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.”
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?
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.
#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.
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/
#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.
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.
#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.
#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.