Enter your email address here to receive updates from the team.
The real problem with "creationist schools" is not their attitude to science, says Nelson Jones.
You effing bastard, using an issue like this, as left wing rhetoric. Darwinism is the most perfect theory ever created, but even Darwin would have understood mostly kindly American type Creationists who would give aid to anybody in trouble. Your shit loses its impact when we talk about but only the left does not, the millions of people who believe in elephant headed gods and a feasome allah in our schools hospitals and airports!!! f........ck you twats.
I think the main reason so-many scientific types can't stand creationists is because they can't make any money out of them.
I think the main reason so-many creationist types can't stand scientists is because they can't make any money out of them.
Surely you just got confused and wrote it upside down.
you appear to believe that a scientific Theory can be falsified by greed.
would you be so kind and provide your evidence this is so?
Global warming, no, wait, let's call it global cooling, no, wait, let's call it climate change, yeah, that's it.... 'cept it happened pre-industrialization- uh-oh! It's for the grant money, schmucks...
The problem creationists have with reality is the one the Catholic Church had with Galileo, which is that, if one of their dogma (the Sun orbits the Earth in a circular orbit) is proved to be nonsense, the whole edifice of its "knowledge" is open to question. "Belief" is holding to a concept on inadequate evidence & a lot of science starts like that (the crucial word being 'evidence') but "faith" is holding to a concept when the evidence is contradictory. Science is open to test. So is creationism, a test which it manifestly fails. There is something going on out there that is very odd but I believe (see definition above) we will find out some time.
Science just creeps along, correcting itself when it can & throwing out assumptions when proven false. Move along kiddies, we just threw out that 200 year old theory that now means nothing..Ha! Funny how "theories" are so much more precise than faith...
Guess you wet your pants when the looney climate-warmalistas emails came out discussing the presentation of false data! Now where is that monkey-link???
Great art and science behind this art work i thought i was one of the best artwork in the industry.
online psychic source
If an economics college taught that paying for enlargement pills or buying into pyramid schemes will make them rich, they'd be shut down for fraud. But when a school teaches ideas that make them fall for religious scams.... ooooooh we've got to leave them be cause it's their BELIEF, and in the name of their belief, scientific fraud is acceptable. If those parents let their child die of a treatable cold because their beliefs were against medicine, they'd be charged with child neglect. Destroying childrens' minds and future careers in the name of desperately trying to make sure their fundamentalist beliefs survive into the 21st century should be outright felony. Time to stop being so polite!
just a quick general observation on all existing Adam & Eve paintings;
how come they have belly buttons?
Hey, I'm missing a very important link, anyone find it????? We're all playing darts knuckleheads...
True. Completely true. How anyone can be idiotic enough to believe that God created the Earth in six days and everything started off with Adam and Eve is absolutely beyond me. It's ridiculous, and no one should be poisoning the minds of children with it, I think religious ideas have caused enough war and suffering for one Earth. I dislike creationism with a passion and know that being taught Christian views, especially in primary schools, is incredibly misleading. You take it as fact until you are old enough to figure out that it's a load of rubbish and it can be quite hard to accept. It's atrocious and you can't force it on people. We're living in the twenty first century. This isn't something that should still happen.
The Young Earth Creationist position is more scientific, not that that is saying anything, than are the effusions of Richard Dawkins, the logic of whose position is that the natural-scientific method itself is just another "meme". The YECs do at least really believe in science, in principle, at all. Whereas Dawkins's position, which is bad enough philosophy, is even worse, if any, science. Theirs, on the other hand, is merely bad science, and of course worse theology.
Science arose out of the uniquely Christian rejection of humanity's otherwise universal concepts of eternalism, that the universe has always existed and always will; animism, that the universe is a living thing, an animal; pantheism, that the universe is itself the ultimate reality, God; cyclicism, that everything which happens has already happened in exactly the same form, and will happen again in exactly the same form, an infinite number of times; and astrology, that events on earth are controlled by the movements of celestial bodies within an eternalistic, animistic, pantheistic and cyclicistic universe.
