Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Lisburn Council and the young-Earthers
More on the Lisburn Council young-Earthers, I’m sorry to say. Will Crawley points to Paul Taylor, a UK representative of Answers in Genesis, which is the US-based organisation behind such wonders as the $27m Creation Museum - as featured in the Guardian and, more recently, on the BBC [and excellently parodied here - Ed]. Mr Taylor claims mis-representation in media reports on the Lisburn Council motion, without references, and, more importantly, details his weekend of apparently well-attended meetings in Lisburn which ended on September 15th with a presentation and brief speech from the Lisburn Mayor, Councillor James Tinsley.
The [Lisburn Council] motion was likely given increased impetus because I had led a Creation Weekend in the city the previous week. My meetings were well attended—on Friday, September 14, 2007, for instance, I spoke to about a thousand people, half of whom were young people. On Saturday, September 15, I was presented with an attractive gift clock by the Mayor of Lisburn, Councillor James Tinsley, who made a brief speech welcoming Answers in Genesis to Lisburn as providers and preachers of biblical truth. (By the way, over the years, Ken Ham, AiG–U.S. president, has conducted several meetings in Northern Ireland which have drawn large crowds, and those seminars have helped create a groundswell of support for the deemphasizing of evolution as “fact” in govenment-run schools in the country.)
Meanwhile here’s a quote from the founder and President of Answers in Genesis - who not coincidentally are also purveyors of resources for teaching Creationism as science - and director of the Creation Museum, Ken Ham
I want to make it VERY clear that we don’t want to be known primarily as ‘young-Earth creationists.’ AiG’s main thrust is NOT ‘young Earth’ as such; our emphasis is on Biblical authority. Believing in a relatively ‘young Earth’ (i.e., only a few thousands of years old, which we accept) is a consequence of accepting the authority of the Word of God as an infallible revelation from our omniscient Creator.
First, select your conclusion..
Have those guidelines been issued here yet?!
Pete Baker @ 06:50 PM
If you can advocate the teaching of ID can I advocate the teaching of pastafenerism
the belief that the world was created by a great flying spaghetti monster who has touched the world with his noodly appendage
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 01:26 AMIt is interesting the visceral hatred for ID and Creationism from such openminded people.
It always suprises me that the like of Peter Baker et al never get worked up by the rabid promotion of evolution and untested fairy story as science in all the schools of Northern Ireland.
It is also ironic, though few here can grasp it because of their hubris and pre-suppositional commitment to anti-theism, that Lisburn is one of the richest and most prosperous communities in N. Ireland yet a hotbed of ID advocates. Seems to be a pattern in history eg Issac Newton, Kepler, Boyle, Maxwell et al. Who do we have lined up against them - Prof Richard Dawkins, the late Stephen Gould who have contributed what exactly to the history of science?
I don’t want my kids taught the fairy stories of Darwin but if they have to be then at least they should be told the truth that it is a fantastically improbable fable created for the delusional and gullible who want an alternative to God.
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 02:01 AMhehehehehehehehehehehehe
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 02:16 AMInteresting statement froma real school teacher
Paul Taylor, Head of Media and Publications at Answers in Genesis (UK/Europe), and a former comprehensive school Head of Science, said today:
“It is not the policy of Answers in Genesis that any evolutionary science teacher in a state school should be forced to teach something in which they do not believe. However, the Government’s guidelines maintain that creationism and intelligent design ‘have no underpinning scientific principles.’ This is demonstrably not correct.
“It is to be hoped that the guidelines’ assertion that ‘hypotheses are developed on the basis of the body of knowledge and are tested experimentally to generate further evidence that may be supportive or contradictory’ will be used to remind pupils that no experimental evidence has ever been found for the theory of evolution, nor is it capable of scientific testing, as it makes assertions about unrepeatable events in the past. Therefore, evolution is not a scientific theory, by the guidelines’ own definition, but rather a set of beliefs, used by most (but not all) scientists to interpret their findings. At that level, a belief in evolution is no different to a belief in creation—except that the latter belief is more consistent with the actual experimental evidence.”Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 03:39 AMSam Hanna 03:01 AM:
“… visceral hatred...?” No: it’s not worth it. Belly laughs and derisive mockery, indeed.
