“The use of the word ‘theory’ can mislead those not familiar with science..”
With Lisburn Council encouraging post-primary schools to teach neo-creationists’ untestable hypotheses as alternative theories to evolution, and the NI Department of Education apparently unsure about what they should do about it, James Randerson at the Guardian’s Science blog has pointed to the government’s new guidance to teachers in another part of the UK. And that guidance couldn’t be clearer – creationism and intelligent design are not alternative scientific theories to evolution and “should not be taught as science.” Perhaps someone could tell the spokeswoman for the Department of Education here?From the post by James Randerson
The new guidelines could not be clearer:
“Creationism and intelligent design are not part of the science National Curriculum programmes of study and should not be taught as science.” [added emphasis]
That doesn’t mean it cannot be mentioned of course, but the guidelines state that it should only feature as part of discussions about what does and does not make a scientific theory.
The use of the word ‘theory’ can mislead those not familiar with science as a subject discipline because it is different from the everyday meaning of being little more than a ‘hunch’. In science the meaning is much less tentative and indicates that there is a substantial amount of supporting evidence, underpinned by principles and explanations accepted by the international scientific community…Creationism and intelligent design are sometimes claimed to be scientific theories. This is not the case as they have no underpinning scientific principles, or explanations, and are not accepted by the science community as a whole.
And also from those guidelines
Creationism and intelligent design are not part of the science National Curriculum programmes of study and should not be taught as science. However, there is a real difference between teaching ‘x’ and teaching about ‘x’. Any questions about creationism and intelligent design which arise in science lessons, for example as a result of media coverage, could provide the opportunity to explain or explore why they are not considered to be scientific theories and, in the right context, why evolution is considered to be a scientific theory.
If the Northern Ireland Department of Education haven’t issued these guidelines to schools here, they should do so now.
Adds here’s another snippet from the guidelines to teachers elsewhere in the UK
Which subject should deal with creationism and intelligent design?
Teachers of subjects such as RE, history or citizenship may deal with creationism and intelligent design in their lessons. If such issues were to arise there might be value in science colleagues working with these teachers in addressing them.
Sean
I am not surprised you are confused as you don’t even know what the Bible is!
KMan/Circles
When you have lost the argument don’t retreat to silly points like “cryptic words for Hebrew” – the words are very plain in both English and Hebrew – you just do not like the implications. It is ironic that the words of Magellan are treated by you as fact and, when it suited you before I pointed out the two references, you clearly believed that you could undermine the veracity of Scripture.
I think another quotation is in order to show the obtuseness of the illiterate Darwin Fundamentalists here,
Agnostic biologist, Dr. Michael Denton explains the complexity of the brain:
The human brain consists of about ten thousand million nerve cells. Each nerve cell puts out somewhere in the region of between ten thousand and one hundred thousand connecting fibres by which it makes contact with other nerve cells in the brain. Altogether the total number of connections in the human brain approaches a thousand million million. … a much greater number of specific connections than in the entire communications network on Earth.
If a computer simply takes in information, processes it, stores it and gives it out (and no sane person would deny that it is the product of design and creation), then why would anyone think the infinitely more efficient and impressive brain “supercomputer†was designed and created by chance? If the building of the IBM’s Blue Gene/L (which incidentally took the best minds in the world 3 years to construct) is described as “a real tour de force in engineering,†then why does any rational person think the brain is not also? It does not take a major extrapolation of logic to see the inductive parallel here.
Sam you are missing the point. And missing it completely.
Nobody (read it slowly and move your lips if you must) NOBODY is denying the marvels of nature, the complexness of the human brain, the wonders revealed by the changing of the season, the magnificence of a star filled sky etc. etc. etc.
However complexity and majesty are in no way proof that a single omnipotent entity (with or without beard) sat down one day and drew the whole thing up on a cosmic drawing board, which he must have created simply for that purpose as there were no drawing boards before.
