Everyday Champions – of what? (Should schools teach creationism?) The proposed Free School in Newark, Nottinghamshire.
Against the backdrop of the news that the creationist Everyday Champions Church in Newark are pursuing an application to found a free school – Everyday Champions School – Michael Roberts - M.A. (Oxon), Vicar in the Diocese of Blackburn – agreed to put a few words together for me.
You can find the essay on the below PDF link:
I would encourage everyone to give a little time to read this, irrespective of your views on creationism.
Michael looks at the teaching of creationism within our schools and the dangers of “creeping creationism” within the education system. He covers the development of creationism, why it is wrong, and the challenge this presents to churches.
Michael’s writing has played no small part in my own development and understanding and it’s with this in my mind that I urge you to give this a read.
Tags: Church Life, Education, Science & Medical, Theology Doctrine Philosophy
August 27th, 2011 at 12:26 pm
One on-going problem for me (as a preacher / teacher ‘from the pulpit’) is the theology of ‘the fall of man’! If man is a ‘special creation’ as the whole of scripture (not just Genesis) takes him to be, what is his ‘natural’ position before God? i.e. does s/he need a saviour? Why did Christ have to die? and what, if anything, can we say about ‘salvation’?
For some of us who are questioning both ‘creationism’ and ‘scientific evolution’, polemic from either side does not help! An attitude of ‘you must believe this or you are a fool’ goes right up my nose!!!
I will still continue to ask questions and listen respectfully to answers.
‘Cur Deus Homo?’ is still one of the most important!
August 27th, 2011 at 12:56 pm
Hi terry, I agree that man is a “special creation” but I have no problem in God using evolution and intervening in a first fully human couple.
I also agree there was a fall.
I’m pretty new to this also and one of the first things leading me to seriously question the 6/24 creation narrative, was that very attitude you highlight, namely:
‘you must believe this or you are a fool’
To make matters worse, I have witnessed creationists denying the salvation of others, simply because they wouldn’t read Genesis in a literal manner. This is tantamount to adding to the salvific works of Christ in my opinion.
I will still continue to ask questions and listen respectfully to answers.
Absolutely right Terry.
August 28th, 2011 at 12:50 pm
good answer, webmaster.
August 28th, 2011 at 10:49 pm
The question also is whether people are simply sinful without considering a historical fall in the first place.
Just consider human nature and ask whether we need redeeeming . Let’s start with our own sina dn need for redemption before getting bogged down in Adam in anb unhelpful way.
Note that nowhere in ACts does it mention the fall, just sin and the need fro redemption
August 29th, 2011 at 9:22 am
Cur Deus Homo?
I think St Anathanius profoundly answers this “God became man so man might become God”.
I think that sometimes when discussing or looking at the Doctrine of the Fall and the sin of Adam and how this relates to us, we can miss this. As Michael has said, we all know of our own sin, and how we miss the mark and we all need redeeming.
I believe that Christ did not solely come to recapitulate and take us back to the relationship that Adam enjoyed before the fall, but so much more, into a new relationship with God, that Adam when in Eden did not have.
Through the works and person of Christ, we now may become partakers of the divine nature, and may enter into the mysterious interdependent relationship of Trinity through our theosis.
This really takes the focus off the constant claim of ‘no fall, no need for Christ’, and perhaps gives us a different perspective.
In my view I think that perhaps laying the blame on Adam for the fall of the whole of mankind is a little harsh on poor Adam, to say the least.
Although I would go as far as saying that even without Adam’s first sin, Christ would still have come, to bring us into this new relationship with our Triune God, hence “God became man so man might become God.”
August 29th, 2011 at 4:10 pm
A book which I have worked through and found helpful (although I would not necessarily agree with all the contributors conclusions!) is ‘Darwin, Creation and the Fall Theological challenges’. A series of essays edited by R.J. Berry and T.A. Noble. Published by Apollos. The reviews on Amazon are here:-
http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/1844743810/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
August 31st, 2011 at 3:43 pm
Is it OK to believe in God but not take the Bible literally?
August 31st, 2011 at 3:53 pm
Jack
The vast majority of Christians have never beleived the bible literally. They beleive it seriously according to the style of writing any part is..
