Creationism should be taught in schools
In the beginning was the void. In the void God created heaven and earth, day and night, with the sun to rule the day and the moon to rule the night. Earth was divided into lands and seas. God filled the seas with whales and fish and the skies with birds. On the land He created grass and trees, animals of all sorts and finally, in His own image, humans.
In the beginning was the void. In a single, massive convulsion all of space and time came into being. Matter swirled, condensed and coalesced. Stars formed, ignited, grew, died and blew apart - spreading new, heavier elements across space to form planets, comets and meteors.
New molecules appeared, some of them simple and some of them stunningly complex. From those foundations, over billions of years, the processes of evolution brought about the living world - and us.
These are two wonderful, exciting and self-consistent accounts of the origins of the world - and yet in school science lessons, almost invariably, only one of the above theories is discussed.
Whether or not creationism should be taught is a source of huge controversy in the US and a growing debate in this country. It's a bad-tempered argument. "Creationism is just a myth," growl the evolutionists. "Evolution is just a theory," snort the creationists. Both sides are wrong, and the error of each stems from a misuse of the word "just".
Where did creationist accounts come from? Nowadays we know them as tales from books: from the Bible, from Norse mythology, from Ovid. They were not written as literary exercises, though, and they did not spring into being ready-made. They were developed over time as a result of observing the world, and as a result of honest, intelligent attempts to find coherent explanations for what was seen. They were, in short, not "just" myths - they were the scientific theories of their day.
We believe the sun is a huge ball of gas, glowing as a result of gravitationally induced nuclear fusion. But is that really preferable as a theory to Phaeton's golden chariot soaring across the sky?
Of course it's preferable. The idea of Phaeton's chariot is as unsatisfactory an explanation of the sun to people who could make pinhole cameras as Genesis is to people who can examine the origins of fossils.
The essence of science and the scientific method is falsifiability: all scientists, whatever their discipline, constantly try to prove themselves wrong, and no theory which is not falsifiable has any place in science. (This, by the way, is why creationists are wrong to dismiss evolution as "just" a theory. To be a scientific theory means to be rigorously tested and improved against evidence, and to survive attempts at disproof. There is no "just" about it.)
To let pupils understand this process we must take them through the life of a theory: from tentative conception, through evidence-based consolidation, development, modification, strain and, finally, abandonment. Pupils should then understand better how modern theories about the world have arisen and about how they in turn might
be - will be, in most cases - modified or discarded.
Creation theories are perfect examples of this. What evidence suggested that a six-day creation was a reasonable postulation? What differences in observations explain the difference between the Norse, Greek and Jewish theories of creation? And, crucially, what further evidence led to the scientific rejection of all these models? Why do intelligent, educated people no longer believe the world was created at 9am on October 3, 4004BC?
We should not teach creation stories in science simply to dismiss them as fanciful or wrong. That would be pointless and arrogant, and it would do a grave disservice to those who developed them. We should
teach them as honest but
misguided attempts by intelligent people to make sense of the
world around them, just as we attempt to make sense of the world around us.
By Dr Ian Johnston
Dr Ian Johnston is a staff tutor in technology with the Open University in Scotland.
Join the debate Herald Forums
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: Neil on 12:28am Thu 21 Jun 07
Like Adam & Eve at the Fall of man, when confronted with God and His Word Dr Johnston (in his article) gives the usual Evolutionist gorilla (guerrilla?) response when threatened - huff, puff, and bluff and dash off to hide in the bushes!
With all due respect I suggest Dr Johnston re-read the opening verses of the Christian Bible, for it actually says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Gen. 1:1) Therefore there was no "void" before the beginning, as erroneously reported by Dr Johnston. Please stick to the facts! We all like to dal in facts! And please note that the eternal God - who always was, always is, and always will be - reveals in His infallible Word (including the aforementioned Genesis 1 account) that He created all space, all time, and all matter, ie, God created time the moment He created space into which He placed His created matter - which space and matter He formed into the heavens and the earth over a period of six days.
In a nutshell, the real argument is not "science" versus "religion" or "science" versus "Christianity". IMPORTANT: It is here that Dr Johnston and his ilk are confusing the "Theory of Evolution" with "Science." The true argument is the Theory of Evolution versus the clear revelation of God's Word about creation and the creatures therein.
Yes, the Evolutionist has a theory about creation and the creatures therein. Yes, the Evolutionist believes he can demonstrate the reality of his theory by talking about fossils and geology etc. So far all very good. However, Christians (all the way through history) have always said the same thing about their belief system. Whereas the former is a theory based upon a man-made philosophy - a philosophy which denies the clear Biblical revelation, the latter is a belief system based upon clear Biblical revelation. Both are belief systems. Both believe that science (ie, true science, and not the Evolutionism that has superimposed itself on science!) verify their belief system.
Having cleared the air (some hope!!!), let's all now have some real open and honest dialogue, rather than the usual caricatures such as those wheeled out by Dr Johnston in his article! Let's therefore start at the beginning, ie, very beginning, just as the Bible does - "In the beginning GOD..."
Like Adam & Eve at the Fall of man, when confronted with God and His Word Dr Johnston (in his article) gives the usual Evolutionist gorilla (guerrilla?) response when threatened - huff, puff, and bluff and dash off to hide in the bushes!
With all due respect I suggest Dr Johnston re-read the opening verses of the Christian Bible, for it actually says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Gen. 1:1) Therefore there was no "void" before the beginning, as erroneously reported by Dr Johnston. Please stick to the facts! We all like to dal in facts! And please note that the eternal God - who always was, always is, and always will be - reveals in His infallible Word (including the aforementioned Genesis 1 account) that He created all space, all time, and all matter, ie, God created time the moment He created space into which He placed His created matter - which space and matter He formed into the heavens and the earth over a period of six days.
In a nutshell, the real argument is not "science" versus "religion" or "science" versus "Christianity". IMPORTANT: It is here that Dr Johnston and his ilk are confusing the "Theory of Evolution" with "Science." The true argument is the Theory of Evolution versus the clear revelation of God's Word about creation and the creatures therein.
Yes, the Evolutionist has a theory about creation and the creatures therein. Yes, the Evolutionist believes he can demonstrate the reality of his theory by talking about fossils and geology etc. So far all very good. However, Christians (all the way through history) have always said the same thing about their belief system. Whereas the former is a theory based upon a man-made philosophy - a philosophy which denies the clear Biblical revelation, the latter is a belief system based upon clear Biblical revelation. Both are belief systems. Both believe that science (ie, true science, and not the Evolutionism that has superimposed itself on science!) verify their belief system.
Having cleared the air (some hope!!!), let's all now have some real open and honest dialogue, rather than the usual caricatures such as those wheeled out by Dr Johnston in his article! Let's therefore start at the beginning, ie, very beginning, just as the Bible does - "In the beginning GOD..."
Posted by: Ron, Just down the road on 1:14am Thu 21 Jun 07
Neil on 12:28am
"...God...reveals in His infallible Word (including the aforementioned Genesis 1 account)"
Have you any idea of what you are talking about? This "infallible word" is a translation of a translation of a translation of the written version of a vastly simplified version of the Summarian "creation myths" passed down by word of mouth, then in writing, and again by word of mouth through the Babylonians, and so through the nomadic tribesmen who became the People of Israel. This story was carried by word of mouth for several thousand years before being written down - by which time almost everyone, and possible everyone had forgotten what it was actually about. Unfortunately, but hardly surprisingly, most people today equally know little or nothing of what it is actually about.
These stories, which can be found all across the world, and which take many shapes and forms, were indeed attempts to explain what had happened to the earth at the time of "Phaeton" but have become so distorted through the passage of time that they are almost unrecognisable. To tease out the story of that forgotten time in the history of the world these tales need to be approached with an open mind and a real understanding of what they are - and what they are NOT! The evidence is available, scattered throughout the sciences, and is only now in the last few years gradually being put together by many researchers approaching the subject from a variety of different angles.
