91Èȱ¬

What a genius.

Biblical creationism canot be taught as a Scientific Theory. Let's assume, only for the sake of argument, that there was solid scientific evidence for a Young Earth. By what scientific priniciples could we establish that on day one came light, or day six animals? How could we establish scientifically that the stars were for marking out seasons?

I think when the DUP were offered the chance for Devolution here they possibly got the wrong end of the stick

Heretical

Very, very good. The first post in a long time that's made me laugh out loud. In a public library.

Graham Veale

I am seriously going to vote Sinn Fein from now on - it must be the quickest way of bring this appalling farce of a government at Stormont to an end.

climate change deniers, homophobes and young earth creationists. Aren't we lucky people. What did we do to deserve this bunch?
Dp

OliverBenen:

'Extreme anti-abortionists' could be added to your list.

Alas, almost 208,000 people voted for them in 2007, 30% of the total votes and up nearly 5% from the previous assembly election in 2003. Remember that over half the total voters opted for either them or Sinn Fein.

So they, if not you or me, have the politicians they deserve.

Has it occurred to anyone that if the DUP really wanted Christian Values promoted in Northern Ireland, they would become persuaders for a United Ireland?
Brian, I think there is a silver lining on the cloud, for you if not for me. The DUP are trying to start a culture war to maximise their vote. They will get the votes. But I think they'll lose the war.
Put Iris on the cover of your next issue. Better yet, arrange an interview. Sales will rocket. Then get some members of the DUP to state what they think should be taught in Schools.
Pardon the phrase, but I think the DUP's behaviour is a gift from the gods for the Secular Humanist society.

Graham Veale

As a headteacher of a school in Lisburn I have already dealt with nonsense like this. Under no circumstanceses will my school give credence to the narrow minded anti-science agenda of fundamentalist cults, intent on imposing their personal views on the population of Northern Ireland. I'm horrified that Northern Ireland is in danger of becoming known as a center promoting "anti science". We should be developing our reputation for innovation, creativity and scientific excellence rather than wasting time, energy and credability on redundant narrow minded religious dogma.

It seems to me that NI is not as advanced as Dover Pennsylvania. Perhaps in a few hundred years.

So I take it none of you guys believe that God created the universe.

#11
i think that's being dealt with in the comments on the previous post to this one.
:)
dp

smasher-lagru

That's right, I think god did not create the universe. At the time it happened, he was off somewhere having a beer. By the time he knew something was happening, it was over already.

Thge problem you reactionary nothing-but-evolution types have is you don't live in the real world. And you don't understand modern education approaches.

Most schools operate on cross curricular approaches - you do something in history, you link it with the literature of the time, the art and music, look at the geography and the state of science. That's the way kids are taught nowadays in many schools, rather than with rigid subject separation.

So if kids are learning about evolution in science and creation in RE they are going to make the links even if the teachers studiously try to avoid doing this. Theology isn't science, but neither is science theology.

As you know I speak from a Catholic perspective, not a protestant literalistist perspective. The great majority of people who believe in creation by God don't believe in a young earth, six day creation and yet that is what is always wheeled out for discussions.

As for the science of evolution (a term Darwin of course avoided since he could see the notion of intelligent design inherent in the term) - science still has a lot of work to do. Where are all the missing links in the fossil record? Where are all the in between species, the partly mutated? I'm not saying I absolutely disagree with evolution - but it remains a scientific theory. And when children in a science class ask the question, "what caused the big bang?" - beyond saying "we don't know" it seems entirely legitimate to say "most people believe it was God". And that, in social science terms, is a statistical fact.

William Crawley is to be congratulatedat least for enabling listeners to hear Professor Dawkins totally discredit both himself and his decrepit and dying views on Evolution and Darwinism.

While not puttting forward one scintilla of evidence for his worn out theories, he did manage in his typically un-gentlemaly fashion ,attemt to deride all who disagreed with him. Ranging from Moses who was " a mere camel herder", through Lady Hope whom he called "a liar" and the hundreds of Creationist Ph,D's and others "who didn't know what they were talking about".
Near the end of his diatribe he compared his theories with The law of gravity!.
Come now Prfessor.Where have you heard mention of The law of evolution?

Of course not! The man-made theory of evolution is becoming increasingly unacceptable to the scientific community.

