Michael Gove MP told BBC1′s Andrew Marr programme: “To my mind you cannot have a school which teaches creationism”
It is frustrating that the term “creationism” has come to be exclusively tied to the literal 6/24 creation paradigm. I’m assuming this is what is being referred to in the following article from Ekklesia. The reality of course, is that there are a plethora of Biblical and theological interpretations and understanding, relating to the “creation” issue.
Notice this comment in particular:-
“And one thing that we will make absolutely clear is that you can not have schools that are set up which teach people things which are clearly at variance with what we know to be scientific fact”.
Is theistic evolution or intelligent design at variance with what we know to be scientific fact? Obviously many of the most vocal scientists will answer a resounding yes, but let’s not forget that many scientists would not. It must surely also be remembered that science has not yet reached a perfect conclusion on all things and is an ongoing investigation into the “how” of our world and so what may be considered “scientific fact” today, may well be considered a defunct scientific paradigm tomorrow.
It would seem to me that Science tends to focus in on observable material, therefore, is it not likely to always come to a material conclusion, negating its own ability to study the “why” of our world.
Ekklesia:-
Tories would close down creationist schools
A Conservative government would not allow schools that teach creationism, the shadow schools secretary has said.
Michael Gove MP told BBC1′s Andrew Marr programme ths morning (14 February) that ‘fundamentalist groups’ who taught in a way that undermined ‘democratic values’ would be challenged, and if necessary closed down.
He said the inspection regime would be crucial in challenging them.
“To my mind you cannot have a school which teaches creationism” he said. “And one thing that we will make absolutely clear is that you can not have schools that are set up which teach people things which are clearly at varience with what we know to be scientific fact.
“But critically inspection is key here” he continued. “We do have some schools at the moment – independent schools – that have been set up by religious groups. You mentioned Islamic groups. Let’s be clear, there are other fundamentalist groups as well which have schools in the private sctor. If those schools are properly regulated and inspected then we can ensure that anyone who teaches in a way that undermines our democratic values can be brought to public light, challenged, and if necessary closed down.”
Religious Education specialists point out that while creationism is strong in many areas of the US and has been growing among fundamentalist believers in parts of Europe and elsewhere, it is opposed by the official teaching of mainline churches and by theological specialists.
But a global opinion survey in October last year showed that the British public continued to be confused about how evolutionary science should be taught in school classrooms and whether opposing non-scientific views should be included.
Tags: Christianity, Education, News, Politics, Science & Medical, Theology Doctrine Philosophy
February 23rd, 2010 at 5:34 pm
It is sad that non-believers, as well as some believers, discredit the Holy Bible by casting doubt on the historical and scientific accuracy contained therein. The Bible IS a historical and scientific book that can be relied upon.
Evolution is not a proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically. ‘Particles-to-people’, ‘molecules-to-man’ or ‘goo-to-you’, is an unsubstaintiated hypothesis or conjecture.
Evolution and the Christian faith are BOTH belief systems and should be treated as such. Why cannot BOTH be taught in school alongside each other?
We share ONE lot of evidence, it’s the interpretation that differs. It is time that Christians stood up for their foundational truths which are increasingly being attacked and undermined by our secular, humanist society.
February 23rd, 2010 at 5:50 pm
Well said Billy Wizz.
February 23rd, 2010 at 6:57 pm
Billy Wizz writes: “It is time that Christians stood up for their foundational truths which are increasingly being attacked and undermined by our secular, humanist society.”
I’m afraid I disagree. I think it’s time Christians stood up against the ludicrous fundamentalist who are giving our religion a bad name. And I’m not alone. The Archbishop of Canterbury says that belief in either Creationism or Intelligent Design is a “category error”. Are you not aware that similar Creation myths occur all round the world in many, many cultures?
You clearly don’t understand the phrase “belief systems” or the word “theory” as used in science.
The theory of evolution is *not* a belief system. It’s a scientific theory. A scientific theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.
Any scientific theory must be based on a careful, rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts.
A fact is something supported by unmistakeable evidence. Facts may be interpreted in different ways by different individuals, but that doesn’t change the facts themselves.
Theories may be good, bad, or indifferent. They may be well established by the facts, or they may lack credibility. Before a theory is given any credence in the scientific community, it must be subjected to the peer review process.
The peer review process means that the proposed theory must be published in a legitimate scientific journal to provide the opportunity for other scientists to evaluate the information and publish their conclusions. The theory of evolution has, so far, been valid. It meets the facts. The point about scientific theory is that if facts challenge the theory it is the theory that will change, not the facts.
Creationists refuse to subject their “theories” to peer reviews, because they know they don’t fit the facts. Creation scientists are not scientists. They are Biblical fundamentalists who can not accept anything contrary to their religious beliefs.
There’s a college in Texas handing out Creationist science degrees. As these aren’t accepted by any other educational establishment they’re completely useless, apart from teaching people Creationism.
