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
Do you guys have Jehova’s witnesses there?
a particularily odd bunch of christian fundies who in the 70’s claimed that the world was going to end an extremely finite group of only thousands were going to be spared from armegedon and amazingly enough you had to be a witness to be saved. great recruiting drive huh lol
but as the world didnt end they had to come up with a new lie I was just a kid so i dont remember what it was
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 06:06 PMCircles
It is a deceitful sleight of hand trick to try and equate ID with flat earth belief as there is no recognised scientist that belives such today.
I have delineated that there is a substantial (albeit minority) number of extremely well-educated scientists and philosophers who see all of the empirical evidence pointing to ID.
There are even higher numbers of Nobel prize winners, leading scientist in their field who recognise the huge vacuums of evidence to verify the outlandish claims of evolution. I have mentioned some of these in my posts which clearly irrates you, as it does not fit in with your pre-suppositional commitments to the Darwin story. That is why you have to refer to people like Stephem Meyer, Michael Tigges, Michael Behe, Gerald Schroder et al in pejorative terms like “burger flipper” and imply that their specialisation debars them from speaking about the broader question of evolution. Strangely it does not stop you citing wildly other specialists like Richard Dawkins as an unquestioned authority!
Snakebrain - do us all a favour a masters in some dopey course at a former poly on a few old bones does not equate to blowing out of the water the ID experts listed above. In fact, if your course was worth anything it would have shown you the devastating implications for evolution in the fossil record and the paucity of evidence for the fairy tale.
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 06:08 PMSam Hanna,
I have read with interest all your posts but I am afraid that this whole debate is producing vast heat and little light.You and your opponents are arguing at crossed purposes. This is achieving very little.
As I said before I do not believe that one can argue people into the Kingdom of God. I also do not accept that one must believe in creationism prior to making a Christian committment.
I must admit all that is happening now is that name calling is breaking out on all sides. This is nolonger a terribly useful debate.
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 06:17 PMMaybe not, but it doesn’t equate to a GCSE in Sociology either. I’d be interested to know how you did your research on my academic backfround btw. And it certainly taught me a few things about evolution.
[Be blunt, by all means, but keep it civil - edited moderator]
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 06:18 PMSam, sam, sam,
Firstly I would appreciate it if you actually were to read my posts before engaging your knee jerk reaction. If you find a single quote from Richard Dawkins I would be more than surprised - the quote I did use was from your favourite NASA man Mr. Tigges.
I do not imply that his specialisation debars him from speaking about evolution - I said that simply being a NASA employee in applied science (running calcs on a computer) does not qualify his belief in a fairy tale as the truth. He can talk about it all he wants, but he is not an authority. The one has nothing to do with the other. He is a former worker of the month in a state owned company.
He is not Newton, he is not Einstein, he is not Hawking - he isn’t even one of your fabled creationist Nobel Prize Winners (do you have any names?) - he is a lowly number cruncher in a civil service job. End of story.I would however STILL like your answer to my question. Do you agree that in this discussion 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?
Now to get back to the point of the thread -
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 06:25 PMSam,
I read with ever increasing amusement your desperate “arguments” in favour of the mental illness that is i.d.You have the cheek to state that children should be allowed to decide for themselves, yet in the same breath advocate a superstitious sect that brainwashes children from birth! (Thats religion Sam).
You go on to quote a range of other deluded opinions in a vein attempt to assert the credibility of i.d. as a testable scientific theory when, and I quote from the title article:
“...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.”
Translated as, “we believe the bible is right, everything else must fit around it, no matter what the evidence to the contrary.” That is not the thinking of a sound mind in any respect. It’s a statement which flies in the face of every scientific principle. Starting with your own warped view and working backwards, selecting what you will to attempt to make if fit isn’t called science, its called LYING!
Frankly I think your belief system is disgusting, a cancerous, depraved set of beliefs that preys on the weak and vulnerable and actively seeks to stop analytical thought, responsible for untold atrocities through the ages. The crux of the i.d. argument is based solely on the dusty book of lies and fairy tales being pulled apart by science and progress, nothing more. It is a desperate attempt to keep the lie alive. Good luck Sam, you need it.
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 07:00 PMI have found the comments by one particular contributor to this and related threads to be pretty dispiriting, but I have also been greatly encouraged by the comments from the majority of other contributors.
With my interest aroused, I have followed some parts of the story to other sources and I came across a fascinating article on the website of the British Centre for Science Education. It is an analysis of the wider creationist agenda of the Free Presbyterian wing of the DUP. It is very scary stuff.
I was surprised to learn too of an unusual but sinister twist to the Giant’s Causeway Centre story. The article claims that part of the interest that certain members of the DUP have in this Centre is to influence its educational programme so as to promote a creationist “theory” of the Causeway’s formation (apparently it is said that the Causeway was formed only 4,500 years ago during Noah’s Flood).
I recommend that you read the article, which can be found here-
http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/PaisleysPartyBacksCreationismInSchools
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 07:19 PMBegging your pardon Pete, was anticipating a short time spent in purgatory for that one lol
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 07:20 PMSean,
“Do you guys have Jehova’s witnesses there?”