See Psalm 114 vs 3-4 clearly poetry
Genesis 1-3 becomes absurd if it must be taken literally,
September 6th, 2011 at 1:19 pm
I agree with you that the literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3 is “absurd” but then by the same argument, all the other miracles described in the Bible would have to be viewed in a similar way. How can you tell which events are really miracles and actually happened, and which events are fictionalised accounts devised to make a moral point (ie an allegory).
September 6th, 2011 at 1:42 pm
First consider the repetive stylised writng of Genesis eg And there was evening and there was morning. That is very different from the ordinary narratives of the four gospels eg Matt 11. These are interspersed with teaching eg Mat 5-8 Matt 13 etc etc. Miracles come within these narratives and whether you accept them or not will depend on whether you regard miracles as possible. Further you can fit the Gospels into the general historical background of the ist century.
You can do the same with Acts and in all these you can visit most of the places described. You cannot do that with early genesis and you have obvious clues that they are not historical in the normal sense with talking snakes and God walking in the cool of the day etc.
Meanwhile to be sure that the Gospels are historical you need to ask yourself whether you were there. If not you cannot be sure they are not fictional .
I would suggest you familiarise yourself with the different styles of writing both in the bible and in culture generally both modern and ancient
September 6th, 2011 at 1:48 pm
Jack. I’m not a Christan, but the way I look at it is like this:
Suppose in an elementary maths test there is a question that reads: Jack has 5 apples and Jill has 3 apples. How many apples do they have have altogether? The ‘truth’ in this is that there are 8 apples. But the question is written in a way that provides us with a much greater idea than just 5+3=8. I t contextualises the question, and helps us to relate it it to our lives. It is the concept of Jack and Jill having the apples that is true. Whether there were two people with this specific situation is actually not a deal breaker, and it does not diminish the truth in the answer.
September 6th, 2011 at 6:48 pm
There are plenty of silly ideas about – and no shortage of mugs prepared to believe them. As silly ideas go, YEC would have as little importance – and be as easily discarded – as crystal healing if it hadn’t become the central plank of a certain type of Christianity. As Michael Roberts says:
I have already mentioned the bad science, nonsensical arguments and systematic dishonesty of Creationist arguments, which are at the root of the divisiveness. This is compounded by the frequent tendency of Creationists to dismiss Christians who reject YEC and accept “evolution” as unorthodox, “liberal”, “compromisers” and various other epithets.
Michael Roberts says a lot of sensible things:
The main objection to teaching creationism is that it is completely and utterly wrong. Not slightly wrong, nor a matter of opinion, but simply plain wrong. It is as wrong as teaching that Romans never existed, or that William the Conqueror never existed or that the earth is flat. However it is not only plain wrong, it is inherently dishonest. It is possible that creationists can be sincere and honest in themselves, but that does not give them the right to teach something which is wrong and dishonest claiming it to be science. Pupils have a moral right not to be taught falsehood.
That puts it in a nutshell. I get very tired of YECs trying to suggest that there’s a scientific debate. There isn’t: neither Creationism or ID offer any valid scientific alternative.
I’m sorry you dislike being told that believing in Creationism would make you a fool, Terry B, but it’s extremely difficult to be tactful in such circumstances. If someone tells you they’re a Creationist you can either politely ignore their remark or say something. And there’s no polite way of saying that anyone who believes in YEC must be either very badly informed or insincere. As Michael Roberts says “Creationism …it is completely and utterly wrong. Not slightly wrong, nor a matter of opinion, but simply plain wrong.”
From a scientific point of view YECs have no more facts to support them than the Flat Earthers. So, yes, I’m afraid that anyone who accepts YEC over evolution is either a fool or a liar. Don’t know about you, Terry, but I’d rather be considered foolish than dishonest. Dishonesty is a constant and depressing characteristic of YEC/ID leaders and their works. The truth doesn’t support their mission.
It seems the recent surge in YEC activism is a desperate response to the ever-growing weight of scientific evidence. Research has hit breathtaking speed in some areas. If you look just at what’s now known about our DNA and that of our closest living relatives it’s clear that evolution is clearly as close to fact as biology can achieve. There’s some amazing work being done, and all of it supports and further illustrates evolution.
