Brit Science Professors Fighting Creationism in the Classroom

Published on January 29th, 2010

Posted by Uncle Dave in international, religion, school

A growing number of science students on British campuses and in sixth form colleges are challenging the theory of evolution and arguing that Darwin was wrong. Some are being failed in university exams because they quote sayings from the Bible or Qur’an as scientific fact and at one sixth form college in London most biology students are now thought to be creationists.
[...]
In the United States there is growing pressure to teach creationism or “intelligent design” in science classes, despite legal rulings against it. Now similar trends in this country have prompted the Royal Society, Britain’s leading scientific academy, to confront the issue head on with a talk entitled Why Creationism is Wrong. The award-winning geneticist and author Steve Jones will deliver the lecture and challenge creationists, Christian and Islamic, to argue their case rationally at the society’s event in April.

“There is an insidious and growing problem,” said Professor Jones, of University College London. “It’s a step back from rationality. They (the creationists) don’t have a problem with science, they have a problem with argument. And irrationality is a very infectious disease as we see from the United States.”
[...]
Most of the next generation of medical and science students could well be creationists, according to a biology teacher at a leading London sixth-form college. “The vast majority of my students now believe in creationism,” she said, “and these are thinking young people who are able and articulate and not at the dim end at all. They have extensive booklets on creationism which they put in my pigeon-hole … it’s a bit like the southern states of America.”

88 users responded in " Brit Science Professors Fighting Creationism in the Classroom "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 Gasparrini said, on January 29th, 2010 at 5:08 am

The photo used for this posting is just priceless.

# 2 LDA said, on January 29th, 2010 at 5:30 am

“Most of the next generation of medical and science students could well be creationists”

Only if they do not fail there exams (which the article says they are doing). More job opportunities for sane people.

# 3 t0llyb0ng said, on January 29th, 2010 at 5:32 am

The psyche hath need of its credulities & is loath to let go of them. Archaeologists recently dug up a fossil skeleton of a woman with thumbs on her feet, but even that won’t cure our collective creationitis.

# 4 LOWER CASE SCREEN NAME said, on January 29th, 2010 at 5:41 am

Since I believe in real science (hence my disbelief in AGW), I would have to agree with libs on this one. There are things not yet explained by evolution, but simply plugging in ID or creationism as a “scientific” alternative is ridiculous.

# 5 Shubee said, on January 29th, 2010 at 5:51 am

There are scientific theories of creationism. Unfortunately, Intelligent Design is not science.

# 6 bobbo, Its Deja vu all over again said, on January 29th, 2010 at 5:56 am

Article is way too vague. I call “shenanigans!” The Brit church going/affiliation rate is around 10%? Hard to believe the idiocy of creationism is that big a movement==Especially if the kiddies are getting flunked out of science classes?

I’m sure a public confrontation with rational science will clear things up.

# 7 Timuchin said, on January 29th, 2010 at 6:39 am

Get those Global Warming deniers! All minds must comply to political correctness! No open inquiry allowed! The politicians are the arbiters of Truth. Just listen to our politicians and you would know that is true. They will tell you so. (NOT)

# 8 Improbus said, on January 29th, 2010 at 6:42 am

Most people are manimals (man + animal) not rational reasoning apes. It is to bad we can’t put all of the anti-science types in their own area of the planet and let them die of preventable diseases and starvation.

# 9 Dr Dodd said, on January 29th, 2010 at 6:42 am

Science is really no more than what we know or have theorized about the Creation.

This explanation is uncomfortable to atheists because it forces them to consider that there really is a Creator.

Truth and discovery is rarely behind the Creation/Science debate, only the defiant rejection of God in the name of Science.

# 10 qb said, on January 29th, 2010 at 6:54 am

#5 Shubee

Would one of these scientific theories be capable of producing a testable prediction? If not, then it isn’t a scientific theory but a philosophical or theological hypothesis. I think that’s the point you’re trying to make.

Don’t get me wrong, philosophy and theology are important. I have a degree in philosophy. However calling something a scientific theory doesn’t make it the genuine article.

# 11 Animby said, on January 29th, 2010 at 7:08 am

“Most of the next generation of medical and science students could well be creationists,”

Medical students do not tend to become creationists. Once you see how poorly designed the human body is, how much can go wrong, how jerry-rigged so much of it is, you either decide that god is a committee or that god didn’t really have a finger in the plan (which leads us back to evolution). Many just decide no god could be this wrong ergo there is no god.

# 12 Uteck said, on January 29th, 2010 at 7:10 am

So #9, what is the Science behind creationism? So far every argument consists of some version of ” Science can’t explain X, so my explanation must be true.”
If Science is to teach the alternative theories, then you need to present a Scientifically testable theory.

I suggest you look up the definition of Theorem first so you know that it does not mean any crack-pot idea that sacrificing a goat is involved in.

