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

[TEPO]

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.

Do you personally believe that natural forces are sufficient in explaining the diversity of life, or as a Christian, do you believe God played a role in the development of the human body and mind -because surely as a Catholic you must believe that God ‘intended’ for us to have intelligence in order to use the gifts and graces He has bestowed upon us.

IOW, I’m trying to understand how you divide your religion from your science… Are they blended or kept entirely seperate. If they’re seperate, how and where do you draw the lines?

 

[TEPO]

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…”

How do you draw the line between your science and religion? Do you ‘believe’ one while you ‘accept’ the other? How is it you can do that but I cannot?

I’m not understanding how to separate the two because I’m only able to blend.

 

[Hans_W]

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

I think you misunderstood me, or are you sarcastic?

I do not recommend Intelligent Design literature to replace proper science. But I put Michael Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box” on a much higher level than Kate’s (womanetwell) “creation biology”.

Phillip E. Johnson might be a brilliant lawyer, but his description of evolutionary theory is a crude caricature. He uses his considerable rhetorical skills trying to turn tables on scientists by portraying them as naively doctrinaire and intolerant, while portraying creationists as rational and fair-minded skeptics. He knows how to mount a good argument and play to the jury.

William Dembski is a professional mathematician trying to disprove evolution with probability theory. You need a bit of background in that field to see that his reasoning is flawed.

Stephen Meyer is a philosopher writing voluminous books, very repetitive, mainly arguing to common sense for the unlikelihood of evolution. However, nature is not built on common sense, as science shows you time and time again.

Jonathan Wells is another Intelligent Design proponent with a PhD in biology. The history of that is interesting. His minister, Sun Myung Moon from the Unification Church, advised Wells that he should devote his life to “destroying Darwinism”. So he went out earning himself a PhD in molecular and cell biology.

Michael Behe became famous through his book “Darwin’s Black Box”. Contrary to what most people think, Behe accepts the principle of common descent, that all life forms are related and go back to a common ancestor. However, as a biochemist he thinks that he can disprove the evolutionary mechanism on a chemical micro level by defining “irreducibly complex” structures, pathways and mechanisms, which can only be explained by supernatural intervention. He was proven wrong numerous times. God is not a mechanic who has to step in from time to time to fix the clockwork - a belief that Newton held 300 years ago.

 

[Hans_W]

IOW, I’m trying to understand how you divide your religion from your science… Are they blended or kept entirely seperate. If they’re seperate, how and where do you draw the lines?

That’s a good point and I slowly realise that many people have a problem with that.

Yes, I can put my science where I use methodological naturalism as my tool, and religion where I accept a supernatural realm, into two separate “magisteria”. Stephen Jay Gould used that expression. He himself was not a believer, but he accepted that people can divide their perception of the world into those two “non-overlapping magisteria”.

I never had a problem with that, and I assume that millions of other people don’t have any difficulties, in particular religious scientists. But I accept that it might be a problem for others.

I personally enjoy reading Richard Dawkin’s books. He is a brilliant writer, except for his “God Delusion”, which is trash. Here he steps out of science into philosophy. Whenever he makes an anti-religious hint (which is seldom in most of his books) I smile and carry on reading.

I love reading Daniel Dennett’s books - a philosopher with very strong anti-religious leaning. A brilliant mind and a pleasure to read. Whenever he comes up with an anti-religion argument, I try to find the weakness in that argument and come up with a counter argument.

But yes, if you are not trained in the sciences or philosophy, you should avoid atheistic authors. Their aim is to convince you with their arguments. But for the same reason you should avoid Intelligent Design literature. It is bad science and bad theology.

There are plenty of good books for the layperson showing you how science (including evolutionary theory) and Christianity can not only live together, but how scientific understanding can strengthen your faith. That’s what science did for me.

 

[Rau]

How do you draw the line between your science and religion? Do you ‘believe’ one while you ‘accept’ the other? How is it you can do that but I cannot?

I’m not understanding how to separate the two because I’m only able to blend.

God has given us a world we can strive to understand and exercise control over. He has not given us any capacity to understand how he does that. C’est la vie. He is God and I don’t doubt his capacity.

 

[RACJ]

I think you misunderstood me, or are you sarcastic?