Anyone taught Creationism as science will be unable to follow careers in science or medicine, and will have issues in many other workplaces too.
Creationism should only be practiced by consenting adults in private. It has no place in schools or in the Church of England.
February 23rd, 2010 at 7:48 pm
Thanks Sophie. Your elegant response has saved me the trouble.
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:37 pm
Thanks for the compliment, Jim.
From a Christan perspective, the Creation myth is a beautiful symbolic description of God’s relationship to his creation. Symbolic being the key word.
It’s not supposed to be interpreted as a factual account, because it isn’t based on facts. It’s poetic. This is what the A of C means when he calls Creationism a “category error”
February 23rd, 2010 at 9:08 pm
Dear Billy Wizz,
As with all theist evolutionists (possibly due to our scientific background). We believe that the Holy Scriptures reveal the Who, not the How.
March 5th, 2010 at 6:14 pm
Hi Sophie,
I’ve read your comments and those of your like-minded friends (Feb.23). I will try to respond to your various comments, one by one, as space permits (!?) and at my own leisure.
I have found it prevalent among those who have a weak argument/defence, that they resort to name calling and labelling and was sad to see that you have implied that I am a “ludicrous fundalmentalist” as though fundamentalism is the “in” dirty-word to use and ridicule those who hold strong, biblical views.
I note that I am one of those who give your religion a bad name.
Firstly, I am not religious, myself. I understand religion to be mankind’s way of reaching out to God and worshipping Him on mankind’s terms. (e.g. church attendance, doing good, trying to be a good person, and trying – but failing, as we all do – to keep to the ‘Golden Rule’ – the 10 Commandments in order to try to earn one’s way into heaven). Whereas, God on the otherhand has reached down to us through Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour. I have a personal faith in God through the Lord Jesus Christ.
I am aware that there are similar creation stories “all around the world in many, many cultures. And your point? To me it speaks of the truth of and wide acceptance of creation.
March 5th, 2010 at 7:15 pm
Dear Sophie,
Let me explain why I referred to evolution as a belief system – a religion, no less. The best way I can do this is to quote an extract from a book entitled The Creation Answers Book (Don Batten, Editor; David Catchpole; Jonathan Sarfati; Carl Wieland. ISBN: 978-0-949906-62-5):
Chapter 1 – Does God exist? Under the subtitle: Is it science?
…All these achievements involve doing experiments in the present, making inferences from these results and doing more experiments to test those ideas. Here, the inferences. or conclusions, are closely related to the experiments and there is often little room for speculation. This type of science is called process, or operational, science, and has given us many valuable advances in knowledge that have benefited mankind.
However, there is another type of science that deals with the past, which can be called historical, or origins, science. When it comes to working out what happened in the past, science is limited becauser we cannot do experiments directly on past events, and history cannot be repeated. In origins science, observations made in the present are used to make inferences about the past. The experiments that can be done in the present that relate to the past are often quite limited, so the inferences require a deal of guesswork. The further in the past the event being studied, the longer the chain of inferences involved, the more the guesswork, and the more room there is for non-science factors to influence ther conclusions – factors such as the religious belief (or unbelief) of the scientist. So, what may be presented as ‘science’ regarding the past may be little more than the scientist’s own personal world-view. The conflicts between ‘science’ and ‘religion’ occur in this historical science, not in operational science. Unfortunately, the respect earned by the successes of operational science confounds many into thinking that the conjectural claims arising from origins science carry the same authority.
When it comes to historical science, it is not so much the evidence in the present that is debated, but the inferences about the past. Scientistss who believe the record in the Bible, which claims to be the Word of God, will come to different conclusions from those who ignore the Bible. Wilful denial of God’s Word (2 Peter 3: 3-7) lies at the root of many disagreements over ‘historical science’.
So for me, guesswork and speculation = belief/faith = religion. All evolutionists therefore must be “religious”.
Two thousand year ago, God’s word stated that many would worship and serve creation rather that the Creator. Today, nature is revered as “Mother” and naturalism is enshrined – see Romans chapet 1 verse 25.
March 5th, 2010 at 7:26 pm
Dear Sophie,
You mentioned the Archbishop of Canterbury and his lack of trust in the authority and accuracy of the Holy Bible (and note yours too).
There have been many Bishops within the C of E how have undermined Biblical Christianity. Many have also doubted the virgin birth, the death and ressurection of our Lord, etc, etc.
As a non-conformist, I pity the C of E and some of its leadership (or lack of it). I will write an excellent quote from a humanist next time.
March 5th, 2010 at 8:25 pm
@Billy Wizz: It’s great to be an autodidact, but not if you’ve got a fool for teacher.
I’m not even gonna bother. I’m outta here. Honestly, it’s like shooting fish in a barrel….
Believe in Creationism. Feel free. Just don’t expect people to conceal their amusement.
March 8th, 2010 at 5:26 pm
Hi Sophie,
Don’t be like that. Why so intolerant and impatient?