New research information is coming to light all the time, and the lesson from that is that it is just as foolish to dismiss "Phaeton" as it is to believe that one very simplified version of one of the hundreds of surviving descriptions of what happened in the world at that time is the "infallible Word" of God.
Neil on 12:28am
"...God...reveals in His infallible Word (including the aforementioned Genesis 1 account)"
Have you any idea of what you are talking about? This "infallible word" is a translation of a translation of a translation of the written version of a vastly simplified version of the Summarian "creation myths" passed down by word of mouth, then in writing, and again by word of mouth through the Babylonians, and so through the nomadic tribesmen who became the People of Israel. This story was carried by word of mouth for several thousand years before being written down - by which time almost everyone, and possible everyone had forgotten what it was actually about. Unfortunately, but hardly surprisingly, most people today equally know little or nothing of what it is actually about.
These stories, which can be found all across the world, and which take many shapes and forms, were indeed attempts to explain what had happened to the earth at the time of "Phaeton" but have become so distorted through the passage of time that they are almost unrecognisable. To tease out the story of that forgotten time in the history of the world these tales need to be approached with an open mind and a real understanding of what they are - and what they are NOT! The evidence is available, scattered throughout the sciences, and is only now in the last few years gradually being put together by many researchers approaching the subject from a variety of different angles.
New research information is coming to light all the time, and the lesson from that is that it is just as foolish to dismiss "Phaeton" as it is to believe that one very simplified version of one of the hundreds of surviving descriptions of what happened in the world at that time is the "infallible Word" of God.
Posted by: Ronald L. Cote on 1:19am Thu 21 Jun 07
You are right on, Neil, and it is good to read intelligent responses from Christians. I would add that if evolution was true, the process has had billions of years upon which to produce solid irrefutable evidence and the evidence should be so overwhelming that anyone whose belief included a God as Creator would need to be insane. The so called "fossil record" would be just that, a record of plants and animals in the various transitory stages leading to development into something else.
What should be more obvious should be actual, every day, observation of plants and animals in the process of transformation. Something today should be changing into something else and someone should be a witness. But despite the paucity of evidence, they cling tenaciously to the myth.
You are right on, Neil, and it is good to read intelligent responses from Christians. I would add that if evolution was true, the process has had billions of years upon which to produce solid irrefutable evidence and the evidence should be so overwhelming that anyone whose belief included a God as Creator would need to be insane. The so called "fossil record" would be just that, a record of plants and animals in the various transitory stages leading to development into something else.
What should be more obvious should be actual, every day, observation of plants and animals in the process of transformation. Something today should be changing into something else and someone should be a witness. But despite the paucity of evidence, they cling tenaciously to the myth.
Posted by: Ron, Just down the road on 1:37am Thu 21 Jun 07
# Neil, Ronald L
Would either of you care to give one piece of evidence which tells me that the bible is the "infallible Word of God" - and for the sake of argument....I do mean just ONE piece of evidence.
And that challenge is open to anybody else who cares to join in.
JUST ONE!
# Neil, Ronald L
Would either of you care to give one piece of evidence which tells me that the bible is the "infallible Word of God" - and for the sake of argument....I do mean just ONE piece of evidence.
And that challenge is open to anybody else who cares to join in.
JUST ONE!
Posted by: Neal on 1:38am Thu 21 Jun 07
In what way was his response intelligent? He shows a clear lack of understanding as to what science actually is and an even more limited understanding of where the biblical accounts of creation actually come from. If the theory of evolution is made by man then so also, by definition, is the biblical story of creation.
And as for your point Ronald it is laughable. The "fossil record" as you put it [bold]does[/bold] show the transitory stages of species development. The fact that we fail to see it in our daily lives is due only to the very limited time we have to observe it.
In what way was his response intelligent? He shows a clear lack of understanding as to what science actually is and an even more limited understanding of where the biblical accounts of creation actually come from. If the theory of evolution is made by man then so also, by definition, is the biblical story of creation.
And as for your point Ronald it is laughable. The "fossil record" as you put it
does show the transitory stages of species development. The fact that we fail to see it in our daily lives is due only to the very limited time we have to observe it.
Posted by: Neil on 3:22am Thu 21 Jun 07
We're not arguing about bones here! We are debating "belief systems", ie, Christian belief and Evolutionist belief. Both systems point to fossils, geology, physics, chemistry etc. etc. as evience for their worldview.Therefore let's cut right to the chase. One system believes God and in His revelation, while the other (because his theory in many instances contradicts that revelation) must of necessity deny God and HIs revelation. In other words, the Theory of Evolution does not fit with the revelation of God. Thus Evolutionists must either reject the God who gave the revelation or adjust (or reject) his theory accordingly.
Ron's interesting wee story about how the Bible came to be is simply the outward expession of an Evolutionist worldview. The trouble is, that it is not even close as to how the Bible came about! (Sorry Ron!)
The Christian has centuries of testimony on his side, while the Evolutionist is the new kid on the block with a new toy - (popular right up until its wheels fall off!) From Moses to the Apostle Paul to Augustine to Calvin to our own Knox to all the scientists who are Christians in the world today testify that the revelation of God is reliable. The Bible itself is self-authenticating. These are all proof that the Bible is infallible. As for me and my house we will follow the Lord and not the Theory of Evolution. Dear Evolutionists, be nice!
We're not arguing about bones here! We are debating "belief systems", ie, Christian belief and Evolutionist belief. Both systems point to fossils, geology, physics, chemistry etc. etc. as evience for their worldview.Therefore let's cut right to the chase. One system believes God and in His revelation, while the other (because his theory in many instances contradicts that revelation) must of necessity deny God and HIs revelation. In other words, the Theory of Evolution does not fit with the revelation of God. Thus Evolutionists must either reject the God who gave the revelation or adjust (or reject) his theory accordingly.
Ron's interesting wee story about how the Bible came to be is simply the outward expession of an Evolutionist worldview. The trouble is, that it is not even close as to how the Bible came about! (Sorry Ron!)
The Christian has centuries of testimony on his side, while the Evolutionist is the new kid on the block with a new toy - (popular right up until its wheels fall off!) From Moses to the Apostle Paul to Augustine to Calvin to our own Knox to all the scientists who are Christians in the world today testify that the revelation of God is reliable. The Bible itself is self-authenticating. These are all proof that the Bible is infallible. As for me and my house we will follow the Lord and not the Theory of Evolution. Dear Evolutionists, be nice!
Posted by: James Currie, Calgary, Alberta Canada on 3:57am Thu 21 Jun 07
My father was the Rev James Currie.
He thought that religious education should be an examinable subject in school. I entirely disagree!
I believe that if such utter nonsense as creation theory is taught in religious education or any other class, parents should have the right to withdraw their children.
I'm sorry Neil, I know that's not nice. I respect everyone's right to their beliefs, but please don't inflict them on me or my children.
My father was the Rev James Currie.
He thought that religious education should be an examinable subject in school. I entirely disagree!
I believe that if such utter nonsense as creation theory is taught in religious education or any other class, parents should have the right to withdraw their children.
I'm sorry Neil, I know that's not nice. I respect everyone's right to their beliefs, but please don't inflict them on me or my children.
Posted by: tom, europe on 6:07am Thu 21 Jun 07
"the revelation of God is reliable..." "The Bible is self-authenticating.
.."(?) The witch's house from Hansel and Gretel has been seen in the Black Forest by people of faith.
"the revelation of God is reliable..." "The Bible is self-authenticating.
.."(?) The witch's house from Hansel and Gretel has been seen in the Black Forest by people of faith.