The term cryptic phrases did not refer to any language in particular but rather to the PHRASE (not the words!). The quotes you used were like many others in the bible in that they were not categoric in their meaning. It was unclear. I noticed you didn’t go into the “people were as grasshoppers” thing, but decided to focus on the other bits that pleased you better. That is of course your prerogative when reading a book. But please do not try and palm off your interpreted version of ancient texts (or indeed somebody elses interpretation) as any kind of absolute truth. You don’t even understand Darwinism that is just over a century old, how can you pretend to understand what people thousands of years ago meant in their texts?
complexness – oh la la!
Lets just replace that with complexity shall we and pretend it never happened?
Sam:
Agnostic biologist, Dr. Michael Denton explains the complexity of the brain:
The human brain consists of about ten thousand million nerve cells. Each nerve cell puts out somewhere in the region of between ten thousand and one hundred thousand connecting fibres by which it makes contact with other nerve cells in the brain. Altogether the total number of connections in the human brain approaches a thousand million million. … a much greater number of specific connections than in the entire communications network on Earth.
You seem to be confusing randomness with evolution.
If evolution was entirely random then the following mathematical example disproves your example of the human brain:
1 chance in 1,000,000,000 X 1 change in 1,000,000,000 X 1 chance in 1,000,000,000 etc is greater than 0. i.e. it never equals zero.
Darwins theory of natural selection suggests that evolution is not random, meaning that the chance of something complex developing over millions of years (like a human brain) is greater than that of the mathematical example above. Which might explain why such complexity, many examples if which you have cited, exists on earth.
There are those who can accept evolution, and yet have enough faith not to condemn those who don’t accept it. Plus the other way around.
Now, repeat after me (enough times for it to sink in):
I will not feed the troll.
So, my atheist friend, you scoff at belief in God because of six characteristics: invisible, supernatural, eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, and self-existent. Let me ask you, then: how did the universe get here?
“It just happened.”
Think about what that means. You’re saying that there was a series of forces, processes, and events operating without any particular purpose over billions of years. Let’s use the term “Random Chance” to summarize the whole series. Here’s my first question for you: What does Random Chance look like?
“What are you talking about? You can’t see random chance!”
Interesting! You believe in something you can’t see. Random chance can only be detected by what it does. It is invisible. Let’s think about some other characteristics of your series of forces, processes, and events known as Random Chance.
- Suppose random chance set the laws of nature into effect. Then it is not subject to those laws; it is above nature, or supernatural.
“Gulp…”
- If the universe is the result of random chance, then random chance has been here since before the universe began. It is eternal. – Now, tell me: where is random chance found?
“Everywhere.”
Oh, you mean it’s omnipresent.
- Next: even if Random Chance is directly responsible for only some things, it is indirectly responsible for everything else. If I drop a pen Random Chance doesn’t grab it and force it to the ground. However, it is indirectly responsible because it set up the laws of gravity. Since it is either directly or indirectly responsible for everything in the universe, it is omnipotent.
- One last question. Who made Random Chance? Nobody. It is self-existent.
So, dear atheist, you don’t believe in God because He has six unscientific characteristics: invisible, supernatural, eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, and self-existent. Yet you believe in Random Chance which has exactly the same characteristics: invisible, supernatural, eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, and self-existent. No, my friend, you have no scientific advantage over me. I worship the God of the Bible, but you worship a god known as Random Chance. There is no possibility that God does NOT exist, whether a personal being as revealed in the Bible or a series of impersonal forces as you rely on.
Can I prove the existence of the personal God I believe in? No. Can you prove the existence of Random Chance? No. We both take a step of faith. So what’s the difference?
http://www.originsresource.org/creacorn.htm
Sam:
Resorting to cut and paste (especially of someone having a conversation with themselves) inst making your argument any more convincing.
You dont believe in mathematics? If not, you should go get you money out of the bank right away.
Actually McGrath you have clearly never studied mathematics as you would know that all reputable mathmaticians accept that odds outside ten to the power of minus 50 are outside the realm of possibility by chance. The odds for instance that the the probability that the 122 constants of the laws of nature such as speed of light, electromagnetic force etc the earth requires to exist could exist for any planet (including earth) by chance in the universe as: one chance in 10 to the power of 138! There are only 10 to the power of 70 atoms in the whole of the known universe!