I do not recommend Intelligent Design literature to replace proper science. But I put Michael Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box” on a much higher level than Kate’s (womanetwell) “creation biology”.

Phillip E. Johnson might be a brilliant lawyer, but his description of evolutionary theory is a crude caricature. He uses his considerable rhetorical skills trying to turn tables on scientists by portraying them as naively doctrinaire and intolerant, while portraying creationists as rational and fair-minded skeptics. He knows how to mount a good argument and play to the jury.

William Dembski is a professional mathematician trying to disprove evolution with probability theory. You need a bit of background in that field to see that his reasoning is flawed.

Stephen Meyer is a philosopher writing voluminous books, very repetitive, mainly arguing to common sense for the unlikelihood of evolution. However, nature is not built on common sense, as science shows you time and time again.

Jonathan Wells is another Intelligent Design proponent with a PhD in biology. The history of that is interesting. His minister, Sun Myung Moon from the Unification Church, advised Wells that he should devote his life to “destroying Darwinism”. So he went out earning himself a PhD in molecular and cell biology.

Michael Behe became famous through his book “Darwin’s Black Box”. Contrary to what most people think, Behe accepts the principle of common descent, that all life forms are related and go back to a common ancestor. However, as a biochemist he thinks that he can disprove the evolutionary mechanism on a chemical micro level by defining “irreducibly complex” structures, pathways and mechanisms, which can only be explained by supernatural intervention. He was proven wrong numerous times. God is not a mechanic who has to step in from time to time to fix the clockwork - a belief that Newton held 300 years ago.

All I know is this, Hans: Long after learning that the Haeckel drawings were frauds, and that the finch beak and peppered moth examples proved nothing, these specious samples of evolution continued to be used in texts. They may still be used. If there were better illustrations, the texts would have quickly changed. In the last decade, the left was so anxious to prove origins, the hilarious Ida and ARDI “ancestors” were thrust into the “news”.
You may dismiss Meyer, Behe and Johnson, but they make eminent sense to my naturally skeptical self. To me, imagining that non-life sprang to life as single-celled organisms, and then some of those more industrious protozoa developed muscles, bones, eyes, ears, livers, lungs, intestines, feathers, gills, etc, etc. in just the right way to allow higher life forms is impossible. One does not have to have a scientific genius to understand this. It didn’t just happen one mutation at a time, Hans. Rob

 

[TEPO]

That’s a good point and I slowly realise that many people have a problem with that.

Yes, I can put my science where I use methodological naturalism as my tool, and religion where I accept a supernatural realm, into two separate “magisteria”. Stephen Jay Gould used that expression. He himself was not a believer, but he accepted that people can divide their perception of the world into those two “non-overlapping magisteria”.

I never had a problem with that, and I assume that millions of other people don’t have any difficulties, in particular religious scientists. But I accept that it might be a problem for others.

I personally enjoy reading Richard Dawkin’s books. He is a brilliant writer, except for his “God Delusion”, which is trash. Here he steps out of science into philosophy. Whenever he makes an anti-religious hint (which is seldom in most of his books) I smile and carry on reading.

I love reading Daniel Dennett’s books - a philosopher with very strong anti-religious leaning. A brilliant mind and a pleasure to read. Whenever he comes up with an anti-religion argument, I try to find the weakness in that argument and come up with a counter argument.

But yes, if you are not trained in the sciences or philosophy, you should avoid atheistic authors. Their aim is to convince you with their arguments. But for the same reason you should avoid Intelligent Design literature. It is bad science and bad theology.

There are plenty of good books for the layperson showing you how science (including evolutionary theory) and Christianity can not only live together, but how scientific understanding can strengthen your faith. That’s what science did for me.

Two questions:
1.) Does Stephen Jay Gould state that people who have not naturally developed the ability to acknowledge two non-overlapping magisteria can learn it? What do you say?

2.) while some people can acknowledge two non-overlapping magesteria, is it true, in your opinion, that one must be primary and the other secondary?