As has been said elsewhere if we allow creationism to be taught in schools then we have to allow all creation storys, not just the christian one - there simply wouldn't be enough time.
there may be a cross curricular approach, but we still need to seperate fact from myth.
There is plenty of evidence in the fossil record and its nonsense to state that this isn't the case.
Obviously we can never have a complete fossil record, but we have only been searching for fossils for a relatively short period of time, and new discoverys are being made all the time.
it's a long process to get your ideas in to school text books - years of peer review and broad scientific agreement before you get anywhere close - why should intelligent design have the privilege to by-pass this process?

dp

#15
"The man-made theory of evolution is becoming increasingly unacceptable to the scientific community"

not it isn't, that is complete nonsense. Intelligent Design proponents are a tiny minority.
Even Michael Behe - the supposed ace in the pack of creationists, doesn't believe the earth is 4000 years old.
Higlighting problems with evolution doesn't mean that god wins by default.
It's not enough to say "god did it" - tell us how.

dp

Goddness m15

Anyone for a game of creationist bingo?



Yep it is only a few hundred creationists who have Phds, and a good lot of them are dentists! and funnily all are Protestant fundaMENTALists-funny that!?

With the stunning info you present you really should present this Nobel prize winning stuff to the world scientific community instead of posting on local blogs(no offense to Will Crawley), you will of course be world-famous and make billions! But funnily enough creationists never do this-mmm wonder why that is?

ReflectingErasmus, you and your colleagues were placed in the front line in the last little spat of this war that the DUP would like to launch. The responses from the professional educators in Lisburn was impressive and resolute, and I salute you for it.

Personally, I am an atheist, and I am happy (nay, delighted) to argue over the topic, but I have very many Christian (and other religions) friends, who are excellent scientists, and I do not see their faiths interfering with their scientific output. All of them accept the age of the earth, the fact of evolution, and the theoretical underpinnings of our understanding of evolution.

Teaching creationism as science would be like teaching astrology or mediumship as science. It is pseudoscientific claptrap - culturally it has had an impact, but science it ain't.

Mystic Mervyn has failed in the Lisburn bid, and now wants to take it to Stormont. We can expect to see more. But it is hugely encouraging to note that the decent professionals who deliver science teaching to our children are not going to be pushed around by idiotic creationist morons.

Well done, teachers of Lisburn!

BTW, "omegawatchmen", Lady Hope was indeed a liar.

Smasher
I absolutley believe that God created the Universe. I do not believe that Scripture teaches that he did this several thousand years ago, during six 24 hour periods. I also believe that it would be easier to argue from the scientific evidence that the Sun orbits the Earth, than that the Earth is only several thousand years old.
I see no Scriptural basis for Flood Geology. More to the point, Flood Geology is lacking scientific evidence.
So, given post 2, I can see no reason for teaching Biblical Creationism in Science lessons.

I should add that I know several intelligent doctors and scientists who are highly educated, are Biblical Creationists. They are not fools.
I would simply argue that they are misreading Genesis One, and should not be using the Bible to form detailed Scientific hypotheses. (Bellarmine and Galileo BOTH agreed on this point, as did Calvin). I also feel that their philosophy of science is inconsistent.

All these topics can be taught in Religious Education lessons.

Graham Veale

Oliver Benen
I have some sympathy with some of the ID community. What I would say is that it is practically impossible to define what ID is. So I don't really know what it would mean to teach it in science.

Graham Veale

Re #21 quote
I should add that I know several intelligent doctors and scientists who are highly educated, are Biblical Creationists. They are not fools

Isaac newton was a freemason and probably was'nt a fool but that dos'nt encourage me to dress up in a fancy apron, roll one trouser leg up and give funny handshakes!

Graham, highly educated doctors and scientists who are creationists are indeed fools. Or they're not highly educated *enough*. An inability to critically assess your own worldview is a serious deficit.

I will agree with you on one point - the people who compiled Genesis are highly unlikely to have "believed" it - they knew that this was a series of stories, and that's all.

Graham Veale

"I have some sympathy with some of the ID community."

Which ones, those that lack the brains to try to learn what real knowledge can impart in the way of understanding or the frauds who hope to profit financially from pandering to suckers in the first group?

Graham, the problem for teachers is you cannnot teach direct contradiction - so you cannot say "today children we will do science and learn how the world appeared from nowhere and developed by random chance events and tomorrow we will do RE and learn how God created the world".

