Scientists call on government to ban "screatific" Creationism

They deserve as much space in the science class as does the "flat earth theory", the "astrology theory", and the "baby delivering stork theory".

What are they so afraid of?

Hmmm. Let me guess...

Seems to me they are running scared of allowing people the opportunity to evaluate the evidence for themselves.

(Notice that those who take the Christian view are dismissed as 'religious fundamentalists' - certainly smacks of intellectual intolerance, does it not?
Ridicule is always very handy if you're short of reasoned argument!)

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." - and the scientific evidence fits perfectly! Check it out....if you dare!

Many scientists who are Christians don't have a problem with biological evolution, and share concerns over anti-evolutionary creationism. I you are interested in one "theistic evolutionary" perspective, you might want to see https://jesuslovesdarwin.wordpress.com/about/

"[Charles Darwin] considered it "absurd to doubt that a man might be an ardent theist and an evolutionist" and, though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he wrote that "I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. – I think that generally ... an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."*

The real menace is not "scientific creationism", but any fallacious notion of "scientific morality", which actually entails deeply UNscientific drivel about the inhumanity of defenceless unborn children.

*Wikipedia

The theory of evolution is not a threat to religious faith - but the untramelled and unchallenged arrogance of scientists is and always been a threat to the Christian civilization for which our forebears were prepared to lay down their lives.

"Posters (even ones who frequently make typos and spelling mistakes) call on Will to check his 'Threadlines' for howlers"

Another take on the evolution vs creationism debate-

Evolution and Creationism

I recall the sketches of Ernst Haeckel being used in my biology lessons to teach biology in Scotland in the early 1990`s. His diagrams supposedly showed vestigial gill slits in human and animal embyos , showing our evolution from fish. His drawings were fakes and he was thrown out of his university a hundred years ago for falsifying the diagrams- yet they were in Scottish school textbooks in 1993. Science is revised and changed all the time - will keep a completely open mind.

I believe in intelligent design, God, in other words, what ever or who ever God is. I believe in evolution also, for 1 thing the flu virus is constantly evolving, changing, I have a problem with the 7 days of creation and how long ago it was supposed to be. Creationism alone cannot explain the fossil fuel 'oil'. the problem with evolution alone is where did the first cell come from.

Although I accept evolution myself, I'm not sure about the motivations of these scientists. The history of the science/religion debate has always been more a question of power struggle and turf war than any real analysis of scientific truth. Non-scientists are not stupid, much as most scientists would like to think they are; teaching creationism does not mean they will accept it as the truth.

"An understanding of evolution is central to understanding all aspects of biology."

Yes, micro-evolution that is, which no one disputes anyway. It's the kind of "evolution" (if it can be called that) which is actually detectable by the scientific method, rather than "detectable" by philosophical special pleading.

Talking about "evolution as central to understanding all aspects of biology"... in my cardiac rehab class the other day we were talking about stress, and each of us was given a little paper entitled "Anxiety stress and your heart".

This is one of the great "pearls of wisdom" contained therein:

The body has a natural stress response: the Fight or Flight response. This can be traced back to cavemen who needed this to fight or run from wild animals.

What a cute theory. Somehow some of these "humans" dodged the wild animals for long enough to be able to develop this highly complex neurological system (don't quite know how they managed to "fight" the nasty beasts in the absence of this system before it managed to magically "evolve", but there you go...) Is there any evidence for this theory? I doubt it very much. But it fits nicely into the evolutionary paradigm (so therefore it must be true, mustn't it?!)

to be continued...

... continued from post #12...

So anxiety, panic attacks etc are just a hangover from the days of the "cavemen" playing tag with the ravenous beasts (from which they also managed to evolve, apparently!). Sounds to me like one of the tall stories flibbly was good enough to list in post #1.

Of course, the reality is that the adrenergic response is part of the sympathetic nervous system, which is an absolutely integral part of the CNS (central nervous system), and it regulates everything we do alongside the parasympathetic nervous system. There is no way that this is just an evolutionary hangover relevant for another age and context.

This theory, of course, affects how we treat anxiety. Instead of playing mind games (the behavioural approach) to convince ourselves that there are no "wild animals" out to get us (because we have moved on from the days of the cavemen), the proper approach is to realise that the adrenergic reaction is a normal and integral part of our (intelligently designed) system, and that we are suffering from a neurological imbalance, which needs to be investigated properly. I could say a lot more about this, but perhaps some other time.

This is just an example of how the creationist explanation makes more practical sense than the evolutionary one. The systems of the body are intelligently integrated and not just haphazard and ad hoc developments of a chaotic biological history. I read another interesting example the other day concerning the approach to the treatment of spinal problems, which I may elaborate on in due course.

There is a word missing from my post #13:

"the behavioural approach" should read: "the cognitive behavioural approach".

There are some religious people who seem to wallow in an arrogant ignorance while castigating scientists, philosophers and humanists for their 'arrogance'. To paraphrase a frequent religious jibe: "the fool hath said in his heart: 'have no faith in science or knowledge'".

But which is preferable? A knowledge based upon reason, evidence and compassion –  which is the real acme of civilisation and progress - or a twisted infatuation with outmoded desert myths?

brianmcclinton;

"...a twisted infatuation with outmoded desert myths"

'outmoded'. Here you deliver the killer blow. One might have thought atheism's game was up when the Archbishop of Canterbury called it "the new cool thing" the other day. Well let me help you to see how this religious person sees things. Fashion, 'modishness', superficial trendy eyewash, is a disease - the disease of our times. Science makes all these high-blown claims for itself, but is ignorant about the very most important things in human existence; love, beauty, justice, virtue. You think philosophy can fill the void when religion is forced into the margins, but nothing more than flimsy, empty, useless fashion dictates which 'brand' of philosophy's stock will rise or fall.

...the adrenergic reaction is a normal and integral part of our (intelligently designed) system

As it is for other animals' systems (ignoring from the intelligently designed bare assertion, that is). Anyone interested in making sense of how this plays out might want to google "evolutionary arms race" and also bear in mind that in evolutionary terms the elapsed between the last "cavemen"and us is the blink of an eye. You might also want to treat LSV's pronouncements on evolution with care, since he has cheerfully admitted to ignorance of the theory before now.