Darwinism is, is a wild extrapolation from limited data and cannot be falsified or even exist mathmatically. It is ironic that the very persons here who insist upon keeping religion and science separate are eager to use their science as a basis for pronouncements about religion. The literature of Darwinism is full of antitheistic conclusions, such as that the universe was not designed and has no purpose, and that we humans are the product of blind natural processes that care nothing about us.
Darwinists accept that the genetic variations that the magic “unguided” process of natural selection works through is simply a product of chance. So please be honest and stop retreating behind the argument that the fundamental root of evolution is not chance!
“However complexity and majesty are in no way proof that a single omnipotent entity (with or without beard) sat down one day and drew the whole thing up on a cosmic drawing board, which he must have created simply for that purpose as there were no drawing boards before.”
Of course an easy riposte to this type of village philsophical twists is to simply point out that they don’t disprove it either so we are at stalemate!
The question then has to be asked can unguided and randomn natural processes account for the fact that we see irreducibly complex organisms. The evidence so far has to be zero as even guided natural processes such as brain surgery cannot even get close to producing 1% of a brain.
Lets face it – you believe by faith your belief in evolution and I believe mine in Creation. You cannot demonstrate or describe in any detail explain how the brain was created and neither can I. On the balance of probabilities, it is reasonable to infer that I am closer to the truth as the organised complexity cannot be explained at all by natural processes currently which is suggestive that it appears to be designed because it was designed!
Sam
as: one chance in 10 to the power of 138! There are only 10 to the power of 70 atoms in the whole of the known universe
Steady on their mate, there are probably that many atoms in a single human body
You really shoul go through and check your maths
And when did you have time to count all these atoms so that you can definatively state the total lol your math is worse than my understanding of the bible the difference is maths is real the bible is a really bizarre, sick and twisted fairy tale. Much more disturbing than anything the Brothers Grim could dream up
“Actually McGrath you have clearly never studied mathematics as you would know that all reputable mathematicians accept that odds outside ten to the power of minus 50 are outside the realm of possibility by chance.”
And if so, the theory of evolution is the best explanation of such remote changes to date. This theory, like all theories has been rigorously tested and stands until proven wrong. The theory of evolution has withstood thousands of scientific tests; nothing has disproved it since Darwin first proposed it. Various scientific advances in physics, genetics, chemistry, and biology have supported, refined, and expanded evolutionary theory further than anything Darwin could have seen. Your own personal health has been improved partly because of it.
What tests are there for ID? None. As such, it isn’t even a theory.
I have noticed you haven’t even described ID as a hypothesis.
I fail to understand why Sam is routinely excused his personal attacks on those who disagree with him. He almost unfailingly includes personally insulting statements in his posts, and, though it illuminates certain aspects of his character, it’s getting a tad much……
Care to comment on Snakebrain’s remark Pete.
You can’t have failed to notice that quite a few people have withdrawn from the “debate” due to Sam’s snide insults.
‘The literature of Darwinism is full of antitheistic conclusions, such as that the universe was not designed and has no purpose, and that we humans are the product of blind natural processes that care nothing about us. ‘
And Darwin certainly got that right . When was the last time that the Great Designer intervened to save his ‘designer’ babies from mass starvation /famines/wars etc?
‘Darwinists accept that the genetic variations that the magic “unguided†process of natural selection works through is simply a product of chance.’
Natural selection is always at work . The prime function of DNA is to replicate itself . Any genetic mutation which improves it’s chances of reproduction will tend to survive . Living organisms including man as an animal are also moulded by environment . Which is why people who live close to the equator have dark skins and those livinging in temperate zones have lighter skins . Sexual selection is the main driving force behind the present day varieties of the human animal .
