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

[Monkey1976]

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’.

I agree - the population as a whole didn’t. What happened among the upper ranks of the Nazi Party was they took Luther’s anti-Jewish rants and flavored them with a distorted version of Darwin’s theory to try and give a scientific basis to their crimes. Don’t get me wrong - I see no problem whatsoever with evolutionary theory, and think that it answers the questions of how our physical forms were shaped by God. Problems arise when one takes it and turns it into a philosophical or theological system instead of keeping it within its boundaries: Biology and Physical Anthropology.

 

[808Catholic]

The references you make are of Catholic teaching. Public schools are secular institutions thus it would be inappropriate to present Creationism, ID, or any variant of religious evangelization disguised as science.

ringil

Since when is education limited to “secular” knowledge? What is your definition of “secular”?

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

ringil

Since when is education limited to “secular” knowledge? What is your definition of “secular”?

Nobody said anything about keeping education secular, just the particular topic of evolutionary biology.

 

[808Catholic]

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?

“If it upsets our sense of importance”

Seem to me, Kelt, that only scientists seem to be upset that there is someone greater in importance than them. Catholics accept that God is the center of our lives and that the universe was created by Him. Is that a threat to anyone?

 

[RACJ]

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??

Every last leader of the Third Reich despised the Christian Church and wanted it destroyed. There is nothing in Naziism that ever spoke to the value of every human. I can understand why evolutionists would want to reject an association of Darwin with Nazi thinking, but the whole philosophy is replete with its logical extensions. Rob

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Every last leader of the Third Reich despised the Christian Church and wanted it destroyed. There is nothing in Naziism that ever spoke to the value of every human. I can understand why evolutionists would want to reject an association of Darwin with Nazi thinking, but the whole philosophy is replete with its logical extensions. Rob

By your own reasoning, you should fault Christians for rejecting associations with homophobic violence/attitudes because it’s also a logical extension of the religion.

 

[RACJ]

By your own reasoning, you should fault Christians for rejecting associations with homophobic violence/attitudes because it’s also a logical extension of the religion.

So you are equqting the Holy Bible with Mein Kampf? BTW, which BIble recommends the beating of homosexuals? Final judgment is the Lord’s domain, not ours.

 

[Kelt]

So you are equqting the Holy Bible with Mein Kampf? BTW, which BIble recommends the beating of homosexuals? Final judgment is the Lord’s domain, not ours.

The OT is a pretty violent book, exhorting pretty violent behaviour. I thought lots of violence was suggested for homosexuals? Maybe I’m wrong?
I would have thought you were right about the final judgment bit, but sadly, many people on this forum still believe we have the right to inflict capital punishment on our fellow man.

 

[RACJ]

The OT is a pretty violent book, exhorting pretty violent behaviour. I thought lots of violence was suggested for homosexuals? Maybe I’m wrong?
I would have thought you were right about the final judgment bit, but sadly, many people on this forum still believe we have the right to inflict capital punishment on our fellow man.

Temporal judgment is not final judgment. I support capital punishment for heinous crimes 100%. I see nowhere in the Bible where executions are forbidden for capital crimes. Blessings, Rob

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Temporal judgment is not final judgment. I support capital punishment for heinous crimes 100%. I see nowhere in the Bible where executions are forbidden for capital crimes. Blessings, Rob

So magic is a capital crime?

You shall not let a woman who practices sorcery live. - Exodus 22:18

Man, forget homophobia! The logical extension of this verse is what gave us the Salem tragedy!

 

[RACJ]

So magic is a capital crime?
Man, forget homophobia! The logical extension of this verse is what gave us the Salem tragedy!

Interesting. In Christ’s life, He cast out demons without killing the host! No rational person lives by this OT code today, not even Orthodox Jews.
Back to topic: It’s amazing how far a discussion can stray when the proponents of an idea don’t wish to discuss it. MY question is how does “science” explain the million year journey from single-celled organism to man? If it can’t be hypothesized, tested and successfully repeated, it ought not be taught in schools as “science”. Read “womanatwell” on this thread, and marvel at the miraculous code, without which we couldn’t live. Rob

 

[Kelt]

Temporal judgment is not final judgment. I support capital punishment for heinous crimes 100%. I see nowhere in the Bible where executions are forbidden for capital crimes. Blessings, Rob