Creationism is terrible science but it is even more destructive in terms of faith. Tying the eternal – the idea of God as Creator – to the mundane – a claim that the world was made in 6 days 6,000 years ago – is a terrible thing to do. If the young are taught that their faith – their immortal souls – are linked to a big factual statement then when they, inevitably, discover that this central fact is false their whole belief is likely to crumble.
Michael Roberts has seen the consequences at first hand:
The disillusionment of students brought up to creationism and then to find it wrong is distressing to observe. I will never forget a lovely twenty year old American undergraduette at an Evangelical college bemoaning how her youth pastor brainwashed her (her words, not mine).
I’m certain that we – as parents, as citizens and as Christians – should do everything in our power to keep Creationism out of science classrooms. It has a place in RE, but in the context of other creation myths and beliefs.
September 6th, 2011 at 9:35 pm
actually the book TerryB refers to is a good one. one editor RJBerry says much the same as me and anything by him is worth reading.
Try looking at some of the stufff on the Faraday Inst and Christians in science site
September 12th, 2011 at 7:15 pm
“The disillusionment of students brought up to creationism and then to find it wrong is distressing to observe”.
Not half as distressing I wager as the disillusionment of students brought up on Christianity (or any religion), then to find it was all no more than a comforting myth.
Isobel: How many angels CAN dance on the head of a pin? Your attack on YEC has an air of intellectual rigour, until one remembers you are arguing from a position of sheer faith, that also has no scientific basis. You are dismissing claims that the world was made in 6 days; but presumably you believe in one or more of: the virgin birth; the raising of Lazarus from the dead (and other minor miracles), the resurrection, and the bodily ascension into Heaven. Which is the more whacky?
I agree with you that Creationism has no place in schools; but also I’m certain that we – as parents and as citizens – should do everything in our power to keep religion out of classrooms.
September 12th, 2011 at 9:43 pm
sifaka
It’s wacky not whacky
September 12th, 2011 at 10:46 pm
Michael
Well, at least you agree it’s wacky.
September 13th, 2011 at 11:20 am
Religious education needs to be taught in schools because religious affairs affect everyone, believers and non-believers alike, and we need to understand it. However it should be taught in philosophy or sociology lessons, never in science lessons. If parents want their children to be raised in a particular faith then they ought to do it at home, not at school on taxpayers’ money. There are plenty of faiths to choose from. The UN formally recognises over 2000 official religious organisations. Almost all believe that theirs is the one true faith so it must be difficult to get the right one.
September 13th, 2011 at 11:31 am
Sifaca, you make the assumption that I brought up my children to believe what I believe. You are entirely mistaken. My children attended a secular school and when matters of faith arise I have always told my kids “This is what I believe. Other people think completely differently.”
When they got older they questioned me directly. I said – as I have always said – that faith is an entirely personal choice. I believe because to me God is real. I can’t force my children – or anyone else – to believe what I do.
When it comes to religious input, my children went to a church play and theatre group one evening a week. There they sang, learned Bible stories and enjoyed themselves. Any European child who is not familiar with our Christian heritage misses out hugely on an amazing legacy of art, literature and music.
I did not make them go to church. That was their choice. They don’t go now, and maybe they never will. Wait and see.
September 13th, 2011 at 11:21 pm
Jack: Religion has been one of the major forces shaping history (and I’m fighting here to hold back all the negative images that are flooding in…) so by all means teach about different religions in schools — under any number of subjects: comparitive cultural studies, history or similar – but not as doctrine. At least not in state or state-funded schools.
Isobel: I wasn’t making any assumption about your children’s schooling; but I’m pleased to see that on the subject you are in a minority among active Christians. My comment was just a footnote.
The main thrust of my message you have ignored, which was my incredulity that a Christian could argue against YEC being taught as part of Christian dogma on the grounds of its unscientific basis. As they say on a popular TV program, let me tell you where I am. My astonishment at Michael Roberts’ paragraph on the subject can be crystalised by a simple parody of it (with apologies):
The main objection to teaching religion is that it is completely and utterly wrong. Not slightly wrong, nor a matter of opinion, but simply plain wrong. It is as wrong as teaching that fairies exist, or that the earth is flat. …. It is possible that religious people can be sincere and honest in themselves, but that does not give them the right to teach something which is wrong claiming it to be the truth. Pupils have a moral right not to be taught falsehood.
