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

  • Thread starter Thread starter ringil
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Skeptic92 said:
Intelligent Design is still Darwinian in the most relevant sense; it’s materialist and very bad philosophy.
Click to expand...
“Half of British adults do not believe in evolution, with at least 22% preferring the theories of ** creationism ** or intelligent design to explain how the world came about, according to a survey.”

Creationism ** OR ** Intelligent Design.
 
Okay, then let’s go back to the original point, Ken Ham was born in Australia. He is an Australian is he not?

Would you consider someone born in Ireland but living in England then English? Alright, I’m glad we cleared this up.
 
Path_Finder said:
“Half of British adults do not believe in evolution, with at least 22% preferring the theories of ** creationism ** or intelligent design to explain how the world came about, according to a survey.”

Creationism ** OR ** Intelligent Design.
Click to expand...
Not a truly meaningful distinction- all 3 are Darwinian in the relevant sense of the term. They take on the mechanistic, naturalist, Metaphysics of modernity. All 3 are in grave Philosophical error; the same philosophical error at that. So it’s a false trichotomy rather than dichotomy; it’s still a false one.
 
Skeptic92 said:
Not a truly meaningful distinction- all 3 are Darwinian in the relevant sense of the term. They take on the mechanistic, naturalist, Metaphysics of modernity. All 3 are in grave Philosophical error; the same philosophical error at that. So it’s a false trichotomy rather than dichotomy; it’s still a false one.
Click to expand...
Excuse me, you are the one using the words “non sequitur” and “false dichotomy”, however, the article simply proves their are a great number of people in the UK who do believe in Creationism. That’s all that needs to be proven. It is proven!

Now we come up with “not a meaningful distinction” yet, you felt happy to call “intelligent design” a form of Darwinism if this is even so in itself. Could be sometimes but not always.
 
Path_Finder said:
Excuse me, you are the one using the words “non sequitur” and “false dichotomy”, however, the article simply proves their are a great number of people in the UK who do believe in Creationism. That’s all that needs to be proven. It is proven!
Click to expand...
Doesn’t prove that it isn’t any more than very bad exegesis, and a contempt of the human faculty of reason.

For as the Holy Mother Church teaches
First Vatican Councl; Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius on the Catholic Faith:
However, though faith is above reason, there can never be a real discrepancy between faith and reason, since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, and God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth. The deceptive appearance of such a contradiction is mainly due to the fact that either the dogmas of faith have not been understood and expounded according to the mind of the Church or fanciful conjectures are taken for verdicts of reason. Thus we define that every assertion that is opposed to enlightened faith is utterly false" [Fifth Lateran Council]
Click to expand...
As evolution as a mechanism has been demonstrated to be true by empirical investigation, it is a conclusion of reason that Faith shall not contradict. Whether Darwinism has the metaphysical foundations of this mechanism correct is the right question; one that is side-stepped by creationists and ID Theorists. Through this side-stepping they take on themselves the exact same metaphysical assumptions of Darwinism, which makes us justified as classifying it as another form of Darwinist Philosophy.

Source of Quote; Heinrich Denzinger Enchiridion Symbolorum.
 
Ham worked for the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), a young Earth creationist organisation.[9] In 1994, with the assistance of what is now Creation Ministries International ** (Australia) **
Click to expand...
'of what is now Creation Ministries International ** Australia **

This above proves he was already involved in his Creationist beliefs before he moved to the USA.

And Freedom of Speech, yes, can indeed have to do with his having a better chance to spread his word, it having more popularity. Nothing wrong with that, in turn, we can see that somehow you interpreted merely to say that as being “flag waving”.

Yes, maybe he found more Freedom of Speech, easier to broadcast on the airwaves, easier to research his data and so on. So let it be seen that saying possibly Ham found “freedom of speech” was all of a sudden interpreted as flag waving.

The Beatles had freedom of music but really couldn’t make it as big just in the UK, they wanted to have the US market.
 
Skeptic92 said:
Doesn’t prove that it isn’t any more than very bad exegesis, and a contempt of the human faculty of reason.

For as the Holy Mother Church teaches

As evolution as a mechanism has been demonstrated to be true by empirical investigation, it is a conclusion of reason that Faith shall not contradict. Whether Darwinism has the metaphysical foundations of this mechanism correct is the right question; one that is side-stepped by creationists and ID Theorists. Through this side-stepping they take on themselves the exact same metaphysical assumptions of Darwinism, which makes us justified as classifying it as another form of Darwinist Philosophy.

Source of Quote; Heinrich Denzinger Enchiridion Symbolorum.
Click to expand...
:confused: I don’t get it.
 
TEPO said:
:confused: I don’t get it.
Click to expand...
In presupposing the metaphysical naturalism of Darwinism; Creationism and Intelligent Design ultimately take premises that implicitly contradict the Deposit of Faith.

Creationism ultimately contradicts this Anathema
if anyone says that human reason is so independent that faith cannot be enjoined upon it, let him be anathema
Click to expand...
As to accept Creationism (especially in its young earth variety) would force us to dismiss the human reasons reliability in attain knowledge through the special sciences; it forces a wedge between Faith and Reason.

Intelligent Design isn’t so much bad Theology, as bad Philosophy. The entire theory is guilty of a hasty generalisation, and attempting to get an answer that is simply impossible within a metaphysical naturalist framework. Especially when Metaphysical Naturalism was conceded by the early-moderns without any argument in refutation of the older Scholasticism. A return to Scholastic Metaphysics makes evolution simply not problematic in the slightest. It is to be expected through a being actualising its Final Cause, and agents acting towards their final cause. Which points easily towards the Existence of God through Aquinas’ Fifth Way; the Teleological Argument.
 
