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

[Rau]

…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.
…
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.

How should ID be “mentioned”? What can be said about it? If the science teacher wants to remark that some people reject this theory and “believe” XYZ, well that’s true and just fine. But it is not possible to teach XYZ in a science class, is it? Science does not operate on beliefs nor on appeal to forces outside of the natural world.

 

[RACJ]

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!!!

Did you just call creationists like me “nonsense peddlers” and “flat-earthers”?:bighanky: You are pretty cocky for a guy who would run from an attempt to explain how a paramecium turned into an elephant, over millions of years, of course.
Why don’t you read “womanatwell” on this thread, and consider just a small sampling of her criticisms of TOE. She could teach MY biology class any time. Rob

 

[Skeptic92]

Did you just call creationists like me “nonsense peddlers” and “flat-earthers”?:bighanky: You are pretty cocky for a guy who would run from an attempt to explain how a paramecium turned into an elephant, over millions of years, of course.

Through agents acting according to their nature, towards their finality, through the mechanism we call evolution.

Creationism, and Intelligent Design, are both bad theology, and even worse philosophy. Theologically it is unsure whether either can get you to the God of the Catholic faith; as there appears to be irreconcilable differences between the attributes that can be deduced. Therefore theologically it is a questionable conclusion to take.

Philosophically; creationism leads us to necessarily denying the reliability, adequacy, and validity of our rational faculties. Intelligent Design just doesn’t give the conclusion that it wants to draw, as the methodology is improper to its ultimate object. There appear to be two arguments going on in Intelligent Design the first; there is a deficiency in darwinian materialist interpretations of evolution, and second; an attempt at Natural Theology.

The first one I would argue it semi-achieves; but then never offers a philosophically sound alternative. The second the argument just does not follow; you can’t get to God via inductive methods.

 

[RACJ]

Through agents acting according to their nature, towards their finality, through the mechanism we call evolution.

Creationism, and Intelligent Design, are both bad theology, and even worse philosophy. Theologically it is unsure whether either can get you to the God of the Catholic faith; as there appears to be irreconcilable differences between the attributes that can be deduced. Therefore theologically it is a questionable conclusion to take.

Philosophically; creationism leads us to necessarily denying the reliability, adequacy, and validity of our rational faculties. Intelligent Design just doesn’t give the conclusion that it wants to draw, as the methodology is improper to its ultimate object. There appear to be two arguments going on in Intelligent Design the first; there is a deficiency in darwinian materialist interpretations of evolution, and second; an attempt at Natural Theology.

The first one I would argue it semi-achieves; but then never offers a philosophically sound alternative. The second the argument just does not follow; you can’t get to God via inductive methods.

So Skeptic, you concede that there are deficiencies in “Darwinian materialistic interpretaions”, but you still say that rejecting TOE negates the “reliability, adequacy and validity of our rational faculties”. So, the conclusions that you draw from the fossil record and biological findings are the best interpretations of origin evidence. Sorry, but best guesses are not science, and should not be taught as fact. Obviously, imaginging that a colony of single-celled organisms can mutate into lions, tigers, bears, elephants and humans takes a whopping dollop of faith. Rob

 

[TEPO]

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!!!

I wasn’t aware that you were a believer Kelt… . So what makes you sure that intelligence, if such a thing were to exist, must involve a God? Why couldn’t intelligence just exist on its own…?

Are there really no groups in the world that believe that all life is connected together and that it operates like a force of its own? There must be since that movie Pandora sort of points in that direction… I suppose there are Pantheists out there. Couldn’t there be a little truth in Pantheism though, like when considering that Christianity acknowledges the Holy Spirits presence since the Creative Act…?

Just out of curiosity, where can Pantheism be taught in school? I heard Al Gore is one, not sure if you know who that is. He was a recent Vice President of the US.

 

[TEPO]

Oops, my mistake… The movie was called Avatar, not Pandora. Don’t know how I made that mistake. Maybe that was the name of the other ‘world’ in that movie.