I’ve only just started replying to your comments.
Charles Darwin said it was necessary to consider both sides of the argument: “I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on BOTH sides of each question; and this cannot possibly be done here.”
As promised the quote: Euenie Scott, the spokesperson for the National Centre for Science Education in the US, said: “I would describe myself as a humanist or a nontheist. I have found that the most effective allies for evolution are people of the faith community. One clergyman with a backward collar is worth 2 biologists at a school board meeting any day!”
Hence it does not surprise me that that are those within church circles that deny the authority and doubt the accuracy of the Holy Bible.
Are you not going to try to free me from the error of my foolish belief in creationism? If the Genesis account of creation is purely myth, as you suggest, then surely you can come up with some solid evidence to support your claim and enlighten me?
P.S.
1 Corinthians 1 verses 18, 23, 25,
Chp 4 v 10 are interesting
March 8th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
Hi Billy,
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory. Creationism is a belief in the 6/24 Creation. I personally see Gen chapters 1-3 as myth. Myth is a “traditional story, obstensibly with a historical basis, but serving usually to explain some phenomenon of nature”*. Bearing in mind that Our Lord Himself, used parables to teach.
In the case of Genesis, God created ex nihilo. Of course, even if we take our science knowledge out of the picture, biblical hermeneutics has a huge part to play, and the oft used literalism rendered to all of the Scriptures, completely ignores basic syntactical, historical and contextual techniques .
Which is were I get cross, with the likes of Ken Ham, who promote a false gospel, in suggesting that salvation is only attainable as long as it is coupled with a 6/24 belief.
However, all Christians, whether TEs, YECs, Intelligent Design-ers,see God behind the structure of the universe. As Owen Gingerich a top Harvard astronomer, Christian and chief demoter of Pluto, says “we need to see intelligent design in all of creation”. This however, does not mean Intelligent Design.
*merriam-webster dictionary.
March 9th, 2010 at 7:26 pm
Hi Caral (it’s me, the “fool” for Christ),
Thanks for your contribution.
I am not sure why Sophie is so hostile.
I am sure that many, many people will smirk and laugh because I believe ALL of the Bible. I have found it to be trustworthy and God’s Word (2 Timothy 3 v 16; 2 Peter 1 v 20-21; John 14 v 26; etc).
I think there are those who think creationists are soft in the head and have no solid evidence for their belief and trust in creationism. How wrong!
Spohie obviously has a distain for Creation scientists and is happy to belittle them. She’s entitled to her opinion.
If, as you (and other theist evolutionists) suggest that Genesis 1-3 is a myth, poetic, or symbolic, then don’t you think that this undermines the gospel?
“The most devastating thing though that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now thatwe know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam & Eve there never was original sin. If there never was original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus, historiacal or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity.
Frank Zindler, American Atheirst in a debate with William Craig, Atheism vs Christianity video Zondervan 1996.
March 9th, 2010 at 10:08 pm
Hi Billy,
Thanks for you post. Like you, I too believe all of Scripture. I also love Scripture, so thanks for quoting Jn 14:26, as I had to look that one up.
You and Zindler raise a very poignant and important question. Without a literalistic reading of Gen 1-3 are we disregarding Augustine’s original sin, so there is no need for a Saviour.
Billy, I don’t think my answer would do this very important question the justice that it deserves.
But a know a man who can. Well 4 men in fact. Ayala, Peacocke, Noll and Pollack. If you get a spare moment, do read their fascinating answers. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/faith/discuss_03.html
P.S The rest of Zindler’s comments have been debunked for the rubbish that they are. I haven’t seen this debate, but I expect Lane Craig demolished him. At least back in the day, the atheists had some knowledge of our doctrines.
March 10th, 2010 at 9:15 am
I’m sorry I seem hostile. It’s less hostility than impatience.
Imagine a stranger tells you the world is flat then tries to get you to agree. Would you patiently explain to them your own understanding and work the whole thing through or would you just brush them off? I’m afraid I’d take the second option. Life’s too short. It’s not as though their belief does any harm.
To you your ideas and arguments are relevant. To me they are in the same realm as flat-earthers and I can’t be bothered.
March 11th, 2010 at 5:26 pm
Hi Sophie and Caral,
Thanks for your comments. Nice to get another response from you Sophie and glad that you are keeping an eye on the correspondence.
Re-your anology – I am the former – I am prepared to help others and will patiently explain to them what I believe to be the truth.
Can I ask you both (and Jim) when you first came across your world-view. Was it at school, college, university?
Do you have any special interest? Biology, Geology, Physics, etc?
Did either of you see the BBC2 Horizon programme on Tuesday (Is Everything We Know…) it was about cosmology etc? Interesting terminology used in the programme by the scientists…scientists INVENTED ‘dark matter’ and they talked about ‘dark energy’ but didn’t know what it was – but it apparently makes up 75 per cent of the universe, they spoke about “the energy of nothing” and “don’t know where it comes from” and “makes the maths fit”. Towards the end they spoke about “dark flow”. Their theories were full of speculation and conjecture, which to me was a little frustrating – but hey, I stuck with it – watched and listened. I didn’t allow any prejudice, bias or pre-conceived ideas prevent me from switching off.