I save my “visceral hatred” for the real nastinesses of education, things that we can and should do something about: those who “tell with high zest to children ... the old lie”, and have the wherewithall to do so. I remember all those Thatcherite years when we were starved of resources, test-books, materials to put before students, but had an uninterrupted supply of Government circulars, promotional material from the likes of KFC and McDonalds, and an annual surfeit of free Testaments.
If “visceral hatred” is involved, it is the abuse and misrepresentation heaped on poor old Charles Robert Darwin. Darwin was not a thunderclap of novelty: his work was a summation and rationalising (an evolution, if one likes) of previous work and practice. Yes, “and practice”: for example, the deliberate breeding in and out of certain desirable or undesirable characteristics of farmyard animals. But, above all, of trying to explain the growing knowledge of the fossil record. So far, so good?
Darwin proposed a framework of thought for past, present and future observations of the natural world. Like all scientific method, the value (or not) of his work would rest in the work of other, later observers and researchers. That his work has become an “ism” acknowledges that, so far, the schema works. When Origin of Species was published, it went largely unremarked outside the immediate community of natural scientists. Note that it starts with the phenomena and observations, then seeks to derive a rationale.
About the only thing that Darwin denies is teleology. And if there is no moment of Genesis 1 creation there can similarly be no moment of Revelation 20 termination. Hence the anti-Darwin industry of those who have been doing very well out of millenialism, and now the “Last Days”, the “Rapture”, and the like.
As I understand creationism, and its bastard child i.d., that notion starts with the explanation and then works back to manipulate the evidence. Would that be an acceptable approach in, say, police work?
One of the books on my ever-lengthening “to read” list is Karen Armstrong’s new The Bible: the Biography [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bible-Biography-Karen-Armstrong/dp/1843543966 ]. Armstrong is a popular theologian (such creatures do exist outside the self-serving TV-evangelists and their mega-churches). Inevitably she is scorned by the more rarefied scholars.
What she is doing with this book, as I understand the reviews, is trying to describe to a general audience how the Bible was composed, translated, selected, transformed and edited, interpreted and explained. In other words, she is considering how the Bible came to evolve into present forms. To put that another way, she seems to be applying to her observations the same methodology that Darwin did.
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 04:14 AMMcGrath
“The hypothesis of ID and the hypothesis of the existence of Aliens are about equally as testable.”
Not quite. The proposition that aliens exist is testable (e.g. SETI) but not falsifiable.
James
“Can’t see the problem in presenting both as options in the classroom and letting the kids make their own minds up as to which ones makes most sense to them, or to let them dismiss the one that seems most ludicrous.”
How do we figure out how the universe works? We poke and prod it until it responds, concoct theories to explain the results, then test those theories to death. Those that survive describe the phenomena in question. New observations may expose weaknesses in the theory, which must then be modfied accordingly, or be ruthlessly discarded. Often, the old theory survives as a special case of the new (e.g. general relativity reduces to Newtonian dynamics for small velocities in weak gravitational fields). Armies of scientists are constantly making new observations to confront existing theories, earning professional kudos if they succeed in challenging the prevailing wisdom. This process is known as the scientific method. Like any human endeavour it has its failures, but its strength is that the system is self-correcting.
There is another approach. Take an ancient text. Assume it is literally true. Interpret everything we see as confirmation of its truth.
Which one belongs on the science curriculum?
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 04:37 AMIt is interesting the visceral hatred for ID and Creationism from such openminded people.
It always suprises me that the like of Peter Baker et al never get worked up by the rabid promotion of evolution and untested fairy story as science in all the schools of Northern Ireland.
It is also ironic, though few here can grasp it because of their hubris and pre-suppositional commitment to anti-theism, that Lisburn is one of the richest and most prosperous communities in N. Ireland yet a hotbed of ID advocates. Seems to be a pattern in history eg Issac Newton, Kepler, Boyle, Maxwell et al. Who do we have lined up against them - Prof Richard Dawkins, the late Stephen Gould who have contributed what exactly to the history of science?