# 13 Phydeau said, on January 29th, 2010 at 7:14 am

#9 Why am I not surprised that Doddger is a creationist…

# 14 The0ne said, on January 29th, 2010 at 7:26 am

These are Brits!! Who do we care, I don’t. The more I meet them the more I’m coming to understand why white people make fun of them like they do. Haven’t met a decent English person yet.

# 15 Improbus said, on January 29th, 2010 at 7:36 am

@Theone

What about Doctor Who? Oh, wait, he’s from Gallifrey.

# 16 bobbo, Its Deja vu all over again said, on January 29th, 2010 at 7:42 am

#11–Animby==could you favor us with 1-2 of your favorite “this body part doesn’t work” examples?

I can think of several, but none very “interesting.” More like: why do they wear out?

# 17 Winston said, on January 29th, 2010 at 7:49 am

I LOVE that cartoon. One cartoon is worth a thousand words.

# 18 bobbo, how much reality am I missing? said, on January 29th, 2010 at 7:52 am

So–whats with the admiration of this cartoon?

Squint just a little bit, and it very much reminds me of Pope in full regalia swinging that ball of smoke on a chain.

Equally foolish. Men in dresses/masks/costumes. Yea, verily.

# 19 Cursor_ said, on January 29th, 2010 at 7:55 am

#3 t0llyb0ng

“Archaeologists recently dug up a fossil skeleton of a woman with thumbs on her feet, but even that won’t cure our collective creationitis.”

I googled skeleton with thumbs on feet and got nothing. Can you link me to the article?

Cursor_

# 20 Buzz said, on January 29th, 2010 at 7:57 am

“Intelligent Design” really needs the right title to make it more accurate. Perhaps “Risible Design” would suffice, given the sheer volume of errors in DNA that lead to fatal diseases and chronic conditions that cause random suffering.

The number of spontaneous abortions, miscarriages and still births humans endure (10-50% depending on age, health, etc.) should tell you something about how very smart the process is.

Maybe if we just re-tagged these as “God-induced” abortions, murderers like Scott Roeder would have less psychotic fuel for their feelings of self-appointed vengeance.

# 21 GetSmart said, on January 29th, 2010 at 8:01 am

#8 Improbus:
“It is to bad we can’t put all of the anti-science types in their own area of the planet and let them die of preventable diseases and starvation.”
That sounds like a good idea until you really think about it. There’s enough horror to go around without adding to it.

# 22 MrMiGu said, on January 29th, 2010 at 8:38 am

#16 Bobbo,

What good is the appendix for other than breaking down?

# 23 Ron Larson said, on January 29th, 2010 at 8:38 am

“it’s a bit like the southern states of America”

WTF is up with bashing the great American south?
I’m from California and trust me, this state is full of the most ignorant religious nutters I’ve ever met. And it is Kansas and South Dakota, those most midwestern of states, and not Alabama that has pushed religious intolerance and the Christian Taliban agenda the furthest.

With statements like this, this guy sounds just as closed minded and ignorant as the creationist that he claims to loath.

# 24 freddybobs68k said, on January 29th, 2010 at 8:42 am

#14 The0ne

You need to get out more.

# 25 Benjamin said, on January 29th, 2010 at 8:50 am

Bobbo, would you rather go to a doctor who is an expert in their field and happens to believe in creation or a doctor who barely made it out of medical school but believes in evolution? Just curious, but I would rather have the doctor who knows what they are doing regardless of their stance on creation/evolution.

Medicine has nothing to do with creation/evolution. It is about curing sick people and knowing methods that work and knowing what can go wrong. Also, you can’t be squeamish about blood or body parts. (Ick. Why I am not a doctor.)

In most cases, a belief in creation or evolution has nothing to do with the field of study one is in.

# 26 right said, on January 29th, 2010 at 9:10 am

#14 The0ne

It’s spelled p.a.s.s.p.o.r.t. It’s used to go places and see the world. The world? Oh yeah, you don’t know, it’s a place outside your basement.

# 27 Greg Allen said, on January 29th, 2010 at 9:10 am

“Creationism” is not wrong, it’s just not science.

This is the message that needs to be stated in science classrooms.

It’s not correct to say that creation mythologies are wrong.

Worse, it sets-up a needless fight.

Religion and science can both be true. It’s only a problem if you confuse them.

And, the confusion goes both ways.

There are atheists who claim that science disproves God or religion. These people are as ignorant as the Creationists and just as guilty of confusing the two disciplines.

# 28 RBG said, on January 29th, 2010 at 9:13 am

I don’t see the problem. My zoology prof used to acknowledge the creationists, even invited them to write at the very top of their paper or test: “I do not believe in evolution but below reflects the course material…” Or some such thing. And then the students were required to answer all the exam questions precisely as taught for full marks.

RBG

# 29 bac said, on January 29th, 2010 at 9:27 am

Intelligent Design should be called Worshipping Ignorance.