Things get a bit dodgy when you look at the OT for whether things are forbidden or not.
I think Lost Wanderer’s point is just that. Iif you use it to justify capital punishment, you can also justify violence to homosexuals and women. Revenge is big in the OT too…turning the other cheek just wasn’t an option…

 

[RACJ]

Things get a bit dodgy when you look at the OT for whether things are forbidden or not.
I think Lost Wanderer’s point is just that. Iif you use it to justify capital punishment, you can also justify violence to homosexuals and women. Revenge is big in the OT too…turning the other cheek just wasn’t an option…

Well Kelt, I can’t justify violence against women or homosexuals, period. All I know is that if my neighbor’s killer KNEW that he life would have ended within months if he shot him, I think that most likely there would have been only a robbery. I think that the death penalty is perfectly just.
But what does any of this have to do with origins of life, and the banning of everything that doesn’t fit the “Holy Gospel of Secularism”? Rob

 

[Kelt]

Well Kelt, I can’t justify violence against women or homosexuals, period. All I know is that if my neighbor’s killer KNEW that he life would have ended within months if he shot him, I think that most likely there would have been only a robbery. I think that the death penalty is perfectly just.
But what does any of this have to do with origins of life, and the banning of everything that doesn’t fit the “Holy Gospel of Secularism”? Rob

Not a lot! Though I take issue with the Holy Gospel of Secularism idea…the study of evolution can not be likened to a religion. It’s separate, it’s science and deals with evidence. It’s not a religion any more than NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.
And you’ll say ‘it takes a great leap of faith’ to believe something happened when no-one was there to see it…but you know you won’t find any religious proof in this life…the religious leap of faith can never be proved, while science is always seeking proof!
It’s all about time. Lots and lots and lots of time. I can understand people having difficulty getting their head round the sheer enormity of the timescales. Basically we haven’t evolved to handle time on that scale! Until very recently, humans lived on a local level, generally not travelling far and not seeing many people/things at all, in a lifetime. Earlier still, we didn’t need to envisage large numbers of anything beyond our tribal group and herds of wild animals - let alone time. We counted time in generations and until we started to write, we would have relied on stories and had a very hazy idea of centuries.
You mention a million years…but that’s a blink!! It’s hundreds of millions - BILLIONS of years!
It’s understanding the time that’s the key to understanding evolution. Then look at the evidence.
If a person’s religious faith depends on a more ‘human scale’ story of a magical creation of themselves as the prime reason of and for creation, they might be afraid to look at the evidence that we share most of our DNA with an ape for example. It would be unsettling and distasteful and easier ignored. But it can be understood without losing a religious faith as posts here testify and the Catholic Church acknowledges!
If you’re afraid of evolution you’ll never understand it.

 

[RACJ]

Not a lot! Though I take issue with the Holy Gospel of Secularism idea…the study of evolution can not be likened to a religion. It’s separate, it’s science and deals with evidence. It’s not a religion any more than NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.
And you’ll say ‘it takes a great leap of faith’ to believe something happened when no-one was there to see it…but you know you won’t find any religious proof in this life…the religious leap of faith can never be proved, while science is always seeking proof!
It’s all about time. Lots and lots and lots of time. I can understand people having difficulty getting their head round the sheer enormity of the timescales. Basically we haven’t evolved to handle time on that scale! Until very recently, humans lived on a local level, generally not travelling far and not seeing many people/things at all, in a lifetime. Earlier still, we didn’t need to envisage large numbers of anything beyond our tribal group and herds of wild animals - let alone time. We counted time in generations and until we started to write, we would have relied on stories and had a very hazy idea of centuries.
You mention a million years…but that’s a blink!! It’s hundreds of millions - BILLIONS of years!
It’s understanding the time that’s the key to understanding evolution. Then look at the evidence.
If a person’s religious faith depends on a more ‘human scale’ story of a magical creation of themselves as the prime reason of and for creation, they might be afraid to look at the evidence that we share most of our DNA with an ape for example. It would be unsettling and distasteful and easier ignored. But it can be understood without losing a religious faith as posts here testify and the Catholic Church acknowledges!
If you’re afraid of evolution you’ll never understand it.