Darwinism is far more ‘intelligent ‘ than ID which is in all honesty utter bilge -forgivable as a credo perhaps a century ago but not in light of the most recent advances in the biological sciences or in evolutionary psychology.
joeC
Those comments haven’t been exclusively one-way, and they’ve been directed at me too.
And, while they’re not the worst we’ve seen on Slugger, I tend towards A C Grayling’s previously noted point.
Sean,
Likely you mean scores of years when you refer to the New Testament.
And this is a problem for you?
fail to understand why Sam is routinely excused his personal attacks on those who disagree with him. He almost unfailingly includes personally insulting statements in his posts, and, though it illuminates certain aspects of his character, it’s getting a tad much……
Posted by snakebrain on Oct 03, 2007 @ 07:48 PM
I think Sam’s commentary has something to do with fundamentalists considering anyone that doesn’t share their view as insulting.
Don’t get scared off Sam, you’ve been great craik so far.
Despite your arrogant attitude, you would be well advised in taking a 101 Philosophy of Science class at Queens.
Of course an easy riposte to this type of village philsophical twists..
I am not surprised you are confused as you don’t even know what the Bible is!
Actually McGrath you have clearly never studied mathematics
And so on, and so on…..
It’s not that bad but a gentle admonition might be in order
“What tests are there for ID? None. As such, it isn’t even a theory.”
That is strange as all the militant atheist fundamentalists have been telling us all throughout this debate that ID can be falsified by the “overwhelming” evidence for evolution. Can we have some consistency in this debate instead of shifting the goalposts at every opportunity when cornered.
How you can blazenly state that there no tests for ID when you clearly are confident that it can be dismissed as non-design is beyong me. You obviously feel you have objective criteria to do so.
Thirdly, ID inferences are an intergral part of modern scientifc investigation. Let me repeat for the umpteenth time for the slow learners here making design inferences is an established and a fundamental part of modern science. We
see this in many disciplines, including archaeology, anthropology, forensics, criminal jurisprudence, copyright law, patent law, reverse engineering, crypto-analysis, random number generation, and even to the search for
extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI).
The answers are very easy to come by if you just think.
Graduation Ceremony Queens
Woman : ‘That’s me son up there -He’s now graduating as a Doctor ‘
Womans’s Sister : A Doctor ! A Doctor of what ?
Woman (proudly ): A Doctor of Philosophy !
Woman’s Sister : What sort of a disease is Philosophy ?
Greenflag
Greenflag
Just think before you write – please do not expect the rest of us to be as gullible as you are over these hollow claims.
“Natural selection is always at work”
No one disagrees with this – that is a long way short of jumping between a unicellular amoeba to the most complex machine on earth by a chance magic process.
“The prime function of DNA is to replicate itself”
Err…. any evidence apart from your opinion? The prime function is to carry the genetic material that makes up the design of the cell.
“Any genetic mutation which improves it’s chances of reproduction will tend to survive”
Not true…we all know that most mutations do not aid survival eg haemophilia yet pass through into the next generation.
“Darwinism is far more ‘intelligent ‘ than ID”
Kind of you to admit that this is a guided process of intelligence. Strange as the only “thing” that has intelligence is someone with the nature of personality. So Darwinism is your god – this is what I thought all along. Well, you are welcome to you faith – I will keep mine.
“Living organisms including man as an animal are also moulded by environment . Which is why people who live close to the equator have dark skins and those livinging in temperate zones have lighter skins.”
That is odd as whites have been living in South Africa for centuries with no discernible change of skin colur, blacks in the UK etc etc.
“When was the last time that the Great Designer intervened to save his ‘designer’ babies from mass starvation /famines/wars etc?”
What would this prove? He has already set up the Laws of nature and provided us with abundant evidences of His Design and handiwork. He left us to run the planet and look at the stupid conclusions atheists and evolutionists have come to. Don’t worry, one day He will intervene and right every wrong – that is why all humans are afraid of death as inherently we all know deep down that there will be a price to pay for all of our wrong doing.
Sam
If I am reading you right, your basic argument is that life is too complex to have arisen without a designer.