I don’t want my kids taught the fairy stories of Darwin but if they have to be then at least they should be told the truth that it is a fantastically improbable fable created for the delusional and gullible who want an alternative to God.
Posted by Sam Hanna on Oct 04, 2007 @ 03:01 AM
I propose the exact opposite of every preposition in these comments. (Does this fall within the man playing rule?)
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 04:49 AMSam Hanna @ 04:39 AM:
Apart from this posting, I know nothing about:
Paul Taylor, Head of Media and Publications at Answers in Genesis (UK/Europe), and a former comprehensive school Head of Science.However, from what you say, I can tell you that he is not, as you say “a real school teacher”. He is, self-evidently, a salesman.
He may, like me, have once been a teacher. Unlike me, he gave it up because he found some other activity closer to his aims and ambitions. Nor I have ever met an “unreal” teacher (though I can recall far too many who, intellectually and/or in terms of commitment, were barely there).
Nor would I, as a school governor, chairing appointment panels, have been wholly convinced of the grasp of logic, nay commonsense, in a man who can simultaneously assert:
(a) “no experimental evidence has ever been found for the theory of evolution”, but
(b) “the latter belief [creationism] is more consistent with the actual experimental evidence.”Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 08:55 AMThe thing to remember when arguing with a Christian, (of any type), is that you may as well beat your head off a brick wall. You can use as much logic as you like but inevitably the person who steadfastly believes in (their own) God and miracles can overcome logic in a blink of an eye. The fact that Sam has pitted the God/miracles against science and come to the conclusion that the nine tenths of the people here are gullible and he is not is laughable. Almost as laughable as his list of intellectual big hitters. A straw poll here in this blog puts your ridiculous beliefs in the 10% margin. Your list is more laughable still. All but Maxwell were dead long before Darwin was born (Maxwell died three years before Darwin), so it would limit their options as to which theory they would believe in, although probably not the one that wouldn’t been created for a hundred years or more.
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 08:57 AMnmc - I would disagree with “The thing to remember when arguing with a Christian, (of any type), is that you may as well beat your head off a brick wall” as it is plainly untrue. For Bible-bothering fundamentalists this may be true, but not for all Christians.
The latter part of your post is spot on though. Of course Newton et al. didn’t believe in evolution - no more than they believed in DNA, manned space flight, radio or television. However whilst Mr Hanna (and perhaps other fundies) would not dare use these scientific notables to argue against all of these, he does so without batting an eye-lid when it comes to evolution. Its embarassing really.
The thing of umost importance here for me is that children are taught how to think for themselves, to queston established dogmas and how to analyse evidence. It is right that science no longer teaches the idea of a flat-earth centred universe - although it may be useful for classes to analyse why this initial conclusion became the adopted paradigm back in the day as well as how it was shattered (and the social impact of this). The six-day creation fable, if treated at all, can be treated in this way - with the childish tale of a 4000 year old perfectly created earth of adam and eve enjoying paradise with the frollicking dinosaurs, being deconstructed by presenting the results of hundred of years of scientific efforts (geologial processes, archaeological finds, biological analysis etc.).
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 10:39 AMMalcolm
If you glance back over the previous threads you’ll see that Answers in Genesis are a creationist organisation who visited Lisburn last month on a promotional drive, and who are connected on some level to the Creation Museum in the USA.
Hence, I think it’s a bit rich to play Paul Taylor as an ordinary salt-of-the-earth schoolteacher.....
I liked your point earlier about the function of education. Ideally, a well-educated person should be capable of seeing through the creationism rubbish for themselves, providing they have indeed been educated as opposed to being fed a bunch of crap. That’s another reason it’s so important to keep this nonsense out of schools; to prevent an entire generation of credulous school-leavers from countenancing this as a real alternative to our current best explanation for the origins and development of life on this planet.
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 11:04 AMAnswers in Genesis? The only relevant answer is Genesis is that the first chapter of Genesis says something different from the second chapter of Genesis. In other words, it’s a big post-it note from God saying “don’t take any of this too literally”.