Aah, I’ve shown my hand. A little polemical perhaps, but then my hero *is* Christopher Hitchens…
September 14th, 2011 at 7:08 am
sifaka
How do you know that you you are right?
September 14th, 2011 at 1:29 pm
Michael
“How do you know you are right?”
How long have you got? Briefly…
I’m a scientist by nature, and clearly faith and science are at opposite ends of the rationality spectrum. There are no rational arguments for the existence of any gods, only emotional ones. But there are plenty of rational arguments to explain how belief in gods came about.
Rational thinkers (and scientists in particular) are content to admit that on many things they just don’t (yet) know the answer. But they don’t create a “god of the gaps” to explain them. And they don’t rely for their guidance on ancient heterogeneous texts that are inspired by crude thousands-of-years-old understanding of how the world worked.
There is no such thing as scientific truth, only the best theory to date that hasn’t been refuted by verifiable experimental evidence or reason. This is a mistake often committed by people arguing *for* science over faith (and, amusingly by the Creationist organisation “Truth in Science”). So, to answer your question: I don’t know that I’m right about the non-existence of any gods; but there is no scientific evidence for any.
The believer’s response would be to talk about different kinds of truth, experienced through revelations, “just knowing”etc. These are creations of the mind and are not open to scientific scrutiny. But belief in a higher being could have evolutionary survival value, through the support from like-minded groups, lower stress through delegation of moral responsibility etc. So we may have evolved to tend to believe in gods. (The nature of the common belief is irrelevant — it could be in any diety, or the Spaghetti Monster). So religiosity could be the default human condition, and atheism the result of a little extra intellectual activity!
September 14th, 2011 at 3:52 pm
“My love “, she said, “when all is said and done we’re only machines.”
So I tied her to my bed for further use, and she cried.
September 14th, 2011 at 4:19 pm
Michael
I had to smile.
I’m not sure whether you are saying here that we have to have a “soul” to be human, or that morality can only be divinely determined.
I’m sure you believe both; but let me know which, as I seem to be doing most of the typing, and I would rather address just the intended suggestion.
September 14th, 2011 at 4:22 pm
I just smile at your response
September 14th, 2011 at 4:31 pm
Michael
Either your fingers are broken, or you are a little afraid to get into a proper debate, or you consider it beneath you. Which is it?
(I don’t expect a reply…)
September 14th, 2011 at 7:43 pm
Hardly afraid, but I cannot really be bothered to “debate” with someone so ill-informed making silly statements like
“I’m a scientist by nature, and clearly faith and science are at opposite ends of the rationality spectrum.”
I doubt if you are scientist and are talking nonsense about a rationality spectrum
September 14th, 2011 at 8:34 pm
So, “beneath you” it is. Nevertheless, and as we’re now in the insult business…
Excuse my metaphor; but anyone not wilfully minded to misunderstand will know exactly what I mean: faith by definition is beyond the reach of rational argument; science is founded on rational argument. (I’m always amused however when those defending their faith position resort to rational argument).
I won’t bore you with my scientific qualifications.
Sorry for poking you with a sharp stick. I preferred it when you said less really.
September 14th, 2011 at 10:34 pm
Sifaca,
I’m puzzled by your motive for posting these comments. What do you seek to achieve? It’s not as if most readers of this blog have not heard all your arguments and more before – many times.
Religion and science are not at opposite ends of a spectrum. They are not even on the same spectrum. And you could just as easily have an argument about what is ‘true’ or factual, and what is an illusion or a human creation with an atheist.
With a few exceptions the readers of this blog are believers. I don’t think your comments are going to change their minds. So what is your motive? Is it just to poke fun and taunt these folk? If so I think you are wasting your time, and not doing atheists any favours. You will generally find people on this blog polite and sincere. But they do not come here just to be patronised, and lectured about why they are wrong to believe.
September 14th, 2011 at 11:48 pm
Simian
Everything you say is fair comment — I shouldn’t have been so bullish in such apparently refined company. I don’t know what most of the posters to this blog or its readers have heard before, and I wasn’t trying to patronise. I do have such arguments with atheists; but there is much more uncritical agreement than icon-challenging, as I’m sure there is in discussions between believers. I just wanted a believer to answer any of my points and engage, because I am genuinely interested in the nature of religious faith. However, my anger about so many aspects of religion is making it hard for me to see faith as anything other than the purposeful suspension of critical thinking; and clearly my subtle approach didn’t tempt anyone. I’ll leave you all in peace with your comforting beliefs (ok, that was patronising).