Theophane (16):

Love, beauty, justice, virtue - yes indeed. But, as Bertrand Russell, put it: “A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men”.

Or as Robert Ingersoll put it: "Intelligence, guided by kindness, is the highest wisdom."

Or as Nietzsche put it: “There is not sufficient love and goodness in the world to permit us to give some of it away to imaginary beings”.

Or as Einstein put it: “The ideals that have lighted my way, and time after time have given me new courage to face life cheerfully, have been Kindness, Beauty, and Truth”.

Or as Tom Paine put it: "The world is my country, and to do good my religion."

Or as Gandhi put it: “The day the power of love overrules the love of power, the world will know peace.”

Or as Daisaku Ikeda put it: “It is impossible to build one's own happiness on the unhappiness of others. This perspective is at the heart of Buddhist teachings” .

Or as Isaac Asimov put it: “Creationists make it sound like a ‘theory’ is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night”.

Or as Richard Dawkins put it: “Science is more beautiful than myth”.

Or as Robert Ingersoll put it: “Why should I allow that same God to tell me how to raise my kids, who had to drown His own?”

Or as Douglas Adams put it. “Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?”

Or as PZ Myers put it: “We know the world is a complex place that requires compromise and is not ruled by a moral force — virtue is subject to negotiation, and is found in working together with others to find mutually satisfactory solutions. Good is not absolute, it is an emergent property that arises from successful networks of individuals. It is also something that is measured by evidence: we look at the good that people do, not the promises that they make and never keep, or the lies that dovetail nicely into dogma”.

grokesx (@ 17) -

You might also want to treat LSV's pronouncements on evolution with care, since he has cheerfully admitted to ignorance of the theory before now.

Ah yes... a health warning. LSV could seriously damage your worldview. One of the crippling effects of listening to LSV is that you might actually succumb to something called 'meaning'. You may start experiencing symptoms of 'clear thinking' (and we wouldn't want that, would we?). One of the most devastating effects of imbibing the ideas of LSV is the ability to question people's presuppositions, thereby acquiring the ability to think for yourself. That is most unsettling, not to mention deeply upsetting, and so I have to warn you to steer clear of this toxic blogger!

(In other words, grokesx, good try. But you may like to try playing the ball instead of the man. Let's call it a yellow card, shall we? So you're still on the pitch. Perhaps you could redeem yourself by playing the game next time you contribute?)

As for my "cheerfully admitting ignorance of the theory"...

Care to support that with some evidence?

#14 -

As at the time of writing this, my post #14 is still in the mod queue. Has it been forgotten?

All it said was that "behavioural" in #13 should read "cognitive behavioural".

#18 -

PZ Myers complaining about 'dogma'?!

I think that's just gone off the end of the irony meter!

(I mean... who's trying to 'ban' children from developing questioning minds, I wonder? Not those who believe in intelligence, that's for sure!)

Theophane,

Your leader certainly seems to like fashion - look where he shops for shoes.

On what gets taught in schools,

We have people who decide what gets taught as scientific reality. I assume that the evidence for creationism and ID have been put forward for consideration and not been found to be robust and so not included in the science curriculum.

Do we want a situation where every group says I believe this and want it included in the science teaching.

Creationists and IDers may well believe what they say but they have not persuaded enough other people that there is robust evidence to counter the current position. That is the nature of science - proposal, assessment and acceptance. If religious people or anyone else wants their reality taught in schools then go through the process.

The simple fact is that creationism and ID have failed at various stages of the process and the fact that they cannot agree on which version of creation or ID should be accepted is a major part of the problem.

Is the Earth 6000 years old or 10000 - different creationists have different beliefs.
IDers seem to view it as a moveable feast in that they try to put up evidence but when it is found to be wrong move onto some other snippet. That is not how science is done. They seem to think that we should teach in science things which cannot pass scientific scrutiny - odd to say the least. Acceptance and teaching in schools is the after the last stage (acceptance) not at the proposal stage which is where most of this stuff we are talking about lives.

LSV (#20):

You ask: “Who’s trying to ban children from developing questioning minds’? In Northern Ireland the answer is pretty easy.

All those who insist that RE (sic) should be part of the school curriculum instead of Philosophy, which would include a more objective study of religion.

All those who insist that RE (sic) should not include the study of any alternative worldview to religion.

All those who oppose integrated schools where children ‘from the other tribe’ can challenge the prejudices of ‘one’s own tribe.

All those who think that parents have a right to brainwash children with their own particular worldview/religion.

Questioning minds, my dear LSV, in my experience, is not what most religious people in NI want to see in their children. And that is its tragedy.

brianmcclinton, no.18;

“A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men...” like Bertrand Russell - or Friedrich Nietzsche for that matter.

By the way, from no.15,

"the fool hath said in his heart: 'have no faith in science or knowledge'"

...isn't really a 'paraphrase' is it? More a total warping of the original meaning, in order to make it say the opposite of what it said before.

Dave;

The Holy Father, i can assure you, doesn't 'shop' for anything. But because he doesn't wear trainers, or 'socks and sandals', i suspect we have not heard the last of your reminders about the provenance of his 'rhythm and blues'.

If the general public were aware of the filth that is being shown to children in British primary schools, known as 'sex and relationship education', there would be a clamour for those responsible to be placed on the sex offenders' register and handed substantial prison sentences.

@LSV

As for my "cheerfully admitting ignorance of the theory"...

Care to support that with some evidence?

From a while back:

If I have indeed misunderstood 'the evolutionary process', I can't say that it bothers me too much, in much the same way that I don't lose sleep over a failure to understand the logic of an episode of Dr Who. That's how fiction often works (particularly science fiction) - the plot doesn't always hold together. So don't expect anyone to understand it.

And the fact I can remember it means Overwrought Ryan was right all along. I'm outa here.

grokesx (@ 26) -

Oh my goodness me! Talk about taking someone's words out of context. I'm not surprised you've done a runner after that bit of audacity. Can't bear to face the music, eh?

