MSN News reports the following:
A leading biologist and education expert called for creationism to be included in science lessons.
The Rev Professor Michael Reiss, director of education at the Royal Society, believes banning creationism from the classroom is likely to backfire with children who hold sincere beliefs.
He wants teachers to be open to discussing creationist ideas. Some creationists reject the concept of evolution and suggest that the Earth is only 10,000 years old.
At the same time they should endeavour to explain scientific theories such as natural selection and the Big Bang.
Prof Reiss admitted he used to be "evangelical" about spreading the word of evolution when he taught biology in schools.
But he added: "I realised that simply banging on about evolution and natural selection didn't lead some pupils to change their minds at all. Now I would be more content simply for them to understand it as one way of understanding the universe."
Speaking at the British Association Festival of Science at the University of Liverpool, he said it was better for science teachers not to see creationism as a "misconception" but as a "world view".
Around 10% of British schoolchildren come from families with sincere creationist beliefs, said Prof Reiss, an ordained Church of England minister. In the US, the proportion of creationist schoolchildren was 40%.
Many of these children came from Muslim backgrounds or families with fundamental Christian views. Teachers in science lessons ought to be willing to talk about creationism if students brought the subject up, said Prof Reiss.
At the same time as making clear creationism is not accepted by the scientific community, they should convey a message of respect that does not "denigrate or ridicule" the children's beliefs.
F2A UK - the above is a good start but Creationism is more than a "world view;" it is the truth of God.
17 comments:
Creationism is magic and of course it's not scientific. It's a waste of time to talk about magic in a science class. If a student asks about magic, the teacher could say it's a religious idea and we don't talk about religious ideas here. It's not fair to students who want to learn science to have a teacher who wastes time accommodating students who don't want to learn anything because of their religious indoctrination.
what???
The issue is not science versus religion, but religion versus religion (the science of one religion versus the science of another religion).
Evolutionists believe, no matter what the evidence, that there is no God. These same people are most adamant that evolution is a fact.
Evolution is basically a religious philosophy. Both creation and evolution are religious views of life upon which people build their particular models of philosophy, science, or history.
The famous evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky quotes Pierre Teihard de Chardin: “Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow.” To the Christian, of course, this is a direct denial of the sayings of Jesus as quoted in John 8:12: “I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.” In Isaiah 2:5 we are exhorted to “walk in the light of the Lord.” In verse 22 of the same chapter we read, “Cease ye from [trusting] man.”
It does not take much effort to demonstrate that evolution is not science but religion. Science, of course, involves observation, using one or more of our five senses (taste, sight, smell, hearing, touch) to gain knowledge about the world, and to be able to repeat the observations. Naturally, one can only observe what exists in the present. It is an easy task to understand that no scientist was present over the suggested millions of years to witness the supposed evolutionary progression of life from the simple to the complex. No living scientist was there to observe the first life forming in some primeval sea. No living scientist was there to observe the big bang that is supposed to have occurred 10 or 20 billion years ago, nor the supposed formation of the earth 4.5 billion years ago. No scientist was there—no human witness was there to see these events occurring. They certainly cannot be repeated today.
All the evidence a scientist has exists only in the present. All the fossils, the living animals and plants, the world, the universe - in fact, everything - exists now, in the present. The average person (including most students) is not taught that scientists have only the present and cannot deal directly with the past. Evolution is a belief system about the past based on the words of men who were not there, but who are trying to explain how all the evidence of the present (that is, fossils, animals, and plants, etc.) originated.
Webster’s Dictionary defines religion as follows: “Cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardour and faith.” Surely, this is an apt description of evolution. Evolution is a belief system - a religion!
It only takes common sense to understand that one does not dig up an “age of the dinosaurs” supposedly existing 70–200 million years ago. One digs up dead dinosaurs that exist now, not millions of years ago.
Fossil bones do not come with little labels attached telling you how old they are. Nor do fossils have photographs with them telling you what the animals looked like as they roamed the earth long ago.
The only way anyone could always be sure of arriving at the right conclusion about anything, including origins, depends upon his knowing everything there is to know. Unless he knew that every bit of evidence was available, he would never really be sure that any of his conclusions were right. He would never know what further evidence there might be to discover and, therefore, whether this would change his conclusions. Neither could a person ever know if he had reached the point where he had all the evidence.
This is a real problem for any human being - how can anyone ever be one hundred percent sure about anything? It is something of a dilemma, is it not?
No human being, no scientist, has all the evidence. That is why scientific theories change continuously. As scientists continue to learn new things, they change their conclusions.
A geology professor from an American university on a radio programme once said that evolution was real science because evolutionists were prepared to continually change their theories as they found new data. He said that creation was not science because a creationist’s views were set by the Bible and, therefore, were not subject to change.
A creationist then began to debate with him:
“The reason scientific theories change is because we don’t know everything, isn’t it? We don’t have all the evidence.”
Prof: “Yes, that’s right.”
Creationist: “But, we will never know everything.”