What the IDers are saying to the world is that they observe the wonders of Nature but are too lazy to find out the true charactistics of Nature so they state some all powerful invisible being designed Nature.

This leaves more time to write many books about what one bad written book is actually saying.

# 30 The0ne said, on January 29th, 2010 at 9:34 am

#24, #26
Damn, all this time I’m just been visiting the wrong countries. Maybe I’ll find some Brits in Cambodia shagging some little girl who’s actually a pretty little boy.

As you two so eloquently confirmed, haven’t met any decent Brit yet and I don’t think I will. Hell, our VP of Engineering two doors down from me is Brit and he’s such a two-face snobbish fck. Funniest sht is he tells me he hates just about everyone in the office here and would gladly replace them if he had the chance but come home and he acts like he’s your best friend

And here’s the best part, this group of people I work with here, except the Brit fellow, are the nicest, smartest and funniest people you will meet in a work environment. I’m here because the atmosphere is so pleasant to be in, aside from the Brit, and that everyone is smart enough to realize we can’t make shtty products

Now, does it bother some of you that I haven’t met a decent Brit fellow? It’s only a matter of time…and the laws of probability.

Brits, they’re funnier every time I come to the realization why white people make fun of them so often.

# 31 AngryChad said, on January 29th, 2010 at 10:22 am

When you forgive people for being completely irrational in any aspect of life, as the widespread acceptance of religion does, there is no way to prevent these monkey trials from happening over and over again. We need to fight the disease, not the symptom.

# 32 Greg Allen said, on January 29th, 2010 at 10:31 am

>> The0ne said, on January 29th, 2010 at 9:34 am
>> Damn, all this time I’m just been visiting the wrong countries. Maybe I’ll find some Brits in Cambodia shagging some little girl who’s actually a pretty little boy.

That’s just creepy.

# 33 jccalhoun said, on January 29th, 2010 at 10:32 am

Science is really no more than what we know or have theorized about the Creation.

This explanation is uncomfortable to atheists because it forces them to consider that there really is a Creator.

Truth and discovery is rarely behind the Creation/Science debate, only the defiant rejection of God in the name of Science.

So what about all the scientists who are religious? (and not just scientists who are christian but scientists who follow other religions?) And what about all the religious people who have no issues with science?

# 34 freddybobs68k said, on January 29th, 2010 at 10:42 am

#30 The0ne

Ah, so your boss is a brit and you don’t like him. Well that makes complete sense then.

I am truly humbled. I underestimated the depth of your worldliness.

# 35 Greg Allen said, on January 29th, 2010 at 10:44 am

>> bac said, on January 29th, 2010 at 9:27 am
>> What the IDers are saying to the world is that they observe the wonders of Nature but are too lazy to find out the true charactistics of Nature so they state some all powerful invisible being designed Nature.

You’re not exactly wrong, but that’s not exactly it.

It’s certainly not laziness — it’s MUCH MORE WORK to reconcile constantly-expanding science knowledge with a static document from 1000 CE.

It’s exhausting, actually.

# 36 Greg Allen said, on January 29th, 2010 at 10:50 am

>> jccalhoun said,
>> So what about all the scientists who are religious? (and not just scientists who are christian but scientists who follow other religions?) And what about all the religious people who have no issues with science?

Many atheists believe they own science.

Ironically, this is purely a faith-based belief unconnected from reality.

In reality, lots of religious people are doing fantastic work in pure and applied science.

They sometimes get bullied by the atheist supremacists but they hang in there.

# 37 Greg Allen said, on January 29th, 2010 at 10:53 am

>> AngryChad said, on January 29th, 2010 at 10:22 am
>> When you forgive people for being completely irrational in any aspect of life, as the widespread acceptance of religion does,

I don’t know any religious people who are “completely irrational in every aspect of life” — even the most adamant creationist acts rationally in most situations.

Ironic, though, that you believe such an irrational thing despite it’s obvious absurdity.

# 38 Ostrich Man said, on January 29th, 2010 at 11:07 am

#22 MrMiGu

…The appendix “acts as a good safe house for bacteria,”…

…before dense populations in modern times and during epidemics of cholera that affected a whole region, it wasn’t as easy to grow back that bacteria and the appendix came in handy. In less developed countries, where the appendix may be still useful, the rate of appendicitis is lower than in the U.S…

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/21153898/

# 39 The0ne said, on January 29th, 2010 at 11:16 am

#34
As you should but sadly no, it’s not the only reason. If you can comprehend better than a 1 year old you’ll notice I stated over and over several times that I’ve met Brits but have yet to find a decent good one to be friends with.

My coworker was “a” example of what I’ve been talking about. If I give another example, I’m afraid it’ll just confuse you more so I won’t.

And if you go beyond the comprehension of a 2 year old then you’ll pick up the subtleties of my tone where I have not given up and would like to continue meeting English people until I meet someone who is nice and decent.