My comment was a response to Natman's continual claim that I was ignorant (a kind of special pleading to avoid the arguments I was presenting). Since I don't believe in "the evolutionary process" (a.k.a. macro-evolution), I therefore regard it as fiction. It is as fictional as Dr Who. So therefore IF (note the word "IF"!!!) I have misunderstood this process, it would be no different from misunderstanding a storyline in Dr Who. In other words, I don't spend my time obsessing about every detail of something which is entirely fictional.

Furthermore, it was a response to the claim that I had to understand the whole process in order to earn the right to not believe in it, which, of course, is arrant nonsense. This idea of "omniscience being a necessary condition for believing something" is ridiculous. No one can fulfil this condition, not even the most qualified scientist.

I also made the point that a fictional tale doesn't have to hang together logically, therefore no one can really understand it anyway.

Natman was trying to play mind games with me, and I responded accordingly. If you want to build an argument on that comment, then fine. It just goes to show a level of desperation, when you could so easily just fall back on all this abundance of so-called slam dunk evidence that you claim exists for the "self-assembly hypothesis".

@LSV

A final few words - remember the law of holes and watch your blood pressure.

Bye.

Another take on the evolution vs creationism debate-

With respect to science Ryan, there is no debate. The debate over the age of the Earth, global flodds etc. ended in the mid 19th century.

That is why creationism is not taught in any school, college, or university anywhere.

Questioning minds, my dear LSV, in my experience, is not what most religious people in NI want to see in their children. And that is its tragedy.

Sadly Brian, you are quite correct.

From Creation Minitries International's statement of faith:

6.By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information

grokesx;

"Bye"

Few people seem to know that "Goodbye" is from "God be with you", a reminder of our Christian heritage, like "breakfast" and "holiday". Part of the same inheritance, i believe, are all our schools, colleges and universities. Obviously some of these institutions are newer, from a time when Christianity no longer underpins our collective impulse to educate and be educated, but the tradition of learning was established on an identifiably Christian basis. And as a general rule of thumb, when it comes to seats of learning, the older the better.

Peter, post 29

"That is why creationism is not taught in any school, college, or university anywhere."

If only that were true! Look up an old episode of W&T, 'creation wars'. You'd be appalled to know what gets taught in some schools in NI.

Hey Grokesx, Sorry for growling at ya the other week, we didn't really click but I'd be sad to see you go & I enjoy reading most of your posts

@Ryan

Thanks mate. You are definitely one of the good guys. Peace and love.

brianmcclinton (@23) -

I am not denying that there is such a thing as religious bigotry, and living in England I suppose my vision is not overwhelmed by the kind of experience from your neck of the woods. The Orange Order taking action against two of their members who attended Ronan Kerr's funeral, fills me with as much anger as I am sure it does you. In fact, it amazes me. I am no apologist for that kind of sectarian behaviour.

But the way to stamp out bigotry is not with another form of bigotry.

It is patently obvious to any objective and unprejudiced observer that Richard Dawkins is an atheist first and a scientist a very distant second, despite his claims.

I am all for philosophy being taught in schools, as long as it's philosophy taught properly - i.e. where children can understand that rationalism and empiricism are not one and the same thing. Empiricism and its extreme manifestation - logical positivism - is only one aspect of epistemology, and it really bugs me when so called "rationalists" limit reason to the empirical scientific method. Have they ever heard of Descartes?

I think there's a kind of assumption that if philosophy is taught in place of RE (not sic), then atheism will be the inevitable result. I tend to think that a sound teaching of philosophy will sound the death knell for metaphysical materialism / naturalism, for reasons that I have given many times on this blog.

By the way... I am not in favour at all of promoting "biblical" creationism in the science classroom, in the sense that empirical data have to be interpreted according to the Bible. When I speak about "creationism" I am thinking more in terms of ID: do the data speak of intelligent input or not? It's a very simple and basic question. And do the data require us to assume common descent? Children surely have the right to consider these questions.

The alternative is the education system of the USSR: atheist brainwashing. Is that what you want?

LSV;

"It is patently obvious to any objective and unprejudiced observer that Richard Dawkins is an atheist first and a scientist a very distant second, despite his claims."

Springing to Professor Dawkins' defence (as you'd expect), i think this is wide of the mark. What i do think though is that if people like him are intent on deriding and trivialising religious faith, they should expect an appropriate response.

Seems to me that both Richard Dawkins and Brian McClinton are intent on showing the scientific evidence consistent with the Bible a clean pair of heels!

I mean, it would never do to give that eveidence a fair hearing, would it?

Science says, nothing can travel faster than light, end of story! We can prove that.
Science says, nothing can travel faster than light, end of story! We can prove that.
Science says, nothing can travel faster than light, end of story! We can prove that.
Science says, nothing can travel faster than light, end of story! We can prove that.
Science says, nothing can travel faster than light, end of story! We can prove that.

BBC News - 'Physicists at Cern in Geneva appear to have sent particles faster than the speed of light. Professor Marcus du Sautoy, the Simone Professor for Public Understanding of Science, considers how this may confound the law of physics.'

Isaiah 55 - 'For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways!

Science says, 'we could be wrong about light, we don't know everything, but it could also be an intelligent design plot! You never know, you know.'

Check_that_out,

The beauty of science is that it is open to question and evidence. When evidence is produced which can update a scientific view it is debated and accepted (or not). Can religion say the same?

Indeed Dave, science always produces statements that are provisional and subject to review in the light of new observations and insights. It's the polar opposite of how Chech_that_out misunderstands it.

Dave (@ 39) -

The beauty of science is that it is open to question and evidence. When evidence is produced which can update a scientific view it is debated and accepted (or not). Can religion say the same?

It depends what you mean by "science" and what you mean by "religion". And indeed what you mean by "evidence".

If "science" is defined in terms of philosophical materialism, then of course it is not open to question, since that fundamental presupposition can never be challenged. Evidence has to be made to fit that particular philosophical paradigm. It's a circular argument.