Are you kidding? We’ve had them in the UK for decades. A godawful cult if ever there was one. They split families; when a chap joins up he has to cut off ties with all non-Witnesses. Terrible.
This is par for the course with cults, Islam included, and Judaism to a certain extent. We good, rest of the world bad. If it weren’t so arrogant and destructive it would be rolling-in-the-aisles comedy.
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 07:26 PMCiaran,
I meant to comment on tha t article. A few paragraphs in, there’s a crosshead that reads:
“The Petition to Get Cretionism Into Schools”
I’m being honest when I say I read this as:
“The Petition to Get Cretinism Into Schools” :0)
But the whole business of the Giant’s Causeway has for me acquired some sinister undertones because of this article. I’m trying to avoid seeing a conspiracy here, but… The Creationists are known far and wide as peeps who do not play fair.
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 07:34 PMSam
May I ask - are you a young-earth or old-earth creationist? If the former, can you give us (or link us to) a detailed young-earth historical timeline? I’ve looked for one online but never had any luck.
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 07:36 PMCiaran (and Dawkins)
That particular angle is addressed here
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 07:39 PMIsn’t is about time someone called someone else a nazi and thus put an end to this rediculous thread?
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 07:53 PMStiofán de Buit @ 08:36 PM:
Archbishop Ussher, a Trinity man (for which I offer apologies in lieu, but the extenuation is that it was 1650 and he was doing his best), made the calculation that gets remembered. It was included in many printing of the King James Bible, and so gained a significance it was never meant to have.
The outline you seek is summarised, and a couple of links given, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 07:53 PMPete,
Thank God...er, I mean, Thank Darwin that you and others have been more vigilant about this issue than I have been. I have been gnashing my teeth in the darkness about this danger, but now that I see the light..., okay that’s enough Biblical parody for now.
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 08:04 PMthe “Free” in free p’s obviously doesnt stand for freethought
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 08:04 PMCircles
As the largest group of Nobel Prize winners were Jewish (20%) I think we can safely assume that believing in ID is not incompatible with being a great mind.
Rather than me simply listing the huge number of examples of famous scientists who believe in a Creator God, perhaps you can read through their biographies here,
http://www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs_toc.htm
To give you a sample,
Nobel Prize winner and physicist Arthur Compton said:
For myself, faith begins with the realization at a supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man. It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for it is incontrovertible that where there is a plan there is intelligence - an orderly,unfolding universe testifies to the truth of the most majestic statement ever uttered -“In the beginning God.”
Nobel Physics Laureate Arno Penzias summed up the dilemma for atheists:
Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan.
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 08:09 PMOh, I forgot to list the leading Genetics Expert for N. Ireland for the last 50 years and mentioned in a recent Talkback Interview by DUP Councillor Girvan was none other than 6 Day Creationist and member of the Brethren Assembly, Prof Norman Nevins.
So what “credentials” have the half-wits on Slugger got to make their wild and ignorant claims about men like this?
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 08:13 PMProfessor Norman C Nevin OBE. Chair of GTAC. Norman C. Nevin is Emeritus Professor of Medical Genetics, Queen’s University of. Belfast and Head of the Northern Regional Genetics Service. He has held the positions of secretary, vice-president and president of the UK Clinical Genetics Society as well as serving on various national and international committees notably the Human Genetics Advisory Commission. He is a member of the European Concerted Action for congenital abnormalities. Professor Nevin was a founder member of the UK Gene Therapy Advisory Committee (GTAC) and is currently Chairman. His research interests have resulted in over 300 peer reviewed publications on various aspects of genetics,especially single gene disorders and congenital abnormalities. In 2003 he received an OBE for his services to gene therapy.
http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/genetics/gtac/delegatepack3.pdf
NOT BAD FOR A 6 DAY CREATIONIST
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 08:17 PMAs reported yesterday in the Sunday Times, twelve senior academics have written to the Prime Minister and Education Secretary in support of Truth in Science.
The group was led by Norman Nevin OBE, Professor Emeritus of Medical Genetics, Queen’s University of Belfast and included Antony Flew, former Professor of Philosophy at Reading University and a distinguished supporter of humanism.
“We write to applaud the Truth in Science initiative,” the letter said. Empirical science has to recognise “severe limitations concerning origins” and Darwinism is not necessarily “the best scientific model to fit the data that we observe”.
They concluded: “We ask therefore that, where schools so choose, you ensure an open and honest approach to this subject under the National Curriculum, at the same time ensuring that the necessary criteria are maintained to deliver a rigorous education.”
The other signatories were: David Back, Professor of Pharmacology at the University of Liverpool; Steve Fuller, Professor of Sociology at Warwick University; Mart de Groot, Director, Retired, Armagh Astronomical Observatory; Terry Hamblin, Professor of Immunohaematology, University of Southampton; Colin Reeves, Professor of Operational Research at Coventry University and John Walton, Professor of Chemistry, St Andrews University, as well as the three University Professors who are members of the TiS Board and Council.