Now what the atheists want (well they want no RE at all obviously) is the science to be taught as fact and the RE to be told as a myth which people used to believe -silly old people.

But people can't switch off their faculties and pretend things they believe to be true aren't true. If you believe that God created the universe and man in a special way, then you are bound to look at evolution within the context of that.

Now that's not to say you teach intelligent design as natural science - all it is saying is you consider the full breadth of human knowledge and not just the narrow scientific viewpoint.

Funnily enough, I expected a reaction to that post.
DK/H
It would be unfair to name names. (And apparently we have PB/OT to defend 7 day creationism). However, I cannot in all honesty dismiss these individuals as "fools".
They are educated to Phd level, are employed in scientific research, and publish in peer reviewed journals.
What they share in common is a strong "counter-cultural" streak - a delight in swimming against the tide. This is coupled with a belief in what Protestants call "the clarity of Scripture". They do not want a Priestly or academic class to mediate between the meaning of scripture, and the laity.
I simply feel they push these desires too far - beyond the point of common sense. For example, it is difficult to see how the ordinary reader would take Genesis 1 to be referring to 24 hour days. Whatever your views of Scripture, all scholars are agreed that Gen1 is a carefully sculpture literary work. The sun does not appear until day 4, but the ancients measured the day from sunset to sunset.
It does not take a PhD in Ancient Near Eastern culture to spot the poetic elements. What we do learn from ANE studies is that Gen 1 is a polemic against Mesopotamian and Egyptian cosmologies and theogonies. It is not primarily a work of history, and was never intended to be read as such.

Graham Veale

Mark
I think ID is really a debate for the Philosophy of Science. It is about the interpretation of Scientific findings. I am not sure that it counts as a Scientific theory. This is where they lose my sympathy.
I'm not convinced by Dembski's explanatory filter. I am also a bit concerned by some of Philip Johnson's latest works - in particular "The Right Questions".

Get that book published, by the way. All we need to do is get a few endorsements - I'll get a few Theists to say something about your intellectual honesty, and the great challenge that Theism must now answer. I'm sure between us we can get a few professor's to talk about your controversial but thought provoking views. It'll be a best seller.


Graham Veale

Smasher
Er - I don't teach them that God created the world. They know I believe this, to be sure. They know why. They also know why atheists disagree with me. If I ever get the chance, I'd like to put in something about Buddhism.
It's not my job to convert them m- and if I did it would be counter-productive. Teenagers don't like being told what to think. They do respect an honest challenge.

Graham Veale

Smasher:

As usual, you are talking nonsense. As an atheist and a former teacher, I would say that children have a right to know about all the major worldviews/belief systems and that obviously includes the main religions.

In Scotland RE alone has been replaced by 'Religious and Moral Education' and I would be happy enough with that. The teacher can teacher religion as fact or myth: that is up to him or her.

Graham, an RE teacher, is right, about teenagers not wanting to be told what to think. Of course, the Catholic Church likes to get them as early as possible. As Loyola is said to have said: "Give me the child until he is seven, and I will give you the man".

Brian
The tendency is towards rebellion in the teenage and student years, followed by a return to the Church in later life. This does not hold for any other denomination.

G Veale

Evolution doesn't just mean evolutionary biology. It encompasses all scientific disciplines including geology, astronomy, cosmology and physics. Really all modern science. So does Mr Storey want modern science removed from the curriculum ????? I sincerely hope not but I suspect he does since YECism is the science of several hundred years ago. I just wonder what the other members of the education committee think of his ideas ?

I'm also appalled at the silence of the four main churches on this matter. Do they condone Mr Storey's comments ? I reaaly do wish they would speak out more often on this subject and give Christians in the province some sensible guidence especially since all evangelical denominations here now appear to completely reject all modern science.

As for ID it's clear some people, including Mr Storey, don't know what exactly it is. I would urge those who think it a viable scientific theory to have a listen to Ken Miller's talk from Ohio (which is still available on Youtube) as to why they lost Dover. Ed Brayton's series of talks about the case (also on Youtube) is again essential viewing, highlighting the fact that at lealst one witness (an evangelical Christian) lied under oath in court. The Dover case showed that ID is nothing more than YECism in disguise.