September 15th, 2011 at 10:54 am
Sifaka,
Not quite all of us. I am a fellow Atheist and a Humanist, and I share many of your views. But I come to this blog to learn rather than to taunt. There is so much that Atheist Humanists and Christians have in common, apart from the obvious faith in the Christian God, and the moral dilemmas posed in many of the excellent and thought provoking posts are relevant to all of us as humans.
It’s easy to try to score points with the usual arguments against belief in the non-material, but it does not get us anywhere. Many of us would argue that it defies logical argument anyway.
I think it is helpful to try to understand people who have different World views. But alienating people with whom you do not agree is usually unproductive.
September 15th, 2011 at 12:49 pm
Simian
All of my “taunts” were tongue-in-cheek, and meant to provoke discussion, not alienate. Apologies to those who didn’t take them in that spirit. And others of my comments were just explaining my own exasperation. At least, finally, someone (you) engaged, but alas only an atheist!
Maybe I misjudged the level of debate on this blog, and all contributors are familiar with all the arguments, however relevant, against religious belief (although I think this unlikely). Clearly a blunderbuss approach is less likely to provoke discussion than starting from common ground. But I wonder how often contributors do deign to engage in debate with atheists on anything other than common ground. When I see discussions that I can only equate to counting angels on a pinhead, I can’t help but think such debate would bring in some fresh air.
The thing that marks humans apart supposedly is that we are rational beings. And rational argument is used by believers in all aspects of their religion, however transcendental, including their faith itself — which by definition is strictly beyond the assault of logic. I’m interested therefore to hear believers discuss why they think they have faith, when many others don’t, and how they square it with being rational animals. This may be well-worn old ground for many bloggers, in which case, sorry to have troubled you.
September 17th, 2011 at 10:16 am
I cannot agree with Sifaka when he says we are rational. It has been quite well established that about two thirds of thinking is done unconsciously, and that is the domain of the emotions. It is also accepted that the rational part of the brain is the “slave” of the unconscious. Religion provides an answer to the need for meaning in people’s lives, and Dawkins and others are seeking to persuade people that science can do that more or as effectively. The trouble is, on its own admission science doesn’t have all the answers. The commonly accepted idea of “the survival of the fittest”, comes down to “the winner wins” – not a very satisfying reason for being here.
September 18th, 2011 at 12:07 am
Hocus Pocus
Once you accept Darwinian Evolution, you have to consider that human intellectual development may not necessarily have been concluded. Faulty thinking would be to assume that just because we currently have sufficient intellectual ability to phrase a question, it must have an answer. Or that if it does have an answer, that we would have the intellect to understand it. Received dogma of course short-cuts all that, and provides answers for some.
October 10th, 2011 at 8:58 pm
[...] You can see my previous guest blog post written by Michael Roberts - M.A. (Oxon), Vicar in the Diocese of Blackburn – here. [...]
October 11th, 2011 at 3:29 pm
Michael Roberts comment on the Everyday Champions issue is not to be unexpected. I am saddened by some of his comments that tend to lean more to scaremongering and fear rather than to sound argument and judgement.
For example, I don’t think that anyone wants just Biblical Creationism taught in schools to the detriment of Evolution. Rather the consensous is that it should be taught alongside so that students are encouraged to think for themselves and make their own judgements.
Michael’s response tends towards:
1. Evolution is the only answer and therefore should not be questioned. That is being dictatorial
2. Evolution is the main argument from all the earth science disciplines and therefore must be right. That is pompous to assume that science has all the answers when clearly it doesn’t
3. Evolution is in danger despite the weight of the evidence. There is nothing else to replace it. (shades of Dawkins bunny being found in the “wrong” place. Well perhaps the evolutionary arguments are not so strong after all and it is right to question it.