March 12th, 2010 at 7:17 pm
Hi,
Opps, made a mistake in my hurry to send off the last post before running out of time! Last sentence should have read….”ideas to prevent me from watching or provoke me to switch off”.
Anyway I noticed in the programme that they mentioned Alan Guth and his inflation/expansion theory. A Bible verse came to mind when they mentioned “stretching the universe”.
But GOd made the earth by His powwer: He founded the world by His wisdom And stretched out the heavens by HIs understanding (Jeremiah: 10 v 12).
Some claim that “black holes and dark matter was anticipated (Matthew 25 v 30; Jude 1 v 13; Isaiah 50 v 3). Cosmol;ogists now speculate that over 98 per cent of the known universe is comprised of dark matter, with dark energy and black holes”.
Time!
March 14th, 2010 at 3:55 pm
Hi,
As I was saying before I got cut off…
“A black hole’s gravitational field is so strong that nothing, not even light, escapes. Beyond the expanding universe there is no measured radiation and therefore only outer darkness exists. These theories paint a seemingly accurate description of what the Bible calls “outer darkness” or “the blackness of darkness forever.”
Interesting!
Thanks for the website address Caral. I’ve made note and will look it up time-permitting!
The 6/24 issue is a problem for theistic evolutionists.
Some may ask the question “Why did God take so long? Why as long as 6 days?”
“Because God is infinite in power and wisdom, there’s no doubt He could have created the universe and its contents in no time at all – six seconds – six minutes or six hours (With God nothing shall be impossible (Luke 1 v 37).
The answer is given in Exodus 20 v 11, and that answer is the basis of the 4th Commandment.
For in 6 days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the 7th day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and sanctified it.
The 7-day week has no basis outside of scripture. In this Old-Testament passage, God commands His people, Israel, to work for 6 days and rest for one – thus giving us reason why He deliberately took as long as 6 days to create everything. He set the example for man. Our week is paterned after this principle. Now if He created everything in 6,000, or 6 million years, followed by a rest of 1,000 or one million years, then we would have a very interesting week indeed!”
Is Ken Ham correct?
Still awaiting a reply to my questions of March 11th. Any takers?
Signing off. Billy
March 14th, 2010 at 6:04 pm
Hey Billy,
How about taking the time to read and comment on my answer to your initial question, about original sin and salvation. I think this is by far a more important topic, which could help you to see through and possibly overcome your faith in Ken Ham and Ussher.
As I have said Ham presents a false gospel, he declares that without belief in a literal 6 day/24 hour creation, there is no salvation.
So I will take my chance with the teaching of Christ’s church, and God’s revelation through both theology and natural theology.
March 16th, 2010 at 7:26 pm
Hi Caral,
Thanks for your comment.
Firstly, I do NOT put my faith in any falable man or woman, their writings or beliefs, Christians, creationists or otherwise. As I have stated before my faith is in the Lord Jesus Christ and His Holy Word.
We are exhorted to test and prove all things.
Iam sure that you will agree Caral that truth is important.
Just a brief look through John’s gospel for instance refers to the Spirit of truth (John 14 v 17; 15 v 26; 16 v 13 says: “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth…” and John 8 v 32 reads: “And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free”.
Those who believe in Biblical creationism OR those who believe in theistic evolution are correct – one OR the other.
Do you have a direct quote/reference for Ken Ham where he states that “without belief in a literal 6 day/24 hour creation, there is no salvation” please?
Have you heard of Gary E PArker, Ed.D? He was a theistic-evolutionist and has a great testimony.
Bye For Now.
March 17th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Hi again,
If the Bible contains some truth and some error, who is to judge which is which? How may we know anything reliably about God or Christianity or Jesus? Perhaps ‘God is love’ is one of the mistakes.
The attempt to artifically split truth into ‘religious’ and ‘scientific’ often does so in violation of the basic laws of logic, where ‘A’ cannot be ‘non-A’. Jesus either rose bodily from the dead, or He did not.
Bloodshed was either in the world before Adam, or it was not.
Christ does not enter the stage of human history in a ghostly, exixtential vacuum, but in a carefully laid out framework of history, part of a long line of descent from Adam.
A ‘good’ world, wqhich was marred by Adam’s sin, is groaning under the curse, and will one day be restored to a sinless, deathless paradise. This Creation/Fall/Redemption framework is not based on a twist of a Hebrew or Greek word, but is woven intimately throughout the fabric of both the Old and New Testaments. This leads to….The Logical Foundations of the Gospel.
The very reason for the cross is predicated upon the FAll. By the first Adam came death (See: Romans 5 v 12; also: 1 Cor 15 v 21-22; etc), by the second comes resurrection from the dead.