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 11:25 AMI have been taught by research scientists who were appalling teachers. Just because this guy was a former head of science in a school does not make him a scientist (and given the bureaucracy involved in becoming and remaining a department head, it may not speak to his teaching credentials, either)
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 01:12 PMApparently the earth is flat, the centre of the universe, everything revolves around us and the moon has been proved to be made of cheese! Oh yeah and God did it all in less than a week and had a lie in on the Sunday.
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 03:39 PMThe list of Creationist scientists is long and extensive even in our generation. Stop knocking the credentials of people just because you do not agree with their theology.
It is telling that we don’t exactly have a lot of Nobel prize winners on Slugger but all and sundry with their GCSEs in Sociology see fit to castigate the academic integrity of experts in their field.
If you want to read about leading scientists of today who are either ID or 6 Day Creationists I have already posted links. Scientists such as Michael Tigges is a Senior Aerospace Engineer at NASA Johnson Space Center. He was the recipient of the NASA Exceptional Achievement Medal and Engineer of the Month award, and has published papers on landing of spacecraft on the moon and Mars, and the return of men safely to Earth.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4712
There is a good book A Case for a Creator that can be picked up cheap on Amazon and is filled with excellent articles by leading scientists, who all believe in ID, and all with PhDs from Ivy League/Oxbridge Universities in Science including Jonathan Wells, Stephen Meyer and Michael Behe et al.
Snakebrain - stop arrogantly assuming that science equates to evolution just because it suits your moral agenda. It is axiomatic to even a person here with a modicum of objectivity that this is an area of huge debate within the science world. It is totally wrong to simply brainwash kids that all the evidence fits evolution when it patently does not. In fact, it doesn’t even begin to fit 1%!
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 03:51 PMChristians,
Do Christians still believe the Earth is flat? If so how do satalites orbit the globe?
If they don’t how do they stay up there?
If they dont stay up there how do we have Satalite TV?
Do Christians believe that evolution is impossible in itself? If they do then how do they explaned the creation of a ISA Brown Hybrid Layer from a Red Jungle Fowl?
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 03:54 PM“Apparently the earth is flat, the centre of the universe, everything revolves around us and the moon has been proved to be made of cheese! Oh yeah and God did it all in less than a week and had a lie in on the Sunday.”
Try the other more fantastic miracle from Darwin. That trillions of planets were made by nothing out of nothing for nothing. That a man evolved after billions of years from a primordial soup (which came from nothing)and through millions of chance variations in the DNA code (which came from nothing and just appeared) guided through a magic force of natural selection (that came from nothing) which is so “intelligent” that it was able to design and create organs like the brain that despite billions of dollars intelligent science cannot replicate.
Desertspoon - any more fairy stories for us to laugh at with you? You may be gullible enough to believe this but don’t expect the rest of us to check our brains in at the door!
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 04:00 PMBTW the way, whilst I don’t mind the mention of ID in the classroom, they did at mine anyway, I don’t see how it really goes againist evolution.
In fact the way it was presented to us at school was, look isn’t God smart to have dreamed up evolution. We were also told that God was so powerful that he could have created a universive without either beginning or an end so that it was be silly to think of how old the universe was as God would not be constrained by such things.
I dont think that ID can really be equated with Creationism and the 6000 year old theory.
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 04:03 PMSam
You might be interested to know I’ve got a Masters degree in Archaeology, and that my major research area was morphological developments in the cranium during the process of hominid evolution between the Australopithecines and Homo habilis. I haven’t got a GCSE in Sociology; maybe you’d rather talk to someone who does.
It’s not a moral position to state that the evidence fits a certain pattern much better than it does an alternative suggestion. It’s called empirical analysis. You’re flogging a dead horse here. One that’s been out-competed by a more successful horse at that.
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 04:06 PMhehehehehehehehehehe
Rocket Scientists just know everything
hehehehehehehehehehe
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 04:15 PMSam lets get a few things straight:
“The list of Creationist scientists is long and extensive even in our generation.”