Michael makes 17 observations. I don’t know whether I have the space to comment on all but here goes:
1 & 2 I agree
3. I agree but perhaps it needs to re address this issue
4. This is totally wrong. No one with Biblical Creation leanings has ever supported this. Quite the contrary. OK I know that there are extremes on BOTH sides of the argument, But a correct Biblical perspective is the Spirit AND the Word together. So of course a Christian focuses on Jesus as Saviour and Lord. But the Christian ALSO focuses on the Word of God since its author is Christ (John 1) We cannot have the one without the other. In any case creation is important from the perspective of history, the gospel (first sin sacrifice in Gen 3) and the authority of God’s word.
5. To spiritualise the Word of God in every area is nonsense. Of course the Bible contains history. Most of the OT is historical as is the NT, but it also contains poetry, prophesy, revelation and each of these are apparent in the proper context of the written text. By saying that Scripture does not contain history, he is saying that Abraham was allegorical NOT a historical figure. That Isaiah was not historical nor King David. He is also saying that Jesus was not historical because if you remember on the Emmaeus road Jesus explained to the 2 disciples everything about Himself in the Scriptures and that was in the OT. It is also quite wrong to say that the Bible doesn’t speak of science. It does. There are numerous Scriptures that speak and when they do they are always right. Just look at medical science and cleanliness issues when even the washing of hands was discovered
6. This would only be true if the Bible was of human origin. But it isn’t. God is the author and I am sure that there are passages that even the writers would never understand, especially the prophetic and especially the prophesies concerning Jesus
7. It is true that the Biblical teaching on creation does contain SOME poetry but those verses are obvious, such as in the Psalms for example. Otherwise the narrative is written as a historical account as we shall see later
8. The Genesis creation account does have some poetic verses and they are obvious from the context. So for example God “walking in the Garden” is one of those. But to say that the first 11 chapters are poetic or allegory is wrong. The main evidence for this is that there are I think 10 parts in Genesis that begin “This is the account of” and they start with Adam and go right through to Jacob. So Genesis doesn’t suddenly change from ch12 onwards. The style is the same throughout. Michael is quite mistaken here.
In addition “stylistic comments” is a useful tool to undermine the truth. The use of “evening and morning” attached to the word used for “day” (yom) indicate a literal 24 hour day as we know it and recognise it. The Bible is consistent throughout in the way this has been translated. We use the same now when we use day. It can mean a period of time, today, an age as in “in my day” or a future time “a day will come when”. ALWAYS without exception when the term is used the context shows us how to interpret it and in the Bible there are no mistranslations on this particular issue. As for God “seeing” that comment is silly. Of course God sees, nothing is hidden from Him
9. Again this misunderstanding of Biblical Creation is plain wrong and is an oft used attack on those that dare to disagree. Biblical Creationists are NOT anti science. Michael is a geologist so we will use that to illustrate. To practice geology one has to be qualified to degree level. Christian geologists go through the same qualification process as any other, even those of a young earth persuasion. Indeed some have better qualifications than non Christian geologists. So to say that Biblical creationists don’t do proper science is just a lie. The ONLY difference is that having seen, studied and worked with exactly the same evidence, different conclusions may be drawn. And let’s be very clear about this. It is the ONLY difference. All evidence has to be interpretted. How we interpret it depends on our preconceived world view or assumptions. There can be more than one way to interpret some evidence and it is the Biblical creationist with a different interpretation that is the issue here
10. So what Michael seems to be saying here is that a fully qualified and practicing geologist can do wrong science or has a false understanding of the subject he has studied and qualified in at sometimes a masters level. That is silly and simply not true
11. This is NOT about “lying for Jesus”. That again is just going to silly lengths to discredit a legitimate understanding between highly qualified people who happen to disagree. This is all about how the evidence is interpretted. Biblical creationists don’t have any “special” evidence. All the evidence is EXACTLY the same
12. Well whether global warming is fact or fiction no one is saying that we shouldn’t take better care of the planet. There is a lot of unfounded scaremongering about this and we need to be wise without jumping on any particular bandwagon
13. What does this mean in plain English????????
14. Oh dear. So Michael is right and everyone else wrong. The CofE is not renowned for its decision making is it? It tends to muddy the waters in an effort to accommodate everyone and not cause offence. I don’t see it making a worthwhile decision, unfortunately
15. I have no problem with anyone being challenged about their belief system. But why should it be onesided? This is just repeating the fallacy thet Michael is right and everyone else is wrong. Michael needs to be challenged as well
16. This is wrong. To say this denies the fact that evolution is also a belief system. It is the belief that materialsm / naturalism is the ONLY issue and that God is not necessary to drive the forces of evolution forward. From an evolutionary perspective there is no God. The only reason why Michael and others differ on this is the typical CofE stance of trying to accommodate their science into the Bible. Let’s be clear about this. The Bible and evolution are irreconcileable, even playing fast and loose with the Scriptures will not do it properly. Biblical Creationism shows that there is an alternative interpretation of the evidence.
