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

[Rau]

The only reason that I am so tenacious about this issue, Jharek, is because millions of Christians have lost their Faith after coming to believe naturalistic evolution. I think that the entire (protozoa to man) TOE is absurd. It is not possible for me to believe that all our miraculous organs and systems were formed through untold millions of step-by-step random mutations, all of which had to be passed down through each successive generation. And somewhere along the line, organisms developed consciousness keen enough to figure out how to get a man to the moon!
I think our children are being cheated when they are exposed to only one set of theories. Uncircle the wagons and allow Truth to shine through.

So, you throw out all principles of evolution, or do you believe it is a part of our reality?

 

[Skeptic92]

The only reason that I am so tenacious about this issue, Jharek, is because millions of Christians have lost their Faith after coming to believe naturalistic evolution. I think that the entire (protozoa to man) TOE is absurd. It is not possible for me to believe that all our miraculous organs and systems were formed through untold millions of step-by-step random mutations, all of which had to be passed down through each successive generation. And somewhere along the line, organisms developed consciousness keen enough to figure out how to get a man to the moon!
I think our children are being cheated when they are exposed to only one set of theories. Uncircle the wagons and allow Truth to shine through.

You seem to have ignored where I have previously addressed where the objection would be from; intelligent design and creationism are not good theology, and even worse philosophies. If you want an evaluation where the objection would be raised from within the intellectual tradition of the Catholic Church may I recommend some Gilson?. Final Causality takes away the “random”, and doesn’t completely violate the object of study of the Natural Sciences & Natural Philosophy. If you want theories that directly look to God, you are looking for arguments of Natural Theology.

 

[Tenofovir]

You seem to have ignored where I have previously addressed where the objection would be from; intelligent design and creationism are not good theology, and even worse philosophies. If you want an evaluation where the objection would be raised from within the intellectual tradition of the Catholic Church may I recommend some Gilson?. Final Causality takes away the “random”, and doesn’t completely violate the object of study of the Natural Sciences & Natural Philosophy. If you want theories that directly look to God, you are looking for arguments of Natural Theology.

Atheist philosopher of science, Bradley Monton, has defended ID as a theory worthy of pursuit in the scientific and definitely philosophical spheres.

amazon.com/Seeking-God-Science-Atheist-Intelligent/dp/1551118637

It may not go with Catholic philosophy but to ban it from schools is bad news. Unless of course they’re willing to consider it under philosophy. But then much of Darwinism is philosophy.

Finally I wish atheist/agnostic secularists who push the universal acid of Darwinism, explain why one should not logically take the nihilistic conclusion that life and everything we think that matters are meaningless delusions. Dennet calls Darwinism a universal acid as it eats through everything. That way we can really rebuild society - but according to what - since nothing matters and attempts at making things matter are also delusions. Because for me pushing Darwinism isn’t so much about teaching kids genetics and biology - which are good things - but about getting God out of any school and beyond.

 

[Rau]

…Because for me pushing Darwinism isn’t so much about teaching kids genetics and biology - which are good things - but about getting God out of any school and beyond.

Not sure what you mean by “pushing” Darwin’s theory as opposed to “teaching evolution as a standard model or theory”. In any event, I’m glad you prefaced your statement with “for me”. As a Catholic trained in the sciences, I don’t see it that way, and to the best of my knowledge, neither does the Church.

 

[Kelt]

It does. The internet attracts more “fringy” notions. I have never met Catholics with some of the more “out-there” views expressed here- IRL.

CAF can paint a kind of bizzaro-type picture of Catholicism.