Professor Norman Nevin has authored over 300 peer-reviewed publications on various aspects of genetics, especially single gene disorders and congenital abnormalities. In his distinguished career he has held the posts: Head of the Northern Regional Genetics Service, President of the UK Clinical Genetics Society, member of the Human Genetics Advisory Commission and of the subsequent Human Genetics Commission, member of the European Concerted Action for Congenital Abnormalities, Chairman of the UK Gene Therapy Advisory Committee (GTAC). In 2003 he received an OBE for his services to gene therapy.
On 11 December, Professor Nevin received a response from the Department for Education and Skills’ Public Communications Unit on behalf of both the Prime Minster and the Education Secretary. The support for Truth in Science had been “noted by the Department” but the “vast majority” of enquiries that the DfES received had “expressed concern” about the Truth in Science resource pack.
“Intelligent design is not a recognised scientific theory” the Department claimed “and is therefore not included in the science curriculum. The Truth in Science information pack is not therefore an appropriate resource to support the science curriculum.”
However, intelligent design could discussed in science classes in response to pupil’s questions: “During a science lesson on evolution it is possible that pupils may ask about creationism and intelligent design. In this situation, the Department would expect teachers to answer pupil’s questions about this and other beliefs in a balanced way.”
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/217/63
Ooooh....dear - did someone forget to tell them???
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 08:19 PMOn 10 December 2006, the Sunday Sequence programme that is presented on BBC Radio Ulster by William Crawley was devoted entirely to a debate between Richard Dawkins and Professor Andy McIntosh of the organisation ‘Truth in Science’ whose website can be accessed on http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/ Professor McIntosh was one of the 50 scientists who contributed to the book I mentioned earlier called ‘In six days’ and his qualifications were given as ‘He holds a B.S. with first class honours in applied mathematics from the University of Wales, a Ph.D. in the theory of combustion from the Cranfield Institute of Technology and a D.Sc. in mathematics from the University of Wales’. I make reference to my own reflections on that radio debate in the latter part of another article on our website that can be accessed on http://www.takeheed.net/Cecil’sBCSECRITICS.htm
Two pro-creation audience contributors during that debate were local men Professor Norman Nevin and Rev Robert Beckett. Early in my Christian life I bought a very helpful little booklet called ‘Answers to Questions’ that was published by the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London. Both these local men contributed to that booklet – Professor Nevin was listed as Norman C Nevin MD. BSc. FRCP (Edin) Professor of Medical Genetics, The Queens University of Belfast and Rev Beckett was listed as Dr Robert C Beckett, Animal Geneticist, Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland. Other contributors to the booklet included Professor Verna Wright MD. FRCP Professor of Rheumatology, University of Leeds: David Watts PhD Materials Scientist, University of Manchester and David B Gower D Sc. PhD. C Chem. FRIC, F I Biol Reader in Biochemistry, University of London. It would appear that this little booklet is still available for purchase from the Metropolitan Tabernacle Bookshop and if you go to their website on http://www.tabernaclebookshop.org/ and type in Answers to Questions in the ‘search’ box you should see details of how to order the booklet. I would recommend it to all who are ‘wrestling’ with these issues of creation and evolution.
http://www.takeheed.net/DeludedDawkins.htm
Oh no, not more surely.........
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 08:22 PMRight, nobody talk to him and maybe he’ll shut up
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 08:47 PMSam,
I would like to recommend that you read a particular good book (but not The Good Book). It is called “How to think about weird things: Critical thinking for a new age”. The authors are Theodore Schick and Lewis Vaughn.
You can get it from Amazon-
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 08:50 PMSnakebrain’s pet theories are crumbling after a collision with the harsh world of facts. Can anyone save him from further embarrassment?
Don’t play in the grown ups world snakey - stick to the pub stories about evolution with your mates.
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 08:53 PMSam take a breath you seem to be hyperventilating or in a panic attack but lets start at the top
Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing
No the big bang theory states that all the matter in the universe was located as a single mass in the centre and at some point 6 to 10 billion years ago(kind of hard to give acurate dates because the calculations are horrendus) anyways the ball of matter in the centre of the universe suddenly expoded and scattered all the matter of the universe out into space, they use the fact that the universe is still expanding as proof of their theory and measure time on the belief that the universe expands a given measurable rate
If your Physicist really uttered the quote you attribute to him he really is not much of a physicistNorman C Necin By your post is a geneticist that specializes in fixing broken genes? Is that not blasphemy? surely god does not make mistakes so congenital defects are not defects but in fact part of gods great plan so tinkering with his handi-work is blasphemy is it not?
So in a country of 60 million 12 people mostly in unrelated fields and non sciences signed a letter attesting to the science of creationism. Nice ratio
the rest of its just religous mumbo jumbo and since this is a discusion about science there is no point involving fairy tales
You put entirely too much emphasis on other peoples opinions think for yourself. For every scientist you list who believes in fairy tales theres a thousand who do not
Posted by on Oct 04, 2007 @ 08:56 PM