Without Adam’s fall into sin and death, why does Christ have to die?
Without the historical event which caused a great gulf between God and man, why is there any need for the atoning blood?
These logical contradictions between the preaching of the Gospel and the world-view of the public leads to the problems caused by evolutionary thinking in….
Evangelism
‘For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death’. Beautiful words, but what can they possibly mean to a culture that is raised on the belief that death always was (and thus cannot be the wages of sin, see Romans 6 v 23; etc) ;
that man is not a fallen image but a risen ape;
that the law contains such obvious mythical statements as Exodus 20 v 11 (all things created in six days);
that sinful behaviour is the result of animal ancestry;
and that the Bible which contains these words cannot be trusted to be error-free, anyway?
…..
March 17th, 2010 at 5:56 pm
Bless you, Billy, a mighty contender! Col 2:5
March 17th, 2010 at 9:04 pm
Billy. You asked for an answer to your question of 11th March. I would have responded sooner but I’ve been in a remote part of Africa, without internet access.
So, to your question: My “Worldview” is the result of a lifetime of study and contemplation, and my views are still evolving.
I think one of the reasons that discussion between fundamentalists on the one hand, and liberal Christians and non-believers on the other, is that there is little if any common ground. Furthermore, both sides too easily fall into the trap of oversimplification or wilfully misunderstanding the alternative point of view.
So, I’m not convinced that further discussion is helpful. I can suggest some reading if you are prepared to take a risk. Why not start with the collection of essays introduced by Chrstopher Hitchens in his book “The Portable Atheist”. The contributors put the case for the opposition far more eloquently than I could.
March 17th, 2010 at 9:07 pm
Apologies. Typing this under adverse conditions. The third paragraph should read:
I think one of the reasons that discussion between fundamentalists on the one hand, and liberal Christians and non-believers on the other, is so often unproductive, is that there is little if any common ground. Furthermore, both sides too easily fall into the trap of oversimplification or of wilfully misunderstanding the alternative point of view.
March 18th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
Thanks for your comments Jim and Romans510.
As I was saying before time beat me yesterday….
The question is not one of whether ‘god’ could have created by evolution, but whether the God who reveals Himself in the Bible and through the person of Jesus Christ did, or even could have, done so.
God’s goodness – could He use death and struggle to create, the strong wiping out the weak over agnosied eons before sin entered the world? Would He call a bloodstained world, the cumulation of such a violent and disease-ridden process, “very good”?
God’s truthfulness – if God created by evolution, would He so mislead people in His world, by giving an overwhelming contrary impression to virtually all readers?
God’s miracle-working power and intelligence. It is no coincidence that denial of Genesis creation is very frequently accompanied by a denial of the miraculous in the Gospels.
A God who has to use ‘process’, trial and error and many dead-ends and blind alleys over millions of years to reach His goal is not one whom one would expect to have the sort of power over natural laws that could raise the long-dead in a twinkling; created thousands of loaves and fishes ‘ex nihilo’, and defy gravity to walk on water.
If Genesis Chapters 1 -3 are myth, poetic or symbolism, then this must cause problems for theistic-evolutionists when it comes to the reading and believing of the remaining scriptures.
Quick example Genesis 1 v 1 and John 1 v 1.
Until next time….
March 19th, 2010 at 7:26 pm
So summing up… Evolution means: death and struggle came man whereas Creation means: by man came death and struggle.
What about the New Testament evidence that Jesus and the Apostles (including Paul) regarded Genesis 1 – 11 as inspired Scripture, giving us ‘true truth’ about historical characters and events?
For instance: Jesus Christ quotes from Genesis 1 v 27; 2 v 34 & 5 v 2 when referring to the same man and woman in teaching the doctrine of marriage. Why would He do so if this is purely myth, poetic or symbolism?
The following is an extract from a letter written in 1884 by Professor James Barr, who was at the time Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford. PLease note that Prof. Barr does not claim to believe that Genesis literally true, he is just telling us, openly and honestly, what the language means.
Prof Barr said: ‘Probably, so far as I know there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believ that the writer(s) of Genesisi 1 – 11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that
(a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience
(b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story
(c) Noah’s Flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.
There IS a large amount of scientific evidence consistent with a recent, 6 day creation and a global flood. To accept by faith, the biblical statement ‘Thy Word is true from the beginning (Psalm 119 v 160) is a reasonable position, which reasonable people, including scientists…
March 19th, 2010 at 8:34 pm
Billy. If your belief is in the literal truth of the early books of the Bible that’s fine, but to try to suggest that there is clear and reputable current scientific evidence to support your belief is just plain wrong. Quoting a letter written in 1884 is no proof whatsoever.
Yes, there are scientists who are Christians, and who bend over backwards to make reality fit the Biblical story, but their findings do not stand up to expert scrutiny. Give me an example of a piece of apparent scientific evidence to support your view and I’m confident I will find you the gaping holes in the evidence.