If that is the case, then why does this argument not also apply to the designer? Is the designer also too complex to have arisen without another designer? If not, why not?
“have been telling us all throughout this debate that ID can be falsified by the “overwhelming†evidence for evolution. Can we have some consistency in this debate instead of shifting the goalposts at every opportunity when cornered.”
ID has to be a theory first in order to be proven false. Are you now calling into question what defines a theory?
Stiofan
I have already answered this question in various forms but I will indulge you again.
Einsteins’ Theory of Relativity delineates that all space, time and matter come into existence in a fraction of a second – they have a BEGINNING and therefore need a CAUSE. They evidence DESIGN that is IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX therefore they need a DESIGNER. They are guided by intricate and complex natural LAWS that are INTERDEPENDENT which are FINE TUNED to a nth degree so they need a LAW GIVER and a LAW MAINTAINER.
The one who gave us these LAWS, and DESIGNED this universe created time so logically transcends time so HE does not need a DESIGNER or a CREATOR. I hope this is clear and I don’t have to go over this very basic philosophical point again and again!
What would this prove? He has already set up the Laws of nature and provided us with abundant evidences of His Design and handiwork.
Ever considered the possibility that He set up evolution?
“And when did you have time to count all these atoms so that you can definatively state the total lol your math is worse than my understanding of the bible the difference is maths is real the bible is a really bizarre, sick and twisted fairy tale.”
This is meant to be an example of snakebrain’s civilised debate? I could cite numerous other examples from the front page of this thread alone.
If you want the answer just google it and you will discover my claim for the number of atoms in the universe is well within the recognised parameters from people of all persuasions.
The one who gave us these LAWS, and DESIGNED this universe created time so logically transcends time so HE does not need a DESIGNER or a CREATOR. I hope this is clear and I don’t have to go over this very basic philosophical point again and again!
Sam
Actually, I would agree with this, but it seems to point to a God rather different in nature than the highly anthropomorphic deity in which most fundamentalist Christians seem to believe.
For example, before Time, did this God have thoughts? Did He do anything? Did other ‘entities’ also exist in this timeless nothingness before creation? Is God still outside time, or is He now subject to its laws?
“… who is rumoured to be gay.â€
And this is a problem for you?
Posted by Dawkins on Oct 03, 2007 @ 08:12 PM
Naw dawkins I just thought i would wind up the fundamentalists with that wee one
Thirdly, ID inferences are an intergral part of modern scientifc investigation. Let me repeat for the umpteenth time for the slow learners here making design inferences is an established and a fundamental part of modern science. We
see this in many disciplines, including archaeology, anthropology, forensics, criminal jurisprudence, copyright law, patent law, reverse engineering, crypto-analysis, random number generation, and even to the search for
extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI).
The answers are very easy to come by if you just think.
Lets start at the begining
Archeology – the antithesis of ID as archeology accepts the world is more than 4,000 years old
Anthropology – is the study of human behaviors – kind of a science kind of not a science
Forensics is a system of invetigative techniques not really a science
jurisprudence, copyright law, patent law these are legal pursuits not sciences by any stretch of the imagination
reverse engineering is not a science it is simply a way around the patent laws where you take a product that works and then try and invent a process for it to work that is different then the original design – this is kind of like ID as they both start with an end product and invent a story for how it works with out any proof
Crypto analasys – best described as the study of secret codes – not a science in my book
random number generation, errr wtf how is generating randomn numbers a science
and even to the search for
extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). Seti is technically the search of recurring patterns in the back ground radio waves generated by the universe. If there is another habital planet and they have a similar research programme they will eventually detect the recuring radio patterns emited by the human race but since the nearest star is hundreds of light years away and we have only been transmitting for 100 years and since radio waves travel at sub light speeds the chances of us being found or finding someone else are minimal at best. Having said that SETI is an investigation NOT a science
Sam
Einsteins’ Theory of Relativity delineates that all space, time and matter come into existence in a fraction of a second
No Einsteins theory of relativety states that the closer one approaches the speed of ligh the slower time till pass in relation to a staionery object
E=MC2 is simply Einsteins calculation for the force required to make any object aproach the speed of light Sooooooooo
to make a 10kg object move at the speed of light would be equivelent energy of E= 345,960,000,000 per kg/kmseconnds
Sean,
I knew it was a wind-up for the Fundies! If anything, God must be lesbian. Read her book and it makes sense.