Posted by: Iain Harvey, Berks on 7:46am Thu 21 Jun 07
What a load of ****.There should be no place in schools for the teaching of myths, and that includes religion, which is just another ideaology
What a load of ****.There should be no place in schools for the teaching of myths, and that includes religion, which is just another ideaology
Posted by: john macdonald, dubai, uae on 7:54am Thu 21 Jun 07
Neil exhorts us to 'stick to the facts'. He can help by clarifying which of the two contradictory Biblical accounts of creation we should stick to. Genesis l or Genesis ll?
The first story consists of God creating the Earth and sky out of the darkness and the void that existed before, through nothing more than His divine will. He starts by the creation of light and, six days later in His final act, He creates humans. "Man and woman He created together."
In the second story, the Earth already exists though devoid of all life save for God. His first act is to fashion a clay statue in His image. By breathing into it, He miraculously grants it life and consciousness and names this first man, Adam. God then creates all the plant and animal life takes one of Adam's ribs and creates from it a companion for Adam, a woman He names Eve.
Both stories have huge differences. In the first, man and woman are a final act of creation and it is specifically said they are created together. In the other, man comes first and then comes woman after everything else. They are definitely NOT created together.
Which 'facts' should we stick to?
Neil exhorts us to 'stick to the facts'. He can help by clarifying which of the two contradictory Biblical accounts of creation we should stick to. Genesis l or Genesis ll?
The first story consists of God creating the Earth and sky out of the darkness and the void that existed before, through nothing more than His divine will. He starts by the creation of light and, six days later in His final act, He creates humans. "Man and woman He created together."
In the second story, the Earth already exists though devoid of all life save for God. His first act is to fashion a clay statue in His image. By breathing into it, He miraculously grants it life and consciousness and names this first man, Adam. God then creates all the plant and animal life takes one of Adam's ribs and creates from it a companion for Adam, a woman He names Eve.
Both stories have huge differences. In the first, man and woman are a final act of creation and it is specifically said they are created together. In the other, man comes first and then comes woman after everything else. They are definitely NOT created together.
Which 'facts' should we stick to?
Posted by: Neil, Australia on 8:52am Thu 21 Jun 07
Dear John, do we both agree that Moses is not stupid? - that he didn't all-of-a-sudden forget in Genesis 2 what he had just written in Genesis 1? Yes? Also, we would both agree that there were no chapter divisions in the original manuscript? If we are in agreement, then simply read Genesis 1-3 as continuous flowing narrative. Genesis 1 deals with God creating creation (ie, "Big Picture"). Genesis 2 "zooms in" on God's creation of man in His own image. Then Genesis 3 zooms in on how man got himself into the miserable state we're still in today. The whole rest of the Bible records what God did to remedy our fallen condition.
In simple but very brief terms, the facts are these: the Bible records the Creation, the Fall, Redemption and final (future) Restoration of man to God through the work of Jesus Christ. Them's the facts of the Bible. Thank you John for engaging in sensible dialogue rather than huff, puff, and bluff! Much appreciated.
Dear John, do we both agree that Moses is not stupid? - that he didn't all-of-a-sudden forget in Genesis 2 what he had just written in Genesis 1? Yes? Also, we would both agree that there were no chapter divisions in the original manuscript? If we are in agreement, then simply read Genesis 1-3 as continuous flowing narrative. Genesis 1 deals with God creating creation (ie, "Big Picture"). Genesis 2 "zooms in" on God's creation of man in His own image. Then Genesis 3 zooms in on how man got himself into the miserable state we're still in today. The whole rest of the Bible records what God did to remedy our fallen condition.
In simple but very brief terms, the facts are these: the Bible records the Creation, the Fall, Redemption and final (future) Restoration of man to God through the work of Jesus Christ. Them's the facts of the Bible. Thank you John for engaging in sensible dialogue rather than huff, puff, and bluff! Much appreciated.
Posted by: Euan, Qatar on 8:58am Thu 21 Jun 07
Religous knowledge is belief plus faith.
Scientific knowledge is fact plus theory.
Thus two types of knowledge.
There are several major religions all proclaiming religous knowledge and all believing that their knowledge is not just the only knowledge and it is not to be tested by investigation or by theorising.
Science is a means of testing theories based on facts. There is a considerable diference between belief and fact.
Religous knowledge is belief plus faith.
Scientific knowledge is fact plus theory.
Thus two types of knowledge.
There are several major religions all proclaiming religous knowledge and all believing that their knowledge is not just the only knowledge and it is not to be tested by investigation or by theorising.
Science is a means of testing theories based on facts. There is a considerable diference between belief and fact.
Posted by: Robert McKinlay on 9:24am Thu 21 Jun 07
The theory of evolution makes no predictions regarding the origins of life, that is the province of the 'primordial soup' theory or the 'panspermia' hypothesis and others. Evolution is an attempt to understand how life, once started, can develop from simple bacteria into homo sapiens over time.
I understand Dr Johnston's position but fear he'll find the ID/Creationist lobby won't accept their position being taught as a 'bad example' in schools. Intelligent Design was developed by the Creationist lobby to avoid American Constitutional prohibitions on the teaching of Creationism but even ID has been ruled against in the American courts.
If I may quote from the Kitzmiller v Dover School court ruling from December 2005 on the subject:
[italic]"... many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.
To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions".
John E. Jones III
United States District Judge
(United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania,
Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ, Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School Board).[/italic]
The theory of evolution makes no predictions regarding the origins of life, that is the province of the 'primordial soup' theory or the 'panspermia' hypothesis and others. Evolution is an attempt to understand how life, once started, can develop from simple bacteria into homo sapiens over time.
I understand Dr Johnston's position but fear he'll find the ID/Creationist lobby won't accept their position being taught as a 'bad example' in schools. Intelligent Design was developed by the Creationist lobby to avoid American Constitutional prohibitions on the teaching of Creationism but even ID has been ruled against in the American courts.
If I may quote from the Kitzmiller v Dover School court ruling from December 2005 on the subject:
"... many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.
To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions".
John E. Jones III
United States District Judge
(United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania,
Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ, Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School Board).
Posted by: Fraser, Lanarkshire on 9:33am Thu 21 Jun 07
I fear the coming of a new dark age, where religion supercedes science and logic.
I fear the coming of a new dark age, where religion supercedes science and logic.
Posted by: rdt2 on 10:47am Thu 21 Jun 07
[quote][bold]Iain Harvey[/bold] wrote:
What a load of ****.There should be no place in schools for the teaching of myths, and that includes religion, which is just another ideaology[/quote] On the contrary, the belief systems of primitive people are perfectly valid subjects for children to be taught. As long as it's recognised that's what they are.
Iain Harvey wrote:
What a load of ****.There should be no place in schools for the teaching of myths, and that includes religion, which is just another ideaology
On the contrary, the belief systems of primitive people are perfectly valid subjects for children to be taught. As long as it's recognised that's what they are.
Posted by: Guy Wersh, Eccy Byde on 10:57am Thu 21 Jun 07
Dr Johnston needs to avail himself of the meaning of the word "theory" in the scientific sense not the 'popular' usage.
Dr Johnston needs to avail himself of the meaning of the word "theory" in the scientific sense not the 'popular' usage.
Posted by: frewgosh, Perth on 11:02am Thu 21 Jun 07
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours" - Stephen Roberts
Mines is bigger than yours! Naw it isnae.... I think I will give Dogma a miss if you will forgive me. When it comes from the mouth of science I have a healthy suspicion. When it comes out of the mouth of Theology I duck. It is funny how war makes for strange bedfellows. Probably the only context where science and religious dogma coexist seamlessly.
I just find it hard to believe that Genesis is being quoted as a serious proposition, to be included in educating our children. It has a place in church but not in school.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours" - Stephen Roberts
Mines is bigger than yours! Naw it isnae.... I think I will give Dogma a miss if you will forgive me. When it comes from the mouth of science I have a healthy suspicion. When it comes out of the mouth of Theology I duck. It is funny how war makes for strange bedfellows. Probably the only context where science and religious dogma coexist seamlessly.