Is that so hard for you to imagine that I have not yet met a nice English person?

# 40 jccalhoun said, on January 29th, 2010 at 11:21 am

What do creationists think about Neanderthals? I would guess they think they were just ugly people or something.

# 41 Shubee said, on January 29th, 2010 at 11:43 am

# 10 qb,

I said that there are scientific theories of creationism.

High ranking cosmologists already teach that a highly ordered physical reality can spontaneously materialize out of nothingness and then become increasingly disordered and decay into inevitable extinction and non-existence. That’s the view of all mainstream physicists. You can hear Sir Roger Penrose express that very orthodox belief at exactly 5:00 to 7:05 minutes into the following Hard Talk interview with Stephen Sackur.

As you suspect, the whole debate about the validity of creationism is really about the definition of science.

# 42 Floyd said, on January 29th, 2010 at 1:20 pm

#25: The creationists are lousy at teaching science. If I were in need of a doctor, I would prefer an MD who believes in reality (e.g. evolution and biology, the nature of the universe we live in, and other scientific discoveries), than a doctor whose world view is based on 2000 year old fairy stories written by people who had no clue about the actual nature of reality. Religions are good for teaching ethics, most of the time (exception: see all the wars among the many religions).

# 43 Shubee said, on January 29th, 2010 at 1:42 pm

The strongest argument against Darwinian evolution is evolutionary biologists also accepting the pseudo-science of the biomedical establishment.

http://everythingimportant.org/AZT

# 44 emhodew said, on January 29th, 2010 at 2:12 pm

The reason most graduates are creationist is; if they are not, they aren’t allowed to graduate. Or Darwin forbid, if they slip through we just won’t hire/fund them!

The only reason the theory of evolution is not full of holes is it is moving target. They keep changing the theory so it is hard to say it is inaccurate. They simply say you just are behind the times. They fixed that ‘bug’ in the last re-write. You are just out of date!

Notice the group is having a lecture, not a debate. Every time evolution is debated it loses. So go ahead and continue to fail anyone who does not follow the scientific religion of evolution.

Free tinkers will ponder the fig. Each variety of fig needs a specific wasp to fertilize the fruit. The pollen and stamen are contained within the fruit and each variety has a wasp with a special trick to burrow into the fruit and fertilize it. How can such a complex arrangement survive in a evolutionary world?
Hence the term “Intelligent Design”. It is hard to believe such a complex system came about in a random fashion.

Unless you believe in the religion of evolution!

# 45 Benjamin said, on January 29th, 2010 at 2:15 pm

So you ask your doctor what their religious views are before you accept treatment? Most people choose a doctor based on reputation or at least whoever their HMO approve.

Most Creationists believe in biology, relativity (Einstein believed in creation and came up with relativity, so pick another argument), the nature of the universe we live in, and scientific discoveries. I want a doctor who can operate on humans and knows human biology. I don’t want a doctor who has only studied and operated on apes.

What we disagree with is the origin of the universe which happened a long time ago anyway. (Some time before 6000 years ago. Yes, 22 billion years ago is some time before 6000 years ago.) We also disagree with the method the universe was formed. This has no impact whatsoever on the current universe we live in today. I read Scientific America just like evolutionists because I study science. I just don’t buy evolution.

Calling my religion a fairy tale is wrong. You will learn the truth someday.

#41 “Floyd said, on January 29th, 2010 at 1:20 pm

# 46 Benjamin said, on January 29th, 2010 at 2:21 pm

#43 “The pollen and stamen are contained within the fruit and each variety has a wasp with a special trick to burrow into the fruit and fertilize it.”

I saw a documentary about that. It was really cool, but I can no longer bring myself to eat figs. Yuck. All those bugs crawling into my fruit and then the smaller bugs eating the wasps. Also with the sap pouring on the trees to attract ants so the wasps only land certain times in the life cycle of the fig tree.

# 47 emhodew said, on January 29th, 2010 at 2:29 pm

Benjamin,
You better stop eating carrots potatoes and tubers, they grow in the mud.
Stop eating beef, they piss and shit on the grass they eat. (Same for Sheep, and we won’t discuss pigs!)

Each variety of fig where the wasp dies with in the fig exudes a chemical that digests the bug.
No different than if the bug died on the ground and the plant absorbed the nutrients from the ground.

# 48 Thomas said, on January 29th, 2010 at 3:01 pm

#5
There are scientific theories of creationism.

Baloney. There are wild guesses, some made by scientists, about the notion of creationism but there are no scientific theories of creationism.

#9
Science is really no more than what we know or have theorized about the Creation.
This explanation is uncomfortable to atheists because it forces them to consider that there really is a Creator.

More baloney. Atheists make no assumptions about the possibilities of a creator. However, they do require that any such claims are backed by scientific proof. Something that creationists have never done.

