The following article was posted on 19th July. Coincidentally (we assume), the UK’s Independent featured an article on 20th July titled: “Teaching creationism: Indoctrination is a form of child abuse.”1 We have commented on such ludicrous and inflammatory claims on this site before, see here. Ironically, the author of the piece in the Independent writes: “Real Education is about open-ended questioning and challenging the mind. … Blinkered, limited, propagandist, religious thinking attempts to hold back or stop that process. Brainwashing is a form of child abuse. It should have no place in any place of learning.” One can only marvel at the self-serving hypocrisy exhibited here, which is tantamount to saying “You are free to ask questions, free to think for yourself and to make up your own mind—as long as you agree with exactly what we evolutionist propagandists are telling you!” Such attitudes plainly demonstrate the tyranny of tolerance. Furthermore, they demonstrate that Dominic Statham’s article, far from being an exaggeration of the state of things in education, is a much-needed clarion call—not only to Christian people, but to all those who genuinely value both freedom of speech and freedom of education.
Evidence for Creation now banned from UK religious education classes
Michael Gove, UK Secretary of State for Education, claims to be a champion of ‘Free Schools’. They are, however, not free to teach the evidence for Creation.
Credit: Paul Clarke, wikipedia.org
Published: 19 July 2012 (GMT+10)
In January 2012, we reported here that, following a campaign by the British Humanist Association, the UK’s Department for Education had revised the regulations relating to government funded schools.2 We stated, based on press reports at the time, that those ‘free schools’ that teach creation or intelligent design in science lessons will, from now on, have their financial support withdrawn.3 However, now that the new free schools funding agreement has been published, it’s clear that the situation is far worse than was originally apparent. The new clause (24A) actually states that
‘[the school] shall not make provision in the context of any subject for the teaching, as an evidence-based view or theory, of any view or theory that is contrary to established scientific and/or historical evidence and explanations.’4
Since it would be understood that the theory of evolution is ‘established science’ and that ‘any subject’ would include Religious Education, it would appear that this effectively prohibits any discussion of the scientific evidence for creation in any classroom.
Hence, the only view of origins that can be presented to the youngsters as ‘evidenced based’ is the one that implies that the universe has ‘no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.’
Hence, the only view of origins that can be presented to the youngsters as ‘evidenced based’ is the one that, in the words of Richard Dawkins, implies that the universe has ‘no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference’, that we are no more than biochemical machines ‘dancing to our DNA’ and that people are not responsible for their actions.5 Indeed, they are to be taught that the only rational explanation for their existence is the belief system that paved the way for the killing of millions in Soviet Russia,6 World War I,7 World War II,8 and the Holocaust.9 At the same time, teachers are forbidden from telling their students that there is any evidence for the view that people are made in the image of God (and that they therefore have intrinsic value), or that the creationist world-view that led to the rise of science10 was based on anything other than religious ignorance. Moreover, it would seem inadmissible to teach that the practice of the Christian faith, which led to the abolition of slavery, the founding of hospitals, schools and many other charitable institutions, that taught honesty, respect and self-sacrifice, was based on anything other than a belief in unsupportable myths.
It is very hard to see how this kind of censorship can be justified by rational argument. Can you imagine the scenario in which some student asks the teacher, “What are the scientific arguments presented by creationists?” What might be the answer? Perhaps the teacher would be honest and reply, “Well, I’m not allowed to tell you, otherwise our school will lose its funding. However, if you talk to me outside the school gates, I can answer your question.”
Those who have been gifted by God in scientific ability, and are privileged to hold high positions in our top academic institutions, have a serious responsibility to faithfully testify to the truth.
According to the results of a survey reported in The Guardian, 29% of UK teachers believe that creationism and intelligent design should be taught in science classes. Moreover, nearly 50% said they believed that excluding alternatives to evolution was counter-productive and would alienate pupils from science.11 If this is what teachers feel about science lessons, how will they react to the exclusion of such discussions from religious education classes?
The depths to which anti-creationists will now stoop to prevent children hearing about alternatives to evolution beggar belief. For example, simply because he expressed the view that children should be allowed to raise doubts about the theory of evolution in their science classes and discuss alternative views of origins, committed evolutionist Professor Michael Reiss was forced to resign his position as the Royal Society’s Director of Education. Dr Jerry Bergman, in his book, Slaughter of the Dissidents,12 has documented numerous cases of Darwin dissenters in the USA facing demotion, loss of career or job, denial of degrees, and even personal threats.
Moreover, it is surely significant that all this is happening at a time when there have never been so many scientific facts challenging the Darwinian paradigm. The more the evidence points away from naturalistic processes as the explanation for our existence, the more desperate secularists become and the more draconian the regulations they press for in their attempts to hide this.
The Altenberg 16
Recently, evolutionist Suzan Mazur published a book entitled, The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry.13 (See Walter ReMine’s excellent review in the January 2012 edition of Journal of Creation.14) The Altenberg 16 is a group of top university academics who met together at a symposium held at Altenberg in Austria in 2008. According to Mazur, these leading evolutionary scientists ‘recognize that the theory of evolution which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today, is inadequate in explaining our existence.’15 Some of the delegates would clearly go further. According to molecular biologist, Professor Antonio Lima-de-Faria, not only is the Darwinian paradigm wrong, but it ‘actually hinders discovery of the mechanism of evolution.’16 Professor Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini spoke for a number in stating simply that natural selection ‘is not the way new species and new classes and new phyla originated.’17 Professor Jerry Fodor confessed, ‘I don’t think anybody knows how evolution works.’18 If scientists can’t point to natural process that can drive evolution, why should evolution be taught as science in school classrooms?
The centre piece of the Altenberg symposium was a paper produced by Stuart Newman, Professor of Cell Biology and Anatomy at New York Medical College.19 In this he proposed that complex life is the result of ‘self-organization’. But what is the evidence that such a process exists? Entering into the evolutionists’ mindset this is not difficult to answer:
(1) evolution is a fact
(2) undirected processes cannot explain the complexity of life
(3) evolution must, therefore, be the result of a directed, ‘self-organizing’ process.
It is, however, untenable that a natural process, capable of building something as complex as the human brain, is apparently unobservable.
A time to stand up and be counted
The Altenberg 16 are clearly not the only scientists who recognize the bankruptcy of Darwin’s theory.20 Indeed, there can be little doubt that many top academics know this and, moreover, they know that there is simply no tenable alternative theory. Government education ministers, generally, have little knowledge of science and rely on advisors. If they only hear from their advisors the view that evolution is established science, who can blame them for believing this to be true?
Those who have been gifted by God in scientific ability, and are privileged to hold high positions in our top academic institutions, have a serious responsibility to faithfully testify to the truth—as Jesus said, “From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked” (Luke 12:48). Unless such people make the facts clear to the government, the next generation will be raised believing all the same dogma that led to the most godless, despotic, murderous regimes ever known in history.