I like the way you added that EVEN - as if to try and say that its not only scientists who died before Darwin was born that were not in favour, but EVEN some of the ones afterwards.“Stop knocking the credentials of people just because you do not agree with their theology.”
Nobody is beng knocked for their theology. For all most of us care these people can still put teeth under their pillow for the tooth fairy and leave a whiskey out for Santa if they want. They do however NOT have the right to teach these and similar fairy tales to children and dress it up as an unquestionable truth.As for your constant regurgitation of poor old NASA space cadet, creationist and burger flipper of the month Michael Tigges as some kind of modern day Newton and authority on how the world was made, well you should be careful on who you call to the witness stand. The man himself states “there is very little operational science that is affected by the creation v. evolution dispute. Regardless of a decision in this matter, computers still operate, stars and planets maintain their orbits, and planes and rockets still fly.” In other words, he’s saying “my being a NASA employee has absolutely nothing to do with my belief that the Bible is the literal truth”. Can you understand that Sam? Just because he can use a computer it does not mean he has a special authoriy to pronounce on creation, and he admits it right there.
Anyway you persist in pulling out bargain basement evidence as proof for i.d. and/or creationism with “There is a good book A Case for a Creator that can be picked up cheap on Amazon” - hmmmm I’m thinking “maybe not!” here Sam.
I would however like to ask you if you agree that in this dicsussion of utmost importance is that children are taught how to think for themselves, to queston established dogmas and how to analyse evidence. Do you think it is right that science classes no longer teach theories that have become outdated (such as the miasma theory of disease transmission or the idea of a flat-earth centred universe) and where evidence has suggested a more realistic interpetation? If so, why do you think this?
And how is the creation story from the christian bible any different?
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 04:26 PMThe list of Creationist scientists is long and extensive
Is that why when you listed 4, 3 of them were dead before Darwin wrote the Origin of the Species?
It is telling that we don’t exactly have a lot of Nobel prize winners on Slugger but all and sundry with their GCSEs in Sociology
You’re doing a fantastic job of making your argument. I’m sure everyone here is in awe of your vast array of qualifications, Sam Hanna, resident genius. ROFL.
Scientists such as Michael Tigges...
Well done, you’ve got the name of a scientist, backed up with evidence. The evidence is important though, due to your disengenious use of scientists who were dead before evolutionary theory was discovered we can’t take much of what you say at face value. Due to the lies.
There is a good book ... et al.
No-one is saying that your “theory” is totally unsupported. What we are saying is that your “theory” is supported by a tiny minority of people who know what they’re talking about, and the vast majority of fundie nutcases.
Snakebrain - stop arrogantly (definition of irony there - the most arrogant person ever to post here complaining of someone else’s arrogance) ... 1%
Post some evidence that it fits 1%, as I think you are talking shit, and you have proven yourself prepared to mislead with bullshit information.
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 04:34 PM“Do Christians believe that evolution is impossible in itself?”
Evolution is essentially governed by maths and statistics - given a long enough time period, natural selection/survival of the fittest will occur since those individuals whose genetic make-up renders them more suited to their habitat, are statistically more likely to procreate and pass those favourable genes onto the next generations.
The problem that Creationists have with that statistical analysis is that the timescales needed to explain the full extent of evolutionary history is in direct contradiction to the supposedly immutable fact, as stated in the Bible, that God only started the clock 6000 years ago.
However, just because fundamentalist Christians can’t accept that past evolution got us to the point where we are today, doesn’t mean that they can’t believe in the continuance of evolution of species in the present and on into the future, surely?
(Unless imminent Armageddon stops the clock.)
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 04:47 PMIan, they’’re all waiting for the rapture or a second coming of a messiah or some such bullshit.
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 04:52 PMFraggle,
Hmm, the Rapture: surely the most pernicious of all the Fundie notions.
How misguided would you need to be to believe that your skygod would zap you and the other “saved” peeps when she chose to, and leave the rest of humankind battling it out in a sort of living hell?
Bear in mind that this sort of dangerous bullshit is taught as fact to innocent children—yet another form of Fundie child-abuse.
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 05:15 PM