#27
“Creationism” is not wrong, it’s just not science.
This is the message that needs to be stated in science classrooms.

Could not have said it better. I have no problem with a scientist that is religious as long as they understand where science ends and philosophy begins.

#41
You are confusing speculation with science. There are no scientific theories about creationism. What you are presenting is one man’s guess. Without tangible, unbiased, repeatable evidence to support his hypothesis, it remains in the realm of philosophy and personal introspection.

As you suspect, the whole debate about the validity of creationism is really about the definition of science.

Nonsense. We differentiate science from non-science via the methods used to make conclusions. Science requires evidence. Non-science does not.

#44
There is no one theory of evolution. It is represented by a number of theories which explain the observable fact that species evolve.

Every time evolution is debated it loses

Fanatical dribble coming from someone that is clearly ignorant about the scientific method. Even if you prove that the current theories of evolution are all wrong, you have provided ZERO support that creationism is valid.

How can such a complex arrangement survive in a evolutionary world?

This is a variant of the “an eye is too complex to have evolved on its own” dribble. That argument might have made sense…1000 years ago. Much has been learned since then. Given the time frames involved, a tremendous degree of complexity can be produced. Go to TalkOrigins.org where all such arguments have been thoroughly trounced.

At the end of the day, the fundamental, glaring truth is that creationism is not science. There is no falsifiable claim. There is no evidence to support their statements. It is purely philosophical smoke covering the Judeo-Christian-Muslim religion. Thus, if a doctor wants to believe in witch doctors, that’s his prerogative as long as he understands the scientific method and how to actually go about understanding the real world. I don’t want a doctor telling me that prayer or voodoo will heal my broken arm.

# 49 qb said, on January 29th, 2010 at 3:16 pm

#44 emhodew

Start to finish, that is the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen on this blog. It would have to be 5 times smarter to be a forehead slap.

# 50 bac said, on January 29th, 2010 at 3:26 pm

Creationism is not an alternative to science. It is an alternative to faith.

Creationism tries to rationalize faith.

All scientific theories can be proved or disproved through observation and experiment.

If you want to disprove evolution scientifically then disprove it through observation or experimentation. Dawkins has already mention several ways to disprove evolution. A simple way is to find fossils in the wrong era for example; modern bird fossils before the time of the dinosaurs.

# 51 Shubee said, on January 29th, 2010 at 3:47 pm

# 48 said,

“Without tangible, unbiased, repeatable evidence to support his hypothesis, it remains in the realm of philosophy and personal introspection.”

Don’t tell me. Tell that to the vast consensus of mainstream physicists that teach that the universe exploded into existence out of nothingness. And while you’re at it, also please instruct the willfully blind Darwinists who assert without evidence that all life descended from a single-celled animal.

# 52 freddybobs68k said, on January 29th, 2010 at 4:43 pm

#39 The0ne

Yes, yes. You’ve really won me over with that brilliant argument.

How you know one and dislike him, and you’ve met some others and for some reason dislike them too. And what a big heart you have because if you met one, just one, that somehow worked for you, you might change your mind. Inspiring indeed.

Characterizing millions of people by a handful you’ve met. Yes, nice one.

I’ll say it again – you need to get out more.

# 53 Jake Sully said, on January 29th, 2010 at 5:38 pm

There’s no rule that says there won’t be more Dark Ages.

# 54 Thomas said, on January 29th, 2010 at 5:42 pm

#51
There actually IS evidence to support the idea that the universe exploded from a single explosion. That evidence is based on other existing scientific theories of physics and cosmology. There is absolutely ZERO evidence that points towards a single creator or even single non-Terran species.

also please instruct the willfully blind Darwinists who assert without evidence that all life descended from a single-celled animal.

A strawman argument. No scientist claims that all life evolved from one and only one single-celled organism just as no scientist would say that man evolved from chimps. It is probable that multiple single-cell organisms developed independently at the same time.

That species evolve is an observable fact. How they evolved and from what they evolved is what concerns scientists. If all life evolved from simpler forms, then the inescapable conclusion is that there was a starting point of single-celled organisms. Again, this is not based on conjecture based on wild assumptions. There is real evidence that points to this conclusion.

# 55 Shubee said, on January 29th, 2010 at 6:38 pm

# 54 said,

If all life evolved from simpler forms, then the inescapable conclusion is that there was a starting point of single-celled organisms.

Unfortunately, there is absolutely no evidence that favors progressive evolution above devolution.

http://everythingimportant.org/devolution

# 56 Peter Schut said, on January 29th, 2010 at 7:02 pm

#54

Rubbish. You were obviously asleep in biology class. Take, for example, the book called “On the Origin of Species” by some eminent scientist of the 19th century called Darwin. Just chock-a-block full of examples, such as the Galapagos finches. And that was only the first of many such observations.

# 57 qb said, on January 29th, 2010 at 7:22 pm

#55 Shubee

Um, the KT boundary? The Tr-J boundary? The P-Tr boundary?