Update 7 December 2012
Evolution now mandatory in ‘Free Schools’
In November 2012, following pressure from the President of the Royal Society, the British Government announced its intention to make the teaching of evolution mandatory in ‘Free Schools’. A new clause in the ‘Free Schools Funding Agreement’ will require that the school “make provision for the teaching of evolution as a comprehensive, coherent and extensively evidenced theory”.21 Moreover, on the website of the Department for Education, it now states, “We do not expect creationism, intelligent design and similar ideas to be taught as valid scientific theories in any state funded school.”22
References and Notes
- http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/07/20/teaching-creationism-indoctrination-is-a-form-of-child-abuse/ Return to text.
- Statham, D., and Bell, P., Dawkins boasts over evolutionary dogma in schools, 21 January 2012; /dawkins-bha-schools-creation. Return to text.
- In the UK, ‘free schools’ are schools that have been set up by parents, teachers, charities and voluntary groups. They are partly funded by the government, but have a greater degree of autonomy than other government schools. Return to text.
- http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/leadership/typesofschools/freeschools/a0074737/free-schools-model-funding-agreement Return to text.
- Dawkins, R., River out of Eden, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, London, p. 133, 1995. Return to text.
- Hall, R., Darwin’s impact—the bloodstained legacy of evolution, Creation 27(2):46–47, 2005. Return to text.
- Cosner, L., Darwinism and World War One, Creation 32(2):15–17, 2010. Return to text.
- Wieland, C., One Human Family, Creation Book Publishers, USA, pp. 66-71, 2011. Return to text.
- Bergman, J., Darwinism and the Nazi race Holocaust, Journal of Creation 13(2):101–111, August 1999. Return to text.
- Sarfati, J., Why does science work at all? Creation 31(3):12–14, June 2009. Return to text.
- Randerson, J., Creationism should be taught as science, say 29% of teachers, The Guardian, 7 November 2008; http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/nov/07/creationism-intelligent-design-religion. Return to text.
- Bergman, J., Slaughter of the Dissidents, Leafcutter Press, USA, 2008. Return to text.
- Mazur, S., The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry, North Atlantic Books, California, 2010. Return to text.
- ReMine, W.J., Desperate attempts to discover ‘the elusive process of evolution’, Journal of Creation 26(1):24-30, 2012. Return to text.
- Ref. 13, p. 19. Return to text.
- Ref. 13, p. 83. Return to text.
- Ref. 13, p. 314. Return to text.
- Ref. 13, p. 34. Return to text.
- Ref. 13, p. 12. Return to text.
- See for example, Shapiro, J.A., Evolution: A view from the 21st century, FT Press Science, USA, 2011. Return to text.
- Walker, P., Free schools must teach evolution, minsters announce, The Guardian, 30 November 2012; www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/nov/30/free-schools-teach-evolution-ministers. Return to text.
- www.education.gov.uk/schools/leadership/typesofschools/freeschools/freeschoolsfaqs/a0075656/free-schools-faqs-curriculum#faq5. Return to text.
It is sad that the government of a country with a rich Christian heritage, influenced by ‘free thinkers’, now regulates ‘free schools’, banning free thinking which will alienate young people from the science.
Such an extraordinary protection for the ‘established science and explanations’ only reinforces how unsustainable and bad the ‘established science and explanations’ are.
Pretty soon science degree students will have to sign a document, formally rejecting creation-origins, in order to graduate. It will be like the Spanish Inquisition. Will they attempt to cancel the existing PhDs of creationists, or try to get them labelled as mentally ill instead?
The European Pagan-Catholic supremacy ended with civil war and the Reformation. Hitler's evolutionary Reich ended with global conflict & led Christian nations to practice human breeding progams. Where will the present culture wars end?
As all Western "democracies" move away from God more and more, terrible things will be brought upon them, as prophesied in the scriptures. It's not too difficult to imagine if this move continues long enough true Christians will once again be slaughtered for their beliefs. All us believers can do is stick to the faith regardless and be patient for the time when Jesus returns to take control over this evil ridden world.
I am ashamed to be British after this. This is shocking and I could not believe what I was reading. It's an insult to our Lord...
I wholeheartedly agree that this is a tragedy. More and more children will be inoculated against Christianity. We should protest and fight against it, but let's not forget that God works in mysterious ways. When students find out they were duped, it can have a huge impact on them. It will backfire on the Neodarwinian thought police! Michael Behe is an example of someone who rebelled when he found out he had been had. Let's pray that God will use this censorship for His glory and raise up many new believers who have a passion for science and God's glory as a result of this wicked effort to prevent kids hearing the biblical view of creation.
The content of this article is of great concern to me as a former principal and teacher in Christian schools in Australia. The government has no right to withhold tax funds based on some dubious claim to falsely so-called 'evidence-based' science. You may be aware of the book, Darwinian Fairytales by David Stove (1995) which is a devastating attack on evolutionism by an agnostic philosopher who is not a creationist. Just his first 'essay' in this book is worth the price of the book. He argues that if humans evolved according to natural selection then they wouldn't be here today because evolution requires the elimination of the weak whereas humans tend to care for and cherish the weak and frail.
I attend a public school in Scotland and the exposure to Creationism is virtually none existant out of small bytes of information in Standard Garde RMPS lessons on Cosmology. The promotion of Evolution is everywhere in sight, even inspite of the fact that the majority of students do not support the Evolutionary view. This is yet another move made by Humanists to sideline Christianity and wave our educators away from making us actually think! We need to return to a state where things we don't know but merely assume are questioned and debated in open forum and alternatives are also raised, questioned and debated. Creationism is one such alternative and it deserves as much prominence as evolution being as they both are scientific explanations with religious grounds. We can't say: "we are a nation of free speech, but we can't discuss issues without the threat of punishment" - that is a blatant contradiction.
This article made me think about the importance of listening to the opposite point of view to keep us in check. Being in power makes you feel like your logic always represents the truth, but when you feel hostility towards the opposition, that's when you know that there's something wrong with you. I think that the secular humanists are drunk with power. We know from the Bible that this is a common reason for God himself to fail a regime.
This leads me to wonder... If the evidence for evolution is so strong, why suppress teaching other views? If they are banned from teaching Creation, then one day it could lead to them banning the teaching of Christ in religious education classes. This article proves that "Free Thinking" atheists is an ironic statement.
I also am shocked to read this article and ashamed to be British. If creationism is so wrong and evolution so right what are they so scared about? I and many other British Christians pay our taxes and should have a say in what our children are taught in our country. What about so called freedom of speech? We were not even given a hint that this was on the cards as far as I know. I also pray that God will change this around so that what was meant for evil with be turned to good.(Gen 50 v 20).
It's a sad one to see a country once so rich in faith, and which affected large parts of the world for God, now needing the rest of the world to revive its faith in God. But God continues to spare and love it, for where there is sin, grace abounds much more. Let the Christians cry to our Lord for a turn around.