Reading Mr. Ham’s wikipedia entry, the museum in Kentucky was only opened in 2007. It appears much of his work was done in Australia as well as his charity. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Ham
The Rescuing Darwin survey, published to coincide with the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of *Species, found that around 10% of people chose young Earth creationism – the belief that God created the world some time in the last 10,000 years – over evolution.
Click to expand...
theguardian.com/science/2009/feb/01/evolution-darwin-survey-creationism

10% of those polled picked young Earth creationism, even if one dismisses this low number, those who firmly believe in Evolution is only 25% as well.
The poll found that 25% of Britons believe Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is “definitely true”, with another quarter saying it is “probably true”.
Click to expand...
 
TEPO said:
You said my understanding of evolution was “sketchy”. I’m trying to figure that out by looking for differences in my understanding of evolution and what evolution ‘is’. I see no break in continuity between the T of E and my understanding of it.
Click to expand...
Well, in this post you wrote:
As I pointed out previously, I do actually believe in evolution. I just also happen to believe that there are other forces at work that exist outside what we know now -like the reason we are able to mutate after time in a direction that relates to our environment. I don’t believe that natural selection is the sole force for why we mutated from tiny microscopic one celled creatures to what we are now.
Click to expand...
As I understand it, the bolded part would seem to be more Lamarckism than Darwinian evolution.
 
cornbread_r2 said:
Well, in this post you wrote:

“As I pointed out previously, I do actually believe in evolution. I just also happen to believe that there are other forces at work that exist outside what we know now -like the reason we are able to mutate after time in a direction that relates to our environment. I don’t believe that natural selection is the sole force for why we mutated from tiny microscopic one celled creatures to what we are now.”

As I understand it, the bolded part would seem to be more Lamarckism than Darwinian evolution.
Click to expand...
Well, Lamarck would say it’s mutation and Darwin would say natural selection. So I guess you’re right.

…But think about this: when fish started sprouting eye-buds to see for the first time, how did the other fish know they were growing eye-buds, thus naturally selecting them as an attractive mate? Wouldn’t they have needed to see themselves in order to see which fish were starting to grow eyes?
 
Skeptic92 said:
In presupposing the metaphysical naturalism of Darwinism; Creationism and Intelligent Design ultimately take premises that implicitly contradict the Deposit of Faith.

Creationism ultimately contradicts this Anathema

As to accept Creationism (especially in its young earth variety) would force us to dismiss the human reasons reliability in attain knowledge through the special sciences; it forces a wedge between Faith and Reason.

Intelligent Design isn’t so much bad Theology, as bad Philosophy. The entire theory is guilty of a hasty generalisation, and attempting to get an answer that is simply impossible within a metaphysical naturalist framework. Especially when Metaphysical Naturalism was conceded by the early-moderns without any argument in refutation of the older Scholasticism.** A return to **Scholastic Metaphysics makes evolution simply not problematic in the slightest. It is to be expected through a being actualising its Final Cause, and agents acting towards their final cause. Which points easily towards the Existence of God through Aquinas’ Fifth Way; the Teleological Argument.
Click to expand...
Ok… You passed the TEPO test for sound logic. 👍

Just one helpful hint -never use the words go back or “return to” in front of predominantly progressive people, it makes them freak out. There’s an instinct that erupts within them thinking they’re going to have go climb trees with the other primates. 😃

Course on the bright side, we need traditionalists like you to prevent us from just falling apart. ;). “Change” needs to be evaluated and sometimes the evolved find out the change was based on heavy reliance on something that didn’t last.
 
TEPO said:
Well, Lamarck would say it’s mutation and Darwin would say natural selection. So I guess you’re right.

…But think about this: when fish started sprouting eye-buds to see for the first time, how did the other fish know they were growing eye-buds, thus naturally selecting them as an attractive mate? Wouldn’t they have needed to see themselves in order to see which fish were starting to grow eyes?
Click to expand...
As I understand it, the development of the eye started incrementally long before what we’d call “fish” appeared in the fossil record. IIRC, the development of the eye also started independently in more than just one type of organism. My search for “evolutionary development of the eye” returned 3,530,000 hits, so I’m sure you’ll find better answers than mine somewhere in there.
 
cornbread_r2 said:
As I understand it, the development of the eye started incrementally long before what we’d call “fish” appeared in the fossil record. IIRC, the development of the eye also started independently in more than just one type of organism. My search for “evolutionary development of the eye” returned 3,530,000 hits, so I’m sure you’ll find better answers than mine somewhere in there.
Click to expand...
It’s very hard to make sense of using only Darwin’s natural selection.
 
TEPO said:
It’s very hard to make sense of using only Darwin’s natural selection.
Click to expand...
…and the eye doesn’t just grow overnight, it’s a big project to grow eyes, suggesting it was pre-planned by some sort of intelligence. Uh oh. :eek: I just said intelligence didn’t i!

Growing eyes from no eyes involves a lot of rewiring of the brain.
 
TEPO said:
…and the eye doesn’t just grow overnight, it’s a big project to just grow eyes, suggesting it was pre-planned by some sort of intelligence. Uh oh. :eek: I just said intelligence didn’t i!
Click to expand...
The response to this could be that it wasn’t pre-planned but its development was ordered, as means to an end.

This would, however, concede the major premise of Aquinas’ Teleological Argument. Implying the existence of the Classical Theistic God; rather than the Deistic God of ID.
 
Skeptic92 said:
The response to this could be that it wasn’t pre-planned but its development was ordered, as means to an end.

This would, however, concede the major premise of Aquinas’ Teleological Argument. Implying the existence of the Classical Theistic God; rather than the Deistic God of ID.
Click to expand...
That’s a good point. But we have to be careful with this kind of talk or we might be branded with the stigma. The scientism community is warming their brands as we speak.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top