Any major extinction event.

# 58 Dr Dodd said, on January 29th, 2010 at 7:25 pm

#48-Thomas-they (Atheist) require that any such claims are backed by scientific proof. Something that creationists have never done.

Proof of intelligent design is all around. From the design and function of the solar system to the many forms of life we take for granted.

There is an abundance of proof if you have a mind to recognize it.

# 59 clancys_daddy said, on January 29th, 2010 at 7:47 pm

#53 there are days and people that make me think we are living in them.

# 60 Thomas said, on January 29th, 2010 at 8:08 pm

#58
A nonsensical proof as your hypothesis provides no means to be falsified and thus is not scientific. If everything is designed, how do you differentiate between not-designed and designed? You cannot start your argument with “everything is designed”. You must start with no assumptions and prove your claims. If your claim is that “everything is designed”, then you must provide a means by which we can detect that which is not-designed from that which is designed.

# 61 Thomas said, on January 29th, 2010 at 8:09 pm

#56
Did you really mean to direct that at me because as far as I can tell, you are proving my point.

# 62 Thomas said, on January 29th, 2010 at 8:14 pm

#55
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html. Read the sections on abiogenesis and specifically
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html and get back to me.

# 63 KMFIX said, on January 29th, 2010 at 8:42 pm

Devo is one of my favorite bands. I really like their Freedom of Choice album.

# 64 deowll said, on January 29th, 2010 at 8:55 pm

Teaching something other than intelligent design is showing disrespect to Allah in which case you need to be killed.

Regrettable I suppose but if people insist on being unreasonable what do you expect?

I’m being sarcastic but you had better remember it if you are around believers. Dieing is so permanent. You do need to watch what you say in Islamic countries.

# 65 jccalhoun said, on January 29th, 2010 at 9:14 pm

emhodew said,
The only reason the theory of evolution is not full of holes is it is moving target. They keep changing the theory so it is hard to say it is inaccurate. They simply say you just are behind the times. They fixed that ‘bug’ in the last re-write. You are just out of date!

Congratulations, you’ve just described the scientific process. If scientific explanations didn’t change to reflect new findings then it wouldn’t be science.

Dr Dodd said,
Proof of intelligent design is all around. From the design and function of the solar system to the many forms of life we take for granted.

There is an abundance of proof if you have a mind to recognize it.

There’s also an abundance of “proof” for leprechaun and pink elephants if you have a mind to recognize it. That doesn’t mean any of those things are real.

# 66 Dr Dodd said, on January 30th, 2010 at 5:36 am

#60-Thomas-If everything is designed, how do you differentiate between not-designed and designed?

There is the original design and there is the evolution from that design.

One good example of that evolution is the continental shift.

# 67 Dr Dodd said, on January 30th, 2010 at 5:47 am

#65-jccalhoun-There’s also an abundance of “proof” for leprechaun and pink elephants if you have a mind to recognize it. That doesn’t mean any of those things are real.

You mean there are no leprechauns or pink elephants? Devastating news and information I’m sure the Lucky Charms people would like to know about.

I suggest you tell them at once.

# 68 qb said, on January 30th, 2010 at 6:31 am

#67

Ergo, God is breakfast cereal. Why didn’t I see that before?

# 69 Darth Robo said, on January 30th, 2010 at 7:06 am

Oh hi shoob. Still can’t get any prestigious scientific organizations to take your “theories of creationism” seriously yet? Have you told them all about the time the “scientific physics paper” you submitted was ignored for being too wacky?

And how is Ellen G White doing?

# 70 qb said, on January 30th, 2010 at 7:17 am

#66 “One good example of that evolution is the continental shift.”
This has been studied to death before by Monty Python.

Sir Bedevere: …and that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana shaped.
King Arthur: This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere. Explain again how sheep’s bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.

# 71 bobbo, how much reality am I missing? said, on January 30th, 2010 at 8:08 am

#66–Dr Doodypants==you are an apostate!! EVERYTHING you see was designed to be that way. God actively willed things into existence at the same time that he willed evolution and every microscopic change to the genome and every microclimate butterfly effect to make the world exactly as you see it now and as it will be Trillions of Years into the future. All as he planed it to be quadtrilliontothetenthiestdegree – times – itself – that many times.

You certainly don’t understand the infinite nature of god do you!!!

Repent!

# 72 bobbo, how much reality am I missing? said, on January 30th, 2010 at 8:11 am

Hey DoodyPants–speaking of design, what is the point/design excellence of a universe with trillionsandtrillionsandtrillions of stars all over the place and as far as we know, just one little planet with as far as we know god-aware life on it for only 2000 years in a 15 Billion year old universe.

Where is the intelligence in that?

Silly Hooman.