If "religion" is dogmatic, then so is "anti-religion" (atheism is really just "inverted religion"). Given the fact that Christians engage in continual debate about all sorts of subjects - even on this blog - I find it rather strange that you think that so-called "religious" people are not prepared to question their beliefs and claims. Or is it more a case of: "they are not open to question and evidence, because they draw conclusions that are not to my liking"?

Science is subordinate to philosophy, since we need to define what we mean by "knowledge" and how we justify acquiring it, before any attempt can be made to interpret an empirical observation or experiment.

If people like Dawkins and Attenborough are to be believed, I really don't know how Michael Faraday or James Clerk Maxwell (both fervent believers in an intelligent creator) ever got into science, since their "superstition" obviously prevented them from having questioning minds!!

The whole point of intelligent design is that we believe that the universe is intelligible and ordered, and that we have been created with intelligent questioning minds in order to investigate it. The idea that "non-intelligence" is a necessary condition for scientific investigation is about as absurd as it is possible to get, and brainwashing children with such a nonsensical idea is hardly what I would call educational responsibility.

39 Dave
The point is that science is open to changing some things but not others, like the theory of evolution. Science burns heretics, like intelligent designers, at the stake, or at least removes them from Faculty membership. Science is not really as open as you imply.

LSV,

That would depend on what you mean by "philosophical" and "materialism". And indeed what you mean by "presupposition".

If you are not sure what science, religion and evidence are why don't you go ahead and define them in terms that fit your argument.... oh I see that's what you did.

You could also make some assertions like "science is subordinate to philosophy" and then some belief stuff would really seal the deal "we believe..." so it must be true sort of thing...... oh I see you did that too.

Well there you go - case made - time for dinner.

Just one small problem - why can't you get your ID stuff accepted by the mainstream scientific community? is it that they is scientific?

40 Peter Klavar

Had to laugh, from someone who along with Brian McClinton, insisted I was O/T replicating you certainly have in the past demonstrated a great deal of evidence analysis and scientific deduction, was it a good example of scientific enquiry?

One important feature of science is not how it works but how it is reported. This is the real question in the debate. I challenge you to read the BBC News webpage over a period of time and to select the Science and technology links.

Read the article headlines before clicking the article links and then see how often the headline matches what is actually said by the scientists themselves. I would be interested to know what you thought.

Dave (@ 43) -

Dave on the question of tolerance and freedom of conscience:

Here: "In reality we are exercising our human rights both it terms of our sexuality and in terms of our freedom of conscience and religion (which protects us from the imposition of unwanted religious influences)."

Here: "I believe in individual freedom, responsibility and accountability to society not in subservience to someone else's beliefs."

There are many more such quotes.

So apparently it's OK for atheists to impose their philosophy on vulnerable children (nothing to do with proven facts), and disallow them from thinking for themselves (in the name of what they decide is "real science"), but that won't stop them hypocritically ranting and raving about nasty Christians always wanting to impose their views on others!

If you are not up to having a proper debate, Dave, then just say. Your emotional dismissal of my previous post (without providing any argument or evidence) does you no credit at all.

Just one small problem - why can't you get your ID stuff accepted by the mainstream scientific community? is it that they is scientific?

A desperate attempt at special pleading: Hey, let's disallow anyone who questions abiogenesis and common descent from being part of the "mainstream" scientific community, and so we can then say to them: "Your views are not scientific because they are not accepted by the mainstream scientific community"!!

Good try, Dave. You are always going on about how the "religious" are out to oppress certain people (and, as it happens, I have a lot of sympathy for your concern), but you seem totally blind to how atheists oppress those who disagree with them.

I think you need to start practising what you preach, mate.

The beauty of science is that it is open to question and evidence. When evidence is produced which can update a scientific view it is debated and accepted (or not). Can religion say the same?

Indeed Dave.

That is why we know the periodic table consists of more than 3 elements, why the continents move, why the universe is expanding, and why hereditary diseases are not caused by sin:

John 9:2

And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

Peter (@ 46) -

Re: John 9:2 -

It's nice to know that Jesus agrees with you.

You'll discover that if you bother to read the context of the verse you quoted.

By the way... I'd be fascinated to know how atheism is a necessary condition for having a proper knowledge of the periodic table, plate tectonics and cosmology.

I can't quite see the connection myself.

You'll discover that if you bother to read the context of the verse you quoted.

Pity he didn't explain genetics to the disciples.

By the way... I'd be fascinated to know how atheism is a necessary condition for having a proper knowledge of the periodic table, plate tectonics and cosmology.

I didn't say that. Neither did Dave.

Science dakes no position on the supernatural.

P.S. I simply used John 9:2 as an example of scientific progress.

Check_that_out,

Your post to me certainly has something much in common with the ones made under identity Orthodox-Tradition, in that it does not present specifics but rather calls on others do go and do a load of work. It doesn't work that way. If you want to make claims fine, but do your own homework.

and disallow them from thinking for themselves

Perhaps children should be allowed to think that 2+2=5 ?

Peter, no.48;

"Pity [H]e didn't explain genetics to the disciples."

...but it's only fair to point out that "the father of modern genetics" was an Augustinian friar, Gregor Mendel.

"Science takes no position on the supernatural."

No, but you'll appreciate that a great many scientists give the impression of WISHING to take a position on the supernatural - ie, they would like to see any such notions consigned to history classes. I'm not a scientist, but i believe the world of birds might provide a suitable analogy for the way in which atheism now tries to claim science for itself. Here is a passage from the 1911 edition of the Encyclopaedia Brittanica;

"...a diligent search for and peering into the nests of several of the commonest little birds [...] will be rewarded by the discovery of the egg of the mysterious stranger which has been surreptitiously introduced, and those who wait till this egg is hatched may be witnesses (as was Edward Jenner in the 18th century) of the murderous eviction of the rightful tenants of the nest by the intruder, who, hoisting them one after another on his broad back, heaves them over to die neglected by their own parents, of whose solicitous care he thus becomes the only object. In this manner he thrives, and, so long as he remains in the country of his birth, his wants are anxiously supplied by the victims of his mother's dupery. The actions of his foster parents become, when he is full grown, almost ludicrous, for they often have to perch between his shoulders to place in his gaping mouth the delicate morsels he is too indolent or too stupid to take from their bills."