Teaching creationism as science would be like teaching astrology or mediumship as science. It is pseudoscientific claptrap - culturally it has had an impact, but science it ain't

Didn't Dembski addmit this during the dover trial Helio ?

PeterJ

Dembski was making a Philosophical point. It's easy to quote it out of context. It is very difficult to define the scientific method in such a way that it encompasses everything that scientists do.
Some philosophers of Science (eg Feyerabend) would say that all kinds of weird stuff can count as Science. Of course the ideas are still dumb.
I haven't been overwhelmed by Ken Miller. If you want a serious critique of ID read Elliott Sober.

Graham Veale

Oh, and ID is not YEC in disguise. Look at what Young Earthers like Ken Ham have to say about ID.
Many IDers accept common ancestry and descent by modification (but not random modification). It's very difficult to separate their views from Keith Ward's or Simon Conway Morris -who loathe ID.

Graham Veale

HI PeterJ and Graham,

It was Behe who made the point in the trial, since of course Dremski ran away-even though he made a big show before the trial of defending the truth of ID!Yet when the trial started most of them split and left poor old Behe to take the can. Behe's point was that if science included ID (as the discovery institute define it) then we would also have to include astrology!

Actually ID may not be YECism as such in disguise but it is creationism in a cheap tux. Actually Ken ham has been very careful about what he has said about ID and whilst not agreeing with the sciency stuff has given cautious support-indeed Ham and Dremski had a gushing love-in awhile ago-it was quite touching to see pseudo science frauds together talking shop!

Also during Dover one of the pieces of evidence that most damned the ID crowd was the 'Pandas and People' episode and the work done by Barbara Forrest. The ID crowd were that inept and stupid(see they do have links with YECism!)that they got a creationist book and replaced creationism with ID but in some cases they missed and the result was CD Design Proponents. As Judge Jones stated about the ID crowd..."breathtaking inanity"!

Test

Oh, and ID is not YEC in disguise. Look at what Young Earthers like Ken Ham have to say about ID.
Many IDers accept common ancestry and descent by modification (but not random modification). It's very difficult to separate their views from Keith Ward's or Simon Conway Morris -who loathe ID

Graham: Ham loathes the ID crowd only because they don't actually say who the designer is or mention things like the age of the Earth.

You are correct in saying that some IDERs accept an ancient age for the Earth/Universe and even common decent (almost like theistic evolution) but, as DD has pointed out, Barbara Forrest spent a huge amount of time going through manuscripts of the book"of pandas and people". Eventually she found the original and this did indeed turn out to be an earlier YEC book. Here are links to both of the talks I mentioned. You really do need to have a look at these (as does Mr. Storey). The Ken Miller talk from Ohio is over an hour long but it's very entertaining and really does give an in depth analysis as to why the trial collapsed. He also covers all the scientific arguements for ID.

Ed Brayton's talks are in 6 parts and he goes all the legal aspects to the trial, including the Bill Buckingham episode (i.e. the witness who lied under oath) :

Anyone who cares about science education in the province really needs to have a look at these in order to understand what ID is all about.

Certainly in NI the people who are calling for ID to be taught as science are all young Earth creationists.

P.S. I've tried to post the links to both of these talks but for some reason I'm being prevented from doing so.

#To find them just google "Ed Brayton Dover Trial".

For the Ken Miller talk Google "the colapse of intelligent design or will the next monkey trial be in Ohio" by Ken Miller.

They are both really worth watching even though they are quite long. They beat any of the soaps or reality shows currently on tv by a mile.

I think it's a safe bet that with NI's views on science and religion they won't be putting a man on the moon anytime soon.

Marcus

We have no need of sending anyone to the moon, after all, most of us probably came from there in the first place.

PeterH, DD is correct - it was Behe, not Dembski, who admitted that under his definition of science (which is not shared by scientists) that astrology would qualify as a science. Dembski chickened out of the trial, of course.

Also, the trial did not "collapse" - it reached a successful conclusion, and the judge delivered a just verdict - what collapsed was any shred of legitimacy that the ID brigade might have craved. They were *slaughtered* at the trial.

Graham, you make some good points; Smashy really doesn't have a clue here. Most atheists welcome religious studies - understanding other people's beliefs is an important thing. Even if they are as nutty as a squirrel's fart. Or perhaps especially so.

H
You use the most beautiful metaphors.
But thanks for the compliment.

GV