I’m not even sure why it is so necessary to have scientific confirmation for the creation story. It seems to me absurd to borrow bits of natural science to support belief in what would clearly be a supernatural phenomenon.
If you are going to stick with the literal interpretation you are also going to end up with numerous inconsistences to ratify To take a basic example: Within Genesis there are alternative stories of how God created Eve. Do you believe that she was created out of one of Adam’s ribs, or do you believe that he created Adam and Eve at the same time out of dust? One of them must be wrong. I could go on, but I hope you get my point.
March 21st, 2010 at 3:52 pm
Thanks for your comment Jim.
I did not get chance to finish off last time…
…including scientists, can accept WITHOUT COMMITTING INTELLECTUAL suicide
(which clearly some people are concerned about…
“Believe in creationism. Feel free. Just don’t expect people to conceal their amusement” Quote from Sophie.
Until next time Jim.
March 23rd, 2010 at 5:52 pm
Hi Jim,
Re-your comment (March 19). My turn for apologies – I’m fallible!
The year Prof Barr wrote the letter was 1984 – a slip of the finger!
Far from it Jim, it is the evolutionists who appear to do just that – “bend over backwards to make reality fit”. Why would Christians wish to mislead, deceive, lie? Is it in their new make-up? If they are born-again isn’t the Holy Spirit in them guiding and leading them into all truth? Let God be true, but every man a liar (Romans 3 v 4).
It is interesting that recent scientific discoveries claim that the Earth is younger than originally thought. Scientists are continually having to revise their theories.
Christians , unlike evolutionist, do not have to make things fit their beliefs.
I note that you too seem to denigrate scientists who believe in creationism or Intelligent Design. (I am still waiting for Sophie to provide me with proof – “There’s a college in Texas handing out Creationist science degrees” – Feb.23rd).
Scientists use evidence in the present and historians use evidence of the past and the biblical worldview, puts the two together in a credible and scientifically-sound way. The Bible is consistant with science.
Inconsistencies?
As Adam and Eve are our ancestors – we ALL came from the dust.
Eve was created from Adam rib – Adam (and his rib) came from the dust.
No inconsistencies there.
March 23rd, 2010 at 7:25 pm
Hi Jim,
It is not ‘necessary to have scientific confirmation for the creation story’.
It is because evolutionist theories are being pushed as hard, scientifically-sound, fact, that creationists like me, feel moved and compelled to make a stand for God’s truth and put forward the Biblical account and to say that there is no conflict withscience and creationism.
You write as though evolution has all the answers and there is no discrepancies or inconsistancies. THIS is plainly wrong.
Darwin devoted 2 whole chapters of his book to “Difficulties and Objections” and more and more scientists are expressing doubts about it.
Many have signed this statement:
“We are sceptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged”. (see: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org)
Darwin said that any organism that could not have evolved by small, gradual changes would destroy his theory.
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would break down.”
There are numerous examples of “irreducible complexity” – organs which could not have evolved gradually. These include the bacterial flagellum, the blood clotting mechanism, and the microscopic ATP motor in living cells. (see Darwin’s Black Box by Dr Michael Behe – Free Press – 1996).
Until next time.
March 28th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
Wow! Why has there been no response from anyone?
Does anyone wish to take me up on my offer of sending a free SMALL booklet by Dr Gary Parker, Ed.D, who was once in your camp? It only has 16 pages. I would love to quote the whole booklet to you all, as I think it is very applicable, but as it is copyrighted, I will just quote brief extracts: The booklet is entitled From Evolution to Creation and is a discussion thatwas adapted from radio interviews: Dr Parker is asked various questions and his responses are also written down:
First question: Dr Parker, I understand that when you started teaching college-level biology you were an enthusiastic evolutionist.
2nd question: Did your faith in evolution affect your classroom teaching?
3rd question: I thought you weren’t supposed to teach religion in the public school system.
4th question: Since you found evolution such a satisfying religion and enjoyed teaching it ot others, what made you change your mind?
5th Q: Did your conversion to Christianity then make you a creationist?
He answers “No, etc”
6th Q: What theological problems did you find with evolution?
7th Q: With the Scriptures so plain, are there still many Christians who believe in theistic evolution or progressive creation?
8th Q: In that sense, then, it was really the scientific data that completed your conversion from evolution, through theistic evolution, and progressive creation to Biblical, scientific creation.
9th Q: Can you give us some examples?
10th Q: Are there other examples like that?
11th Q: What do you mean by “evidence of creation?”
12th Q: HAs creation influenced your work as a scientist and as a teacher?
I also have a similar booklet entitled “Evidence for a Young World” by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. to give away: He covers topics such as:-
1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.
2. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
3. Not enough mud on the sea floor.
4. Not enough sodium in the sea.
5. The earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast.
6. Many strata are too tightly bent.
7. Injected sandstone shortens geologic ‘ages.’
8. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic ‘ages’ to a few years. (Radiohalos – Polonium-210/218)
9. Helium in the wrong places.
10. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
11. Agriculture is too recent.
12. History is too short.
Anyone interested in either or both FREE booklets?