Sam, you’re saying that everything that existed before the universe needed a designer, except g-d. So, what’s so special about g-d – apart from managing to design himself before he even existed, of course? You are making a basic error in assuming that the laws of this universe apply to any state that may exist outside of it. There is, of course, no reason to assume that the laws of physics that are particular to this universe do not apply to any other universe (or entity) or to whatever pre-dated and interacted with this universe, but the crucial point is that there is no basis to assume that laws that are particular to this universe pre-date it. Indeed, since one of the missing laws of physics from this universe seems to be how to create a universe, it is more likely that there are laws outside of this universe that we can have no knowledge of. Your argument is self-contradictory in that it states that g-d does not need a designer because he existed prior to the universe but also states that anything that existed prior to the universe needed a designer. We have no knowledge of anything outside of our universe, since logic is also one of those laws that is a function of this universe. There may be a g-d. In that you are correct to state that both believe in g-d and atheism are faiths – something that is believed to be true without proof. We simply won’t know unless he appears and does a few miracles or whatever a g-d does when he gets bored.
HMMM god as a Lesbian, Now there is a reason to get on your knees lol
Come to think of it, that doorwoman in the Kremlin did have quite a big beard….
Sean,
Don’t mock.
All the proscriptions in the Bible apply to the male of the species. That’s to keep us chaps in our place, and give the gals free rein to “do what thou wilt”.
well I am sure not getting on my knees for a man even if he is benevolent and omnipotent
Sean,
And what if she’s [God] volent and potent? :0)
Still not getting on my knees to any man
I am reminded of the old saying
Its better to die on your feet then live on your knees
Since Sam Hanna gas at least temporarily left I guess another “nutter” should step into the fray.
As I have stated before I accept and believe in six day creationism. I also do not believe it is a prerequisite for evangelical Christians.
As I explained above; whilst I once knew a fair bit about the various theories of creationism and stuff I no longer do. This is because I find them rather boring (as I find evolution). The world is here and I wish to just get on with living in a manner which I feel is as close as I can to how my Lord requires me (do not worry I know I fail endlessly).
This thread began discussing teaching in schools and I think this is very relevant.
The ID movement and the assorted attempts to teach creationism or other “theistic” views seem to come mainly from the USA. We must remember that in the USA religion is specifically banned in public (ie state) schools. Since there are large numbers of evangelical Christians in the USA they may well feel aggrieved that their taxes etc. are paying for and their children attending schools that have absolutely no religion. As such they may well (possibly justifiably?) want to find a back door to teach something to do with God in schools.
Here in Northern Ireland the vast majority of schools have at least some religion taught. The state (largely, but not exclusively protestant) grammar I went to had a brief morning assembly and compulsory RE to third year. As such religion (mainly Christianity) was taught and there was an active scripture union. Children whose parents wished could opt out of both assembly and RE (and clearly did not attend SU).
Because of assembly and RE evangelical parents could feel that some religion was taught. I guess this might have eased the concerns of some who feel that evolution is anti religion and so reduce the levels of concern re teaching evolution. Any thoughts?
Turgon
Feel free to believe what ever creation myth you choose its not for any one else to object to. Its when you try to cram your creation myth down our throats the we object. Especially when even though they accept the creation myth they refuse to accept others creation myths are as relevant as theirs.
Sean,
With respect I have no track record of cramming my religious beliefs down anyone’s throats. Indeed I have frequently pointed out the fact that I do not feel one must share my creation beliefs. I am suggesting a reason why craetionism /ID may be seen as important by some Americian fundamentalists.
yes turgon the YOUR did not refer to you specifically I guess I shoudl watch my adjectives
I guess this might have eased the concerns of some who feel that evolution is anti religion and so reduce the levels of concern re teaching evolution. Any thoughts?
