"Nobel laureates: ban creationism in Scottish schools"

[bhsmte]

Perhaps he thinks he's a "strong independent"?

Know anyone that claims that?

He appears quite dependent to me.

 

[Delphiki]

Not hardly.

Mark 12:37b And the common people heard him gladly.

Why do you think scince uses all those fancy Latin words, like lawyers do?

So common sense can agree?

I think not.

Proverbs 3:5 - Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding

Don't think, just believe, right?

 

[Delphiki]

1

What did Jesus do between the ages of 1 and 30? Looks like by your reasoning, he didn't exist.

 

[Delphiki]

If even the atheists are waking up to the problem - who am I as a Christian to continue to swallow blind faith evolutionism - instead of accepting God's own account of origins?

Keep using the word faith as if it were a bad thing. It only further exposes the flaw in your position in the same way creationists claim that "science is a religion".

That's how we know the seed of doubt has been successfully planted in your mind.

 

[Loudmouth]

1. There is massive fraud supporting -- like the famous horse series fraud that even atheists now admit "never happened in nature".

Are all of those sequenced genomes also frauds? Are all of those transitional horses also fake fossils?

2. There is massive story telling about "a massive decrease in entropy" for molecule to human mind ... evolutionism.

The creationist version of thermodynamics won't even allow for the process of making human babies. If a single cell can not become a full human, then you are arguing against embryonic development way more than you are evolution.

Or could it be that there can be a decrease in entropy if there is an overall increase in entropy across the whole system?

3. There is massive "hand waiving" about "prokaryotes becoming eukaryotes because bacteria can modify their diet" when we all know that such a transition to eukaryote has never been observed in the lab.

You don't observe the hypothesis. We can add the scientific method to the list of things you don't understand. What next? The Civil War didn't happen because you never saw any battles while driving around in Georgia?

The mechanism to "invent new organs" has never been "observed in nature".

Again, you don't observe the hypothesis.

The list of "blind faith stories" is large - but I especially like the one where they try to "make up the story for the origin of bats".

in Christ,

Bob

Why would we need faith when we have evidence?

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

 

[CabVet]

Proverbs 3:5 - Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding

Don't think, just believe, right?

Classic, believe what is written here, not what you think is true. How can you go wrong?

 

[CabVet]

What did Jesus do between the ages of 1 and 30? Looks like by your reasoning, he didn't exist.

Haha, good one! But more importantly: AV has already said that even if we provided the evidence that he asks, he would not accept evolution. So why ask? Why question the evidence when evidence could possibly change his mind?

 

[RickG]

What did Jesus do between the ages of 1 and 30? Looks like by your reasoning, he didn't exist.

Well, the Gospel of Thomas describes his childhood, but it didn't get included in the bible. Probably because he was a rather bad boy.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

I am Scottish. I live in Scotland.

I have no objection to creationism and Young Earth concepts being taught, but not as part of a science curriculum where they are introduced as viable alternatives. If they were introduced within a science curriculum they would have to be treated in the same way we treat discussions of alchemy, astrology, or phlogiston.

If they are taught as part of religious studies, that's fine.

Thanks for sharing your perspective!

I also think it's acceptable, and actually truly beneficial, to teach some of the most prominent creationism stories as part of religious studies and in history classes because they are relevant to the foundations of many cultures. There's a significant difference between teaching it within historical and religious contexts and teaching it as a supplanter to established science. We studied creationism extensively in my world religions class, but we did not exclusively study it from the perspective of Abrahamic religions since there are creation stories from around the world and throughout human history. We did devote quite a bit of time to the parallelisms between the creation stories of Greek mythology, Hinduism, and the Abrahamic religions, but also studied creationism in Maori, Native American, Peruvian, Asian and African cultures. We informally discussed YEC quite a bit because of the recent controversies that have been in the media regarding it. In history classes we learned about creationism as it was relevant to whatever we were studying in history, the main ones being creationism in Greek mythology in relation to western civilization, and the Scopes Trial. I go to a private nonsectarian school, so I think there are a lot more liberties. I don't know what's taught at public schools.