I just find it hard to believe that Genesis is being quoted as a serious proposition, to be included in educating our children. It has a place in church but not in school.
Posted by: Gremill, Durham on 11:14am Thu 21 Jun 07
I always laugh when I see creationists founding their entire system of belief on the 'fact' that the Bible is not only the true word of god, but is verifiable as correct because it is the true word of god. Self-verification is anathema to any true scientific theory, which creationism is certainly not.
"The Bible is true because the Bible says it is!" Brilliant.
All of which is based on the existence of a supreme being that in itself cannot be proved.
I always laugh when I see creationists founding their entire system of belief on the 'fact' that the Bible is not only the true word of god, but is verifiable as correct because it is the true word of god. Self-verification is anathema to any true scientific theory, which creationism is certainly not.
"The Bible is true because the Bible says it is!" Brilliant.
All of which is based on the existence of a supreme being that in itself cannot be proved.
Posted by: Martin McDonald, Cumbernauld on 11:46am Thu 21 Jun 07
As a practicing Catholic I'm no fan of creationist theory. I'm not overly in favour of it being taught in schools in a scientific context (it's not science) but I wouldn't be opposed to it being taught alongside other topics, either in R.E or Classical Studies.
I do however have a problem with Darwinism being taught to children as fact as it is presently within the context of scientific learning. Evolution convinces me, but that doesn't mean it should be taught as proven fact when it's anything but.
No matter the spin, it is "just" a theory. Let's try to give our kids an honest, rounded education.
Kids in schools today are taught largely nothing in terms of theology or philosophy and most kids leave school unable to actually think for themselves.
I don't see why conflicting THEORIES such as Darwin, ID and Creationism can't be taught dispassionately to kids. Then we can ask them to think for themselves.
As a practicing Catholic I'm no fan of creationist theory. I'm not overly in favour of it being taught in schools in a scientific context (it's not science) but I wouldn't be opposed to it being taught alongside other topics, either in R.E or Classical Studies.
I do however have a problem with Darwinism being taught to children as fact as it is presently within the context of scientific learning. Evolution convinces me, but that doesn't mean it should be taught as proven fact when it's anything but.
No matter the spin, it is "just" a theory. Let's try to give our kids an honest, rounded education.
Kids in schools today are taught largely nothing in terms of theology or philosophy and most kids leave school unable to actually think for themselves.
I don't see why conflicting THEORIES such as Darwin, ID and Creationism can't be taught dispassionately to kids. Then we can ask them to think for themselves.
Posted by: Martin McDonald, Cumbernauld on 11:55am Thu 21 Jun 07
And "In the beginning was the void."
I think Dr Johnston might be confusing the bible with Tolkien's Ainulindalė.
And "In the beginning was the void."
I think Dr Johnston might be confusing the bible with Tolkien's Ainulindalė.
Posted by: Ron, Just down the road on 12:27pm Thu 21 Jun 07
# Neil on 3:22am today
I have heardsome pretty stupid things from fundamentalists in my time, but you are heading for top of the class.
You said : "Ron's interesting wee story about how the Bible came to be is simply the outward expession of an Evolutionist worldview. The trouble is, that it is not even close as to how the Bible came about! (Sorry Ron!)"
How, precisely, do you think the bible came into being - and I was speaking only of the Genisis story, by the way? do you think it fell out of the sky one day onto someone's lap, and they suddenly realised that this was the inspired word of God? Popped out of a burning bush, perhaps? Came to someone in a flash when they were dreaming about running up and down ladders? Left under a pillow by the tooth fairy, maybe?
Do you really imagine that their is ANYTHING original in the bible? There isn't. Every single story in the bible has its counterpart inthe ancient records of the Middle East, and many have their counterpart throughout the world in the ancient records from China to the Americas, and all points in between.
Even the religion which uses the bible has nothing original about it. Every aspect of what is now Christianity was taken from other religions of the Middle East in a massive cut and paste job, originally started be Paul, but continued by his successors. Present day Christianity and its whole belief system would be totally abhorrent to the original disciples if they were around to see it.
Now let me repeat that. EVERYTHING in Christianity has been plagiarised!
Youi said : "The Bible itself is self-authenticating. These are all proof that the Bible is infallible."
Have you any idea how stupid this sounds? If I were to write a book about life as it was on Mars three thousand years ago, and in that book one of my characters was made to say that the story being told was a revelation from God, and at the launching of that book I was to use the comment by this character to claim that my book was the "infallible Word of God", would you believe me?
Stupid question.....but that is what you are using as "proof" in asking others to believe that the "translation of a translation of a translation of the written version of a vastly simplified version of the Summarian "creation myths" passed down by word of mouth, then in writing, and again by word of mouth through the Babylonians, and so through the nomadic tribesmen who became the People of Israel", as I might already have mentioned, is the infallible Word....!!
If you are going to argue something it is usual to present facts. Not just to say, no, that isn't how it happened. Sorry. You haven't managed ONE fact, so my original challenge still stands.
Just ONE fact, please.
# Neil on 3:22am today
I have heardsome pretty stupid things from fundamentalists in my time, but you are heading for top of the class.
You said : "Ron's interesting wee story about how the Bible came to be is simply the outward expession of an Evolutionist worldview. The trouble is, that it is not even close as to how the Bible came about! (Sorry Ron!)"
How, precisely, do you think the bible came into being - and I was speaking only of the Genisis story, by the way? do you think it fell out of the sky one day onto someone's lap, and they suddenly realised that this was the inspired word of God? Popped out of a burning bush, perhaps? Came to someone in a flash when they were dreaming about running up and down ladders? Left under a pillow by the tooth fairy, maybe?
Do you really imagine that their is ANYTHING original in the bible? There isn't. Every single story in the bible has its counterpart inthe ancient records of the Middle East, and many have their counterpart throughout the world in the ancient records from China to the Americas, and all points in between.
Even the religion which uses the bible has nothing original about it. Every aspect of what is now Christianity was taken from other religions of the Middle East in a massive cut and paste job, originally started be Paul, but continued by his successors. Present day Christianity and its whole belief system would be totally abhorrent to the original disciples if they were around to see it.
Now let me repeat that. EVERYTHING in Christianity has been plagiarised!
Youi said : "The Bible itself is self-authenticating. These are all proof that the Bible is infallible."
Have you any idea how stupid this sounds? If I were to write a book about life as it was on Mars three thousand years ago, and in that book one of my characters was made to say that the story being told was a revelation from God, and at the launching of that book I was to use the comment by this character to claim that my book was the "infallible Word of God", would you believe me?
Stupid question.....but that is what you are using as "proof" in asking others to believe that the "translation of a translation of a translation of the written version of a vastly simplified version of the Summarian "creation myths" passed down by word of mouth, then in writing, and again by word of mouth through the Babylonians, and so through the nomadic tribesmen who became the People of Israel", as I might already have mentioned, is the infallible Word....!!
If you are going to argue something it is usual to present facts. Not just to say, no, that isn't how it happened. Sorry. You haven't managed ONE fact, so my original challenge still stands.
Just ONE fact, please.
Posted by: RETIRED....... but still switched on, Fed Up To The Teeth on 1:11pm Thu 21 Jun 07
[quote][bold]Neal[/bold] wrote:
In what way was his response intelligent? He shows a clear lack of understanding as to what science actually is and an even more limited understanding of where the biblical accounts of creation actually come from. If the theory of evolution is made by man then so also, by definition, is the biblical story of creation. And as for your point Ronald it is laughable. The \"fossil record\" as you put it [bold]does[/bold] show the transitory stages of species development. The fact that we fail to see it in our daily lives is due only to the very limited time we have to observe it.[/quote] NEAL
Good points Sir ..and very well made.