Science cannot prove that these closely interrelated things are not the case; it simply has to presuppose their falseness, first established in thirteenth-century Paris when their Aristotelian expression was condemned at the Sorbonne specifically by ecclesial authority, and specifically by reference to the Biblical Revelation.
That is why science as we now understand the term never originated anywhere other than in Medieval Europe. And it is why science did not last, or flower as it might have done, in the Islamic world: whereas Christianity sees the rationally investigable order in the universe as reflecting and expressing the rationality of the Creator, the Qur’an repeatedly depicts the will of Allah as capricious.
But creationism is scientism. Scientism is the belief that the only objectively true knowledge is that derived from the application of the natural-scientific method. It is ruinous of science, since that method can only function on certain presuppositions which it cannot prove, but rather must (and, historically, happily did) accept on higher authority. Creationism is a form of scientism, which has accepted the scientistic argument and then applied it to the Book of Genesis.
Creationists may seem to be the polar opposites of Stephen Hawking, Peter Atkins and Richard Dawkins. But, in fact, they are all of a piece. I would not teach the works of Dawkins - wholly incompetent in the field that he has long chosen to colonise - in schools. Nor would I teach creationism. For exactly the same reasons in both cases.
That is one of the many reasons why I am not, and have never been, New Labour. New Labour was and is happy to teach Dawkinsian scientism to its own children and creationist scientism to other people's, at public expense all round. I am not happy with the teaching of either of them to anybody. What says, for example, Oliver Kamm about New Labour's, and specifically his hero Tony Blair's, enthusiastic use of public money in order to teach creationism?
Nor am I happy with the assumption that teenagers are so thick that they can be fobbed off with "the fossil record": of course, the fact that two species inhabited the same place at different times and resembled each other does not prove anything at all, still less that the later one was descended from the earlier one. With teaching like that, it is no wonder that, once you take out the Don't Knows and adjust accordingly, the creationist proportion of the British population is comparable to the creationist proportion of the American population, and growing.
There is really only one thing about evolution that truly interests the popular mind. That is the common ancestor of Man and the great apes. No such ancestor has ever been found, and children should be taught that fact, for fact it is. And as long as fact it remains, it further remains perfectly legitimate to believe that, whatever might have gone on or be going on among plants and animals, the first man was created directly from inanimate matter, and the first woman from out of the first man, exactly as the Bible teaches.
Why not? If that was what happened, then science, which is purely descriptive, would just have to deal with it. And it has produced no reason whatever to disbelieve it; no other particular species from which we are demonstrably descended. Likewise, since the emergence of the first living cell from inanimate matter remains wholly incapable of repetition, then there is no scientific reason whatever not to believe that that, too, was a direct act of creation. Who can show that this is scientifically impossible? Who can say what really happened instead?
Oh my Dawkins!
All that effort (how many words?) to make a silly point.
To suggest that Adam and Eve existed...words really fail me!
If you read the article again, it really applies to plebs like you.
Lack of proof does not, therefore, prove anything...adam and Eve are as likely as unicorns, dragons, fairies, gnomes, elves, goblins, santa and the tooth fairy.
You believe what you like (free country) but don't mislead children with fairy stories and make believe. Please!
i see you still reckon Dawkins' flawed views on religion somehow undo Modern Evolutionary Theory, which is ever so silly of you David. and of course it is still rather obvious you have no genuine grasp of this Theory.