IMO, young earth creationism has a role in a science class room, and it's providing students with a proper understanding of the history of science. It should be portrayed as the old paradigm through which geology (and other sciences) used to be interpreted before an overwhelming amount of contradictory evidence was amassed and it was gradually supplanted.

Good points. It's my understanding that the proposed ban in Scotland would be for teaching creationism "as viable alternatives to the established science of evolution, common descent and deep time," rather than an absolute abolishment of it in all contexts from all schools. Newspapers usually try to have more succinct titles, which is probably why the Scottish Herald titled the article "Nobel laureates: ban creationism in Scottish schools" instead of more fully explaining the intentions of the proposed ban as the article proceeds to do.

Sir Harold Kroto, Sir Richard Roberts and Sir John Sulston have signed a petition lodged at the Scottish Parliament calling for guidance to be introduced for teachers.

The Scottish Secular Society wants a ban in publicly funded Scottish schools of the "presentation of separate creation and Young Earth doctrines as viable alternatives to the established science of evolution, common descent and deep time".

Presumably, part of the guidance for teachers would be explaining the appropriate contexts for teaching creationism.

 

[Loudmouth]

I am Scottish. I live in Scotland.

I have no objection to creationism and Young Earth concepts being taught, but not as part of a science curriculum where they are introduced as viable alternatives. If they were introduced within a science curriculum they would have to be treated in the same way we treat discussions of alchemy, astrology, or phlogiston.

If they are taught as part of religious studies, that's fine.

According to creationists, you are not a true Scotsman.*

*Triple word score for literal use of a logical fallacy

 

[bhsmte]

Thanks for sharing your perspective!

I also think it's acceptable, and actually truly beneficial, to teach some of the most prominent creationism stories as part of religious studies and in history classes because they are relevant to the foundations of many cultures. There's a significant difference between teaching it within historical and religious contexts and teaching it as a supplanter to established science. We studied creationism extensively in my world religions class, but we did not exclusively study it from the perspective of Abrahamic religions since there are creation stories from around the world and throughout human history. We did devote quite a bit of time to the parallelisms between the creation stories of Greek mythology, Hinduism, and the Abrahamic religions, but also studied creationism in Maori, Native American, Peruvian, Asian and African cultures. We informally discussed YEC quite a bit because of the recent controversies that have been in the media regarding it. In history classes we learned about creationism as it was relevant to whatever we were studying in history, the main ones being creationism in Greek mythology in relation to western civilization, and the Scopes Trial. I go to a private nonsectarian school, so I think there are a lot more liberties. I don't know what's taught at public schools.



Good points. It's my understanding that the proposed ban in Scotland would be for teaching creationism "as viable alternatives to the established science of evolution, common descent and deep time," rather than an absolute abolishment of it in all contexts from all schools. Newspapers usually try to have more succinct titles, which is probably why the Scottish Herald titled the article "Nobel laureates: ban creationism in Scottish schools" instead of more fully explaining the intentions of the proposed ban as the article proceeds to do.



Presumably, part of the guidance for teachers would be explaining the appropriate contexts for teaching creationism.

IMO, I am with Daniel Dennett and believe, all religious philosophy should be taught to students, in a type of religious history class.

But, teaching creation in science? I don't think so, unless of course, they actually come up with some legit science.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

IMO, I am with Daniel Dennett and believe, all religious philosophy should be taught to students, in a type of religious history class.

But, teaching creation in science? I don't think so, unless of course, they actually come up with some legit science.

For the most part I agree.

I think Troodon's point about how creationism could be taught as an old paradigm through which other sciences were interpreted in the past, but the qualifier I'd add to it was that this should only be done if it was relevant to what was currently being taught. There are circumstances when teaching creationism is important in science classes, but the key is the context and intent. We learned about creationism in the science class I took at UCLA this summer to understand why it is not a scientific alternative to evolution.