I've still to hear ANY kind of persuasive answer to the even more straightforward question of what happened to the souls of the millions...nay, billions of souls of those who died BEFORE the "coming of christ et al"..........are they also damned to hell, since, if they didn't KNOW about christ (a somewhat recent arrival on the scene a mere two millenia back) just what rules apply for the ascent into heaven etc.................
..similarly, what happens to aliens on other planets? ...do they have souls?.....will be sit on god's right hand also in heaven etc.....what about contemporary humans not exposed to the christian gospel? where do their souls go?. It seems to me that if these "current " issues can't be resolved we need not be over-concerned with medieval minds and belief systems just yet !!.
Science has no truc with "it's true because this book (selectively edited and produced by an absolute medieval monarch) says so !!"
Neal wrote:
In what way was his response intelligent? He shows a clear lack of understanding as to what science actually is and an even more limited understanding of where the biblical accounts of creation actually come from. If the theory of evolution is made by man then so also, by definition, is the biblical story of creation. And as for your point Ronald it is laughable. The \"fossil record\" as you put it does show the transitory stages of species development. The fact that we fail to see it in our daily lives is due only to the very limited time we have to observe it.
NEAL
Good points Sir ..and very well made.
I've still to hear ANY kind of persuasive answer to the even more straightforward question of what happened to the souls of the millions...nay, billions of souls of those who died BEFORE the "coming of christ et al"..........are they also damned to hell, since, if they didn't KNOW about christ (a somewhat recent arrival on the scene a mere two millenia back) just what rules apply for the ascent into heaven etc.................
..similarly, what happens to aliens on other planets? ...do they have souls?.....will be sit on god's right hand also in heaven etc.....what about contemporary humans not exposed to the christian gospel? where do their souls go?. It seems to me that if these "current " issues can't be resolved we need not be over-concerned with medieval minds and belief systems just yet !!.
Science has no truc with "it's true because this book (selectively edited and produced by an absolute medieval monarch) says so !!"
Posted by: zeno on 1:19pm Thu 21 Jun 07
I emailed the SQA, who were originally reported as considering introducing creationism/intellig
ent design into Scottish schools, and got this response this morning:
Thank you for your communication,
Science courses are currently under review, however SQA has absolutely no plans to introduce Intelligent Design into these courses.
Regards
SQA Customer Contact Centre
I should think so too.
I emailed the SQA, who were originally reported as considering introducing creationism/intellig
ent design into Scottish schools, and got this response this morning:
Thank you for your communication,
Science courses are currently under review, however SQA has absolutely no plans to introduce Intelligent Design into these courses.
Regards
SQA Customer Contact Centre
I should think so too.
Posted by: zeno on 1:21pm Thu 21 Jun 07
I emailed the SQA, who were originally reported as considering introducing creationism/intellig
ent design into Scottish schools, and got this response this morning:
Thank you for your communication,
Science courses are currently under review, however SQA has absolutely no plans to introduce Intelligent Design into these courses.
Regards
SQA Customer Contact Centre
I should think so too.
I emailed the SQA, who were originally reported as considering introducing creationism/intellig
ent design into Scottish schools, and got this response this morning:
Thank you for your communication,
Science courses are currently under review, however SQA has absolutely no plans to introduce Intelligent Design into these courses.
Regards
SQA Customer Contact Centre
I should think so too.
Posted by: Robert McKnlay on 1:45pm Thu 21 Jun 07
to Martin McDonald, Cumbernauld 11:46am -
[[quote]italic]"No matter the spin, it (evolution) is "just" a theory".[/italic][/quote]
Please, please try and understand the use of the word 'theory' in a scientific context. It has a vastly different meaning from it's usage in popular culture.
I take it you have no issue with the 'theory of gravity' as you wouldn't throw yourself off a building to try and prove your point - or have any issues with 'electromagnetic theory' by grasping a live cable and allowing 20,000 volts to do what can be 'theoretically' predicted?
These are both, by your account, also "just" theories. Evolutionary theory is as much a 'fact' as both examples given above.
to Martin McDonald, Cumbernauld 11:46am -
"No matter the spin, it (evolution) is "just" a theory".
Please, please try and understand the use of the word 'theory' in a scientific context. It has a vastly different meaning from it's usage in popular culture.
I take it you have no issue with the 'theory of gravity' as you wouldn't throw yourself off a building to try and prove your point - or have any issues with 'electromagnetic theory' by grasping a live cable and allowing 20,000 volts to do what can be 'theoretically' predicted?
These are both, by your account, also "just" theories. Evolutionary theory is as much a 'fact' as both examples given above.
Posted by: Ron, Just down the road on 1:45pm Thu 21 Jun 07
# Neil on 3:22am today
I have a few more minutes, so let me be more specific about the plagiarism in the bible.
Firstly from the Old Testament : You mentioned Moses. Moses was supposed to have been found in the bullrushes....you know the story. EXACTLY thesame story was told of Sargon II of Assyria, and others.
Secondly, and more importantly, from the New : I said that Paul plagiarised Middle Eastern religions when he constructed the basis of what is now Christianity. In doing this he was opposed by the original disciples in Jerusalem, but they lost out as histroy shows.
The key to his construct was to include something which was not in Judaism, but which was VERY important to a number of Middle Eastern religions of the time. That was the Dying and Rising God.
The best known of these today is Osiris of Egypt. Others are Attis, Adonis, Tammuz, Dionysos and Zoroaster. Many of these Gods were supposed to have been the offspring of a God and a virgin, by the way.
However, from Paul's point of view, by far the most important of them was Mithras. He was the God of choice of the Roman army - and if you were going to get anywhere in these days,you had to have some sort of support from Rome. Mithraism included him being born in a cave of a virgin where shepherds gave him gifts, and baptism played an important part in the religion as did the communal meal (the last supper). There is a passage in the Mithraic communion which reads "He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved". Other important aspects were the death of their God on a tree, his rising again in three days, and his second coming which included the resurrection of the faithful. That was the most important religion anong the Roman soldiers.
Is all this beginning to ring any bells? The point about these other religions is that the ALL predated Christianity, some by several hundred years.
Ignorance of these things is not a "sin", but in my estimation wilful ignorance is! All of this sort of information is readily available, but people like yourself chose to ignore it, and then try to persuade others that your brand of blindness is the " infallible Word of God".
I might have sounded angry in previous posts. That is because I am. Not with you, but with the demage which I have seen done by religious fundamentalist who believed as you do. Their blindness damaged many lives, and they were quite incapable of separating fact from fiction....so they were always right, weren't they. God said.......
# Neil on 3:22am today
I have a few more minutes, so let me be more specific about the plagiarism in the bible.
Firstly from the Old Testament : You mentioned Moses. Moses was supposed to have been found in the bullrushes....you know the story. EXACTLY thesame story was told of Sargon II of Assyria, and others.
Secondly, and more importantly, from the New : I said that Paul plagiarised Middle Eastern religions when he constructed the basis of what is now Christianity. In doing this he was opposed by the original disciples in Jerusalem, but they lost out as histroy shows.
The key to his construct was to include something which was not in Judaism, but which was VERY important to a number of Middle Eastern religions of the time. That was the Dying and Rising God.
The best known of these today is Osiris of Egypt. Others are Attis, Adonis, Tammuz, Dionysos and Zoroaster. Many of these Gods were supposed to have been the offspring of a God and a virgin, by the way.
However, from Paul's point of view, by far the most important of them was Mithras. He was the God of choice of the Roman army - and if you were going to get anywhere in these days,you had to have some sort of support from Rome. Mithraism included him being born in a cave of a virgin where shepherds gave him gifts, and baptism played an important part in the religion as did the communal meal (the last supper). There is a passage in the Mithraic communion which reads "He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved". Other important aspects were the death of their God on a tree, his rising again in three days, and his second coming which included the resurrection of the faithful. That was the most important religion anong the Roman soldiers.