# 73 bobbo, how much reality am I missing? said, on January 30th, 2010 at 8:46 am

#22–MrMigu==everybody knows about the appendix, the optic nerve, glucose oxidation, free radicals and what not. Thats why I said “interesting.” Hopefully, Animby will get off shift and finish his cappacino and give us his exciting evaluation?

#25–Benji==you got me there. Always go with the expert (defined by quality outcomes) regardless of what other dingbat IRRELEVANT stuff they do/believe in. BUT you present hypo’s like a repuglican. I’ll give an analogy: would you go to an architect who thought that god held up steel beams by our appeal to his good nature OR restrict your review of those who accepted physics? In your medical doctor hypo, I say it is “impossible” to be competent and not “know and apply” the science of the activity. So, you really are combining what DISTINGUISHES the believers from the non-believers by supposing a believer will ACT LIKE a non-believer. So, yeah==that happens in medicine “sometimes” but not often. And even then, when the guy gets older and forgets the science of his youth and starts practicing the creationism of his early indoctrination, he is no longer an expert. Kapiche?

# 74 Thomas said, on January 30th, 2010 at 9:20 am

#66
You avoided the question. The burden of proof is always on the claimant. Thus, regardless of whether you falsely start with “everything is designed” (falsely because it is a claim with no evidence) or with no assumptions, any claims the contrary must be proven. Thus, if you are going to claim that continental shift if not-designed, you must provide proof. For every argument you make, I can simple counter that this was part of the “design”. At then end of the day, we will end with the fundamental question of how you differentiate “designed” from “not-designed”.

# 75 qb said, on January 30th, 2010 at 10:20 am

#74 Thomas (the doubter)

You often see this argumentative tactic by the pro-creation lobbyists. When you hear them say “You choose not to believe” then you know you have them on the ropes.

On the other side, I have time for people with real, honest to God, faith. I think it’s part of the human condition and I find it fascinating. Nonsense like Dr Dodd spouts is pure religious dogma and has very little to do with anyone’s faith.

For example, I have faith in family in friends. Some people have faith in a higher being or a cause. That doesn’t preclude curiosity. Lot’s of people have religion. There is only one way to put on a Broadway show. There is only one way to God. You need IBM if you’re going to run a company. When you have religious outlook, you’ve already made up your mind before you hear the facts or see the world.

That’s why people say they can see God in everything around them. Atheists who are actual skeptics (and I think you fit that mold) say “please convince me”. Religious types would be far better off taking a common sense approach to arguments rather than tired scholastic types of silliness. I would recommend they read The God Beyond Belief by Nick Trakakis except that it’s over priced. Or maybe John Loftus’ book Why I Became an Atheist. Both authors have a deep religious background.

# 76 Shubee said, on January 30th, 2010 at 10:34 am

# 54, Thomas said,

There is absolutely ZERO evidence that points towards a single creator or even single non-Terran species.

I’m not arguing for the existence of a Creator. I’m only pointing out what mainstream physicists teach. You either understand Sir Roger Penrose or you don’t. What is your objection to his 2-minute comment referenced in post # 41?

# 77 qb said, on January 30th, 2010 at 11:10 am

Shubee, you’re kind of switching gears all over the place. It appears to me that you’re arguing that species devolve instead adapt and evolve to the environment. This means there was a race of superhuman beings in the distant past and we’re on a steady decline to what? Rats? Werewolves? Italians?

# 78 Shubee said, on January 30th, 2010 at 11:26 am

qb said,

It appears to me that you’re arguing that species devolve instead adapt and evolve to the environment. This means there was a race of superhuman beings in the distant past and we’re on a steady decline to what?

Just as the universe began in an unfathomably great, highly ordered state and is in the process of decaying into inevitable extinction and non-existence (Sir Roger Penrose is right about that), so too will all life on this planet become extinct.

# 79 bobbo, the evangelical anti-theist said, on January 30th, 2010 at 11:50 am

#78–shubee==what “model” of the early universe are you using? “Order”/”Design”/”highly ordered state”/ are words without meaning UNTIL you define them. When the universe blinked into existence, my understanding is that it was nothing but pure energy with all elementary forces combined in one–ie not in existence, then cooled for a nanosecond into matter/antimatter sub particles, more cooling and expansion with matter canceling out more anti-matter rather than vice versa and the formation of basic laws of physics we see today and atomic particles forming—etc, all the way up until now, still expanding and cooling. You can call any stage anything you want==order/chaos as you may define. It was however, what it was. The very best of tautologies.

What was once unfathomable becomes understood, unless you apply religion to it which requires mysticism and a great dollop of non-think.

# 80 qb said, on January 30th, 2010 at 12:28 pm

#78 shubee

That was dodgeball. You got bruised but bad. He he he.

# 81 Shubee said, on January 30th, 2010 at 12:58 pm

bobbo, the evangelical anti-theist asked, what “model” of the early universe are you using?