Posted by Turgon on Oct 03, 2007 @ 11:39 PM
Evolution does not have to be anti-religion, ID does not have to be anti-science.
There may indeed be some kind of intelligent design, purpose or system as yet not understood. But what I object to is the current ID movement hijacking that notion, proclaiming their version as the only possible truth and scorning any views to the contrary.
Lastly, for the earth and everything on it, to be created in 6 days i.e. 144 hours, requires serious figurative interpretation on my part.
The British Centre for Science Education has a write up of recent events in Northern Ireland regarding creationism being taught in schools.
It can be found at http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/PaisleysPartyBacksCreationismInSchools
The BCSE was the first organisation to bring into the public domain the activities of the fundamentalist European Theological Seminary (ahead of William Crawley and BBC Radio NI).
Details can be found at http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/EuropeanTheologicalSeminary
We’ve also done a lot of investigative work on the Caleb Foundation and its role in pushing creationism in the province.
That can be found at http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/CalebFoundation
I think you have some severe problems in Northern Ireland with the creationists.
Roger Stanyard
British Centre for Science Education
“Lastly, for the earth and everything on it, to be created in 6 days i.e. 144 hours, requires serious figurative interpretation on my part.” – McGrath
It’s g-d’s protestant work ethic. A Catholic g-d would still be sitting in the cab of a Transit van on the 11th day drinking tea from a flask and reading The Sun.
“But here’s another snippet from the guidelines to teachers elsewhere in the UK”
Pete, if you’re still reading this thread, do you know if those guidelines apply in NI?
If not, shouldn’t Unionists be clamouring for them to do so? (As British as Finchley and all that.)
Also, do you happen to know what the score is in the Republic? Is there an equivalent to the science curriculum and does it explicitly exclude Creationism/ID from being taught as an alternative ‘theory’?
Sam,
Get a grip of reality. You cannot simply dismiss people who believe in ID who have impecccable scientific and academic credentials just because they disagree with you.
Sam, I keep repeating this but it is just not getting through. Qualifications and credentials do not matter. An argument stands or falls on the basis of reason and evidence.
And yes, I can very easily dismiss anyone who argues for ID, because it is unscientific rubbish with no supporting evidence. See ? I just did it.
I’m still seeing this pseudo-academic name-dropping theme all the way your contributions. “You clearly haven’t studied mathematics”. “you clearly haven’t studied Karl Popper”. You seem to have an obsession with academics and people who spend a lot of time at school. Have you got some sort of inferiority complex thing going on ? Why don’t you try conducting your argument without naming anybody or pasting guff from webpages ?
Jastrow, Denton, Behe, Schroder et al are leading scientists in their field who are not Evangelical Christians yet full accept that ID is science
There are a zillion other leading scientists in their field who reject ID. There are zillions of religious people throughout the world who reject ID as well. Many Christians I know do not have a problem accepting either evolutionary theory or the current theories on the origins of the universe. Creationism is the preserve of weird fundamentalist nutters who do not represent mainstream religious belief in any way.
Philip Johnson has every right to speak about evolution has he has done copious amounts of research and is an expert at weighing up evidence – which ultimately, ironically, what this debate is all about. He brillantly demolishes Darwinism in his books as one of the greatest legal minds of American scholarship.
More argument by qualification. And I can hardly see how you can reasonably assess any critique of evolutionary theory given that you don’t understand it yourself.
My fundamental answer may be that the universe is designed because that is exactly what it is
There’s no proof of this. That’s the problem. The only reason why you think this is because of your faith. That’s fine, but don’t try to pretend that faith is the same as evidence.
but lets not pretend you have anything more to offer that “just so†stories.
As opposed to yours ?