Is all this beginning to ring any bells? The point about these other religions is that the ALL predated Christianity, some by several hundred years.
Ignorance of these things is not a "sin", but in my estimation wilful ignorance is! All of this sort of information is readily available, but people like yourself chose to ignore it, and then try to persuade others that your brand of blindness is the " infallible Word of God".
I might have sounded angry in previous posts. That is because I am. Not with you, but with the demage which I have seen done by religious fundamentalist who believed as you do. Their blindness damaged many lives, and they were quite incapable of separating fact from fiction....so they were always right, weren't they. God said.......
Posted by: Martin McDonald, Cumbernauld on 1:56pm Thu 21 Jun 07
[quote][bold]Robert McKnlay[/bold] wrote:
to Martin McDonald, Cumbernauld 11:46am - [[quote]italic]"No matter the spin, it (evolution) is "just" a theory".[/italic][/quote] Please, please try and understand the use of the word 'theory' in a scientific context. It has a vastly different meaning from it's usage in popular culture. I take it you have no issue with the 'theory of gravity' as you wouldn't throw yourself off a building to try and prove your point - or have any issues with 'electromagnetic theory' by grasping a live cable and allowing 20,000 volts to do what can be 'theoretically' predicted? These are both, by your account, also "just" theories. Evolutionary theory is as much a 'fact' as both examples given above.[/quote] I understand the meaning of the word "theory" both in it's general and scientific contexts.
Any scientist who has "no issue" with the theory of gravity or "electromagnetic theory" (eh?) is a poor one.
No matter the spin, evolution IS just a theory. Although it's a theory I support.
Nothing to say about the rest of what I said?
Robert McKnlay wrote:
to Martin McDonald, Cumbernauld 11:46am - "No matter the spin, it (evolution) is "just" a theory".
Please, please try and understand the use of the word 'theory' in a scientific context. It has a vastly different meaning from it's usage in popular culture. I take it you have no issue with the 'theory of gravity' as you wouldn't throw yourself off a building to try and prove your point - or have any issues with 'electromagnetic theory' by grasping a live cable and allowing 20,000 volts to do what can be 'theoretically' predicted? These are both, by your account, also "just" theories. Evolutionary theory is as much a 'fact' as both examples given above. I understand the meaning of the word "theory" both in it's general and scientific contexts.
Any scientist who has "no issue" with the theory of gravity or "electromagnetic theory" (eh?) is a poor one.
No matter the spin, evolution IS just a theory. Although it's a theory I support.
Nothing to say about the rest of what I said?
Posted by: Cicero, Rome on 2:36pm Thu 21 Jun 07
"They are eloquent who can speak things acutely, and of great things ([italic]creation[/italic] !) with dignity, and of moderate things with temper''
--- Roman orator, statesman, philosopher, and writer. (No wonder!)
"They are eloquent who can speak things acutely, and of great things (
creation !) with dignity, and of moderate things with temper''
--- Roman orator, statesman, philosopher, and writer. (No wonder!)
Posted by: Robert McKinlay on 2:56pm Thu 21 Jun 07
to Martin McDonald, Cumbernauld 1:56pm -
[quote]"No matter the spin, (evolution) IS "just" a theory. Although it's a theory I support".[/quote]
You say you understand the word's meaning within a scientific context but continue to use the phrase "just a theory". I repeat there is a difference in context.
Yes there are current debates of dispute in both gravitational theory and electromagnetic field theory (as published by James Clerk Maxwell in 1861), as there are disputes in virtually all fields of scientific enquiry. This is the strength of the scientific method.
As for the rest of what you said, I have no problem with theology not being taught in schools, that should be the Church's obligation. However, I do believe philosophy should be taught, preferably starting in Primary School.
You say you [italic]"have a problem with Darwinism being taught to children as fact"[/italic] - well, as I said earlier, evolutionary theory is as much a scientific 'fact' as the theories of gravity and electromagnetism, or would you rather those weren't taught either?
to Martin McDonald, Cumbernauld 1:56pm -
"No matter the spin, (evolution) IS "just" a theory. Although it's a theory I support".
You say you understand the word's meaning within a scientific context but continue to use the phrase "just a theory". I repeat there is a difference in context.
Yes there are current debates of dispute in both gravitational theory and electromagnetic field theory (as published by James Clerk Maxwell in 1861), as there are disputes in virtually all fields of scientific enquiry. This is the strength of the scientific method.
As for the rest of what you said, I have no problem with theology not being taught in schools, that should be the Church's obligation. However, I do believe philosophy should be taught, preferably starting in Primary School.
You say you
"have a problem with Darwinism being taught to children as fact" - well, as I said earlier, evolutionary theory is as much a scientific 'fact' as the theories of gravity and electromagnetism, or would you rather those weren't taught either?
Posted by: Martin McDonald, Cumbernauld on 3:47pm Thu 21 Jun 07
[quote][bold]Robert McKinlay[/bold] wrote:
to Martin McDonald, Cumbernauld 1:56pm - [quote]"No matter the spin, (evolution) IS "just" a theory. Although it's a theory I support".[/quote] You say you understand the word's meaning within a scientific context but continue to use the phrase "just a theory". I repeat there is a difference in context. Yes there are current debates of dispute in both gravitational theory and electromagnetic field theory (as published by James Clerk Maxwell in 1861), as there are disputes in virtually all fields of scientific enquiry. This is the strength of the scientific method. As for the rest of what you said, I have no problem with theology not being taught in schools, that should be the Church's obligation. However, I do believe philosophy should be taught, preferably starting in Primary School. You say you [italic]"have a problem with Darwinism being taught to children as fact"[/italic] - well, as I said earlier, evolutionary theory is as much a scientific 'fact' as the theories of gravity and electromagnetism, or would you rather those weren't taught either? [/quote] You can repeat it all you like. In either context, the truth is prevalent. Theory, by it's definition, is proposition.
Those who promote Darwinism as fact do a disservice to science and to mankind.
I don't think for a second that gravity or electromagnetism should be taught as fact either. They should always be taught from the viewpoint that they are our best guess at this stage. Certainty is a fool's domain and all it does is hold people back. Especially in science.
As for theology and philosophy, I think both should be taught in schools. Both deal very much with issues kids will have to deal with throughout their lives. Wth regard to theology, I think teaching children at a young age to apply rationale to religious teaching can only be a good thing.
Robert McKinlay wrote:
to Martin McDonald, Cumbernauld 1:56pm - "No matter the spin, (evolution) IS "just" a theory. Although it's a theory I support".
You say you understand the word's meaning within a scientific context but continue to use the phrase "just a theory". I repeat there is a difference in context. Yes there are current debates of dispute in both gravitational theory and electromagnetic field theory (as published by James Clerk Maxwell in 1861), as there are disputes in virtually all fields of scientific enquiry. This is the strength of the scientific method. As for the rest of what you said, I have no problem with theology not being taught in schools, that should be the Church's obligation. However, I do believe philosophy should be taught, preferably starting in Primary School. You say you "have a problem with Darwinism being taught to children as fact" - well, as I said earlier, evolutionary theory is as much a scientific 'fact' as the theories of gravity and electromagnetism, or would you rather those weren't taught either?
You can repeat it all you like. In either context, the truth is prevalent. Theory, by it's definition, is proposition.
Those who promote Darwinism as fact do a disservice to science and to mankind.
I don't think for a second that gravity or electromagnetism should be taught as fact either. They should always be taught from the viewpoint that they are our best guess at this stage. Certainty is a fool's domain and all it does is hold people back. Especially in science.