My only surprise at Dominic's excellent article is the surprise some writers have expressed at this seeming 'new' twist in the great battle for minds. In my first year at primary school in 1956 England, I found out first-hand just how hard it can be to question evolution. The young teacher gave us each a book on how the world came to be. The lesson that followed promoted the idea to innocent minds that over millions of years blobs had turned into boys (girls apparently came from goo!). Foolishly, in retrospect, I blurted out that the pictures in the book couldn't be right, what with dozens of volcanoes and not enough vegetation to feed a rabbit; let alone the dozens of dinosaurs pictured. The teacher's response was sneering mockery aimed at an enquiring mind. Then for the final crushing of a five-year old ‘dissident’, she got my fellow classmates to join in the mockery. I was made to stand outside the class in the cold for the rest of the lesson. If, having read Dominic's article you now realise the gravity of the situation for the first time, then great, but do not forget that this brutal secular censorship has been going on for at least 55 years in the UK. Well done Dominic – a timely wake-up call indeed!
This article proves a point that has been stated before: atheism is a religion and evolution is its creation myth. It's no surprise then to see that atheists defend evolution with such religious zeal. If any reasonable doubt is raised in their minds that evolution is not true, then their whole worldview comes crumbling down. That would just be too much to tolerate for them since the only alternative left is to come grips with Almighty God.
You appear to be concerned that your creation story above all is the one that is being "suppressed". A very quick glance at Wikipedia shows at least 11 ex nihilo creation stories and 29 other types all of which should have equal precedence with yours. I suppose yours is right and the others wrong?
I find it remarkable that evolutionary story must be taught as fact, despite the evidence for it being so weak and, at the same time, the biblical account of creation and Earth history must be taught as myth, despite the evidence for it being so strong.
The fact that there are many creation stories does not imply that one of these is not true. Indeed, logically, there must be one true account of origins. Jesus said, “Seek and you will find” (Matthew 7:7). I sought and I found. Will you?
Jesus made a most crucial statement in the Bible in Luke 24:44-45.
"Then he said to them, These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled. Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures."
Here Jesus cuts right trough thousands of years of false religions, false philosophies and false teaching and confirms again the Bible as God's word.
He is the truth, the way and the life and has given us all the evidence in the Bible. Therefore we must believe the Gospel, repent and turn from our sins and confess Christ as Lord for the forgiveness of our sins.
That message made and still makes unrepentant people furious angry, because they love their sin.
So they killed their Messiah who came to save them, and it still happens today. But some believed and love Christ.
Michael Gove, for all his courage and determination to change our failing education system, is revealed as a bigot. It would seem that he lacks the intellectual courage to be able to consider both sides of the argument. That he is prepared, on this crucial matter, to listen to the atheistic, humanist lobby exclusively and support a non-evidence-based hypothesis speaks volumes about the parlous state into which this once great country has now descended.
It is apparent to me that the British Humanist Association is as ignorant of science as they are Christianity...or they are deliberately deceitful. Ignorance and deceit are classic examples of the warfare of an enemy without other means of persuasion. Fear not, God is more than able to manage the battles. We need only continue to put our Creator and Savior out for the world to compare. God will open the eyes of those He will. I find it ironic how at one time Great Britain then America in it's turn were the leading countries exporting evangelists and now need the help of evangelists from outside our countries.
Good for the UK - hopefully other countries will follow their example.
From a creationist perspective - what does the separation of church and state really mean? This is one area I envy the US - at least they have a law against teaching religion by the government.
Actually, by teaching evolution in schools, both the US and UK governments are doing exactly what you say they should not be doing — teaching a religion. They are indoctrinating the youngsters into the faith that everything they see around them — all matter and life itself — came about through natural processes. Moreover, they are teaching them that this is the only rational way to think. However, since science has not shown this to be true — since the idea that everything came about through natural processes is not a deduction from science — this view comes out of a belief system. It is really the religion of scientism.
Michael Ruse, who was Professor of Philosophy and Zoology at the University of Guelph, Canada, remarked,
“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but … the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.”
Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000.
At last. The UK showing some sense.
I hate it when people ask for evidence of creation/God and then ignore it when it is given to them.
Not everyone will be deceived. I was taught evolution at school and thought it was the most stupid idea I had ever heard. Praise the Lord for protecting me before I became a Christian.
Thank you for drawing our attention to this. Can I encourage people to write to Mr Gove email@example.com
He needs to understand that belief in creation is evidence based, and is absolutely not contrary to scientific and historical evidence
Don't think that this is not happening in Australia. My daughter attended a Christian school which teaches the PACE curriculum in the primary school. They were told by the Education Department that they were no longer allowed to teach the students this science curriculum because of the 'false' creation teachings in them, and that if they continued to, they would not be given permission to continue to run the school. Most 'Christian' schools in Australia (all as far as I know) that have accepted government funding have to teach the state curriculum, which includes evolution and many other subjects that are detrimental to Christian values.
Evolution doesn't resemble anything close to observational science. Why espouse it as the only origins theory, even though the evidence is extremely pathetic upon examination? Have they really heard the other side? I'm beginning to doubt it. How can there be an honest opinion when they stick their fingers in their ears and wear a blindfold?
I am not legally trained but I think there is a huge hole in that new clause that prohibits creation teaching. The clause bans "...any view or theory that is contrary to established scientific and/or historical EVIDENCE and EXPLANATIONS." (Upper case mine). Note not 'theories', but purely 'evidence' and 'explanations'. Now, the scientific view of creation surely depends upon established scientific and historical evidence and explanations. As just one example out of thousands, the article on your web-site reviewing how the seas are not salty enough to be millions of years old relies purely on established scientific and historical evidence and explanations, does it not? And if it came to court, that would be an excellent opportunity to prove creation's scientific case.
This is great news!
As evolution is not real science then they will not be able to teach that either. We just need some one to point this out and they are hung on their own rope!
Jesus said better a millstone be hung around your neck and be cast into the sea then to hurt one of My little ones...suffer not the little children to come unto Me! Remember Madalyn Murry O'Hair? Is there anything more foolish than to believe in your heart in evolution, that there is no God? ...
It is very sad that the UK has banned the teaching of creation in religion education classes. However, I am also excited because this lets me know that the evolutionists are running scared. They know the creationists have a better argument, so the only way they will convice students of evolution is to show them only one side of the story.
I am not surprised by this. The US and the UK have been going against God for a very long time. The path is being set for the return. Things will only get worse.
I agree with alot of the comments but one in particular is that us christians shouldnt be deceived by all of this because this world is not going to get better it is only going to get worse as the second coming gets closer.The world now has beeen in a great decline for a long time now and it will only continue.
I have been in Science Education since 1998 (the same year I became a Christian). I have been a YE Creationist probably about 7 or 8 years now. The light came on when I realised macro evolution (molecules to man) was biologically impossible. My teaching of the children was transformed. I was able to differentiate between macro & micro evolution. Although careful not to project my Christianity onto the children, for many they realised proper natural selection as observed today demonstrates there must be a Creator. Once I was being observed by an atheistic colleague (I don't believe familiar with the origins debate). I thought "Stuff it, I'm still going to teach from a "creationist" prospective." He gave me a good grading for my lesson and never questioned the good, observable science the children were taught. Maybe a seed was sown in him that day too. What I'm trying to convey is that if you teach pupils the truth all can see about natural selection i.e. it only produces different versions of the same kind of plant/creature, it is still showing them creation principles without the need to broadcast it. And yes it is tragic the way the UK is going. There is only a remnant of true believers left but the work you do is vital. It's how me and many like me came into a deeper & truer faith. God's word is true & can be trusted from Genesis to Revelation. No matter what initiatives the government instigate that truth can never change.