"There is really only one thing about evolution that truly interests the popular mind. That is the common ancestor of Man and the great apes. No such ancestor has ever been found"
this is a lie. i realise it is borne out of profound ignorance David, but that remains your problem. even the fossil record shows this common ancestor, as does DNA evidence, embryology, physiology etc etc. all disciplines i doubt you've ever bothered to read actual scientific publications about.
but your ignorance then extends into the field of history when you proclaim; "That is why science as we now understand the term never originated anywhere other than in Medieval Europe."
utter nonsense. the word "scientist" wasn't invented until 1833, so you're about 300 years out. and, what we understand to be science and scientific enquiry owes as much to Babylonians, Greeks, Chinese, and the Islamic world as it does to the Enlightenment. all this stuff is in books, readily available from your library or local bookshop. want me to recommend some to you? it's no bother.
Amazingly creationists have still not heard the news that the Judeo/Christian god died of shame, following the publication of Charles Darwin’s scientific analysis of the natural world, more than a hundred and fifty years ago. Evolution now is not a theory but a scientific principle that has been proven time and time again.
If the Judeo/Christian god was alive today he would be arraigned before the International Criminal Court charged with crimes against humanity, and following a very short trial, banged up for life.
Evolution has never been proven. I would like you to show me how you can disprove creation.
I just hope that is sarcasm. Yes evolution is just a theory, just like gravity. I'm sure you believe in gravity? There is not a shred of evidence for creationism whereas Darwinian theory is backed up with so much evidence that to deny it is irrational and to teach it to young innocent children as a certainty is immoral and abusive.
The problem is with creationists is that they take small loopholes in science, with the questions that are yet to be answered and say "that's Gods work". No. God is a pathetic way of "answering" the questions that science has yet to find the answer. Unfortunately as long as creationists, particularly in the US, have a say in schooling and lawmaking we will never rid the country, nor world, of the misogynistic, bigoted, homophobic and conflict causing religions that plagues the world.
I just hope your smarter than that.
Theory of gravity and evolution are not parallels. Only an idiot will think that.
It doesn't take much to prove gravity, jump off a building and your brain will be knocked back in place to see that its not a theory like evolution.
Evolution dos not have that level of certainty and provability. You could live for thousands and thousand of years and you wont see it or feel it.
Theory of evolution requires leaps of faith to connect different species that are separated by millions of years. The gaps in time and information is too many.
AGoodWord, if you knew what you were talking about on this issue then you would realise just how consistently and remarkably ridiculous your comment is in just a few short lines. Look up what a theory is, the scientific definition, not what you understand the popular term, and you will find that your assertions are way off the mark. And as for the having to see it to believe it bit, that is just plain silly. Or did you see God make Eve out of Adams rib? Come on, keep the level of argument above pre-school please!
You know, that gravity is inescapable doesn't prove the theory of gravity. Some Muslim and Christian theologians (if I remember correctly) argued that God is the direct cause of everything: if you jump off a building and fall to your death, it's because God is enforcing gravity against each individual that jumps off a building, and so on. This is impossible to prove or disprove, although Occam's razor suggests that this can't be the case.
Evolution is also inescapable. For example, just in the past few decades, many strains of bacteria, pests, and weeds have evolved resistance to antibiotics, pesticides, and herbicides, respectively. If I spray, say, Roundup over a field every month, the field will eventually be covered with Roundup-resistant weeds.
and God is not a pathetic short hand for explaining the inexplicable.
Belief in God is not like belief in unicorn or Thor as Dawkins likes to portray. Its rather childish and pathetic and not befitting a serious intellectual.
The vast majority of human beings past and present have not believed in unicorns.
But the belief in God pervades every culture, society, locality and time. Its hard wired in our human DNA and one would have to remove himself from the vast majority of humanity to take a different position.
greater minds than you and I have belied and also not believed in God. Its arrogant to think your position as more enlightened.
people like you have to explain why the belief in God, if its so destructive and impedes human evolution, still persists in all cultures.
you'd be naive and stupid to think War will end with the dissaparence of religion. Ask your prophet Hitchins you'd be surprised.
I think its no surprise that more people died in the 20c, more than all the previous centuries put together. Odd don't you think, given that we had less religion, less God and more science, more freedom from religion and frankly more atheism.
