of thinking,then you should not think that the dating of extinct species indicates evolutionary descent.

That said, inference is, yes, possible. That is because inference in this context is not a conclusion, as opposed to deduction.

Deductions are often conclusions.

By conclusions, I meant final conclusions, as in “we conclude, this is positively proved and can never be disproved”. If you believe such conclusions are possible, please see the previous paragraph. If not, then forgive me, I should have been clearer. There are indeed conclusions, but they’re never final - they can always be disproved later.

They can only be disproved if they are not true to reality. Not every scientific conclusion is necessarily open to question. For example,when scientists measure the effects of gravity,it is possible for them to draw conclusions that cannot be disproven,because they are dealing with permanent mathematical ‘laws’ of nature.

 

[anthony022071]

By conclusions, I meant final conclusions, as in “we conclude, this is positively proved and can never be disproved”. If you believe such conclusions are possible, please see the previous paragraph. If not, then forgive me, I should have been clearer. There are indeed conclusions, but they’re never final - they can always be disproved later.

That’s a denial that scientific conclusions can ever be right. If scientific conclusions can always be disproved,that means science is always wrong.

Hm no it’s not. I did not say that all alternative hypotheses must be ad hoc etc (because that would most certainly have been a non sequitur), I said that those I’ve seen to date are - simply because they’re posed by people who have ideological reasons to pose them.

If someone poses alternatives for ideological reasons,that is not ad hoc thinking.

The belief that God created all species is not an ideology,it is a matter of Church doctrine and reason.

Everyone else is aware that there is at this time not sufficient data to pose a better hypothesis (which is why we regard the theory as a theory), and hence they’ll refrain to do so unless extraordinary evidence turns up to facilitate such a dramatic event. It would be the dream of virtually any attention-seeking biologist who specializes in the field.

The better hypotheses is that God created all species. That it be tested scientifically does not exclude it from rational thought concerning the natural world. It can be tested by the free use of reason.

Lastly, again, your education in philosophy of science seems to be lacking (as is mine, by the way - but at least I have more than the average doctoral graduate of physics does, which is depressing really); the term “ad-hoc” has a very specific meaning with regards to hypotheses in science. I encourage you to look it up.

I looked it up. So what do you think are the extraneous,unsupported hypotheses to my belief in the immediate creation of species?

 

[Rin]

Anthony, I say this not to be patronizing, but this is getting embarrassing. I will therefore reply once and then stop responding to you.

It wouldn’t be complicated. It is actually too simple for evolutionists to accept. The structural and genetic similarities do not by themselves say anything about shared ancestry. There is nothing to prevent(…)

Replying to all the questions you posed here would not only require a biologist, but more time than I have on my hands. I recommend you find and read some of the excellent sources that have been posted in this thread, and I would also highly recommend the writings of Fr. Stanley L. Jaki OSB, regarding the relationship between the Catholic faith and science.

There is one problem with your ideas, though: They provide zero predictive power. If you were correct, then there would not really be a point in trying to anticipate how viruses and bacteria evolve - we could just shut down that research. Millions would die.

Alternatively, we’d have a God who goes on creating viruses on a daily basis. Which would be ridiculously heretical. Or are viruses in some way exempt? They evolve, but nothing else did?

Sorry,my mistake. When I read antecedent and consequent,I thought you meant a cause and effect sequence,not a mere sequence of time.

But if drawing a conclusion from consequent to antecedent is a false way of thinking,then you should not think that the dating of extinct species indicates evolutionary descent.

Sigh

Okay, let’s try this one more time.

Deducting from consequent to antecedent is a fallacy. By “concluding”, I generally mean “deducting”, because that’s what most people seem to mean.

Inferring from consequent to antecedent is however not a fallacy, but inference never gives a final answer, it is a qualified guess. In the case of the scientific method, used correctly, it is a very qualified guess.