As for theology and philosophy, I think both should be taught in schools. Both deal very much with issues kids will have to deal with throughout their lives. Wth regard to theology, I think teaching children at a young age to apply rationale to religious teaching can only be a good thing.
Posted by: Robert McKinlay on 4:36pm Thu 21 Jun 07
to Martin McDonald, Cumbernauld on 3:47pm today
sorry mate, now you're arguing semantics and misreading or ignoring the context of my reply.
Scientific theories (like Maxwell's, Like Darwin's, like Einstein's)make predictions which can be observed, measured and analysed, they postulate testable and independently verifiable results.
Intelligent Design/Creationism can do none of this and therefore cannot be regarded as a theory.
It is an untestable, unverifiable hypothesis at best, superstitious myth at worst and should not be taught in any scientific curriculum anywhere.
I'm off for a beer and a read of the Silmarillion, at least Tolkein's creation myth had his Intelligent Designer creating the world through music, lovely concept - untestable and unverifiable but as credible as creationism
to Martin McDonald, Cumbernauld on 3:47pm today
sorry mate, now you're arguing semantics and misreading or ignoring the context of my reply.
Scientific theories (like Maxwell's, Like Darwin's, like Einstein's)make predictions which can be observed, measured and analysed, they postulate testable and independently verifiable results.
Intelligent Design/Creationism can do none of this and therefore cannot be regarded as a theory.
It is an untestable, unverifiable hypothesis at best, superstitious myth at worst and should not be taught in any scientific curriculum anywhere.
I'm off for a beer and a read of the Silmarillion, at least Tolkein's creation myth had his Intelligent Designer creating the world through music, lovely concept - untestable and unverifiable but as credible as creationism
Posted by: Jo, Glasgow on 4:40pm Thu 21 Jun 07
Usual rubbish from the usual sources. For those with some intelligence at least God is NOT a science, never ever was. The usual demands for "evidence" are pathetic. "You believe because you have seen, happy are those who believe and yet have not seen." springs to mind. The arrogance of those who demand evidence from God himself states clearly who [italic]their[/italic] master is!
Usual rubbish from the usual sources. For those with some intelligence at least God is NOT a science, never ever was. The usual demands for "evidence" are pathetic. "You believe because you have seen, happy are those who believe and yet have not seen." springs to mind. The arrogance of those who demand evidence from God himself states clearly who
their master is!
Posted by: Martin McDonald, Cumbernauld on 5:49pm Thu 21 Jun 07
[quote][bold]Robert McKinlay[/bold] wrote:
to Martin McDonald, Cumbernauld on 3:47pm today
sorry mate, now you're arguing semantics and misreading or ignoring the context of my reply.
Scientific theories (like Maxwell's, Like Darwin's, like Einstein's)make predictions which can be observed, measured and analysed, they postulate testable and independently verifiable results.
Intelligent Design/Creationism can do none of this and therefore cannot be regarded as a theory.
It is an untestable, unverifiable hypothesis at best, superstitious myth at worst and should not be taught in any scientific curriculum anywhere.
I'm off for a beer and a read of the Silmarillion, at least Tolkein's creation myth had his Intelligent Designer creating the world through music, lovely concept - untestable and unverifiable but as credible as creationism[/quote] No Robert, I'm not the one arguing semantics.
Science. I can't think of another profession or school of thought who have the arrogance to subject the world to their tests, to their standards and claim they can equate their propositions with fact. Science is eminently limited and will never, ever tell us the whole story about anything. Science should be taught in school with that in mind. Scientific theories should be taught and explained but only ever as Science's "best guess."
Creationism isn't science and there is scientific evidence to support ID. To pretend this isn't true is intellectually destitude.
Science while being vitally important, is but one small piece of the jigsaw of the fabric of the universe. It's continual desire to assert it's primacy over all other thought is creepy and annoying. And dull.
I like the Silmarillion too, it's one of the most inspiring books I've ever read. Do you think Dr Johnston is a fan? :-)
Robert McKinlay wrote:
to Martin McDonald, Cumbernauld on 3:47pm today
sorry mate, now you're arguing semantics and misreading or ignoring the context of my reply.
Scientific theories (like Maxwell's, Like Darwin's, like Einstein's)make predictions which can be observed, measured and analysed, they postulate testable and independently verifiable results.
Intelligent Design/Creationism can do none of this and therefore cannot be regarded as a theory.
It is an untestable, unverifiable hypothesis at best, superstitious myth at worst and should not be taught in any scientific curriculum anywhere.
I'm off for a beer and a read of the Silmarillion, at least Tolkein's creation myth had his Intelligent Designer creating the world through music, lovely concept - untestable and unverifiable but as credible as creationism
No Robert, I'm not the one arguing semantics.
Science. I can't think of another profession or school of thought who have the arrogance to subject the world to their tests, to their standards and claim they can equate their propositions with fact. Science is eminently limited and will never, ever tell us the whole story about anything. Science should be taught in school with that in mind. Scientific theories should be taught and explained but only ever as Science's "best guess."
Creationism isn't science and there is scientific evidence to support ID. To pretend this isn't true is intellectually destitude.
Science while being vitally important, is but one small piece of the jigsaw of the fabric of the universe. It's continual desire to assert it's primacy over all other thought is creepy and annoying. And dull.
I like the Silmarillion too, it's one of the most inspiring books I've ever read. Do you think Dr Johnston is a fan? :-)
Posted by: Ian Johnston, Castle Douglas on 7:12pm Thu 21 Jun 07
[quote][bold]Robert McKinlay[/bold] wrote:
The theory of evolution makes no predictions regarding the origins of life, that is the province of the 'primordial soup' theory or the 'panspermia' hypothesis and others. Evolution is an attempt to understand how life, once started, can develop from simple bacteria into homo sapiens over time.
I understand Dr Johnston's position but fear he'll find the ID/Creationist lobby won't accept their position being taught as a 'bad example' in schools. Intelligent Design was developed by the Creationist lobby to avoid American Constitutional prohibitions on the teaching of Creationism but even ID has been ruled against in the American courts.
If I may quote from the Kitzmiller v Dover School court ruling from December 2005 on the subject:
[italic]"... many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.
To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions".
John E. Jones III
United States District Judge
(United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania,
Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ, Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School Board).[/italic]
[/quote] Robert McKinlay wrote:
If I may quote from the Kitzmiller v Dover School court ruling from December 2005 on the subject:
[italic]"To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect..."[/italic]
You know, I really wish people would stop referring to evolution as "Darwin's" theory. It's almost 150 years since The Origin of Species, and evolutionary theory has been developing ever since. It's not "Darwin's" theory, it's a theory which belongs to the scientific community as a whole.
It's another way in which creationists show their fundamental lack of understanding of science and the scientific process.
Robert McKinlay wrote:
The theory of evolution makes no predictions regarding the origins of life, that is the province of the 'primordial soup' theory or the 'panspermia' hypothesis and others. Evolution is an attempt to understand how life, once started, can develop from simple bacteria into homo sapiens over time.
I understand Dr Johnston's position but fear he'll find the ID/Creationist lobby won't accept their position being taught as a 'bad example' in schools. Intelligent Design was developed by the Creationist lobby to avoid American Constitutional prohibitions on the teaching of Creationism but even ID has been ruled against in the American courts.
If I may quote from the Kitzmiller v Dover School court ruling from December 2005 on the subject:
"... many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.
To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions".
John E. Jones III
United States District Judge
(United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania,
Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ, Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School Board).
Robert McKinlay wrote:
If I may quote from the Kitzmiller v Dover School court ruling from December 2005 on the subject:
"To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect..."
You know, I really wish people would stop referring to evolution as "Darwin's" theory. It's almost 150 years since The Origin of Species, and evolutionary theory has been developing ever since. It's not "Darwin's" theory, it's a theory which belongs to the scientific community as a whole.