Let us argue their case for a moment,just to evaluate how double minded, and might it be said, intellectually embarrassing these opposers of true science, prove themselves to be. Consider this...
If God does not exist, it is therefore of logical consequence, that the concept of the origin of beginnings is in fact a product of evolution!(what else can it be). How is it therefore that, historically, evolution has caused the great majority of human kind to believe that God created the heavens, earth and life? Conversely, evolution has also produced a breed of people that emphatically state that God did not create! I am sure you would agree that this is evolutionary confusion.
It follows that if the UK education authorities remained true to teaching only evolution, it would be necessary for them to teach creation also, because evolution by their implication has produced people's understanding of God as creator. All things considered we know that the above is not the case, and that the attack on the foundations of Christian and Jewish belief is a very deliberate and targeted exercise. 'If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do' (Psalm 11:3).
Clearly this is not a logical and well reasoned case of religion getting pushed aside to make way for science. This is an open rebellion against the authority of a holy God, just as the scriptures warned would eventuate.It is imperitive that all believers pray against these physical and spiritual powers.
Christianity and the bible are not part of the plans for a future global society.The main criteria used in this attack, is to use the education system to discount creation as being a religous story and not science.
There is a very well planned and targeted agenda to use the education system as a means to indoctrinate our children,by robbing them early of there simple and natural belief and faith in God by way particularly, of attacking God as creator. The next generation is there target.
If ever there was a time we needed to pray ,it is now.The Perilous times that the apostle Paul said would happen,have arrived.
I am unaware of the bigger context of clause 24A, but by itself, the wording can be interpreted to include the miracles of Christ and the resurrection.
Consistently applied, there is no denying that you are correct. Indeed, this feedback helpfully explores the connection between biblical Creation and miracles: creation.com/miracles-and-science
One of the blog commentators (New_Wave) on the Elkins' article declared, “religion has no place in education”. He should consider hear what Charles Potter, signer of the Humanist Manifesto I (1933) writing in Humanism: A New Religion (1930), had to say on this: “Education is the most powerful ally of Humanism, and every American public school is a school of Humanism. What can the theistic Sunday Schools, meeting for an hour once a week, and teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching?” and “FAITH IN MAN, that is my creed, in three words. And that, my friends, is the very core of the new religion called Humanism” (broadcast in the World Of Religion Programme June 25, 1933 by the National Broadcasting Company). And according to Cornell University Professor of Biological Sciences and History and atheist Dr. Will Provine, “As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism” (‘No free will’ in Catching up with the Vision, Margaret W Rossiter (Ed.), Chicago University Press, p. S123, 1999). Some, however, like Michael Gove, UK Secretary of State for Education who claims to be a champion of ‘Free Schools’, persist that only one religion is to be taught in schools.
I have an idea, during science lessons let's teach children all the science that has been peer reviewed and follows the structure of the scientific method: gravity, the atom, evolution, so on. And let's 'not' teach them things (During science lessons) that haven't been proven to be true: magic, aliens, creationism, so on.
Also, evolution is not a theory of the origin of life (The study of the origin of life is actually called abiogenesis).
This would be all very well, if it wasn't so self-serving; i.e. if evolutionary story-telling was also ruled out of science lessons.
Peter Bowler had this to say, in his review of a book by evolutionist Henry Gee (Senior Editor of the journal Nature):
“We cannot identify ancestors or “missing links,” and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination driven by prejudices and preconceptions. They reflect our modern ideas about the purposes of adaptive structures and about the progressive trend we think we see in the history of life up to humankind. They cannot be part of science because they cannot be tested against the fossil record.”
Source: Gee, H., In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, Free Press, 1999.
As to the claim that evolution is not a theory of the origin of life (meaning chemical evolution), tell that to the numerous evolutionists (from Nobel Laureates to science popularisers) who discuss precisely these concepts and recognise no such dichotomy. The naturalistic origin of a self-reproducing cell is the vital prerequisite to life, without which ensuing discussion of the tempo and mode of evolution are moot. But the problems are legion: creation.com/origin-of-life-questions-and-answers
Alan S. said this is good news because now evolution can be challenged as legitimate science. So Alan and I agree but for very different reasons.
So the challenge to creationists would be: why don't you challenge the teaching of evolution as science in court? If as you say evolution is based on faith then your arguments should stand up in a court challenge. In the US this could be done using the establishment clause of the constitution. The establishment clause has been used over the years to keep creationism out of public schools - now is your chance to turn the tables. That is of course if creationists truly believe what they are saying.
A failure to follow through with a legal challenge would, in my opinion, render your complaint and/or argument meaningless.
It is hard to comment on the quote of M. Ruse as you didn't provide a reference. I would say however that Ruse is not saying that evolution is a religion but, that its practitioners promote it as religion. From the context of his quote it would be clear who he meant by 'practitioners'.
Not all evolutionists see evolution as their religion - including Ruse himself - unless I'm mistaken. I certainly don't see evolution as any type of religion - it's accurate history.
Evolutionary theory involves many assertions that can be questioned and tested. This is precisely why CMI launched the Question Evolution campaign: creation.com/question-evolution.
But, as for appealing to the courts for a ruling about the scientific (or unscientific) nature of evolution or creationism, this is to flout the very scientific principles that are allegedly so precious. Since when did a majority verdict or an authority ruling become the method of scientific adjudication? For instance, one would look in vain through Wikipedia's entry on 'Scientific method' to find the Courts playing any role.
The reference to the Ruse quotation has now been added to that feedback item.
OK, let me see if I got it right: Free schools are free to chose beteween teaching evolution or ... evolution? I wonder why this reminds me of the censorship in Atheist Communist Romania – the country I grew up in ...
What saddens me, as a pastor, is that other pastors/priests/religious leaders treat the origins debate as either unimportant or even totally wrong as it causes divisions. If it’s unimportant, why do the Atheists push it so hard??? As for causing divisions, I did not know that the solution is to compromise or even completely cover the truth!
What I find incomprehensible though is when Christians actually believe and support the Theory of Evolution. I am forced to agree with Mr Dawkins here, “Theistic evolutionists are deluded” (http://creation.com/creation-videos#).
The self-righteous should heed Jesus's admonition: "...why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? ... You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." (Matthew 7:3 & 5).
Taking God at his Word and believing Him is not sin, but rebellion against Him, disobedience towards Him and hypocrisy certainly is sinful.
Jesus had strong words against the blind guides (Matthew 23:24) of society: "Woe to you ... For you are like white-washed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness. Even so you too outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness." (Matthew 23:27-28).
We all were once dead in our sin, but some of us were delivered by the love and grace of God and made alive by the Holy Spirit through faith in the saving work of Jesus. Those however who do not obey God are still in their sin (cf. Ephesians 2:1-10).
Jesus came to offer man the living water of the Holy Spirit: "If any man is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, 'From his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water.'" But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive ... (John 7:37-39, cf. Isiah 58:11 and John 4:10 & 13-14).