Deductions are often conclusions.

uch:

Deductions are always conclusions. As opposed to inference as described above.

They can only be disproved if they are not true to reality. Not every scientific conclusion is necessarily open to question. For example,when scientists measure the effects of gravity (…)

False, false, false, and false.

This is basic, first-year philosophy of science stuff. Please read Karl Popper, and perhaps Thomas Kuhn.

However, you’re touching upon something regarding gravity - yes, the phenomenon gravity has been observed, but you see, that’s not a conclusion. It’s simply an observed effect - things fall to the ground. Some kind of mechanism to cause that exists. However, the theory of how it works may always be disproved, and replaced with something more accurate, or entirely else. It is very similar to evolution-as-fact and evolution-as-theory.

That’s a denial that scientific conclusions can ever be right. If scientific conclusions can always be disproved,that means science is always wrong.

You’re really not getting this.

Scientific conclusions can be right, but if they are right, they are so by chance - sometimes that chance is very, very high, but it’s still a chance. This is because the scientific method in itself only says something about probability. In the case of the theory of evolution, and also in the case of smoking and cancer, the conclusions are close to 100% probable, but there could always surface evidence to challenge the conclusions. That does not mean it’s “always wrong”, it simply means it “always could be wrong”.

This kind of binary thinking is the reason why I find these debates to be rather fruitless - people really don’t see anything in between the extremes.

If someone poses alternatives for ideological reasons,that is not ad hoc thinking.

It is the very definition of ad hoc thinking… Instead of conducting scientific research with at least attempted objectivity (true objectivity is really impossible), someone poses a hypothesis to support (or save, in most cases - this thing with evolution being one of them) their world view.

The classical example of an ad hoc hypothesis is horror vacui. In many ways, it bears resemblance to the creationism that came into existence during modernity.

The belief that God created all species is not an ideology,it is a matter of Church doctrine and reason. The better hypotheses is that God created all species. That it be tested scientifically does not exclude it from rational thought concerning the natural world. It can be tested by the free use of reason.

I believe that God created all species. I also believe in evolution. As do thousands of clerics and religious who are also scientists. There is no conflict between the two. You are however trying to bring the “free use of reason” into science, and doing exactly the same mistake that atheists are when they attempt to bring science into the existence of God. It is a category mistake.

I looked it up. So what do you think are the extraneous,unsupported hypotheses to my belief in the immediate creation of species?

Yes, your belief in the immediate creation of species is unsupported by evidence, and you pose it as a “hypothesis” to support your ideology.

You see, your rejection of evolution is not about religion, especially not the Catholic religion. The Church does not reject evolution - neither does She bind the faithful to accept it, since it is not a matter of faith of morals, but of science. However, the thousands of Catholic clerics and religious who also are scientists, do accept it.

I can only conclude that you’re motivated by some ideology other than Catholic teaching.

 

[TEPO]

I am still baffled by the level of ignorance on matters of science and the general anti-science worldview shown by some posters here. It seems to be on a par with the hatred for religion coming from the most militant atheist circles. I assume that this type of fanaticism only represents a tiny minority of the US population.

Personally, science has always been my favorite subject for learning. I particularly like studying elements, psychology, anthropology, astrology, biology, physics, and much more. I just prefer to not bind myself to the scientific method, which is my core issue in this thread. To me, restricting “science” to mean the Scientific Method (which I have been calling scientific theory), is too restrictive to be productive -which is equal to placing the hammer (the tool) before the house (the goal of knowledge). IOW, it’s backwards.

To me, science can be just star gazing, or even pondering on the origins of life, without any hypothesis or theory at all. This is all still science to simply observe things in nature and acknowledge it. But I’m not trying to destroy scientific method, I’m just trying to ground it for the greater good.

…and there’s no harm in pointing out the things we observe that the method cannot explain. On the contrary, if we believe in evolution of knowledge, then it’s for the greater good to admit these things. Please don’t take it as a jab to science as a whole.