I'm not a scientist, but i believe the world of birds might provide a suitable analogy for the way in which atheism now tries to claim science for itself.

I've spent a considerable number of years learning science Theophane, and I've yet to hear Atheism being preached in any science class, whether it be learning geology under Herbie Black at school, studying at Belfast Technical College (now Belfast Metropolitan college), the Ulster Polytechnic (now the Ulster University), or the Open University.

Where do people get such silly ideas ?

Science simply takes no position on the supernatural.

That some prominent scientists are Atheists is neither here nor there.

When LSV brings up cdesignproponentsists I claim the right to summon up the ghost of Richard Forrest.

Here's a fantastic affirmation of intelligent design.

A few million virtual monkeys are close to re-creating the complete works of Shakespeare by randomly mashing keys on virtual typewriters.

Each sequence is nine characters long and each is checked to see if that string of characters appears anywhere in the works of Shakespeare. If not, it is discarded. If it does match then progress has been made towards re-creating the works of the Bard.

Well I never!

And what, may I ask, is the mechanism that decides which strings to discard and which to retain? Ah yes. Intelligence. We already have the end result and this is used to sieve the random process. In other words, the ordered information of the finished work (thanks to the intelligence of the venerable bard contained within his revered verbiage) acts, along with the intelligently prepared programme, as a mechanism to impose order on the random process. This is about as far away from evolution as it's possible to get, as that process does not have any kind of finished template to work with or intelligent programming to guide it.

And to think that some "scientists" can't bear the thought that children should be allowed to think the terribly controversial thoughts that I have expressed in this post! A tragedy from which our children must be protected at all costs.

And to think that some "scientists" can't bear the thought that children should be allowed to think the terribly controversial thoughts that I have expressed in this post! A tragedy from which our children must be protected at all costs

Children also believe in Santa and the tooth fairy LSV

Peter (@ 56) -

Children also believe in Santa and the tooth fairy LSV

And your point is?

And your point is?

That children are highly impressionable. That is why Answers in Genesis and CMI target them so much. That's why Philip Bell was so keen to gain access to a school lesson in Exeter (the event that sparked all of this), albeit an RE one.

Telling young children that dinos roamed around the Garden of Eden alongside Adam and Eve and that they were on board Noah's ark is nothing short of brainwashing.

It's got nothing whatsoever to so with critical thinking, children thinking for themselves, or Atheists trying to stop Christians from expressing their faith in public life.

It has everything to do with young Earth creationists trying to influence young minds with pure unadulterated nonsense, none of which is found anywhere in the bible, and which was dismissed by scientists several centuries ago.

From CMI's statement of faith:

6.By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information

Peter (@ 58) -

It has everything to do with young Earth creationists trying to influence young minds with pure unadulterated nonsense, none of which is found anywhere in the bible, and which was dismissed by scientists several centuries ago.

But it's OK to influence impressionable young minds with the idea that their many times great granddaddies were fish? As far as I am concerned, this idea makes even the most extreme forms of creationism look overwhelmingly sensible.

Also... why are you using a certain type of extreme creationist to make your point? That's known as attacking a soft target. I am talking about the distinction between intelligence and non-intelligence as the "creator" of life. It's not just biblical creationism which the likes of Dawkins are trying to ban, but even the basic notion of intelligent design (the alternative to which is, of course, atheism).

But it's OK to influence impressionable young minds with the idea that their many times great granddaddies were fish?
Well, that's what the evidence shows. If you have a better, testable explanation for the evidence feel free to offer it. "GodIMeanAnIntelligentDesigner did it" is not a testable explanation because it sets no constraints on possible outcomes.
When it comes to teaching biology in schools, don't you think that we should teach what is accepted by virtually every biologist as the underlying theory which makes sense of and gives structure to their science?
It's worth pointing out that taxonomically speaking, we are fish. Highly derived fish perhaps, but there are many aspects of our anatomy which are best explained by our common ancestry with bony fish. There's a good book by Neil Shubin, "Your Inner Fish" which goes into this evidence in detail. Why not read it, and if you can find some alternative, testable explanation for the evidence feel free to offer it.

I am talking about the distinction between intelligence and non-intelligence as the "creator" of life. It's not just biblical creationism which the likes of Dawkins are trying to ban, but even the basic notion of intelligent design (the alternative to which is, of course, atheism).

What utter nonsense! In this particular case, the 30 or so scientists involved are demanding (and rightly so) that ID and other forms of creationism are not taught as science in science classes for the simple reason that they are not science. This is not an atheist agenda - some of the signatories are themselves religious believers. I suggest that the fact that creationists promote their cause with distortion, misrepresentation and outright falsehoods means that Christians, as well as those of other religions should also oppose this. Many Christians do. After all, a rejection of blatant and systematic dishonesty is rather fundamental to most religions.

Or do you share the view which appears to be common in creationist circles that dishonesty is acceptable provided it come from their own?

Nice of you to drop in Richard.

Richard Forrest (@ 60) -

It's worth pointing out that taxonomically speaking, we are fish. Highly derived fish perhaps, but there are many aspects of our anatomy which are best explained by our common ancestry with bony fish.

"Best explained" is a highly loaded phrase, of course. Similarity of function does not prove origin. Where is the proper scientific evidence (i.e. without philosophical influence) - strictly in accordance with the scientific method (therefore involving observation) - that humans have a common ancestry with fish? Or is this just convenient supposition?

What utter nonsense! In this particular case, the 30 or so scientists involved are demanding (and rightly so) that ID and other forms of creationism are not taught as science in science classes for the simple reason that they are not science.

Then neither is the non-intelligence theory "science" either, because it is based on philosophical and not merely methodological materialism. The idea that life self-assembled without the need for intelligent input, is a philosophical idea being read into empirical data. It is not something that can be derived from the mere observation of nature.

I don't care whether certain "Christians" have spoken out against ID. The idea that there is no "intelligent creator" is a denial of God (because "God", certainly within Christian teaching, is most certainly the creator), and therefore it is atheism. If ID is not science, neither is any theory or idea which implies an atheistic position.