The Spirit and the church call those who are still in their sin to turn from their sin to God so that they can partake in Jesus's free offer of the water of life (Revelation 22:17).
This reminds me of Romans 1: 18-31
Who knowing the truth (that evolution is untenable) and of the judgment to come (the main reason they hold on to evolution so desperately) they suppress the truth (they know creationism has a much stronger case) and not only do evil them self, but approve of those who do likewise, surely such as these shall not escape the coming judgment, and it is coming soon, infact they in their arrogance and pride are primary responsible for inviting it to happen as people became more disobedient no longer willing to submit to the one true God, (or anything else) and the source of all peace, and other factors that do not believe in peaceful coexistence but will also force their will on others by any means necessary. More and more I can see why if Christ dose not return, there will be no flesh left on this planet, because in rejecting Jesus as the one and only way, and the bible as the word of God they have embraced madness and eternal destruction.
Just out of interest would the above Gov't recommendations exclude the teaching of the Cosmological and Teleological Arguments in GCSE and A Level Philosophy? If so, this is surely proof of just how illiberal, anti-intellectual and farcical the Dept for Educations recommendations are in that they would prohibit the teaching of two of the major arguments in the fields of Philosophy and Religious Studies in philosphy and RE lessons. Is this a correct inference?
What i find most disturbing about this article is the total lack of logical thought by some atheistic commentators applauding this decision.Do you really think this will stop with just the teaching of Creation? Now I believe man landed on the moon, and some people don't, but I feel no wise motivated to pass a law saying it should be illegal to say man did not land on the moon. Why do I NOT FEEL THE NEED? 1: Because the truth to me is so obvious, and peoples attempt to deny it are so laughable. 2: Because I believe people should be free to believe what ever they want to believe, no mater how ludicrous, and be free to talk about it and share it with others, even though I might find it occasionally annoying. This is because once people start down the power trip of banning something just because they think might be right or wrong, the question then begs, where does it end? Which Evolution theory is the right one? (none of them in my opinion)If there can be no other theory or ideas tolerated, will they chose the most popular one, and ban the rest? You talk about accurate history? I suggest you study history and you will find there is no such thing! History is always written with a bias influenced by the current world view. It is my firm opinion it is impossible for a human to tell the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, Only God can achieve this. This kind of Draconian decision making (banning stuff) has a historical habit of getting out of control, and turning into a witch hunt, one where the mere accusation is proof of guilt, and it won't matter what you actually believe! You might say its science, to that I would reply, in my life time alone, scientists have changed their minds about 10 times as to weather milk is healthy for you or not, heck I just saw an article proclaiming the heath benefits of cheese! How can you put so much faith in something that so easily changes it mind about simple things like that, something we have now, use every day and can actively observe, let alone something that (extremely remotely)possibly happened in the distant past, and we can see no observable on going effects today? I personally find this decision very disturbing and chilling, and wondering what next? Ban video games, science fiction, or rock music because of some "scientific" reasoning? It could be anything!
As Christians you are asked to "Respect the government" (1 Peter 2:13-17). God has clearly allowed this change to take place as he allowed the leaders to get into power. So you should respect the views of the government.
The article does not suggest that Christians should break the law. However, it is ironic that evolution can be seen ultimately to undermines the rule of the law, when properly understood. Moreover, God's law is above that of the State. For a helpful and full discussion of these matters as they relate to the Scriptural teaching, see creation.com/the-christian-foundations-of-the-rule-of-law-in-the-west-a-legacy-of-liberty-and-resistance-against-tyranny.
I find it sad that creation isn't presented as even a theory in Science classes, but it hasn't been for years now. What is offensive to me is that they think they can dictate what can or can't be taught in the RE classes. We should be thankful that they haven't banned RE in schools completely, and pray even harder that they never will. Jesus said 'Suffer the little children to come unto Me'. We should be taking every opportunity to teach our young minds the truth about who God is, and present the Gospel to them.
Well, I actually see more scientific and historical evidence out there in favour of Creation than evolution.
The oldest book in the world speaks of it; if that's not historical enough for you, then what is?
And there are many scientists out there (eg. in CMI) that have loads of scientific evidence in favour of Creation.
I actually see this as a way to cement creation into the school curriculum. If it’s evidence they want, show them. If it’s history they want, show them. It’s all there.
We should stop assuming it's all doom and gloom and start doing what we're here to do: extend His Kingdom!!!
There has been a cosy relationship between the church and the world in western countries for some time. Is this the begining of the Lord separating the true from the false and lukewarm professors. When all worldly support has been cut off will we find the true Church?
Mal 3:17 And they shall be mine, saith the LORD of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels; and I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him.
Mal 3:18 Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not.
I have just read the article of the tyrants such as Hitler, Joseph Stalin etc and their connection with Darwinian evolution and the suffering of so many people because of it. Is it not also true that under no other system the world has ever known, more people suffered because of religion, especially our Christian religion?
Again, we just cannot point fingers.
Also just an observance, we cannot use references to our bible when we want to debate anyone because what Mark or Paul or John has written does not make sense to anyone else but a Christian.
The number of victims of distortions of Christianity (e.g. the Spanish Inquisition) pale into insignificance compared with those of the murderous regimes that have been built upon atheism and evolution—thousands v. millions. The Inquisition, for example, put to death around 3,000 people, fewer than the number murdered by the communist secret police in the first year following the Russian revolution. In the twentieth century, around 100 million were murdered by atheist regimes, fuelled by evolutionary beliefs. (See http://creation.com/charles-darwins-impact-the-bloodstained-legacy-of-evolution and http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j24_2/j24_2_35-37.pdf.)
As we show in many articles on our website, the Bible is a book that has great authority. No other book is substantiated by so many historical and scientific facts, and so many testimonies of changed lives. No other book has the answers to life's questions and the problems people have.
The Apostle Paul addressing the concerns of the Thessalonians concerning the return of Jesus (2 Thess. 2:1-12.) warns of the great apostasy (v3.)that will occur before the great event. He warns that Satan will decieve with "signs and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, BECAUSE THEY DID NOT RECEIVE THE LOVE OF THE TRUTH THAT THEY MIGHT BE SAVED (v9b,10).
But in verse 11, Paul writes, "And for this reason God will send them strong DELUSION, that they should BELIEVE THE LIE, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." (2 Thess. 2:9b -12, NJKV. Emphasis mine).
As God is the foundation of the Christian faith we should not be surprised that He is being attacked and the very foundations of the Christian faith are being eroded according to Satan's power, BUT, "Be strong in the Lord and the power of His might." Eph. 6:10.
In Matthew 4:8-11, Jesus was tempted by Satan to fall down and worship him. He would be given all the kingdoms of the world and their glory if he did so. This was to prevent Christ to fulfill his mission on earth. Jesus met the temptation with "Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve: (vs 10).
God has a people on this earth who are to give the message of the "everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgement is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters." (Revelation 14:6-7).
May the schools, who wish to (and feel it their duty to) continue teaching creation to their pupils, have a strong enough faith to do so - even at the risk of losing funding from the government. God honours those who are faithful to Him, and He can provide where governments won't.