 

[TEPO]

Never too late to start.

If it happened before I was alive, then it is too late to change it. Is it happening now?

 

[TEPO]

On the contrary. I think your perception is too extreme. There are many in the US that have valid concerns and problems with the topic. Their skepticism is well-founded, and it is not a group of people who are ‘anti-science’ or ignorant. Hatred does not come into the picture.

I have, and have had, genius level friends who have expressed doubts about this or that aspect of science. But there is a campaign that is ongoing in the US to figure out a way to get full compliance. The evidence tells me it has nothing to do with the topic.

Peace,
Ed

You raise good points. Science is actually much broader than the narrow path of scientific method and those who follow it religiously. In fact, I would go as far as to say that these people deserve a name! From this point on, I will refer to them as Scientific Methodists.

The thought process in which they project will be known as Scientific Methodry. It will NOT be called “science”.

 

[TEPO]

You’re approaching the critical mass for hyperbole here without a few citations.

I am the citation, and you are mine.

 

[Rin]

Personally, science has always been my favorite subject for learning. I particularly like studying elements, psychology, anthropology, astrology, biology, physics, and much more. I just prefer to not bind myself to the scientific method, which is my core issue in this thread. To me, restricting “science” to mean the Scientific Method (which I have been calling scientific theory), is too restrictive to be productive -which is equal to placing the hammer (the tool) before the house (the goal of knowledge). IOW, it’s backwards.

To me, science can be just star gazing, or even pondering on the origins of life, without any hypothesis or theory at all. This is all still science to simply observe things in nature and acknowledge it. But I’m not trying to destroy scientific method, I’m just trying to ground it for the greater good.

…and there’s no harm in pointing out the things we observe that the method cannot explain. On the contrary, if we believe in evolution of knowledge, then it’s for the greater good to admit these things. Please don’t take it as a jab to science as a whole.

Science still starts in star gazing, pondering the origins of life, without any hypothesis or theory at all. But that in itself is not science. For such gazing and pondering to become science, rigid methodology has to be followed, so as to make the results as solid as possible. Only when such efforts are taken, can it properly be called science. The methods has its flaws, but that does not mean one can just say whatever one wants and point to the flaws as an excuse - if so, one has to turn to philosophy, which is where methodology is discussed.

The same is true for philosophy, by the way. While the philosophical method may not be as easily summarized as the scientific one, it most definitely is there. It may also be more volatile (depending on perspective), but it is there. If another philosopher can point out errors of methodology in another philosopher’s work, then said work will fall, or have to be improved. Philosophy is just as (if not more) rigid as modern science, it just doesn’t always look that way to outsiders. It has been like this for millennia now - after all, methodological thinking had its advent with philosophy…

But listen, I do agree with some of what you seem to be saying. Some people do place too much faith in the scientific method, and there’s no need for a new name for it - it’s already properly labeled “scientism”. I am most certainly not one of those who believe knowledge gained outside the scientific method is useless; if I were, I would not be Catholic, and I would certainly not have chosen philosophy as my first field of study back when I left high school.

However, I believe that in science class, where science means “natural sciences”, which again follow the scientific method, neither philosophy (except when it directly touches on scientific methodology), religion or even less so random pondering should be included. Science is science, philosophy is philosophy, religion is religion, and random pondering my be the early start of all three, but it is neither of them.

That said, I believe every school should have religion classes. I believe every school, at least high schools and above, should have philosophy classes. I believe nobody should be allowed to access higher education at all without first passing a preparatory exam in the history of philosophy, epistemology, philosophy of science, and logic. This preparatory exam should cover at least half a year of classes, preferably a year. It would help people get a proper understanding of the modern scientific method, its weaknesses and its strengths. It would help some people to get a bit less overconfident in science, and it would help others to get rid of some rather ridiculous ideas, scientific as well as unscientific. Not least, it would help any academic, be they within humanities, social sciences, natural sciences or elsewhere, to have a common basic set of references, and hence make communication between sciences easier.