Children should have the right to consider that the highly complex systems of life are the result of design. The imposition of the idea that complexity in nature should never be seen as the result of intelligent design is, in my view, nothing other than child abuse. Because to abuse a child's mind is to abuse a child.

As for your "dishonesty" comment: if certain people who advocate ID have been dishonest, that says nothing about ID at all. That is rather obvious. I could say the same thing to you: aren't you ashamed to be an evolutionist given the dishonesty of the Piltdown fraud?

50 PeterKlavar

I was trying to make the point that popular presentation of science seems to dominate the media. How often are speculative claims presented as facts in Astronomy - the various findings of life on Mars, Archaeology - James Ossuary, Jesus Tomb, Anthropology – a couple of bones tell us everything, out of Africa, out of Asia, Physics – speed of light, no don't start me.

Scientists do sterling work but too often their reports are sexed up by a hungry media eager for a good angle to sell newspapers or to attract web link hits. This type of science publicity has an unwelcome outcome in that it reinforces the certainty of science and plays down the actual uncertainty of science. At other times a story may only be placed by a scientific body to gain public acceptance for funding reasons.

Christians complain of the conditioning of children, and adults by some in the scientific community in order to gain acceptance of a particular world view. Need I mention evolution vs. intelligent design, Climategate, Himalayan glaciers thawing and so on?

In a past life I was an Engineer so I depended on Science, but I also recognised its limitations. Regards the intelligent design debate, if we cannot teach children about the possible evidence for intelligent design, then we cannot then teach them that the universe came from nothing.

Anyway, who says that our modern view of science is the best one? Perhaps it is time to re-introduce Metaphysics into the class room. GODISNOWHERE – When you see the two things that those letters say, then you will truly understand the issues involved.

@63
"Possible evidence for intelligent design"
Lets hear it then.
PS GODOFTHEGAPS FTFY

Check_that_out,

Your post 38 showed an ignorance of how science works. Pointing to oversimplified represenatations of complex scientific issues in the media does little to change that. At best, I could say 'Stop being one of those ignoramuses who paint an oversimplified, wrong picture of how things are'. You claim an engineering background. If you learned anything from that, than coming up with a post like #38 is worse than just ignorance.

paul james, post 64,

You can't ask people like LSV or CTO for evidence. They can't produce any explanation as to how intelligence supposedly created life, no mechanism, no testable hypothesis, no non-trivial predictions made among their claim. LSV just says that he can *infer* that complexity shows it was designed.

And then in another post, LSV goes on to dismiss any inconvenient scientific ideas that don't derive from direct sensory perception, on the basis that they rely on inference.

It's the creationist argument from double standards. So no asking for evidence or explanations please, just blindly accept goddunnit. That's their idea. And cry 'Persecution!' when that argument fails and the unscientific ID creationism is rejected from science classrooms. Think of the children (post 62 on science education being no less than child abuse)!

paul james (@ 64) -

"Possible evidence for intelligent design"
Lets hear it then.
PS GODOFTHEGAPS FTFY

Allow me to oblige.

Where shall we start? Ah yes. Complexity. The complex systems of life that rely on algorithmically incompressible information that cannot derive from the algorithmically compressible information of natural laws.

But of course, if there are aspects of nature that we cannot understand, we can always rely on "evolution of the gaps" (or "naturalism of the gaps") to help us out: "we have faith that one day there will be a naturalistic explanation..."

PK (@ 66) -

Think of the children (post 62 on science education being no less than child abuse)!

Sheesh... Talk about viciously twisting someone's words! And to think that you have often accused me of dishonesty!!!

Please show me where I said that "science education" is child abuse.

(I think you will find that I was talking about the insistence that "science" should be taught according to a certain philosophy, which limits proper intellectual enquiry. It's the imposition of that philosophy which is the abuse, not science).

Good try, though. Pity that I could see through your attempt to pass off atheism as "science".

65 Peter Klaver

Pity about the insult in your post, but it is not unexpected.

Should scientists not review any evidence for intelligent design if there appears to a case to do so, given no other logical explanation, or should they avoid any conclusions of intelligent design regardless of any evidence or possibility to the contrary.

"They can't produce any explanation as to how intelligence supposedly created life, no mechanism, no testable hypothesis, no non-trivial predictions made among their claim."

Given what I have stated we do not have to say how intelligence created life, any more than you have to be able to explain what came or existed before the creation or appearance of life e.g. the big bang. Both are possibilities but we cannot test these empirically. However we also cannot exclude their possibility of just because we don't like the conclusions that they might lead to; or because our definition of science, and the empirical constructs we erect to protect it won't allow us to do so.

Scientists 'infer' and deduce all the time, they speculate, they propose and test; but some will restrict their investigations based on their constrained world view, without truly open inquiry. We should take a leaf out of Mr Mac Taylor (CSI Miami) and follow the evidence, where ever it leads.

To ignore or discount valid possibilities is to apply bad science and is a travesty of the scientific method. Our children and young people should be able to understand that point of view.

CTO (@ 68) -

Scientists 'infer' and deduce all the time...

Thanks for your post, and good luck with trying to get the above idea through to some people. I've tried, I really have. I hope you have more success.

Apparently it's OK to "infer" dark matter and the elusive "Oort Cloud", but to infer an intelligent creator? Nah. We can't have that now, can we?

And then they have the nerve to accuse people like us of dishonesty!

Couldn't make it up...

Given what I have stated we do not have to say how intelligence created life, any more than you have to be able to explain what came or existed before the creation or appearance of life e.g. the big bang.

Again, CTO, this is irrefutable logic. But "the guardians of reason" will find some way to wriggle out of it. Just you wait and see. Just sit comfortably and wait for the acrobatics display!

But it's OK to influence impressionable young minds with the idea that their many times great granddaddies were fish? As far as I am concerned, this idea makes even the most extreme forms of creationism look overwhelmingly sensible.

All vertebrates share the same basic body plan, including fish and humans. This tells us that fish and humans have the same common ancestor.

Or perhaps you have a different explanation ?