That’s interesting, I thought I could perhaps get a ‘straight from the horses mouth’ picture of what Catholisism stands for by coming on this forum, and maybe even clear up some misconceptions. I can’t tell you how shocked I have been! To start with, my previous ‘prejudices’ (I saw them as possibly being predjuces, so wanted to correct them if possible) seemed to have been confirmed and more horrors added!!
Allowing the dust to settle, I can see that what you say about fringe notions is true, and misleading too. I shall attempt to filter the ‘out-there views…
My first impressions were, ironically, of a very UNchristian ideology, but I realise, of course, the different threads attract their own particular fringe notions.
My mind still boggles at the depth and fine detail of the rules and regulations and linguistic gymnastics tho’…

 

[edwest2]

Thank you for your kind words. It is true I have an educational background in biology, but I would like to teach laypersons some fundamentals so that anyone can understand the problems with the currently promoted totally naturalistic evolution theory. I feel all Christians are Creationists, in that we believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and Earth, of all that is visible and invisible, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, through Whom all things were made. Not all Creationists are Young Earth Creationists, and I am open-minded about the age of the Earth.

Cell biology is a mind-opening journey into marvelous wonders. There are more and more videos on the internet about biology, and some come from Creation ministries. Others are from academic sources, most of which still insist on totally naturalistic evolution. It is difficult for me to imagine how anyone can still think biology came about by chance, but I think there are those out there who suspect Creation but are bombarded by the secularists.

I wrote a booklet and made a narrated PowerPoint video called “Creation Biology.” They are similar, but the booklet has more detail and is simpler to get to the references. The video might be a good place to start if you have no science background, and lasts less than 45 minutes. They start simply, but pick up quickly into more detail. I have just finished the video and need to do a little editing, but it should be understandable as it is. It takes several hours to change it from the PowerPoint format into video (and to drive to a college 40 miles from here to get to a program that will do it) and to upload it to Google Drive. So I apologize for a few mis-numbered resources and will change them soon. The address is:

womanatwell.blogspot.com/p/creation-biology.html

Since scientism has historically drawn many people away many from the Christian faith, I feel that some of the amazing new discoveries of biology can be an important tool for the new evangelization. I hope we as Church can help both children and adults to understand.

Thank you for your post. Scientism is a real problem. An example is a phone call I had with an old friend. At some point, God was brought up. His response was: “I don’t believe in God, I believe in evolution.” I was surprised because we both went to Catholic school.

A few months later, we spoke again. This time, he expressed confusion about the theory. “It can’t be true. Life (cells) are too complex.”

I suspect others express similar thoughts and have good reason to doubt the fully self-sufficient version of the theory as currently taught. I very much believe the Church which insists that God is a direct causal agent in the development of life.

Here, for reasons I’ve rarely seen articulated very well, there is an ongoing campaign to accept the biology textbook version. That way, theists and non-theists will be indistinguishable. However, the non-theists will insist God was involved in nothing regarding how life developed. Science is god. And they will spread this ideology among the people.

Peace,
Ed

 

[TEPO]

Indeed.

I believe it is the Catholic Church’s embracing of science and evolution which attracts and keeps many intelligent people.

I’d just as soon see all the “intelligent” people go their own way so us stupid people can worship in peace.

 

[TEPO]

The poster you are referring to, Kay, has a veterinary degree and a certificate in theology. I very much appreciate her honesty and I respect her sincerity.

However, these copied remarks from Intelligent Design literature won’t leave an atheist, or naturalist as you prefer to call them, “virtually speechless”. These are exactly the remarks which will make a Christian look ridiculous, because it is mambo jumbo, dressed up as science.

Your tone throughout this thread has been less than kind in many ways. Is this the way you want to show new posters how we act here?

…sometimes it’s just better not to say anything. but you’re still pretty new here too I see.

 

[TEPO]

It does. The internet attracts more “fringy” notions. I have never met Catholics with some of the more “out-there” views expressed here- IRL.

CAF can paint a kind of bizzaro-type picture of Catholicism.

Whatever. Just keep stigmatizing everyone who disagrees with you. You can target them as stupid, radical, racist, bizarre or whatever else you feel like coming up with. It’s your life, but I’d advise you to rethink this kind of tactic before you set a nasty little trend here. In some cases, I’ve already noticed you have. You should try charity -that works better.

 

[Hans_W]

Your tone throughout this thread has been less than kind in many ways. Is this the way you want to show new posters how we act here?