Sir Roger Penrose was discussing the standard big-bang model. Did you understand what he meant by a “highly ordered” beginning followed by death and non-existence?

# 82 bobbo, the evangelical anti-theist said, on January 30th, 2010 at 1:51 pm

Thanks Shubee–yea, I listened to the video, but not carefully==because of what I posted at #79 which is a laypersons explanation of what I think is the standard model of the big bang theory. AS STATED–it is what it is and calling anything “ordered” in the big bang is just a human enforced attribute of NO MERIT in a discussion of god, the universe, or anything else.

I don’t know where it best fits, but the big bang is irrelevant in a discussion of creationism whether it was organized or not, or any other adjective that might be applied.

Religion/God==belief regardless of facts.

Science==belief based on best evidence of reproducible events.

You do the math, or keep the faith.

# 83 Thomas said, on January 30th, 2010 at 3:37 pm

#76
Let’s step back to #41.
I said that there are scientific theories of creationism.
High ranking cosmologists already teach that a highly ordered physical reality can spontaneously materialize out of nothingness

While the second statement has some truth, it in no way supports the first statement. Highly ordered does not by definition equate to proof of a designer. There are many molecules that exist in nature that are highly ordered which are not created. My statement still stands: there are no scientific theories of creationism. Creationism is not science.

(Also from #41)
As you suspect, the whole debate about the validity of creationism is really about the definition of science.

This statement is also false. There is very clear delineation from what is considered science and what is not. Penrose has, I’m sure, proposed a falsifiable hypothesis which requires new data to be gathered. That data will either support his hypothesis in which case the cosmological community will change their mind, or cause his hypothesis to be rejected at which point he’ll evaluate the new data and change his mind.

(Also from #51)
Tell that to the vast consensus of mainstream physicists that teach that the universe exploded into existence out of nothingness

That cosmologists change their opinions about how the universe was created in no way supports the idea of a creator nor suggests that mainstream physicists are wrong or right. They either have hypotheses that fit the data or they do not.

We don’t yet know about the validity of Penrose’s hypothesis to which he himself admitted. He needs more data. In your link, he even mentioned that many theories have been proposed about the nature of the beginning and ending of the universe. At one point, leading cosmologies felt that the universe would end with a big crunch. With new data, they now no longer believe that.

So that brings us back to #76 (and #81). You appear to be hinting that “highly ordered” = “created”. This of course does not follow. Something can occur naturally and be highly ordered. I understand Penrose’s idea. What I fail to see is how it supports any position you have proposed in this thread.

# 84 Shubee said, on January 30th, 2010 at 8:02 pm

Thomas said,

“Highly ordered does not by definition equate to proof of a designer.”

I agree. However, there is no question that the standard big bang model, which claims that there was nothing, then something, is a scientific theory. In this instance, a highly ordered physical reality comes about virtually instantaneously. Compare that theory to quantum theory, which allows for fantastically improbable events to happen. For example, quantum mechanically, is it possible for the Red Sea to split (Exodus 14:21) and for a man to be fully formed out of the inanimate material of the earth in a single day? (Genesis 2:7). The answer to that question is yes.
http://everythingimportant.org/quantumcreationism/

# 85 Thomas said, on January 30th, 2010 at 9:06 pm

#84
However, there is no question that the standard big bang model, which claims that there was nothing, then something, is a scientific theory

Yes, which means at present we have models which fit the accumulated data. However, that does not mean we might not get new data that contradicts the models and that would be cause new hypotheses to be devised. Further, none of this provides any credence to the idea that man “popped” into existence fully formed. Thinking that a revision of models or quantum mechanics might provide such support is folly.

# 86 Shubee said, on January 30th, 2010 at 9:37 pm

I’m very content with the precedent and scientific consistency of a fantastically highly ordered reality just popping into existence. There is no logical reason to be ashamed of science or excuse to not acknowledge the set of all scientifically admissible possibilities.

# 87 Dr Dodd said, on January 31st, 2010 at 3:50 pm

#85-Thomas-we have models which fit the accumulated data.

There were also models for global warming with claims of settled science and we all know what nonsense that turned out to be.

As we have learned models are not proof of anything other than what theory needs hyping at the moment.

# 88 Thomas said, on January 31st, 2010 at 6:04 pm

#87
Your example is not relevant. What is being discussed is the teaching of the latest scientific understanding about how species evolve as opposed to making policy based on the conclusions of some very young and still disputed scientific theories. There is a significant difference.

Now, if the discussion were about teaching anthropomorphic climate change instead of the “God is making it warmer”, then that example might be relevant.

The theories used to explain how evolution occurs have far more testing and far more data than do the theories explaining climate change. There is no dispute in the scientific community that evolution occurs.

As long as we are also teaching children the fundamentals of the scientific method, there is no problem with teaching the current scientific understanding with the caveat that with new data, those theories might change. We should still teach Newtonian physics even through in some circumstances they are flawed.

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!