There are also classes that are hybrids of science, history, and philosophy, such as one we have called "History of Science: Great Ideas, Observations, and Experimentations" that appropriately include creationism. I'll c&p the course description:

"This year-long course examines the great ideas and great observations and experiments that have shaped the development of science. Using a case study method, students examine the interplay between observations of the physical world, attempts to explain those observations, and the methods used to test the resulting explanations. As part of the methodology of the inquiry, students learn and practice the skills of philosophical analysis, logical argument, and criticism. Topics include Aristotle’s physics, psychology, biology; Ancient astronomies in Babylonian, Greek, Chinese, and Islamic cultures; ancient medical study; modern astronomy and physics; development of atomism, electro- magnetism, evolutionary theory, relativity theory, modern psychology and cognitive science; social sciences, etc."

It's not specifically included in that brief class description, but learning about YEC creationism is a part of the course; we learned why it and other ancient myths have been debunked. *This is a class at a private nonsectarian school.*

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Junk science blind faith evolutionism - on display for even the atheists to see.

====================================

Collin Patterson (atheist and diehard evolutionist to the day he died in 1998) - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history speaking at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 - said:

Patterson - quotes Gillespie's arguing that Christians
"'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'"

Patterson countered, "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact (saying):'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"

"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...

"...,Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."

Did you simply copy and paste these quotes from a creationist website without attempting to validate their veracity or understand their context and intent? It only took a brief Google search to discover the facts about these quotes and how they were obtained in an underhanded manner by a creationist, cunningly contorted to suit an agenda, and then unscrupulously disseminated across creationist circles and later the internet. Most who've read the quotes haven't known the full truth about them, and even those who did most likely couldn't fully understand the actual truth of what Patterson was saying because his remarks were to professionals and within specific parameters regarding evolution. They were never intended for laypeople who didn't know the difference between criticizing something specific like a brand of soap, and throwing the baby, the bathwater, and the tub out and then demolishing the whole house.

"Patternson Misquoted: A Tale of Two 'Cites'" illuminates the matter. Here's a passage from a letter Patterson wrote pertaining to that speech:

I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false.

That brush with Sunderland (I had never heard of him before) was my first experience of creationists. The famous "keynote address" at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 was nothing of the sort. It was a talk to the "Systematics Discussion Group" in the Museum, an (extremely) informal group. I had been asked to talk to them on "Evolutionism and creationism"; fired up by a paper by Ernst Mayr published in Science just the week before. I gave a fairly rumbustious talk, arguing that the theory of evolution had done more harm than good to biological systematics (classification). Unknown to me, there was a creationist in the audience with a hidden tape recorder. So much the worse for me. But my talk was addressed to professional systematists, and concerned systematics, nothing else.

I hope that by now I have learned to be more circumspect in dealing with creationists, cryptic or overt. But I still maintain that scepticism is the scientist's duty, however much the stance may expose us to ridicule.

Yours Sincerely,

[signed]

Colin Patterson

If you scroll down the site linked above you can see the full letter, and above it there is a link you can click on to view a PDF of the original signed by Patterson.

If even the atheists are waking up to the problem - who am I as a Christian to continue to swallow blind faith evolutionism - instead of accepting God's own account of origins?

He never "woke up" to the "problem" of evolution as you were led to believe he did, and there's no reason to swallow blind faith evolution when there's ample legitimate knowledge readily available to digest. Many Christians accept evolution as the central unifying theme of biology without distress to their faith. It depends on your hermeneutical approach to Genesis.

 

[CabVet]

If you scroll down the site linked above you can see the full letter, and above it there is a link you can click on to view a PDF of the original signed by Patterson.

Classic creationist quote mining. The dishonesty never ceases to amaze me.

 

[Astrophile]

blind faith evolutionism does however present its own blind faith religion that is opposed to Bible doctrine because evolutionism is in fact religion combined with junk science.

It goes to extremes as in the case of declaring it a law that you cannot say in class "There exists a book in the library that students can read on their own if they wish to know more about this or that competitive theory to blind faith evolutionism".

in Christ,

Bob

I don't understand what you mean by 'blind faith evolutionism'. As a child and an adolescent, in the 1950s and 1960s, I was brought up as a Christian, and attended Sunday school and church faithfully every week. As for my scientific education, I learned from library books the rudiments of how living things have evolved; I wasn't taught much about evolution in primary or secondary school. Also, my main interest was (and still is) astronomy; geology and biology were less important.