 

[edwest2]

So Skeptic, you concede that there are deficiencies in “Darwinian materialistic interpretaions”, but you still say that rejecting TOE negates the “reliability, adequacy and validity of our rational faculties”. So, the conclusions that you draw from the fossil record and biological findings are the best interpretations of origin evidence. Sorry, but best guesses are not science, and should not be taught as fact. Obviously, imaginging that a colony of single-celled organisms can mutate into lions, tigers, bears, elephants and humans takes a whopping dollop of faith. Rob

I agree in the sense that a lot of assumptions occur in the technical literature on the subject.
For examples, scientists think certain “pathways” led to this or that change in the organism. These pathways are guesses covering millions of years. The Church recognizes the possibility of some sort of development, but, according to Pope Benedict, “BERLIN — Benedict XVI, in his first extended reflections on evolution published as pope, says that Darwin’s theory cannot be finally proven and that science has unnecessarily narrowed humanity’s view of creation.”

And by proven, I think this is the appropriate term since a common statement here is “Evolution is a fact.” What is a fact? “something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence. : a true piece of information.”

I believe, as some here do, that the hard, determined effort to push this on people has more to do with an ideology rather than science.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Rau]

I agree in the sense that a lot of assumptions occur in the technical literature on the subject.
For examples, scientists think certain “pathways” led to this or that change in the organism. These pathways are guesses covering millions of years. The Church recognizes the possibility of some sort of development, but, according to Pope Benedict, “BERLIN — Benedict XVI, in his first extended reflections on evolution published as pope, says that Darwin’s theory cannot be finally proven and that science has unnecessarily narrowed humanity’s view of creation.”

And by proven, I think this is the appropriate term since a common statement here is “Evolution is a fact.” What is a fact? “something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence. : a true piece of information.”

I believe, as some here do, that the hard, determined effort to push this on people has more to do with an ideology rather than science.

Peace,
Ed

It is a fundamental, well-understood principle (in scientific circles) that no volume of observations or experiments can prove a theory. But just one can disprove it. So, evidence can be amassed and should be weighed accordingly, pending “devastating” discoveries to the contrary.

AFAIK, it is not a tenet of the theory of evolution that God is excluded from any role in the creation of what we see before us. [Individuals may think otherwise.] The theory has no clue on that point and will not ever have a clue.

 

[edwest2]

It is a fundamental, well-understood principle (in scientific circles) that no volume of observations or experiments can prove a theory. But just one can disprove it. So, evidence can be amassed and should be weighed accordingly, pending “devastating” discoveries to the contrary.

AFAIK, it is not a tenet of the theory of evolution that God is excluded from any role in the creation of what we see before us. [Individuals may think otherwise.] The theory has no clue on that point and will not ever have a clue.

I’m referring to the ideology which states only natural forces/chemicals/environment were totally sufficient causes to get from millions of years ago to human beings. The National Academy of Sciences seems to ignore this: nas.edu/evolution/Compatibility.html

How can they possibly state that science is not the only way of knowing and understanding? That’s not based on empirical evidence.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Hans_W]

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.

The book title is pretty misleading. The author does not endorse ID in any way, he rather criticizes Judge Jones in the Kitzmiller trial.

Daniel Dennett is an atheist philosopher and his writings are colored by his rejection of religion. Don’t confuse this with the biological topic of evolution.

Darwinism is used for all sorts of other aims, for example Social Darwinism, which has nothing to do with science. Evolution as a topic in biology classes doesn’t deal with anything supernatural. It is not “about getting God out of any school”.

 

[Monkey1976]

I’m referring to the ideology which states only natural forces/chemicals/environment were totally sufficient causes to get from millions of years ago to human beings. The National Academy of Sciences seems to ignore this: nas.edu/evolution/Compatibility.html

Exactly - an ideology. Ideologies are not science.