The foundation on which many nations have built their society states "For all that may be know about God by everyone is plain before one's eyes and God himself has shown it to us: That is his invisible attributes, his everlasting power and deity are ever visible since the world began to the eye of reason, in the things he has created. (Romans 1 v 19 and 20a). To those who claim to refute the very foundation and teachings we have lived by throughout the ages, are they saying 'we got it wrong?' To such people I ask one question, 'tell me what you don't know?'
The move for governments to legislate to ban creation teaching is not surprising when you note that many main-stream Protestant churches, their leaders, preachers and academic institutions no longer believe creation as fact but tolerate it as fable. They are not prepared to step out in faith and hold onto what is taught in both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. The ramfications for other Christian values (heterosexual marriage, etc) are frightening.
Let us make use of the day, while it is still daylight. Christians, share the gospel and especially the evidence of creation by God. Do outreach! Letterbox the homes in your area and nearby towns and suburbs. Let us fulfill the great commission and spread the gospel to others, and promote the Creation website where anyone with eyes to see and a heart to believe can get answers to their heartfelt questions about the origin of the universe and of life and so on and so forth. Take heart. The truth is more powerful than the muddled fantasies of evolutionists and athiests.
1. Are we Christians and creationists surprised that the devil works overtime in the last days?
2. What did the patents do to teach their children or at least control what their children was taught?
3. Quite frankly most parents today are too dumb and lazy to care about the mental well being of their children, that what the school is for.
4. ....no wonder then.....
Christian parents in the secular west do indeed need to rise to the significant challenges facing them and their children in the realm of education. Some have been complacent, some asleep and unaware of what has been happening, while others, I suspect, have naively thought that such censorship of faith was the stuff of conspiracy theories or was not just around the corner. Regardless of how one chooses to educate one's children as a Christian, it is as well to prayerfully consider what kind of outcome one is hoping/aiming for. And CMI's excellent 'Parent's Corner' is very well worth a detailed exploration in this regard: creation.com/parents-corner.
This is not only an attack on free speech, freedom of information, and open and balanced inquiry in education, but a serious violation of Article 18 of the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in TEACHING, practice, worship and observance."
Why is nothing being done about this, when the British Secretary of Education is in violation of International Law?
Regarding the move to stop the proven fact of creation , the proven fact [that] kind breed like kind and that those who teach the "theory" of evolution as a fact are in fact teaching a "faith" system in what they believe, [shows] it is therefore a religion; which according to UK Education Dept is forbidden, as no religion is to be taught. So under the guise of Science, ie "knowledge", the theory is perpetrated and taught as fact to all our children. It is a simple question: Evolution demands a faith system? and if it does it becomes a religion. To believe in Evolution demands a belief in something which cannot be proved, and to teach it under the guise of "science" is a lie. As I said, Creation tells us "like kind breeds like kind". It is evolution that should challenged, not creation. ... God Help our Children to know the truth.
Thank you for the comments about this article. But take heart from brave young people like my son, who was baptised two years ago, and who took on the 'Science Club' at his college single handed in a debate on intelligent design. Even though he was totally outnumbered he stood up for his faith and managed to get atheists into a corner, exposing the the fallacy of their ideas of origins. They can ban teaching, but they will never ban thinking.
Thank you for the comments about this article. But take heart from brave young people like my son, who was baptised two years ago, and who took on the 'Science Club' at his college single handed in a debate on intelligent design. Even though he was totally outnumbered he stood up for his faith and managed to get atheists into a corner, exposing the the fallacy of their ideas of origins. They can ban teaching, but they will never ban thinking.
I was taught evolution in school and believed it to a degree, somehow managing to tie it in with my Catholic upbringing. I am thankful to organisations like Creation Ministries who have shown me how evolution really is like a religion just as Michael Ruse, Professor of Philosophy and Zoology admits. Part of the reason why I changed my ideas about evolution, came about from the way evolutionists are so desperate to censor any dissent in academia (as shown in Jerry Bergman’s ‘Slaughter of the Dissidents’); how they are so eager to mock people with alternate ideas; along with all the books trying to convince the general public that evolution is true, using rhetoric and storytelling more than science to support their arguments. If evolution is such an obvious fact, like Richard Dawkins repeats over and over in his books (as though given enough repetition we will end up believing), then I would have thought that the evidence should speak for itself - without having to censor alternate ideas and use indoctrination techniques to get us to believe. The fact that they have to resort to these tactics was the beginning of the end of my respect for the theory of evolution. So maybe it will backfire on them and cause others to question why they are so desperate to silence their critics.
None of this surprises me. I know a homeschooling family who left the UK and sought political assylum in the US a few years ago because of this issue. They were accused of "child abuse," because they refused to teach their children Evolution instead of Creationism in the UK as part of their homeschooling curriculum. England no longer has either freedom of education, religion, or speech due to this ruling. Will the US be next to do the same thing? Maybe we'll all have to move to another country and seek political assylum in order to teach our children and grandchildren Creationism and keep our religious beliefs!
While emigration can be tempting, one is likely to find equally pressing problems elsewhere. The real challenge for all Christians is to engage. This should be on many levels, including: earnest prayer, dissemination of accurate and Truth-upholding information (such as Creation magazine), holding a Creation meeting in one's neighbourhood, agitating politically where/when one is led to do so, etc. God did not challenge Christians to hold the fort till Jesus returns--rather to preach the Gospel, uphold the Truth and make disciples, thus playing our part in advancing His Kingdom. A key part of CMI's ministry mandate is to assist God's people to do just this.
It is hard to comprehend people who don't have hope after they die. That is, people who don't believe in God. They believe that all there is to life is inanimate objects, matter, molecules, energy, space etc. They don't cherish love, happiness, faith. And to teach this to children is satanic.
As I was reading this article these words of Jesus came to mind found at Luke 18:8 (NIV) “... However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?" Sad to say I expect the same thing to happen here in the states as well, it’s just a matter of time.
Roger T. of Australia brought up some very good points. Remember there are some people who will not come to Christ no matter what. In John chapter 11 there were some who witnessed Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead, a man who had been the tomb for four days no less, that reported it to the Pharisees. They then called a meeting of the Sanhedrin and conspired to kill Jesus. Wow, that is just incredible if you think about it.
This all is just setting the stage for the end of the age and the soon return of Christ. May our Lord come soon, very soon!
Last evening we were privileged to hear a young ladies testimony about her journey through life. In it she explained her upbringing and her challenges in early life. A faithful grandmother who was Christian rescued her from an abusive, heroine addled existence that her parents were living. She admits to having been given a choice outside of the Godless home she lived in. As she grew she chose again whilst doing a Masters degree to leave Christianity behind. In later life she suffered relational trauma and sought to find comfort in a secular therapeutic solution. In other words she tried standard medical treatments and psychiatrists to no avail. To her advantage she remembered the early christian heritage her grandmother gave to her. She was free to choose and try this again. She now states that it would be impossible for her to have dealt with her emotional grief and sense of worthlessness if it had not been for the existence of ie Christianity as an available alternative. Why would we steal away the opportunity from individuals to more widely consider alternatives which provide options for the questions to life and self worth. Perhaps some are happier to rule from a singular totalitarian foundation which is simply more convenient and meets an agenda. Democracy is nothing of the sort if it is religiously intolerant and indeed prejudiced.