Also... why are you using a certain type of extreme creationist to make your point? That's known as attacking a soft target. I am talking about the distinction between intelligence and non-intelligence as the "creator" of life. It's not just biblical creationism which the likes of Dawkins are trying to ban, but even the basic notion of intelligent design (the alternative to which is, of course, atheism).

CMI and AiG are not "extreme" creationists, but the norm LSV. CMI are having a speaking tour by Dominic Statham in the province next wee, which includes a number of talks in Presbyterian Church In Ireland Denominations. .There's also a one confrerence in Ballymena.

The statement I quoted is under the heading "what we believe" on their website, if you'ld care to have a look.


Do you not think the outcome of the Dover trial demonstrated that intelligent design creationism was nothing more than a religious position and not a scientific one ?

Here is an irrefutable fact.

'Atheism' is not science, any more than is astrology, 'flat earth theory' or 'baby-delivering stork' theory.

(with acknowledgements to flibbly, no.1, and LSV, no.67)

Apparently it's OK to "infer" dark matter and the elusive "Oort Cloud", but to infer an intelligent creator?

The effects of dark matter can be directly observed and thus inferred.

The Oort clouad has been directly observed around oround other stars. We have also detected astronomical object as far out as the Oort cloud.

Thus far several hundred Kuiper belt object (the source for short period comets.)

On the other hand, no scientist has ever directly "observed" an atom or any of it's components. The position of the electron can't even be determined directly and all we have are probabilities.

No scientist has ever "observed a thermometer reading absolute zero yet, it can be correctly inferred and deduced.

I assume you have no problem with scientists deducing and inferring any of these concepts ?

Nah. We can't have that now, can we?

and just how would you test for an intelligent designer ? Remember, it might not be God.

Be careful what you wish for.

72 'The effects of dark matter can be directly observed and thus inferred.'

Sorry Peter, but have you read the online account about Dr Robert Massey of the Royal Astronomical Society, where has recently published findings that suggest that dark matter may not exist. He is quoted as saying:

“This would challenge greatly our assumptions about the long term future of the universe, because the assumption at the moment is that the universe is expanding and if it isn’t that would be a huge shock.

Perhaps he and NASA are a closet creationists, or just simply off message? Read it here.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7827674/Dark-energy-may-not-exist-in-space-scientists-claim.html

C_T_O;

"Atheism is pseudo-scientific blind speculation."

Off message perhaps, but again, irrefutable fact.

“This would challenge greatly our assumptions about the long term future of the universe, because the assumption at the moment is that the universe is expanding and if it isn’t that would be a huge shock

The absence of dark matter doesn't mean the universe isn't still expanding. I means the universe exzpanding less than they thought it was. Read the article in full.



Neither will it confirm it's a mere 6,000 years old.

That much is certain

Things are terribly complex, hopefully irreducibly so, therefore god.
Creationism at its finest.

How many atheists does it take to change a lightbulb?

None. They don't want to see the light.

paul james (@ 76) -

Things are terribly complex, hopefully irreducibly so, therefore god.
Creationism at its finest.

Oh no no no no! You don't understand.

Things are terribly complex - far more complex than any systems human intelligence can devise, therefore mindlessness.

Atheism's finest hour.

Never in the history of ideas has so much logic-defying speculation been built on so little evidence with such unrestrained audacity.

Let's pray that the government require every publicly funded school to teach Evolution- to recognise our understanding of science is fluid, indeed evolutionary & not confined to or suspended in the aspic of a Biblical world view

Biological Evolution as a driving force is a slow process that can perhaps be better recognized- when we take onboard the timeframe of a human life- through the faster pace of Cultural Evolution

Peter (@ 72)

I assume you have no problem with scientists deducing and inferring any of these concepts?

Of course not! Who said that I did?

I am the one arguing for inference - I am not arguing against it. What I am saying is that scientists use inference all the time, as you have rightly pointed out.

So therefore what is the problem with using inference concerning an intelligent creator?

We may infer the existence of something from its effects. We see the effect of complexity and we infer a designer. To assume that there cannot be a designer, and therefore, come hell or high water, we need to construct a wacky theory to explain how the complex systems of life can just self-assemble, has nothing to do with science and everything to do with desperately trying to impose a particular ideology (closed system naturalism) on the empirical data.

...just how would you test for an intelligent designer?

Who said truth has to come exclusively by empirical testing? The scientific method is not the "be all and end all" of epistemology. How do you "test" whether logic is valid? How do you "test" whether empiricism itself is valid? How do you "test" whether the methodology of "testing" is valid?

It seems odd to limit the universe to what we can understand in our very limited ways.

75 Peter

Peter, your scientific assertion that ''The effects of dark matter can be directly observed and thus inferred” is what my comment was focusing on. An expanding Universe is not relevant to the discussion and is a diversion.

If you assert that dark matter might exist, as it can be inferred from the evidence of its effects, it seems to me you must also now to be open to believe that something else might explain the effects observed. In other words science, doesn't always know what it is talking about, and should not be too quick to discount other world views.

The existence of dark matter is speculation, but perhaps informed speculation. If you accept dark matter's existence, even though scientists are now no longer sure, you must also accept that the existence of dark matter is part of a belief system until proved otherwise. In the case of dark matter, the science seems to have been weakened. However, we are reminded that, as scientists don’t do speculation, and base their theories only on empirical evidence through the use of a rigorous scientific method wheeling out a statement such as ''The effects of dark matter can be directly observed and thus inferred” seems to me to be somewhat lacking in scientific rigour, and shows that scientists are just as capable of taking a religious (or belief) position as anyone else. No doubt they will put a gloss on it, or in your case, move the goal posts to placate their shortcomings.

We know from red-shift data the Universe is still expanding.

I thought this interview with Dr.Francis Collins was pretty interesting:

https://faculty.fmcc.suny.edu/mcdarby/tucker_carlson_.htm

''The effects of dark matter can be directly observed and thus inferred” seems to me to be somewhat lacking in scientific rigour, and shows that scientists are just as capable of taking a religious (or belief) position as anyone else. No doubt they will put a gloss on it, or in your case, move the goal posts to placate their shortcomings.

https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2008/08/28/dark-matter-illuminated/

Still no evidence for creationism? maybe you should subscribe to AIG.