How can they possibly state that science is not the only way of knowing and understanding? That’s not based on empirical evidence.

Peace,
Ed

Actually, it is. There is no impartial, independently reproducable measure for beauty, joy, or love, but we know they exist. QED.

 

[Hans_W]

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.

Mostly people in the USA seem to spend a lot of time and energy on this nonsense.

It’s not an issue in the non-English speaking world, except for Islamic countries.

 

[Rau]

I’m referring to the ideology which states only natural forces/chemicals/environment were totally sufficient causes to get from millions of years ago to human beings. The National Academy of Sciences seems to ignore this: nas.edu/evolution/Compatibility.html

How can they possibly state that science is not the only way of knowing and understanding? That’s not based on empirical evidence.
Ed

It doesn’t cause me any grief if the theory postulates that random variation and natural selection got us from bacteria to man. The scientific process can collect evidence for that hypothesis, and express a judgement as to the adequacy or coverage of the evidence. Scientists may also identify gaps in the capacity of evolution to explain reality. And the scientist who comes up with the “devastating blow” will surely become famous! I also note that divine tinkering, in all probability, can be indistinguishable from random events.

Science has no business ruling God in or out. And it is pointless for science to make the observation, “of course, this theory might be wrong…”

 

[Hans_W]

I’m referring to the ideology which states only natural forces/chemicals/environment were totally sufficient causes to get from millions of years ago to human beings. The National Academy of Sciences seems to ignore this: nas.edu/evolution/Compatibility.html

How can they possibly state that science is not the only way of knowing and understanding? That’s not based on empirical evidence.

Peace,
Ed

Quoting your reference, it says “Science is not the only way of knowing and understanding”. What is wrong with this statement? Science has never claimed to be the only source of knowledge.

I know what love is, pride and hate; I know that a Beethoven sonata is superior to a Beatles song. I could fill a whole book on topics where science doesn’t give me an answer.

But yes, natural forces are sufficient to explain the diversity of life. That shouldn’t stop you as a Catholic from believing that God is behind those natural forces.

 

[Hans_W]

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.

That’s what worries me. See below.

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.

Where does it say that “totally naturalistic evolution” is based on chance?

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

I made the effort of going through this PowerPoint video.

It starts off with a couple of images taken from creationwiki.org. Then we get some images and narrative on DNA taken from the National Human Genome Research Institute. That gives it a bit of a scientific flavor.

Then we get the usual argument from incredulity: what are the chances of a protein molecule arising by random arrangement. I gave up when the number got to 10 to the power of 598. That was after around 27 minutes into the presentation. Interesting was the use of Brownian motion as a possible explanation for the start of life. Not even William Dembski in his wildest fantasies would have thought of that.

I recommend you read some books on Intelligent Design by Michael Behe, William Dembski, Stephen Meyer and others. They are trash from a science point of view, but you could learn a few things on biology and probability theory.

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.

Please, please, leave the children out! They need to hear about proper science.

 

[edwest2]

It’s in the Catechism:

“295 We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom.141 It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[Monkey1976]

It’s in the Catechism:

“295 We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom.141 It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance.”

Peace,
Ed

If I roll a die and end up with a 3, is it random chance?

 

[edwest2]

If I roll a die and end up with a 3, is it random chance?

It depends on the die. D6, D10, D20, etc.

We’re talking about millions of years worth of die rolls.

Ed

 

[Monkey1976]

It depends on the die. D6, D10, D20, etc.

We’re talking about millions of years worth of die rolls.

Ed

The number of sides is irrelevant - is it random chance?

 

[RACJ]

It depends on the die. D6, D10, D20, etc. We’re talking about millions of years worth of die rolls. Ed

Millions of years and billions of mutations successfully passed down through the generations. Hans does wisely recommend reading Stephen C. Meyer. This man has an incredible knack of discussing scientific principles in a way that a junior high student might understand them. Phillip E. Johnson is also another evolution skeptic who is highly entertaining and logical. Rob