Let’s also be clear, neither evolution not Biblical Creationism has all the answers. There are very many problems with understanding a lot of issues on both sides including many that are still unresolved. But make no mistake a proper interpretation shows that many actually do fit the creation model better than the alternative
17. Biblical Creationists have never said that creation must replace evolution in schools. What they have said is that it is better to teach creation alongside evolution so that students can make up their own minds. This does of course undermine all evolutionary scientists and cause them to have fits of apoplexy. Maybe it is time to throw down the gauntlet on this. If evolution is right it will be the stronger for it. If it is wrong then it is about time it was shown up for what it really is.
What are evolutionists afraid of?????
October 11th, 2011 at 4:07 pm
Hi Alan,
Thanks for your comment, although somewhat sprinkled with ad hom and a couple of strawmen thrown in for luck,:) I will just address your first issue.
Rather the consensous[sic] is that it should be taught alongside so that students are encouraged to think for themselves and make their own judgements.
To start with, evolution cover a multitude of scientific disciplines, and is therefore taught in the sphere of the science. However Creationism is not science, but a religious belief, so immediately we have the problem, of how can it be taught alongside evolution.
Conversely I cannot see how this can accommodate or encourage young people to think for themselves, as the skill of critical thinking is taught from an early age. Nor I cannot fathom how the evolution/creation debate would necessarily be helpful, as the creationist articles and journals would immediately be rejected as unreliable sources.
I think it that the best place for the possibility of debate between creationists and evolution would be in Cultural Studies (used to be known as R.E. – Religious Education). Yet, of course, this could then mean, that valuable time, and module structures relating to Christianity would be reduced. I think that I would prefer the Gospel to be taught, and Christianity itself learnt and perhaps the differing historic theologies debated rather than creationism.
October 11th, 2011 at 11:00 pm
But you see Phoebs that’s where you’re wrong about Biblical Creationism. It is as much science as evolution. The ONLY difference is in the interpretation of evidence. BOTH doe xcatly the same science. To say otherwise is just not true but that is what Michael, Dawkins et al keep trying to drum into people.
If you hold to the notion that Biblical Creationism is not science then logically you have to say that evolution isn’t either.
One can argue that BOTH are philosophies or BOTH are science with multiple disciplines.
Either way we are still talking about interpretation of the same evidence within the same framework
October 12th, 2011 at 11:01 am
Alanlionheart:
The difference is that scientists who understand Evolution rejoice when they find a new piece of evidence that disproves existing theories. Creationists rejoice when they find a new piece of evidence that tends to support their existing worldview. Behind that simple difference lies the reason why Creationism and Evolution are not comparable, and should not be taught as alternative views of why we are what we are.
October 12th, 2011 at 12:02 pm
Alanlionheart:
Clearly you have no idea what science is. Anyone can come up with a theory, but not every theory is a scientific one. I could claim that the universe was snorted out of the nostril of Thor’s horse, but as this is not objectively falsifiable, it’s not a scientific theory. By your reasoning, the sacred scriptures of every other religion are as scientific as Biblical Creationism.
Science doesn’t claim to have all the answers, but that is it’s strength — it is happy to wait for empirical evidence before proposing a theory. When it doesn’t have an answer, it doesn’t make one up. Giving the answer to “why does the universe exist?” as “because God created it” is just giving a name to what you don’t understand.
Let us not forget that the only reason Creatonism (aka Intelligent Design) started to try to don the clothes of scientific respectability is that US law says that science can be taught in public school classes, but not religion.
October 13th, 2011 at 8:53 am
@Alan
I think your post highlights exactly why the teaching of science is so important to a child’s education.
@Homo Erectus
Thor’s nostril…that caused a lol. Love it.
October 13th, 2011 at 2:29 pm
Poor Alan, he just cannot see creationism is not science