The following are held by members of the Board of Answers in Genesis to be either consistent with Scripture or implied by Scripture.
Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation, spanning approximately 4,000 years from creation to Christ.
The days in Genesis do not correspond to geologic ages, but are six [6] consecutive twenty-four [24] hour days of creation.
The Noachian Flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.
The gap theory has no basis in Scripture.
The view, commonly used to evade the implications or the authority of biblical teaching, that knowledge and/or truth may be divided into secular and religious, is rejected.
By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

We know from red-shift data the Universe is still expanding.

Indeed Ryan, despite Halton Arp's unfounded objections.

Who said truth has to come exclusively by empirical testing? The scientific method is not the "be all and end all" of epistemology. How do you "test" whether logic is valid? How do you "test" whether empiricism itself is valid? How do you "test" whether the methodology of "testing" is valid?

If you cannot test for evidence for the intelligent designer then intelligent design creationism has no place in any science class.

The Dover trial demonstrated this.

"I believe in the middle is a wonderful harmony where you can both accept the tools of science. I mean, after all, we have laws and theories and ways of understanding things and if god is real, he must be the author of them so he shouldn't be threatened by them. Right? We have the tools of science to understand nature and the tools of faith to understand god and our relationship to him. Then you're in the best of all places." Dr. Francis Collins, Human Genome Project
(Spelling & Punctuation by PBS)

We see the effect of complexity and we infer a designer.

Thoroughly debunked at the dover trial by Kenneth R. Miller.

Peter (@ 89) -

If you cannot test for evidence for the intelligent designer then intelligent design creationism has no place in any science class.

And the same therefore is true of the non-intelligence theory. How do you test that living systems arose by the self-assembly method?

Please note that I am not talking about testing for whether it could have happened (although no evidence for that has ever been forthcoming), but whether it did actually happen. After all, we are talking about issues of truth here, aren't we?

If this cannot be tested, then the materialist theory has no place in the science class, according to your reasoning.

#91 -

We see the effect of complexity and we infer a designer.

Thoroughly debunked at the dover trial by Kenneth R. Miller.

That's strange. I thought science was about testing, not about establishing theories on the basis of verdicts of the legal system. So you trust in American justice do you? Poor you. Is that what "science" has descended to? I must say you seem to have backtracked pretty quickly from your "testing" idea!!

By the way... please explain how inferring design from complexity has been debunked. This time, instead of appealing to the American legal system, try and give a scientific - or better still an epistemologically sound - answer.

Paul james,

Post 67 makes it clear. You asked for the evidence for ID, and all LSV comes up with in response is jargon-peppered hollow claims. No detail, no explanation, no mechanism, no testable hypothesis, no understanding of anything. It's the same in his post 81 when he says

"We may infer the existence of something from its effects. We see the effect of complexity and we infer a designer."

Again, he's got nothing.

And thus ID should be thrown out of science class rooms, because it is so unscientific. But doing so would make it child abuse in LSVs view of things. I do find myself grinning at that as I read through this thread. Think of the children already! *snort*

That's strange. I thought science was about testing, not about establishing theories on the basis of verdicts of the legal system. So you trust in American justice do you? Poor you. Is that what "science" has descended to? I must say you seem to have backtracked pretty quickly from your "testing" idea!!

The outcome of the Dover trial demonstrated that ID was a religious belief, not a scientific one.

Read the transcripts LSV

Chech_that_out,

Post 68 does nothing to remove the impression you gave in post 38 of misunderstanding science. The creationism bits weren't part of that discussion at all.

By the way... please explain how inferring design from complexity has been debunked.

Read the transcripts of the Dover trial:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large.

90,mscracker, I like your quote. I can definitely relate to the first part of it- they're also sentiments echoed by many reputable scientists. As much as our understanding of science is an evolution based on the quality of tools we have at hand, the same can be said for faith- each evolution of faith based on the quality of tools available, each acting like a stepping stone to a higher understanding. That although our idea of faith & God stay with us, the way it's reached changes

@97. _Ryan_:
Thanks!
I don't really see why all the fuss if the difference between man & other creatures is an eternal soul, not matter.Materially speaking, we're pretty much the same as other critters.

paul james (@ 87) -

Still no evidence for creationism? maybe you should subscribe to AIG.

The following are held by members of the Board of Answers in Genesis to be either consistent with Scripture or implied by Scripture. etc etc...

Nothing quite like going for a soft target.

Truly inspiring and courageous. Well done.

“Does creationism or intelligent design theory have any place in the science classrooms of a publicly-funded school?”

No. But if it does, I want chromosomes and Adam’s rib to be explained on the same day. I find it fascinating that the sperm can bring either an X or a Y to the party. How did they get their grubby hands on an X? If you apply the Adam’s rib theory, then the female might have a chance at bringing a Y (but that wouldn’t explain man-nipples).


“Should discussion of those accounts of the world be restricted to religion classrooms as an acknowledgement of the fact that they are non-scientific explanations?”

Yes. But not “as an acknowledgement of fact that,” but because they are non-scientific explanations.


“restricted to religion classrooms”

Do they teach religion in public schools-? ID of differing models should be taught in religion, sociology, psychology, philosophy...classes. If it’s not religion class, then the religions need to be streamlined for time allotted. Essentially, religion comes from the parents or Sunday school or whoever else we run into in life. Not the public school. We’re not under Sharia law yet, are we?


From the petition:

So creative -- the graphics person used Christmas lights to illustrate DNA!

“An understanding of evolution is central to understanding all aspects of biology. The teaching of evolution should be included at both primary and secondary levels in the National Curriculum and in all schools.”

“It also needs to be made comprehensive so that it is clear that any portrayal of creationism and ‘intelligent design’ as science (whether it takes place in science lessons or not) is unacceptable.”

I’m not sure the petitioners truly want to succeed. The writers need to tread carefully, if they want to avoid discord and therefore really get it done. I wouldn’t waste too much time wringing my hands or signing the petition, if they don’t make edits such as: Remove everything in parentheses in the statement above, or clarify specific classes as I mentioned above. And precede every “evolution” with “theory of.”