 

[Rau]

All I know is this, Hans: Long after learning that the Haeckel drawings were frauds, and that the finch beak and peppered moth examples proved nothing, these specious samples of evolution continued to be used in texts. They may still be used. If there were better illustrations, the texts would have quickly changed. In the last decade, the left was so anxious to prove origins, the hilarious Ida and ARDI “ancestors” were thrust into the “news”.
You may dismiss Meyer, Behe and Johnson, but they make eminent sense to my naturally skeptical self. To me, imagining that non-life sprang to life as single-celled organisms, and then some of those more industrious protozoa developed muscles, bones, eyes, ears, livers, lungs, intestines, feathers, gills, etc, etc. in just the right way to allow higher life forms is impossible. One does not have to have a scientific genius to understand this. It didn’t just happen one mutation at a time, Hans. Rob

Why is your judgement so much better than that of those who study the subject and find it is credible? Remember, there are billions of planets in the universe, and evolution may have delivered nothing beyond bacteria on most of them, in fulfillment of your intuition. And this is not to deny God’s role in creating the universe.

 

[RACJ]

Why is your judgement so much better than that of those who study the subject and find it is credible? Remember, there are billions of planets in the universe, and evolution may have delivered nothing beyond bacteria on most of them, in fulfillment of your intuition. And this is not to deny God’s role in creating the universe.

Look at the complexity of the “simplest” of organisms, and common sense would tell you that it was created. There is no credible sequence of mutations which could have produced even one living cell, let alone complex organisms. Scientists are human, our education system massages them into thinking only naturalistically, and therefore they fail to see the forest for the trees. I believe that many scientists have grave doubts about the grand theory of evolution, but they are unwilling to risk pariah-hood. Richard Dawkins called his book “The Blind Watchmaker”. You and I both know that watches, simple by comparison, cannot create themselves. Rob

P.S Why are biology classes so insistent on precluding God? I believe that the desire is to eliminate any God Who might judge them.

 

[Rau]

Look at the complexity of the “simplest” of organisms, and common sense would tell you that it was created.
…

P.S Why are biology classes so insistent on precluding God? I believe that the desire is to eliminate any God Who might judge them.

You are digging a deeper hole. Now you argue that those who have studied the field, and come to a decision different to yours, lack common sense.

My biology classes did not **seek to exclude God **(did yours?), any more than they sought to exclude the study of metals. The subject of biology, by definition, is about the natural, not the supernatural.

 

[RACJ]

You are digging a deeper hole. Now you argue that those who have studied the field, and come to a decision different to yours, lack common sense.

My biology classes did not **seek to exclude God **(did yours?), any more than they sought to exclude the study of metals. The subject of biology, by definition, is about the natural, not the supernatural.

Yes, God has set biological mechanisms in place. Obviously, we cannot study HOW He did it. I believe that if theories of origins did not exist, and scientists were not guided into believing that all that we observe had to have happened naturalistically, many more would believe the obvious: Only a majestic Creator could have orchestrated life.
Scientists can only study already-created processes. They cannot begin to explain how those processes came to be. IMO, it is immense hubris to try to explain life while excluding the role of God.

 

[Rau]

…Only a majestic Creator could have orchestrated life…

But he did of course, and more. But you need to stop trying to specify how, and blaming scientists for obstructing you!

 

[RACJ]

But he did of course, and more. But you need to stop trying to specify how, and blaming scientists for obstructing you!

Obviously, scientists did not obstruct me from learning the Truth. But frankly, many millions have lost faith in God thanks to the numerous scientists who have told them that God is not necessary for either the universe, nor its life therein to exist. You can see the absence of Faith in the putrid behavior of so many people who believe that they are nothing more than animals who are destroying the planet. They have lost hope. Rob

 

[RACJ]

dangerousdecibels.org/virtualexhibit/2howdowehear.html

Please read the attached article carefully if you are a layman like me, and try to imagine how evolution produced this, step by step. Mind you, this is just a infinitesimal sampling of the mairacles in the human body, the workings of which we often take for granted. Show this to an atheist or agnostic friend. Blessings, Rob

 

[Estevao]

I was thinking recently, since the UK has hate speech laws supposedly to prevent inflammatory speech from endangering minorities with violence, why couldn’t creationists make a similar case for banning the teaching of evolution and survival of the fittest? If you read Darwin’s “The Descent of Man” you can see the seeds of the Nazi movement clear as day, and it’s not too much of a stretch to think that some crazies couldn’t take evolutionary theory and apply it to inferior races who need to be wiped out or at least prevented from breeding?