Evolution is a phenomenon of nature we can observe in action in the natural world and replicate in the laboratory. Evolutionary theory seeks to explain how evolution happens. It is one of the most robustly supported theories in any field of science.
Science doesn't offer proof: it offers provisional explanations for phenomena which can be observed and measured. All scientific explanations are subject to revision or rejection if that is what the evidence demands. This is not a weakness of science, but its strength. For scientific theories to become the consensus in a field they need to go through exhaustive and rigorous testing. To become the paradigm, they need to be extremely robust.
Evolutionary theory has developed through centuries of exhaustive testing. Contrary to the outright lie promoted by creatonists, it is not a "theory in crisis", or weakly supported by evidence. The fact that creationists need to resort to underhand and downright dishonest tactics to promoted their cause (and if you think that this is not the case, read the transcripts of the Dover v. Kitzmiller trial) demonstrates not any weakness in evolutionary theory, but the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of their cause.
I strongly oppose creationism not for any particular scientific or religious reason, but because as a movement it is deeply and systematically dishonest. I don't want children to be taught that science supports some particular interpretation of a holy book because that is a flat lie. It doesn't, and anyone who tells you that it does it either ignorant or lying.
The theory of evolution has never successfully predicted anything. Its success as a theory is attributable to its adaptability and its appeal to the wider public. That is why it has survived despite its failure as a predictive tool. Evolutionists will often argue that the theory has predictive value. They will come up with some predictions and 'hey presto!' our observations match those predictions. What they don't tell you is that the observations actually came first, then they thought up a way to explain those observations in evolutionary terms. Those explanations turned into predictions, but they can only predict the observations they were invented to explain.
There was of course one prediction made using the theory of evolution. It was predicted that the fossil record would show a smooth transition from species to species. The fossil record contradicted this prediction. The fossil record actually shows that species tend to remain the same for very long periods of geological time, then undergo a burst of rapid change (none of which is caught in the fossil record) then emerge as a completely different species. Being so adaptable, the theory of evolution was simply changed to match this observation. Thus, the current version of the theory of evolution can be successfully used to 'predict' trends in the fossil record.
The theory of evolution does not predict how well species should be adapted to their environment. Depending on how fast evolution occurs, how fast the environment changes, and how old the earth and life on it is, the theory could predict that all species will be perfectly adapted to their environment, or that our current lot of species are barely adapted at all and would go through tremendous, mind boggling transformations if only we could keep everything constant long enough for them to adapt. Or anything in between. Thus, no matter what we discover, the theory of evolution can be adapted to explain it.
"The theory of evolution has never successfully predicted anything"
Flatly false. The morphology of Titaalik was predicted by evolutionary theory. So have numerous other intermediate forms, such as the fossil series showing the early evolution of whales.
"Its success as a theory is attributable to its adaptability and its appeal to the wider public."
Flatly false. It's success comes from the fact that it has withstood centuries of exhaustive testing, and is the only scientific theory which explains not only the fossil record, but most of what we know in the science of biology.
"What they don't tell you is that the observations actually came first, then they thought up a way to explain those observations in evolutionary terms. "
Flatly false, and actually an outright lie. The morphology of numerous transitional forms has been predicted be evolutionary theory.
"It was predicted that the fossil record would show a smooth transition from species to species."
Flatly false. That has never been a prediction of evolutionary theory.
"The fossil record contradicted this prediction"
Flatly false. The resolution of the fossil record is too coarse and too incomplete to support any model of speciation, either gradual or sudden.
"The fossil record actually shows that species tend to remain the same for very long periods of geological time,"
Flatly false. It doesn't. There are numerous examples in the fossil record showing gradual changes in morphology over geological time
I suggest that rather than regurgitating uncritically such falsehoods from creationist sources, you take the time and make the effort to educate yourself in the subject, After all, is your supposed critiques of evolutionary theory demonstrate only your ignorance of the evidence and arguments on which is it built, your critiques are meaningless.