Prof: “That’s true.”
Creationist: “We will always continue to find new evidence.”
Prof: “Quite correct.”
Creationist: “That means we can’t be sure about anything.”
Prof: “Right.”
Creationist: “That means we can’t be sure about evolution.”
Prof: “Oh, no! Evolution is a fact.”
The Prof. was caught by his own logic! He was demonstrating how his view was determined by his bias (not to mention his hypocrisy!).
Models of science are subject to change for both creationists and evolutionists. But, the beliefs that these models are built on are not. The problem is that most scientists do not realize that it is the belief (or religion) of evolution that is the basis for the scientific models (the interpretations, or stories) used to attempt an explanation of the present. Evolutionists are not prepared to change their actual belief that all life can be explained by natural processes and that no God is involved (or even needed). Evolution is the religion to which they are committed.
Bobxxxx needs to wake up to this. Evolution is a religion; it is not science! On the basis of Bobxxxx's argument, evolution should not be taught in schools.
Science alone cannot account for the cause of the beginning. Science can only observe perceivable facts about the here and now. In other words, the best that science can do is to attempt to provide an explanation as to how things proceed AFTER the beginning.
Only the Bible can declare what caused the beginning of all things.
Evolution is one of a number of theories that attempts to understand the material reality. But, WHERE did the ingredients of the “big bang” come from?!
You cannot explain life in it’s entirety by looking ONLY at the material aspect of life. There is a spiritual part of life too, and any serious examination of life will consider both the spiritual and the physical.
Believing in the supernatural is not a mistake, rather, excluding it IS a mistake!
By starting with the presupposition that life consists only of the physical/material, is planning to fail before you've even begun.
The Bible’s account of beginnings cannot be tested in a laboratory, so secular scientists (and even some so-called Christians) believe it is not science and must be classified as religion.
Secularists claim that their view of beginnings (evolution) can be tested in a laboratory, so their view is scientific. For instance, they point to mutated fruit flies or speciation observed in the field (such as new species of mosquitoes or fish).
But this is where many people are confused - what is meant by “science” or “scientific.”
It is important to distinguish between operational science and origin science, and compare how each one seeks to discover truth.
Rather than getting caught up in a debate about whether the Bible or evolution is scientific, we should ask, “Could you please define what you mean by science?”
The answer usually reveals where the real problem lies.
Webster defines "science":
“from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens ‘having knowledge,’ from present participle of scire ‘to know.’”
Most dictionaries give the following meaning of the word: “the state of knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding.”
Although there are other uses of the word, the root meaning of science is basically “knowledge.” In fact, in the past, philosophy and theology were considered sciences, and theology was even called the “queen of the sciences.”
Recently, the word science has come to mean a method of knowing, a way of discovering truth.
Many people assume that modern science is the only way to discover truth.
OPERATIONAL SCIENCE uses observable, repeatable experiments to try to discover truth.
ORIGIN SCIENCE relies on relics from the past and historical records to try to discover truth.
Operation science uses the so-called “scientific method” to attempt to discover truth, performing observable, repeatable experiments in a controlled environment to find patterns of recurring behaviour in the present physical universe. For example, we can test gravity, study the spread of disease, or observe speciation in the lab or in the wild. Both creationists and evolutionists use this kind of science, which has given rise to computers, space shuttles, and cures for diseases.
Origin science attempts to discover truth by examining reliable eyewitness testimony (if available); and circumstantial evidence, such as pottery, fossils, and canyons. Because the past cannot be observed directly, assumptions greatly affect how these scientists interpret what they see.
This debate is not about operation science, which is based in the present. The debate is about origin science and conflicting assumptions, or beliefs, about the past.
Molecules-to-man evolution is a belief about the past. It assumes, without observing it, that natural processes and lots of time are sufficient to explain the origin and diversification of life.
Of course, evolutionary scientists can test their interpretations using operation science. For instance, evolutionists point to natural selection and speciation—which are observable today.
Creation scientists make these same observations, but they recognize that the change has limits and has never been observed to change one kind into another.
These present-day observations help us to consider the possible causes of past events, such as the formation of the Grand Canyon. But operation science cannot tell us with certainty what actually happened in the past.
There are serious problems with the statement “evolution is science, but the Bible is religion.”
Molecules-to-man evolution is not proven by operation science; instead, it is a belief about the past based on anti-biblical assumptions.
The Bible, in contrast, is the eyewitness testimony of the Creator, who tells us what happened to produce the earth, the different kinds of life, the fossils, the rock layers, and indeed the whole universe. The Bible gives us the true, “big picture” starting assumptions for origin science.
Let's be clear people. Accurate knowledge (truth) about physical reality can be discovered by the methods of both operation science and origin science. But truth claims in both areas may be false. Many “proven facts” (statements of supposed truth) about how things operate (in physics, chemistry, medicine, etc.), as well as about how things originated (in biology, geology, astronomy, etc.) have been or will be shown to be false.
Evolutionists cannot escape their hypocrisy.