While DARWIN PREDICTED THAT THE FOSSIL RECORD WOULD SHOW TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS, even150 years later, we have a few handful of disputable examples.
JIM:-
I note your comment that your “worldview” is the result of a lifetime of study and contemplation, and your views are still evolving.
This did not really answer my question as I wanted to know when you FIRST can across evolution. Was it at school, college, university, etc.
I’m assuming that Sophie, Caral and you, all believe that evolution is continuing even today. If so, what proof have you? And if this is the case, there must be a moral and ethical problem here.
I’m assuming that you are vegetarians or vegans as surely you would not want to be eating our brothers and sisters in the animal kingdom.
Or have I got this wrong?
Other trivia questions:-
I’m assuming that you do not belive in a world-wide flood.
What about the biblical account of why there is a rain-bow?
Yours curiously. Billy
Until next time…
March 28th, 2010 at 6:30 pm
Billy,
To be absolutely frank, I think the reason why you have not had replies to your posts is that we have better things to occuy our time, and it would take for too long to explain all the ways in which what you say is mis-informed or wilfully selective.
I’ve heard the same old rubbish many times, and can’t be bothered to explain yet again why it is so completely wrong and discredited. If you really want to find out why we disagree I would commend to you read some of the early books of Richard Dawkins (Blind Watchmaker etc.). I can recommend a number of others if these are not to your liking.
March 28th, 2010 at 6:45 pm
And just to answer your questions directed at me in your latest post Billy:
1. I’m not sure why you think it’s relevant but I first came across Evolution in science lessons at school. Maintained an interest ever since.
2. If one accepts that evolution is a fact it would make no sense that evolution had ceased. As I’m sure you’re aware, in terms of evolution, a single lifetime is insignificant. But we can observe first hand the effects of evolution.
3. Your question on whether we have an ethical problem eating animals is bizarre! You might as well say that a Lion is unethical for eating a Zebra. Humans are omnivores. We have evolved to eat meat. What’s the problem?
4. No I do not believe in a WorldWide flood. There is not a shred of reliable evidence to indicate one, and there are compelling theoretical reasons why it is impossible.
5. The rainbow?
I presume you would have us think that before the flood the laws of physics were different? The occurence of a rainbow is a very simple physical phenomenon. The Bible story of the origin of the rainbow makes a great mythical story for those who knew no better in the period when Genesis was written, but thats all it is.
March 28th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
@ Jim: On 10th March I told Billy: “Imagine a stranger tells you the world is flat then tries to get you to agree. Would you patiently explain to them your own understanding and work the whole thing through or would you just brush them off? I’m afraid I’d take the second option. Life’s too short. It’s not as though their belief does any harm.
To you your ideas and arguments are relevant. To me they are in the same realm as flat-earthers and I can’t be bothered.
March 28th, 2010 at 6:57 pm
Some sort of glitch – I didn’t hit “send” but it happened. Anyway, the end of my post was just that I’d explained my complete lack of interest in Creationism and Billy’s views on 10th March.
It’s taken Jim a further 18 days to reach the same conclusion after all that effort. As I think I may have said before, Jim’s far more courteous and patient than I am. He’s a great advert for Atheism. Just wish I saw more good adverts for Christianity round here.
March 28th, 2010 at 10:14 pm
Sophie – The 18 days was due to my being away, and now catching up, rather than greater patience I’m afraid…
Billy. A couple of points from your second post of March 23rd I still need to address:
1, I took the trouble to read every page of the website you pointed me to, including the factsheets.
Am I surprised to find scientists dissenting from some of the detail of the Theory of Evolution? Not at all!
That’s the whole point. Scientific endeavor constantly requires us to question what we think we know, and to try to refine and improve on our understanding.
More significantly you’ll note that not one of the write-ups from the “dissenting scientists” says anything about supporting any of the statements that you have made in this blog, and their “dissent” is all about the detail.
2. Michael Behe’s “irreducible complexity” has been so soundly exposed as plain wrong that I’m surprised to find people still referring to it. I’d be embarrased by it if I were you rather than trumpeting it!
March 28th, 2010 at 10:46 pm
Hi Billy
I am going to have to side with Jim and Sophie here. I know of both Parker and Humphries, and they have seem to have made quite a comfort living out of creationism. Possibly more so than they would have, if they have stayed within science.
Billy, re Ken Ham and his ‘gospel’. I cannot give you a direct quote from Ham, but then it is a little like asking me to give you a direct biblical quote for the Trinity. It is not possible, but woven throughout the whole of Scripture and is as plain as the nose on my face.
Within your post, for me personally, there are just far too many scientific, theological, and even hermeneutical errors to address. And convincing creationists (especially YECs) is just not my ministry
It is not a salvic issue.