…sometimes it’s just better not to say anything. but you’re still pretty new here too I see.

Actually, it was me who welcomed her.

However, if somebody, newbie or forum elder, copy/pastes some nonsense on this forum, we can point this out.

 

[Hans_W]

Scientism is a real problem. An example is a phone call I had with an old friend. At some point, God was brought up. His response was: “I don’t believe in God, I believe in evolution.” I was surprised because we both went to Catholic school.

He was probably taught “You either believe in God, or in science”. Unlikely that he got that from his Catholic school. Wherever it comes from, it is wrong and don’t blame it on science.

A few months later, we spoke again. This time, he expressed confusion about the theory. “It can’t be true. Life (cells) are too complex.”

He should get himself a good book on evolution. I recommend Ken Miller’s “Finding Darwin’s God”.

I suspect others express similar thoughts and have good reason to doubt the fully self-sufficient version of the theory as currently taught. I very much believe the Church which insists that God is a direct causal agent in the development of life.

How is it possible, in your opinion, that there are millions of people in your country alone who accept that God has created this wonderful diversity of life through the process of evolution?

Here, for reasons I’ve rarely seen articulated very well, there is an ongoing campaign to accept the biology textbook version. That way, theists and non-theists will be indistinguishable. However, the non-theists will insist God was involved in nothing regarding how life developed.

What is “the textbook version” of science? Do you want a science book on God? You surely know that God and the supernatural is outside of science. How should a textbook on physics, chemistry, geology then refer to God?

I think it should be fairly easy to distinguish a theist from a non-theist: a theist believes that God created everything we see and cannot see, and that He sustains His creation at all times. A non-theist does not believe this.

Science is god. And they will spread this ideology among the people.

And who told you that? Atheist propaganda? It is your problem if you fall for it.

 

[Kelt]

I’d just as soon see all the “intelligent” people go their own way so us stupid people can worship in peace.

Are you sure you want to say that???

 

[Tenofovir]

Not sure what you mean by “pushing” Darwin’s theory as opposed to “teaching evolution as a standard model or theory”. In any event, I’m glad you prefaced your statement with “for me”. As a Catholic trained in the sciences, I don’t see it that way, and to the best of my knowledge, neither does the Church.

As a Catholic you are a Creationist even though you may be a theistic evolutionist. For that matter I am also a TE. I have no problem teaching evolution but it really seems to me that the agenda is not so much about teaching children biology or zoology but among many it’s about getting rid of anything remotely God linked from school.

BTW I am also trained in the sciences. Your training in the sciences is quite irrelevant because we’re talking about political/sociological issues here (unless you’re trained in those sciences and have investigated this.)

By pushing I meant the energy this issue gets everywhere. It’s as if if someone somewhere considers teaching or talking about ID, which I don’t accept personally, it is the coming of a theocracy. It’s as if evolution is the most important thing kids need to know about, besides sex ed. And if any Creationism is taught, that would include theistic evolution for many, then the children will become stupid. And UK or the West will fall behind Japan, Korea and China as well as others such as India and Brazil.

 

[Rau]

…
By pushing I meant the energy this issue gets everywhere. It’s as if if someone somewhere considers teaching or talking about ID, which I don’t accept personally, it is the coming of a theocracy. It’s as if evolution is the most important thing kids need to know about, besides sex ed. And if any Creationism is taught, that would include theistic evolution for many, then the children will become stupid. And UK or the West will fall behind Japan, Korea and China as well as others such as India and Brazil.

This strikes me as “conspiracy theory”. Evolution is a significant theory and I think it gets no more or less attention than reasonable. Much like algebra and Newtonian physics and Einstein’s special theory of relativity and numerous other elements of curriculum. Teaching ID would be akin to teaching what nothing is known about. By all means, gaps in theories should be covered. The absence of a Higgs boson was once such a gap. The “disconnect” between General Relativity and Quantum mechanics is another. But we don’t teach that God is at work in all the gaps in our theories. Science is not in search of God. Science seeks to learn what it can about the world. It cannot find God for us.