Or is the thought that you may have been lied to by your creationist sources such a challenge to your faith that you prefer to remain ignorant?
i don't think you know very much about this Theory you feel you can dismiss Agoodword. i sense a complete lack of understanding in your post. so rather than answer your demands can i ask 1 simple question? you say this in your 1st sentence;
"The theory of evolution has never successfully predicted anything."
if i provide you with a prediction made by Evolutionary Theory which subsequently was confirmed by experimental evidence, will you accept the Theory is valid? a simple yes or no pls before i go through any further trouble.
well stone the proverbial crows! a blast from the past.
haven't read one of you posts since they shut down the interesting section of the Radio 4 blogs. hope you are keeping well Richard.
as ever you lay out what Evolutionary Theory is and is not with delightful clarity. all the best.
By 'creation' it is presumably Young-Earth Creation that is meant.
Can it be explained why it is necessary, or even important, to believe in Young-Earth Creation?
"...beliefs so out of keeping with the modern world as the notion (held by some but by no means all creationists) that the earth is less than ten thousand years old.."
but I think a change to
"....beliefs (held by some but by no means all creationists) that the earth is less than ten thousand years old which are contradicted by literally millions of pieces of evidence of many different kinds, all consistent with a 4.6 billion year-old earth.."
would be more accurate. We do not believe in a a 4.6 billion year-old earth because it is stylish and modern.
Otherwise an article well written.
'I knew a creationist once.'
Don't be silly.
Everyone knows that evolution has taken place. We know that Young-Earth Creationists know it because of the mind-boggling excuses they think up to get round evolution, and the amazing lies they tell, even in print, about both science and the Bible. We also know from that that they cannot possibly be Christians.
So why does anyone give them the time of day? Because they are rich, and because they have the ear of the media.
Why do they operate? Because a) they want a literal reading of Genesis to preserve the false churches that are run on one day a week (Sundays, usually) for only an hour or so; and b) because they want to make the basis for Christian faith intellectual (!) rather than a matter of the will.
So America goes stark staring mad because it is frightened out of its wits by Christianity. And the panic seems to be spreading. Jesus has 'em by the balls.
Good article. I enjoyed it and I could not agree more. I always think that scientists look for evidence and once they have lots of it they form a conclusion. Creationists work the wrong way. Arse over tit if you will. They have already decided what they want the answer to be and when they hear proven scientific evidence that disproves what they believe, like DNA testing that has all but proven the theory of evolution, thay just diregard it as junk from atheists with an agenda.
My girlfriend is a born again christian and some of her family hold these bizarre creationsist views. It's a shame and really very sad.
@Theot58 - interesting broadside which merely confirms the specious and irrational foundations of intelligent design notions.
Contrary to what many think, and to what Theot58 asserts, the attack on evolutionary theory isn't actually an attack on the theory (which can really only be mounted by new evidence and a better theory), but an attack on the scientific method itself. The scientific method is a process whereby theories are devised to solve the problems that we face in all the areas of human endeavour, and are then tested against reality, verified, then revised or even replaced by a better theory. Evolutionary theory is different from most other areas of scientific enquiry in that it deals with evidence spread out over a long period of time; yet forensic anaylsis has produced irrefutable evidence of a linear emergence of data in the fossil record. Scientific enquiry demands only rational, verifiable understanding of the evidence, and from Darwin onwards that enquiry has led us to the theory of evolution as it stands today.
Creationists/intelligent design proponents, however, opt for explanations and understandings which are not rational and not verifiable, and therefore are not scientific. As one graphic I saw put it, they start with their idea, ignore any contradictory evidence, and keep their idea pristine and untouched forever.
Such people should be allowed nowhere near the running of a school.
This article is wrong when it asserts that being anti-evolution is somehow anti-science.
The evolution battle is often MISrepresented as science against religion - this is baloney!
The real battle is between good science and Darwinism. When Darwinian/Macro evolution is scrutinised using the scientific method, it crumbles.