Thank you for returning to the topic, Kelt. Do you truly believe that our earliest ancestors were protozoa? I would be content if someone could plausibly explain the evolution of the 18,000 fibers in each cochlea which enable us to distinguish sounds. All 18,000 fibers can fit on the head of a pin, and we are supposed to believe that evolution did it?
Darwin expected that the smallest units of life would turn out to be rather simple “stuff”. Despite the fact that it is complex beyond our wildest dreams, naturalists trudge on! Rob

 

[Monkey1976]

Thank you for returning to the topic, Kelt. Do you truly believe that our earliest ancestors were protozoa? I would be content if someone could plausibly explain the evolution of the 18,000 fibers in each cochlea which enable us to distinguish sounds. All 18,000 fibers can fit on the head of a pin, and we are supposed to believe that evolution did it?

Argument from incredulity again. “Plausibly” according to whose definition? From a purely common-sense standpoint, it seems impossible that two individual cells could combine in such a manner that a human being results, but that’s exactly how it happens. The evolution of the ear, the eye, the nose, flight, and nearly every other “inexplicable” physical feature is well understood in almost every case, though the details aren’t nearly as exciting as imagining God clicking the “Add Hearing” button in His game of Celestial Minecraft. The far greater burden is on those who deny evolution, because there is still no answer to these questions:

1. Apart from rare exceptions like the coelacanth, why do we not see modern forms represented in the fossil record earlier than 10K-100K years ago?
2. Why do we see no dinosaurs, giant insects, archaeopteryxes, eohippi, pakicetidae, pikaiae, etc around today?
3. Why do we see primitive forms of modern features in those species evolutionary theory claims as ancestors of modern species?
4. How is it that a “false” theory made such accurate predictions when it came to animals such as whales and horses? Evolutionary theory predicted that we should see certain features in their ancestors, and those predictions were correct.

 

[RACJ]

Argument from incredulity again. “Plausibly” according to whose definition? From a purely common-sense standpoint, it seems impossible that two individual cells could combine in such a manner that a human being results, but that’s exactly how it happens. The evolution of the ear, the eye, the nose, flight, and nearly every other “inexplicable” physical feature is well understood in almost every case, though the details aren’t nearly as exciting as imagining God clicking the “Add Hearing” button in His game of Celestial Minecraft. The far greater burden is on those who deny evolution, because there is still no answer to these questions:

1. Apart from rare exceptions like the coelacanth, why do we not see modern forms represented in the fossil record earlier than 10K-100K years ago?
2. Why do we see no dinosaurs, giant insects, archaeopteryxes, eohippi, pakicetidae, pikaiae, etc around today?
3. Why do we see primitive forms of modern features in those species evolutionary theory claims as ancestors of modern species?
4. How is it that a “false” theory made such accurate predictions when it came to animals such as whales and horses? Evolutionary theory predicted that we should see certain features in their ancestors, and those predictions were correct.

The evolution of the eye, ear, etc. is “well understood”. Good. Let’s see the evolutionists build the ear from scratch, which is what nothingness had to start out with. But hey, we have brains now, and we can observe all the pieces of the puzzle. This should be a relatively easy job, compared to the job that Nothing had to do without help!
The reason that a sperm and egg can create a human is b/c all the information to create one already exists in them. Where did the information come from? I’ll end the suspense. GOD!

 

[Rau]

… MY question is how does “science” explain the million year journey from single-celled organism to man? If it can’t be hypothesized, tested and successfully repeated, it ought not be taught in schools as “science”…Rob

Much more than a million years were involved. And your suggestion would end the teaching of cosmology, astronomy and numerous other subjects.

 

[Monkey1976]

The evolution of the eye, ear, etc. is “well understood”. Good. Let’s see the evolutionists build the ear from scratch, which is what nothingness had to start out with. But hey, we have brains now, and we can observe all the pieces of the puzzle. This should be a relatively easy job, compared to the job that Nothing had to do without help!
The reason that a sperm and egg can create a human is b/c all the information to create one already exists in them. Where did the information come from? I’ll end the suspense. GOD!

You’re still confusing evolution and evolutionism. Read any of the papers on the evolution of those features - in each case, they are traced back to an early proto-form. For example: Hearing seems to have originated with swim bladders that were more sensitive to vibrations in the water. Evolution - properly understood - only works with existing organisms. It isn’t a process of creation, it’s a process of change.

 

[RACJ]

Much more than a million years were involved. And your suggestion would end the teaching of cosmology, astronomy and numerous other subjects.

Rubbish. I know of no one complaining about studying any of these fields, OR biology, for that matter. But revealing contrary evidence in any of these fields would be a good thing. Rob