To any here who say the U.S. was not founded by Christianity, read this from the Declaration of Independence: "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
The founders of our country never intended to keep God out of our schools or any public forum. They even held prayer meetings together in public places. Plus, "Separation of Church and State" is meant to protect the churches from the state interfering in the churches religious freedoms. I will never understand how things get so turned around. We were meant to be able to talk about God in our schools, but things have gotten so out of control over here you cannot talk about God or Creationism in the classroom anymore. You will be ridiculed.
The truth will speak for itself.
Why not then encourage UK educators to teach evolution, as required, including the scientific truth that supports it.
The lesson could be something like:
All matter came about through a big bang (off-topic, I know, but might as well throw it in for completeness). We are waiting for some scientific evidence, or a plausible explanation to support this idea.
Life on earth began by a chance combination of molecules. We are waiting for some scientific evidence that this occurred, and for a plausible explanation about how it occurred. Some scientists are trying to deliberately reproduce this chance phenomenon in the controlled environment of their laboratories, but so far without success.
From these beginnings, creatures and plants appeared and reproduced and changed over time, resulting in the marvellous diversity we see today. We are still waiting on some scientific evidence to support this idea and for a plausible explanation as to how it occurred.
So far, the scientific evidence we have - in the fossil record, in biology, in statistical analysis, etc - suggests that none of these things occurred (in fact, that they are impossible), but we can all be confident that if these axioms are true, we will one day find some evidence to support them. After all, there has been a great deal of time, effort and money poured into establishing some sort of basis for these beliefs, and many people have shown great dedication, over many, many years, to proving them. Some ideas have been put forward, it's true, but of these, any about which a conclusion has been drawn have been shown to be false and/or impossible.
End of lesson.
Our next lesson today is English expression, and today we are learning about how to write fiction. Please turn to page 1 in your biology books...
You cannot teach Christianity without teaching creation. The 1988 Education Act is very clear that 50% of Religious Education (which is still mandatory in every state school in England) must be Christian in nature.
Perhaps someone with a greater legal mind than mine can deal with the fact that this has generated a contradiction in education with schools having to legally teach Christianity but unable to teach the foundations of Christian belief.
This is a test for genuine Christian faith in this country. If people are for God, nothing can stop them from passing on their faith to the children. All excuses made by the godless governments and are self-contradictory. Those who live in delusion will die in delusion. They can kill your body but not the truth.
We must also recognize the intellectual chains that bind these people care of Satan. I have an atheist friend who is quite intelligent, but no matter what evidence I give him to show the massive flaws in evolution he stubbornly refuses to concede the point; instead he holds fast to the madness that this could happen by chance. Why? Because we are here and there is no God according to him. He is under the delusion; he refuses to love the truth so he remains in this state despite the overwhelming evidence against his position. There is war on.
This is a potentially a major handicap for private schools. It however, can be used to benefit. Firstly, we know human nature hates to be told by governments, you can't do this. Once students know that the government has legislated that fully qualified scientists are not allowed to have their objections to evolution discussed in school, many rebellious students will start looking into this forbidden knowledge. Secondly, imagine the power of tracts proclaiming this same message: Government refuses to allow free discussion and debate of current scientific theories in the classroom - what do they want to hide?
This is not the first time persecution of a belief has occurred. we need to get imaginative and creative in countering this. Two or three times a month, after church on a Sunday, my kids and I distribute creation tracts. 100 can be delivered easily in an hour by one person. Back this up with prayer and no government's attempt to suppress the truth, to suppress free debate will succeed.
It is so sad that so many Christian Schools in the UK struggling with finance have sought to jump on the 'free school' bandwagon. I argued (unsuccessfully) that our school (a Christian School in England) should not apply for 'free school' status because it would mean that I would be duty bound not to teach creation as the basis for science in my science lessons. As a result of the school pressing for the new status I resigned my position because I could not in all conscience agree to change from teaching a creation based worldview to following the National Curriculum. I pleaded with the leaders of the school that we stand up and be counted but my pleas fell on deaf ears. I was presented with a 'media statement' the school were going to use which boldly declared that our school was not a 'creationist' school even though I was teaching creation and a global flood! I issue this plea again to all believers that they stand up and be counted for what the Bible makes plain. This is not the first time that someone has called to make a stand (Ephesians 6v10f).
I am somewhat surprised by this article. Many CMI people are devoting their lives to uncovering evidence for creation. As far as I am aware, evolution is not established science - only a theory with popular support. Creation meets the criteria for allowing it to continue to be taught: it is not contrary to historical evidence or explanations. It is as least as well established scientifically of you stand back and look at the evidence - the only thing it seems to lack is popular support and the quote from clause 24A says nothing about popular support being a pre-requisite.
Why is CMI throwing in the towel on this? It is clear that the battle has shifted. In my opinion, clause 24A can be used to defend creationism and as an aid to expose evolution for what it is. The battle surely is to convince the influential educators and the populous of this. Dawkins would have us believe otherwise, but we don't have to let him be the sole voice giving direction for the future. Please seize this as the opportunity which it is rather than admitting defeat.
There is a misunderstanding here. The article merely seeks to inform people about the ramifications of new legislation. Far from "CMI throwing in the towel", the article actually ends with "A time to stand up and be counted" and I can assure you that CMI's work, including among young people, will continue. However, clause 24A is most certainly designed to outlaw the pointing of school pupils to scientific evidence which provides support for creationism or even Intelligent Design. We agree that the scientific bankruptcy of cells-to-scientist evolution should be exposed, and we also believe that its ideological underpinnings should be highlighted. That said, informing our readers of new legislation and its implications, far from admitting defeat, is a call to arms!
All of the actual observations on which evolutionary theory is based were made in the last 1,000 years (and that is a generous estimate). If the earth is 4.5 billion years old, this means that the theory is built on a data sample drawn from one 4.5 millionth of the earth's history. This is equivalent to assessing the character of the British by interviewing the first 15 people you meet in a single public house in, say, Newcastle. Statistically, it is laughable to infer so much by extrapolating from such limited data. And remember, there is no possibility of obtaining actual observation from any earlier period in earth history. Boldly asserted guesses and "must have beens" are not facts, and therefore have no place in proper "evidence-based science" - only government dictated fairytale "science". Evolution is only a theory - a very doubtful one at that - and in the nature of the case it can never morph into anything else.
I've commented before but I guess CMI only print material that will not alarm their readership?
Let's face it, only a tiny proportion of people are educated in biology to have a meaningful opinion. Of those, less than 1% believe in Creation Science because the weight of evidence in favour of accepted mainstream science [in this case, Evolution] is overwhelming.
The PhD's working for CMI while highly intelligent & knowledgable of their field compared to lay-folk, have not earned a name for themselves at the top of their respective disciplines.
I find the style of writing used to be constantly slippery at best, which gives me cause to be skeptical that the authors are somehow more knowledgable than the likes of Dawkins & Hawking etc
You have obviously spent very little time actually reading material on this site - negative feedback is published every week and frequently at the foot of articles, with appropriate responses. Having said that, according to the feedback rules, comments should be relevant to the point of the article in question.