 

[TEPO]

Are you sure you want to say that???

I’m not worried about it. . They feel my grief. Also we practice humility and not pride.

 

[TEPO]

As far as education is concerned, why should the teaching of anything be restricted by government rule because of public funding? Don’t “creationists” also pay taxes?

Sounds like agenda 101 to me.

…is the next step the restriction of religious education of a particular faith outside of the ideology of deism in general?

 

[TEPO]

This strikes me as “conspiracy theory”.

Stigma alert. :bluelite:

 

[Kelt]

As far as education is concerned, why should the teaching of anything be restricted by government rule because of public funding? Don’t “creationists” also pay taxes?

Sounds like agenda 101 to me.

…is the next step the restriction of religious education of a particular faith outside of the ideology of deism in general?

You can’t teach nonsense in state funded schools just because nonsense pedlars pay their taxes…you have to protect kids from flat-earthers.
I can’t quite understand what you mean in your last sentence?
Interestingly, there would appear to be more practicing Christians in the US than UK (percentage wise). We have always had compulsory RE in schools. Perhaps you’re more successful when you keep it out of school!
Now that we in UK have the threat of a few schools teaching fundamentalist Islam in our new ‘faith schools’ - perhaps you might decide it’s a good idea to keep religion out of school!
There are lots of versions of faith for people to teach their children…there is only one version of science.
To reiterate…You absolutely cannot teach ID or creationism in science - it’s for religion. You must decide whether you even want religion taught in school…just imagine the arguing that would go on!!!

 

[Tenofovir]

This strikes me as “conspiracy theory”.

Some people have a strong dislike for Christianity. The media in general in the West is biased against the Christian religion. Many intellectuals are also against Christianity. It’s not so much a conspiracy theory as many people having a similar dislike or even hatred for Christianity and traditional morality and associated things.

Evolution is a significant theory and I think it gets no more or less attention than reasonable. Much like algebra and Newtonian physics and Einstein’s special theory of relativity and numerous other elements of curriculum. Teaching ID would be akin to teaching what nothing is known about. By all means, gaps in theories should be covered. The absence of a Higgs boson was once such a gap. The “disconnect” between General Relativity and Quantum mechanics is another. But we don’t teach that God is at work in all the gaps in our theories. Science is not in search of God. Science seeks to learn what it can about the world. It cannot find God for us.

I didn’t say science should search for God. But it just seems that there is a disproportionate amount of energy and outrage used in terms of the Evolution vs ID/YEC thing.

Maybe I worded it wrong. I have no issues with evolution. Teach it by all means. But mentioning of ID is now verboten. Even though, as pointed out, some (including atheist) philosophers do think it is something worth considering and should not be dismissed as nonsense.

In terms of the UK, this may also involve Muslim schools and not just those of the Evangelical Christian stripe.

Note that in terms of ID, its proponents don’t state that the designer has to be God or gods. They don’t claim what or who the designer is.

 

[edwest2]

As a Catholic you are a Creationist even though you may be a theistic evolutionist. For that matter I am also a TE. I have no problem teaching evolution but it really seems to me that the agenda is not so much about teaching children biology or zoology but among many it’s about getting rid of anything remotely God linked from school.

BTW I am also trained in the sciences. Your training in the sciences is quite irrelevant because we’re talking about political/sociological issues here (unless you’re trained in those sciences and have investigated this.)

By pushing I meant the energy this issue gets everywhere. It’s as if if someone somewhere considers teaching or talking about ID, which I don’t accept personally, it is the coming of a theocracy. It’s as if evolution is the most important thing kids need to know about, besides sex ed. And if any Creationism is taught, that would include theistic evolution for many, then the children will become stupid. And UK or the West will fall behind Japan, Korea and China as well as others such as India and Brazil.

Yes, that is the most common response/thinking in threads like this. Social engineering is a real problem.

Thank you,
Ed