But religion should not be represented as science, neither should philosophy - because philosophy is not a science, it transcends science. It is important to keep things within their field of study, or one is in danger of making category mistakes.

This turned out longer than I planned. But do you now see why I find it rather hilarious that you accuse those of us who agree with the British law, and disagree with you, of scientism? Actually, you’re doing the exact thing you’ve been accusing us of - jumping to conclusions.

 

[ringil]

Well, personally, I’m bowing out of this one.

I have made my points and those with whom I seem to agree have made their points in a clear manner.

I approve of the law passed in the UK. I know that many States and local school systems (maybe most) in the US take a similar approach.

I really hope that the trend towards quality education continues both in the US and around the world.

Science in the science classroom and religion in the religion classroom.

ID, creationism, and the other variants on design were founded by religious people, maintained by religious people, and are pushed on our kids by religious people- seeking to inject their Judeo-Christian ethic into the science classroom.

I will continue to send my child to their Catholic school where sound science and good religion are taught in a consistent and truthful way.

Thanks everybody.

 

[Estevao]

It really makes me wonder if you all supporting this bill have ever been in your typical “science only, absolutely no religious bunk like ID or creationism for us!” biology class room. I have some choice quotes from famed evolutionary biologists. After all, since they’re scientists with the letters PhD after their names, whatever they say must be just science right? It surely has nothing to do with religion, because religion should be kept out of science classrooms, and surely no high school biology teacher anywhere has ever said anything like this to a classroom of naive 16 year olds.

“Human behavior—like the deepest capacities for emotional response which drive and guide it—is the circuitous technique by which human genetic material has been and will be kept intact. Morality has no other demonstrable ultimate function.” - Edward O. Wilson, On Human Nature, pg 176.

“The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” - Richard Dawkins, River Out Of Eden, pgs 132-133

“Our belief in morality is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. … Ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to co-operate (so that human genes survive). … Furthermore, the way our biology enforces its ends is by making us think that there is an objective higher code to which we are all subject.” E. O. Wilson and Michael Ruse, “The Evolution of Ethics”, in New Scientist, 17 October 1985, 51-52

But it’s funny why there’s no bill out there telling us we need to ban atheistic interpretations of evolution in classrooms, because it happens in countless classrooms, and countless naive youngsters will believe it based on the authority of their teacher. I mean, if the argument against showing what ID is that we need to keep religion out of the science classroom, I think we should, in fairness, have a bill banning such sorts of statements from teachers. What do you think?

 

[Kaninchen]

It really makes me wonder if you all supporting this bill

Just a technical point, the UK ban is not ‘Bill’, they are Regulations within existing Education legislation.

 

[Hans_W]

Anthony, I say this not to be patronizing, but this is getting embarrassing. I will therefore reply once and then stop responding to you.

Rin, I have given up on Anthony a long time ago. But he will have the last word.

Discussing evolution with a creationist is like playing chess with a pigeon. It will knock the pieces over, mess all over the board and then fly home to its flock, declaring victory.

 

[Hans_W]

Personally, science has always been my favorite subject for learning. I particularly like studying elements, psychology, anthropology, astrology, biology, physics, and much more.

(emphasis added)

I am sure your list includes phrenology, crystal healing, alchemy, ufology, and of course, creationism.

Science has progressed a lot over the last 400 years.

 

[_Ruby]

But it’s funny why there’s no bill out there telling us we need to ban atheistic interpretations of evolution in classrooms, because it happens in countless classrooms, and countless naive youngsters will believe it based on the authority of their teacher. I mean, if the argument against showing what ID is that we need to keep religion out of the science classroom, I think we should, in fairness, have a bill banning such sorts of statements from teachers. What do you think?

There is no need for such a ‘bill’ since the UK has a completely different religious culture to places such as the USA.