“Evolution” is a vague word. The main defintions in the text books are:
1) "change over time", this is silly as it is stating the flaming obvious.
2) Micro evolution is minor changes within a species, this is real and observable and uncontested.
3) Darwinian/Macro evolution (where the conflict is) which asserts that:
a) All living things had a common ancestor. This implies that your great….. great grandfather was a self replicating molecule.
b) The observable world has come into existence by totally natural, unguided processes and specifically WITHOUT the involvement of an intelligent designer.
The vague and changing definition is poor science and a thinly disguised strategy to make it easier to defend and propagate.
Dr John Sanford (Geneticist and inventor of the GeneGun) said .
“The bottom line is that the primary axiom [of Darwinian/Macro evolution] is categorically false,
you can't create information with misspellings, not even if you use natural selection.”
In order to make an informed conclusion you should view some debates on Evolution and see the theory under some scrutiny; just believing the pet answers is poor science. Go to Google Video or YouTube and search for Debates on Evolution. Try this link as a start http://youtu.be/PnmI4Yf12g4. Professor William Moore, Teacher of evolution at University level for over 30 years debates Kent Hovind (science teacher).
You must be joking! He is a criminal, currently serving a long jail sentence for tax evasion (evidently he doen't take Jesus' injunction to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" literally). His "doctorate" comes from Patriot College, a diploma mill and his arguments are so deeply and systematically dishonest that even other creationists distance themselves from him, and that sets a very low bar!
Evidently you think he knows what he's talking about when it comes to science. He doesn't. He is ignorant and dishonest. If you want to learn about evolutionary biology, read a book written by an evolutionary biologist. No scientist would expect you to accept uncritically everything you read, but surely if you are to pose a serious critique of evolutionary theory you need to undertand the evidence and arguments on which it is based?
Or is the risk of learning that you have been systematically lied to by the creationist sources on which you so evidently rely too much for your faith to endure?
"..you can't create information with misspellings, not even if you use natural selection"
is simply false, to the extent that it's meaningful. And I'm quite sure the argument given for this by its author, if any attempt at that was made, could be totally dismantled with a few minutes thought.
Perhaps Mr. Theot58 would like to let us know what that purported argument might be.
Alternatively he could read any good book explaining natural selection, such as Coyne's "Why Evolution is True", and ponder its overwhelming evidence coming from many (being a Yank, even an educated one, he might say 'multiple') directions.
You're right - it's not a battle of science v religion, because most religions accept evolution - Hindus, Catholics, Mainline Protestants, etc.
It's a battle of sanity v madness.
(PS - Next time you want to prove a point, don't use a testimonial from a convicted fraudster like Hovind.)
The scientific consensus is overwhelmingly pro-Darwinism, and those (tiny few) against it almost always do so for religious, rather than scientific reasons. I work amongst evolutionary biologists, and am one, and should know. If you think Darwinism isn't good science, then you are saying that the scientific consensus is not good science, which seems a bit of a contradiction. Where are all the Nobel prizes handed out for disproving Dawinism?
"Clarification: An earlier version of this article stated that Grindon Hall would be run by creationist groups and would teach children that the world was created in seven days in RE lessons. Principal Chris Gray has since told the Huffington Post UK that Grindon Hall is not run by creationists and that seven-day creationism would never be taught at the school even in RE lessons."
This is the second time an accusation of creationism has gone off half-cocked without bothering to check the basic facts (the first being against Sir Peter Vardy).
It is therefore not surprising that when accusations are made in this vein, people look for other motives.
Whilst I agree with the general thrust of this article, to say that filling childrens minds with false claims doesn't matter is shocking. What exactly does the author think the point of a school is?
I think you give those with the ability to write academic essays far too much credit. I know of many people who have earned high educational standards, and hold degrees of many sorts, but, 1 - i wouldnt trust them with my children 2 - some dont even know how to make a cup of tea.
Belief, disbelief and beyond belief