During the 1970s, I unfortunately came into contact with creationist groups, both at work and in the church that I attended. In order to find out more, and in case I had misunderstood what evolution was about, I bought various scientific books about evolution (e.g. The Origin of Species and The Descent of Man, and books by G.G. Simpson, Stephen Jay Gould, John Maynard Smith, and Michael Ruse), and some creationist books, among them Scientific Creationism by Henry Morris and Evolution or Creation, by Professor H. Enoch. (I still think that Enoch's book was a waste of money.)

In addition to this, I did some research into Christianity in general, rather on the theory of I Corinithians 13:11, that I needed a man's understanding of Christianity rather than a child's. As a result, I began to find out things about the origins and history of Christianity that I had not been taught in 26 years of attending church 15 years of Religious Education in school. After four years of research (1978 to 1982), I became convinced that the gospels are not the work of eye-witnesses and that the essential doctrines of Christianity, specifically those of the incarnation, the atonement and the resurrection, are false.

I mention all this to show that I was not driven by a blind faith in evolutionism. I was so convinced that Christianity was true that I had spend four years on research before concluding that it is false. If I could spend so long on research into Christianity in order to come to that conclusion, do you think that during the last 30 years I would not have found out the flaws in the scientific account of the nature of the universe and the evolution of life if that account was false?

 

[CabVet]

I don't understand what you mean by 'blind faith evolutionism'.

Psychological projection. They are using the very foundation of their philosophy (faith) as an insult against what threatens it.

 

[RickG]

Psychological projection. They are using the very foundation of their philosophy (faith) as an insult against what threatens it.

Sadly, most rebuttals by creationists are insults and willful denial, when shown what creation science says mainstream science says, is not actually what mainstream science says, rather misrepresentations.

 

[CabVet]

Sadly, most rebuttals by creationists are insults and willful denial, when shown what creation science says mainstream science says, is not actually what mainstream science says, rather misrepresentations.

I know, what I don't understand is why they use the foundations of their own philosophy (faith) as an insult (or as if it was a bad thing).

 

[RickG]

I know, what I don't understand is why they use the foundations of their own philosophy (faith) as an insult (or as if it was a bad thing).

Exactly, the word faith (the foundation of Christianity) is thrown out in a manner meant to insult. I do not have faith that evolution is true, but I do have confidence that more than likely it is true based of current evidence that has been acquired. I will continue to retain that confidence until other such credible evidence can be shown to invalidate it.

 

[BobRyan]

Did you simply copy and paste these quotes from a creationist website without attempting to validate their veracity or understand their context and intent? It only took a brief Google search to discover the facts about these quotes and how they were obtained in an underhanded manner by a creationist, cunningly contorted to suit an agenda, and then unscrupulously disseminated across creationist circles and later the internet.

Ad hominem attacks while back-handedly admitting that the quote is verbatim - accurate. pure.

Nobody is forcing Patterson to make these confessions even in your own statments and all the supposed revelation you claim.

Nothing.. nada ... zip in that regard. The statements "remain"

The point -- "remains".

Most who've read the quotes haven't known the full truth about them, and even those who did most likely couldn't fully understand the actual truth of what Patterson was saying

Wrong again. The quotes are incredibly easy to understand. No dark knowledge, no secret knowledge needed. The points are obvious as he states them and NEVER does Patterson claim that his words are not understandable.

because his remarks were to professionals and within specific parameters regarding evolution. They were never intended for laypeople

Here again you are trying out the "hopeful monster" defense -- you appear to imagine or hope that the evolutionists Patterson was addressing were "pleased" or "not at all shocked" -- even as the laypeople that read those words would be.

Turns out that is not at all true with regard to the talk he gave at the museum in Chicago.

If you scroll down the site linked above you can see the full letter, and above it there is a link you can click on to view a PDF of the original signed by Patterson.

I have all the material and the "hopeful rescue" you seem to have hoped for - never shows up in it.

He never "woke up" to the "problem" of evolution as you were led to believe he did, .

His "wake up"-- was in his own words, in his own lament ... He never retracts them. He would love to have had a better state of things in his much beloved religion of evolutionism. This is beyond question.

The point remains.

in Christ,

Bob