There is a rigid set of metaphysical rules in evolution science too. Any hint of miraculous original creation is ruled out of court by definition.
The belief that the origin of all things must have been by means of the processes and properties now operating (i.e. that the world could make itself) is insisted upon as unshakeable dogma.
Whether or not creation can be shown to better fit the facts of the present is not even regarded by evolutionists as a legitimate question.
Evolutionists undertake research in faith that it will solve outstanding questions about the ‘how’ of their non-negotiable belief, and in the hope that such research will further strengthen this belief.
They then turn around and accuse Creationists of the very same thing which they themselves are guilty of, and claim that creationism shouldn't be taught in schools.
H Y P O C R I S Y !
...it's also dangerous because they have put a perimeter around science beyond which investigation is not permited. Evolutionists are taking us back to the dark ages... and the results of this are clear in society - anarchy and lawlessness on a grand scale (perhaps that is their real agenda!)
The things is, neither position is capable of ultimate proof anyway.
You can’t demand that God repeat His six-day creation so as to satisfy your scientific curiosity, but this does not make it untrue.
Exactly the same is true of mega-evolution. No one can fairly demand of an evolutionist that he prove his position by making a reptile turn into a bird right now (even this would not strictly prove it happened in the past, although it would certainly enhance the credibility of the case).
Both positions are in that sense outside the realm of experimental science as commonly understood.
The clash between creation science and evolution science is thus not a clash between science and religion at all, but between two competing world views, both of which have access to the methodology and tools of science, and both of which involve elements of faith and bias.
Bobxxxx, you cannot say that evolutionary theory should be taught in schools, but creationism would be a waste of time, and expect to be taken seriously. To do so actually undermines your own position!
Why should school children be dogmatically taught that intelligent design is wrong, and that only that which is void of intelligence is true?
Today we have a school curriculum that is upside down… interestingly, we have a society that increasingly reflects this topsy-turvy madness!
An entire generation has been taught that man is only another animal and part of a meaningless chance existence within a meaningless chaotic universe… not much wonder then that so many are choosing that which gravitates towards death, instead of that which supports life.
Most people who have been indoctrinated in evolutionary theory are pro abortion, pro euthanasia, pro perversion of the natural order of reproduction.
It is also amazing to note how often it is that those who are most keen to introduce this absurd restructuring of society have no children of their own. One is left wondering if the real reason why these people want to extirpate the Creator is so that they can indulge certain lifestyles without the burden of their conscience.
Regardless of whether or not someone wishes to believe God exists, the fact is that God not only exists, but will judge everyone on the day of judgment.
No amount of wishfull thinking can undo the reality of this fact… and it is a massive step of faith to trust that belief in evolutionary theory can save you from God's wrath!
Hi Everyone,
..and thanks for stopping by.
Just one request:
please try and keep your comments a little shorter, I shouldn't have to scroll down the page just to read one comment.
Looking forward to reading more of your comments.
Thanks again.
Kanchatsky,
...so what exactly is your point?
Well, I'm not interested in science or religion. The fact is I believe in evolution and that's that.
Gordana,
are you SURE?
Gordana is a classic example of today's generation.
She believes in evolutionary theory on the basis that she has been TOLD that it's true and that everything else is wrong and shouldn't even be considered with any seriousness.
She admittedly has no interest in science or religion (and is therefore unlikely to know very much about either) yet takes the side of evolutionary theory anyway.
Why is this? Well, when you look at the media, the school curriculum, the nutty professors who are elevated beyond what they deserve by a biased and bigoted media (which is owned by a narrow interest group), and the general push to secularism as sponsored by the European Union's unelected quangos (socialists) who fill the unelected so-called "think tanks" conditioned by the wacky ideas of the 1960's, then it becomes clear that there is an obvious bias being pushed relentlessly upon the public (brainwashing).
People naturally want to be liked and popular, so they take the side that is being pushed the most.
Yet, when they are taken to task in a debate... they are void of anything except the regurgitated clichés that are continually being spun by the modern day communists (social democrats).
Gordana, I suggest you take an interest in something solid and real... don't allow yourself to be taken in by people who do not have your best interests at heart.
Bob, thanks for contacting us. In response to your comments:
Scientific Creationism is based on the Word of God - the One who was there in the past. He gave us His Word in order that we would have an adequate basis for finding out “all we need to know” about God’s creation. The creationist view is a threefold view of history - a perfect creation, corrupted by sin, to be restored by Jesus Christ. By, “students who don’t want to learn anything,” we assume you are referring to Christians? Christians must build all of their thinking on every area of the Bible. They must start with God’s Word, not the word of finite, fallible man. They must judge what people say on the basis of what God’s Word says - not the other way around. Unfortunately, too many people have started with the word of men and then judged what the Bible states. Yes, Creation is religion (not magic - the definition of magic doesn’t relate either way here), but it is based on revelation from an all-knowing Creator. Evolution is also religion but it is based on the words of men who were not there and who, by their own admission, do not know everything.
Post a Comment