If I were a creationist in the UK that’s the path I’d take to ban the teaching of evolution. It’s pretty, simple really, just quote Darwin and say we can’t have this hate speech in our schools, so his theory is out.

 

[RACJ]

I was thinking recently, since the UK has hate speech laws supposedly to prevent inflammatory speech from endangering minorities with violence, why couldn’t creationists make a similar case for banning the teaching of evolution and survival of the fittest? If you read Darwin’s “The Descent of Man” you can see the seeds of the Nazi movement clear as day, and it’s not too much of a stretch to think that some crazies couldn’t take evolutionary theory and apply it to inferior races who need to be wiped out or at least prevented from breeding?

If I were a creationist in the UK that’s the path I’d take to ban the teaching of evolution. It’s pretty, simple really, just quote Darwin and say we can’t have this hate speech in our schools, so his theory is out.

Of course, there IS contempt toward creationists by evolutionists. But, this is not state-approved hate. But, to your other point, I believe that you are right. I do not think that the twin socialist evils of Communism and Naziism ever could have gained a foothold had those victimized nations’ rulers and populace not taken naturalistic evolution its (in their minds) logical conclusions. Rob

 

[Kelt]

I was thinking recently, since the UK has hate speech laws supposedly to prevent inflammatory speech from endangering minorities with violence, why couldn’t creationists make a similar case for banning the teaching of evolution and survival of the fittest? If you read Darwin’s “The Descent of Man” you can see the seeds of the Nazi movement clear as day, and it’s not too much of a stretch to think that some crazies couldn’t take evolutionary theory and apply it to inferior races who need to be wiped out or at least prevented from breeding?

If I were a creationist in the UK that’s the path I’d take to ban the teaching of evolution. It’s pretty, simple really, just quote Darwin and say we can’t have this hate speech in our schools, so his theory is out.

If your finding out that the earth is not flat upsets you, will you call for the teaching of the earth being round to be scrapped too? Or what about Galileo? It’s a bit upsetting to find that we’re not at the centre of the universe isn’t it? If it upsets our sense of importance or our religious understanding, it had better be scrapped as untrue! Never mind the evidence, I don’t think that comes into it does it?

 

[Kelt]

Of course, there IS contempt toward creationists by evolutionists. But, this is not state-approved hate. But, to your other point, I believe that you are right. I do not think that the twin socialist evils of Communism and Naziism ever could have gained a foothold had those victimized nations’ rulers and populace not taken naturalistic evolution its (in their minds) logical conclusions. Rob

I don’t think you’ll find that church attendance in Germany dropped during the war? I don’t think there was a disproportionate number of atheists in the Third Reich as opposed to the general population?
(Although Hitler sought to reduce the influence of churches, he wasn’t rabidly anti - church, for mostly political reasons. He did speak of a belief in an ‘almighty creator’.)
It’s interesting to look at the position of the Catholic Church in Germany. They were in a difficult position…could they have done more??

 

[Monkey1976]

I don’t think you’ll find that church attendance in Germany dropped during the war? I don’t think there was a disproportionate number of atheists in the Third Reich as opposed to the general population?
(Although Hitler sought to reduce the influence of churches, he wasn’t rabidly anti - church, for mostly political reasons. He did speak of a belief in an ‘almighty creator’.)
It’s interesting to look at the position of the Catholic Church in Germany. They were in a difficult position…could they have done more??

Read Mein Kampf sometime. Hitler wanted to keep the churches, but only after they were converted to pagan temples replete with Nazi symbolism. He describes the proposed altars in detail, and there is nothing Christian about them.

 

[Kelt]

Read Mein Kampf sometime. Hitler wanted to keep the churches, but only after they were converted to pagan temples replete with Nazi symbolism. He describes the proposed altars in detail, and there is nothing Christian about them.

But my main point was that the general populace and the officers responsible for rounding up the Jews and minority groups were still, generally, going to church while it was all happening. In other words, it happened in a mainly Christian country in which the churches were still functioning. My understanding of the post was that it was implied that the German population had imbued some sort of communist, atheist take on ‘Darwinism’.