It's another way in which creationists show their fundamental lack of understanding of science and the scientific process.
Posted by: Ian Johnston, Castle Douglas on 7:14pm Thu 21 Jun 07
[quote][bold]Neil[/bold] wrote:
Like Adam & Eve at the Fall of man, when confronted with God and His Word Dr Johnston (in his article) gives the usual Evolutionist gorilla (guerrilla?) response when threatened - huff, puff, and bluff and dash off to hide in the bushes!
With all due respect I suggest Dr Johnston re-read the opening verses of the Christian Bible, for it actually says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Gen. 1:1) Therefore there was no "void" before the beginning, as erroneously reported by Dr Johnston. Please stick to the facts! We all like to dal in facts! And please note that the eternal God - who always was, always is, and always will be - reveals in His infallible Word (including the aforementioned Genesis 1 account) that He created all space, all time, and all matter, ie, God created time the moment He created space into which He placed His created matter - which space and matter He formed into the heavens and the earth over a period of six days.
In a nutshell, the real argument is not "science" versus "religion" or "science" versus "Christianity". IMPORTANT: It is here that Dr Johnston and his ilk are confusing the "Theory of Evolution" with "Science." The true argument is the Theory of Evolution versus the clear revelation of God's Word about creation and the creatures therein.
Yes, the Evolutionist has a theory about creation and the creatures therein. Yes, the Evolutionist believes he can demonstrate the reality of his theory by talking about fossils and geology etc. So far all very good. However, Christians (all the way through history) have always said the same thing about their belief system. Whereas the former is a theory based upon a man-made philosophy - a philosophy which denies the clear Biblical revelation, the latter is a belief system based upon clear Biblical revelation. Both are belief systems. Both believe that science (ie, true science, and not the Evolutionism that has superimposed itself on science!) verify their belief system.
Having cleared the air (some hope!!!), let's all now have some real open and honest dialogue, rather than the usual caricatures such as those wheeled out by Dr Johnston in his article! Let's therefore start at the beginning, ie, very beginning, just as the Bible does - "In the beginning GOD..."[/quote] Neil:
[quote]The true argument is the Theory of Evolution versus the clear revelation of God's Word about creation and the creatures therein.[/quote]
The ancient Greeks and the Norsemen had some pretty good infallible revelations as well.
Neil wrote:
Like Adam & Eve at the Fall of man, when confronted with God and His Word Dr Johnston (in his article) gives the usual Evolutionist gorilla (guerrilla?) response when threatened - huff, puff, and bluff and dash off to hide in the bushes!
With all due respect I suggest Dr Johnston re-read the opening verses of the Christian Bible, for it actually says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Gen. 1:1) Therefore there was no "void" before the beginning, as erroneously reported by Dr Johnston. Please stick to the facts! We all like to dal in facts! And please note that the eternal God - who always was, always is, and always will be - reveals in His infallible Word (including the aforementioned Genesis 1 account) that He created all space, all time, and all matter, ie, God created time the moment He created space into which He placed His created matter - which space and matter He formed into the heavens and the earth over a period of six days.
In a nutshell, the real argument is not "science" versus "religion" or "science" versus "Christianity". IMPORTANT: It is here that Dr Johnston and his ilk are confusing the "Theory of Evolution" with "Science." The true argument is the Theory of Evolution versus the clear revelation of God's Word about creation and the creatures therein.
Yes, the Evolutionist has a theory about creation and the creatures therein. Yes, the Evolutionist believes he can demonstrate the reality of his theory by talking about fossils and geology etc. So far all very good. However, Christians (all the way through history) have always said the same thing about their belief system. Whereas the former is a theory based upon a man-made philosophy - a philosophy which denies the clear Biblical revelation, the latter is a belief system based upon clear Biblical revelation. Both are belief systems. Both believe that science (ie, true science, and not the Evolutionism that has superimposed itself on science!) verify their belief system.
Having cleared the air (some hope!!!), let's all now have some real open and honest dialogue, rather than the usual caricatures such as those wheeled out by Dr Johnston in his article! Let's therefore start at the beginning, ie, very beginning, just as the Bible does - "In the beginning GOD..."
Neil:
The true argument is the Theory of Evolution versus the clear revelation of God's Word about creation and the creatures therein.
The ancient Greeks and the Norsemen had some pretty good infallible revelations as well.
Posted by: Ian Johnston, Castle Douglas on 7:15pm Thu 21 Jun 07
[quote][bold]Neil[/bold] wrote:
Like Adam & Eve at the Fall of man, when confronted with God and His Word Dr Johnston (in his article) gives the usual Evolutionist gorilla (guerrilla?) response when threatened - huff, puff, and bluff and dash off to hide in the bushes!
With all due respect I suggest Dr Johnston re-read the opening verses of the Christian Bible, for it actually says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Gen. 1:1) Therefore there was no "void" before the beginning, as erroneously reported by Dr Johnston. Please stick to the facts! We all like to dal in facts! And please note that the eternal God - who always was, always is, and always will be - reveals in His infallible Word (including the aforementioned Genesis 1 account) that He created all space, all time, and all matter, ie, God created time the moment He created space into which He placed His created matter - which space and matter He formed into the heavens and the earth over a period of six days.
In a nutshell, the real argument is not "science" versus "religion" or "science" versus "Christianity". IMPORTANT: It is here that Dr Johnston and his ilk are confusing the "Theory of Evolution" with "Science." The true argument is the Theory of Evolution versus the clear revelation of God's Word about creation and the creatures therein.
Yes, the Evolutionist has a theory about creation and the creatures therein. Yes, the Evolutionist believes he can demonstrate the reality of his theory by talking about fossils and geology etc. So far all very good. However, Christians (all the way through history) have always said the same thing about their belief system. Whereas the former is a theory based upon a man-made philosophy - a philosophy which denies the clear Biblical revelation, the latter is a belief system based upon clear Biblical revelation. Both are belief systems. Both believe that science (ie, true science, and not the Evolutionism that has superimposed itself on science!) verify their belief system.
Having cleared the air (some hope!!!), let's all now have some real open and honest dialogue, rather than the usual caricatures such as those wheeled out by Dr Johnston in his article! Let's therefore start at the beginning, ie, very beginning, just as the Bible does - "In the beginning GOD..."[/quote] Neil:
[quote]The true argument is the Theory of Evolution versus the clear revelation of God's Word about creation and the creatures therein.[/quote]
The ancient Greeks and the Norsemen had some pretty good infallible revelations as well.
Neil wrote:
Like Adam & Eve at the Fall of man, when confronted with God and His Word Dr Johnston (in his article) gives the usual Evolutionist gorilla (guerrilla?) response when threatened - huff, puff, and bluff and dash off to hide in the bushes!
With all due respect I suggest Dr Johnston re-read the opening verses of the Christian Bible, for it actually says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Gen. 1:1) Therefore there was no "void" before the beginning, as erroneously reported by Dr Johnston. Please stick to the facts! We all like to dal in facts! And please note that the eternal God - who always was, always is, and always will be - reveals in His infallible Word (including the aforementioned Genesis 1 account) that He created all space, all time, and all matter, ie, God created time the moment He created space into which He placed His created matter - which space and matter He formed into the heavens and the earth over a period of six days.
In a nutshell, the real argument is not "science" versus "religion" or "science" versus "Christianity". IMPORTANT: It is here that Dr Johnston and his ilk are confusing the "Theory of Evolution" with "Science." The true argument is the Theory of Evolution versus the clear revelation of God's Word about creation and the creatures therein.
Yes, the Evolutionist has a theory about creation and the creatures therein. Yes, the Evolutionist believes he can demonstrate the reality of his theory by talking about fossils and geology etc. So far all very good. However, Christians (all the way through history) have always said the same thing about their belief system. Whereas the former is a theory based upon a man-ma
Features
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (75)