You come up with a theory of lunatics that everything evolved because it “just did†and because of these secret mysterious forces of “natural selection†we all now can worship,
All scientists can do is observe and record phenomena, and make postulations about them, and attempt to derive theories about how the universe works. Only a primitive, closed mind would expect those observations to be consistent with any specific preconceived philosophy. It would be the height of arrogance to assume that the incomprehensible vastness of the universe has to make sense to a few billion bipeds residing on a small rock somewhere in it’s distant reaches. It would take a great deal of confidence to assume that our brains even have the processing or cognitive capacity to deal with all of the facts.
The second relevant point here is that nobody pretends that evolutionary theory is the answer. All we’re saying is that it’s the best we’ve got right now. Sooner or later, it may be replaced when a theory comes along that better explains the available facts.
debate, write in complex grammars,
Not my fault if you can’t keep up. I guess googling and wikipedia can only allow you to bullshit up to a point.
uncover the complexity of the universe from a process that comes from nowhere and is guided by noone.
Unlike the bible, which came from where ?
Please be honest and move your theories to the faith class also.
But they’re not grounded on faith. They’re grounded on repeatable empirical observations.
As for your freshman philosophical point that God could not have created the world as we would then face the problem, I despair.
“freshman”, there you go with that psuedo academic thingy. Have you ever been to university yourself ? You’re not fooling anyone.
Therefore, to give you the freshman answer – God made time
and therefore He had no beginning
and therefore He needs no creator.
This reminds me of the theory which proves the existence of the flying spaghetti monster :
P1. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a being which has every perfection.
P2. Existence is a perfection.
C. Therefore, the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.
The FSM could beat your God in a fight with one blow from one of his noodly appendages.
Testify brother Stalin
Can we get a ramen for Comrade Stalin
RAAAAAAMMMMMMMMMEEEEENNNNNNNNNN
May you be touched by his noodly appendage
Im off to set the main sail on the Pirate ship
Sam:
“This fairy tale in the land of Darwin is sold to the gullible who don’t want a moral absolute framework for their life. It cannot be tested or falsified as we do not have the conditions on earth today that we are told was required for this evolutionary process to begin in promordial times. When asked to see at least something of the process of transition, we are told that we will not live long to even observe a incremental change so it is pointless to try and observe.”
That’s not the case, incremental changes have been observed within recorded history.
At school we were taught about a species of moth that lived in urban habitats, in which there was a natural variation in colouring between individuals, some were pale cream and some dark brown.
The proportion of paler coloured moths recorded in this species prior to the industrial revolution was much higher than was found to be the case in more recent surveys.
The explanation being that as the industrial revolution caused stonework in towns and cities to become blackened with soot from the chimneys and factories, the darker individuals became better camouflaged and less likely to be eaten and were therefore more likely to pass on their genes.
Thus the species incrementally changed over the decades.
One Anglican chap felt the Creationists put Christianity in a bad light. “It’s like the Enlightenment never happened,†he said.
Apart from a decade or so in a small area around Belfast in the late 18th century the ‘enlightenment ‘ was noticeable by it’s absence from Northern Ireland . Indeed from the early 19th century until quite recently the term ‘endarkenment ‘ would be more descriptive .
In the 85% of Ireland now termed the Irish Republic the ‘enlightenment’ was also noteable by it’s absence apart of course from a minority of political radicals .
Creationism is just a modern day prolonging of ‘endarkment’. There is no scientific proof that a God/Allah/Turtle etc etc created/designed the universe/planet/body/brain in which we all live .
If people want to believe in ‘creationism’ then it should be taught as part of religious indoctrination or as a ‘hobby’ subject like pottery , sewing, voodoo, or chiropractic.
Greenflag @ 02:33 PM:
Off-topic, I know…
One Anglican chap felt the Creationists put Christianity in a bad light. “It’s like the Enlightenment never happened,†he said.
I keep running into that quotation, but haven’t yet traced its originator. Any clues?
By the same token, can anyone suggest who described Ian Paisley’s treatise on the Epistle to the Romans, written while in Armagh gaol, as the finest piece of exegesis on the topic written before the eighteenth century?