Billy, can I ask you a question, when did you decide to reject the fact and theory of evolution?
March 28th, 2010 at 10:55 pm
Michael Behe’s “irreducible complexity” has been so soundly exposed as plain wrong that I’m surprised to find people still referring to it.
March 28th, 2010 at 10:55 pm
Michael Behe’s “irreducible complexity” has been so soundly exposed as plain wrong that I’m surprised to find people still referring to it.
Jim, I didn’t mention it, because of the cringe factor, and in all honesty, it isn’t Billy fault that he is regurgitating this stuff, because it is still being embarassingly lauded by YECs.
March 30th, 2010 at 5:28 pm
Hi Jim,
I’m sorry that I have been repeating “the same old rubbish” that you have heard many times before.
Thanks for your replies to my questions anyway.
I would be interested to get replies to these from Sophie and Caral.
Thanks for your comments by the way.
As a “Born-again” christian I believe the Biblical account of creation and believe that every created was “very good” – perfect – paradise.
Humans were therefore created as vegetarians. Doesn’t our long gut indicate this? Sophie? Caral?
Sophie: Thanks for making the time to comment again.
If a stranger tried to tell me that the world was flat, I would take the time and trouble to show them that this was NOT the case.
I would direct them to an ancient book ,written thousands of years ago which told people that the earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40 v 22). At a time when some people thought the earth was flat, the Bible told us that the earth is spherical.
Scripture assumes a revolving (spherical) earth (Luke 17 v £4 – 36). Jesus said that at His return some would be asleep at night while others would be working at day time activities in the field.
This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night occurring simultaneously.
To be continued…..
March 30th, 2010 at 7:26 pm
…
(Bible reference incorrect – should read Luke 17 v 34 – 36).
Sophie/Caral/Jim:
It is interesting is it not, that Job 26 v 7 informs the reader that the earth free-floats or is suspended in space? How did the writer know that?
Sophie/Caral:
What is your take on the worldwide flood? (Bearing in mind 2 Peter 3 vs 5-6). Myth, Symbolic, Poetic or truth?
Jim states that there is not a shred of RELIABLE evidence to indicate one, and there are COMPELLING theoretical reasons why it is impossible.
I disagree and will start to put forward why I believe and trust the biblical account which states that there was a world-wide flood.
Oceans contains springs (Job 38 v 16). The ocean is very deep. Almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness and the pressure there is enormous. It would have been impossible for Job to have explored the “springs of the sea”.
Until recently, it was thought that oceans were fed only by rivers and rain……
Until next time….
March 31st, 2010 at 4:56 pm
…
Until recently, it was thought that oceans were fed only by rivers and rain. Yet in the 1970′s, with the help of deep diving research submarines that were construsted to withstand 6,000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure, oceangraphers discovered springs on the ocean floors!
(Other interesting facts: There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor (Jonah 2 vs 5-6). Only in the llast century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea.
Ocean currents anticipated (Psalm 8 v 8). Three thousand years ago the Bible described the “paths of the seas”. In the 19th century Matthew Maury – the father of oceanography – after reading Psalm 8, researched and discovered ocean currents that follow specific paths through the seas! Utilising Maury’s data, marine navigators have since reduced by many days the time required to traverse the seas.
The hydrological cycle described (Ecclesiastes 1 v 7; Jeremiah 10 v 13; Amos 9 v 6). Four thousand years ago the Bible declared that God “draws up drops of water, which distill as rain from the mist, which the clouds drop down and pour abundantly on man” (Job 36 v 27-28).
The ancients observed mighty rivers flowing into the ocean, but they could not conceive why the sea level never rose. Though they observed rainfall, they had only quaint theories as to its origin.
Meterologists now understand that the hydrological cycle consists of evaporation, atmospheric transportation, distillation, and precipitation).
Back to The Flood…Next time
March 31st, 2010 at 11:09 pm
Hi Billy,
Sorry, for not getting back to you earlier, but I am a little pushed for time. But I will post with a full answer.
Blessings for paschal triduum.
April 1st, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Hi Caral,
No problem – I know what you mean! Will get around to answering your question too!
“HAPPY HOLIDAYS” as the Americans say.
Back to The Flood…
Genesis 7 v 11 states:
In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventh day of the month, the same day were all the FOUNTAINS
of the great deep BROKEN up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
v12: And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
So my point is that many people miss the point about the “FOUNTAINS of the great deep”
So, the fountains of the great deep are probably oceanic or possibly subterranean sources of water. In the context of the Flood account, it could mean both.
So it is quite plausible that these fountains of the great deep involed a series of volcanic eruptions with prodigious amounts of water bursting up through the ground. It is interesting that up to 70 per cent or more of what comes out of volcanoes today is water, often in the form of steam.
These last two paragraphs are from The Creation Answers book.
Bye For Now,
Until after the “Easter” holidays…
April 1st, 2010 at 8:53 pm
And I wish you a Happy Easter too Billy.