Biology classes are not used as a pulpit for teaching religious overtones connected with evolution because an atheist vs religious context does not exist. evolutionary theory forms a VERY small part of the UK teaching curriculum for biology. I highly doubt an army of die hard evolutionists are infiltrating the UK education system for the sake of the 2 week period they may spend on the topic.

Since UK schools are legally obliged to teach Religion and Philosophy and Ethics as part of their curriculum, it is more likely your run of the mill UK student will be going from their biology lesson and being taught the theory of evolution, to their RE class to discuss creation and morality from a number of different religious perspectives.

 

[Rin]

It really makes me wonder if you all supporting this bill have ever been in your typical “science only, absolutely no religious bunk like ID or creationism for us!” biology class room. I have some choice quotes from famed evolutionary biologists. After all, since they’re scientists with the letters PhD after their names, whatever they say must be just science right? It surely has nothing to do with religion, because religion should be kept out of science classrooms, and surely no high school biology teacher anywhere has ever said anything like this to a classroom of naive 16 year olds.

Your quotes all fall within the domain of philosophy, and yes, I am opposed to posing them in a science class.

As I’ve implied in this thread and said directly in others, it gets embarrassing when any academic tries to go beyond their field of study, be it a theologian, philosopher or natural scientist. Neither belongs in each other classes.

But it’s funny why there’s no bill out there telling us we need to ban atheistic interpretations of evolution in classrooms, because it happens in countless classrooms, and countless naive youngsters will believe it based on the authority of their teacher. I mean, if the argument against showing what ID is that we need to keep religion out of the science classroom, I think we should, in fairness, have a bill banning such sorts of statements from teachers. What do you think?

Yes, if I had a child and that child went to a school where such boundaries were crossed (as they were in my high school, by an overly zealous atheist science teacher who just loved venturing into his rather eugenic ethical ideas), I would most definitely protest (as I did then), just as much as I would if a science teacher started presenting creationism/ID as “science”.

Rin, I have given up on Anthony a long time ago. But he will have the last word.

Discussing evolution with a creationist is like playing chess with a pigeon. It will knock the pieces over, mess all over the board and then fly home to its flock, declaring victory.

I know you’re right. Sadly, I just never seem to learn

Edit: Perhaps it’s because I myself once, in my late teens, was a creationist, and saw reason. But I’m starting to wonder if I’m an exception.

 

[Kelt]

To understand the elegance and intricacies of evolution read Steve Jones’s ‘update’ of The Origin of the Species…‘Almost like a whale’ and/or his ‘Darwin’s Island’. Very readable/ understandable for the layman.
I worry how our new ‘Faith Schools’ in UK are possibly able to circumvent our National Curriculum and get away with teaching creationism and other religious extremist ideologies. Also, I’m amazed that we in UK haven’t learned any lessons about religious segregation from our own doorstep, in N Ireland.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

If it happened before I was alive, then it is too late to change it. Is it happening now?

Indeed. It happens every time a historian doubts the historical accuracy of the Bible.

Oh and of course, literal Genesis.

 

[TEPO]

(emphasis added)

I am sure your list includes phrenology, crystal healing, alchemy, ufology, and of course, creationism.

Science has progressed a lot over the last 400 years.

…lol……

Okay, you get points for that one -but not because you out maneuvered me. That was more like a penalty shot because you got me on grammar. What I meant was astronomy, not astrology.

(I don’t follow astrology at all… Hilarious.)

…what is interesting though, involving crystal balls, is that it would only take one molecule of iron to reach the outer layer of a red giant to cause a simultaneous chain reaction explosion of that sun, which would leave behind a moon-sized crystal ball core floating in space. It’s just a “fun-fact” I heard once.

But it would be equally interesting, IMO, to observe a giant crystal ball in space. Not with any hypothesis or theories attached. But just to observe it, and watch it’s orbit style, and take note of things. That would be some good science.