Your comment contains mere assertions and damning with faint praise ad hominem (e.g. 'intelligent and knowledgable... have not earned a name...at the top of their respective disciplines') and generalities (e.g. 'constantly slippery at best'). Relevance to the topic of the article? Check out the speaker bios and you'll see that some of CMI's PhD scientists did indeed excel in their fields (including earning a name for themselves internationally; not that they glory in their achievements).
"Overwhelming" evidence for evolution? Such that it should not even be questioned in schools, in any subject? Rather than indulge yourself in elephant hurling, I encourage you to do the harder work of honestly engaging with our 15 questions for evolutionists: creation.com/question-evolution - and make sure you also engage with the three linked articles listed at the foot of the latter; i.e. responses to evolutionists' attempts to answer those questions.
What a silly article. There is zero evidence for creation, and it should never be taught as science, because it is not science: it's very poor mythology.
Ridicule is so much easier than the harder work of actually bothering to become conversant with arguments one disagrees with, and thus providing something more substantial as a counter! Do yourself a favour and find out what your opponents believe and teach instead of firing of knee-jerk responses of this sort. There's a great risk, otherwise, of simply demonstrating one's ignorance and intellectual laziness.
A copy of my e-mail to Education Secretary Michael Gove:
Dear Mr Gove,
I am dumbfounded at the Policy of this Government and at you as the Minister in charge, in relation to the new Free School's funding agreement and in particular the new clause (24A) which states that:
‘[the school] shall not make provision in the context of any subject for the teaching, as an evidence-based view or theory, of any view or theory that is contrary to established scientific and/or historical evidence and explanations.’
Since it would be understood that the theory of evolution is ‘established science’ and that ‘any subject’ would include Religious Education, it would appear that this effectively prohibits any discussion of the scientific evidence for Biblical Creation in any classroom.
I am a BSc (Hons) Graduate and a practising Pharmacist(GPhC - 2052628). I accept that the Biblical explanation for our existence is the correct explanation not the General Theory of Evolution currently masquerading as Neo-Darwinism.
I had the Theory of Evolution rammed down my throat throughout my educational career and vociferously argued against it. It is a fantasy, a fairy-tale for grown ups. It is the atheist creation myth. It is utterly devoid of experimental evidence.
Scientists who also hold to my view on the Biblical Creation record have produced vast amouts of information for our reasoned position some of which you will find at the links viz.
As a UK tax payer I ask you to change this unbalanced, bigoted, totalitarian Policy forthwith.
Andrew N BSc (Hons) MRPharmS
The RELIGION of 'evolution' being forced on our children AGAIN... sad.
Another reason to homeschool.
Silencing valid alternative views is not democracy! This puts a higher responsibility on the local Church to educate young people in science! I can see it: a multiple part sermon series "On how God created the world" and "Judging between evidences," from your local Church. Pastors, scientists and teachers teaming up! School is not the only place where people learn.
This is a call to some of you!
[Presumably referring to Paul H., 28 July] How can you say that there is no evidence for creation when you are on a website that provides tons of evidence for creation?
To Sam B, brief recap on why evolution is stupid. Mutations can only cause small changes within a species and these are mostly derogatory. It does not account for the origin of the information within systems. There are no transitional fossils. Species arrive fully formed in the Cambrian explosion. It does not account for the integration in nature. It cannot account for life from non life. It has very weak arguments against irreducible complexity. We have never observed it, we cannot test it, it cannot be repeated and most of it is speculative. The evidence of creation smashes the theory of naturalistic chance into infinity. Evolution is stupid plain and simple.
Regarding transitional fossils. We counsel against the statement, "there are no transitional fossils" as the are a few 'candidates'. However, if evolution were true there would be many, many examples of transitional forms, showing clear sequences leading from one kind of plant/animal to another. If evolution were true, we would not expect to find just a few questionable examples. Special creation is a far better explanation for the fossil record.
Just another way the devil lures people. Shame on the English government. Praise God for CMI.
I must agree with other comments that this stance, by the UK educational department, is more about teaching a belief rather than science. This goes against the whole notion of true science.
The Scientific Method, the backbone of all scientific knowledge, starts with asking a question, then followed by some research, then creating a hypothesis, followed by testing that hypothesis, and finally drawing conclusions on the findings. This is what should be encouraged, honest scientific exploration.
To me it seems every idea is ok as long as it doesn't include God.
Quoting the text <<
'[the school] shall not make provision in the context of any subject for the teaching, as an evidence-based view or theory, of any view or theory that is contrary to established scientific and/or historical evidence and explanations' >>
Okay, so: This would appear to rule out the teaching of a theory of any kind that runs against the secular paradigms of our day: That the universe organized itself, and the big bang was the start. For example: Showing any evidence against evolution theory (in a scientific or R/E classroom debate) by a teacher would be 'wrong' but it would be ok for a student to ask for that evidence. However the TEACHER would not be allowed to even research the idea on Google and give the child any help in that research! (-think I might have got you there perhaps Mr Gove?).
Is this not plain ludicrous (and offensive to our children who are NOT stupid)? It is saying to them: "We know what science has told us, and what we know is true. Therefore there cannot be any debate about the science or opposing scientific evidence against evolution theory or the big bang in schools, because only scientists like us know what is really true, and when we want you to know something else, we shall tell you what that is."
This treats students like fools, and may well BACKFIRE as it will tend to alienate then from real scientific study, which requires the ability to think critically, and so we will see more and more children just switching off and dropping 'school science', as it is now just full of stories; and you can't argue with a 'story' can you? (Or - why bother arguing when the story tellers aren't listening?).
It is as if some are trying to dumb us all down to accept a little bedtime tale from the secularists, and when questioned they reply something like this -
"All is well in science. Just shut-up and accept what we say. We'll TELL you when things or theories change and we'll tell you how to teach them. We are the High Priests of the theories, and have superior knowledge. It is sooo complex. You teachers need to teach what we tell you, or you will upset everyone and it will be so embarrassing, as we shall have to actually debate, and that is sooo undignifying, especially when those Creationists keep appearing to win in some arguments.."
By the way, Mr Gove; a little science foundation lesson for you: Scientific learning is not about repeating experiments that others have told you to do, it is about thinking critically, marshalling evidence and presenting an argument as to what the meaning may be for EVIDENCE ONE HAS FOUND.
For Goodness Sake Great Britain can we please WAKE UP to this stupidity? It actually shows how desparately poor in proper thinking ability we have become as a nation: When I took physics on the Nuffield foundation course at A-level, I had to learn to think a bit and argue about things! It made it fun! There were lots and lots of unknown things to talk about, and this MADE IT INTERESTING. As a result, I did science at university.
"The Dawkins Deficiency" shows how little Dawkins actually knows, and outlines amongst other things the doubts of even evolutionists about the veracity of the variation-selection mechanisms. I agree with CMI that he reads Susan Mazur's "The Altenberg 16: An Expose of the Evolution Industry". One cannot read these works and still believe that the evolutionists know what they are on about.
If Darwin is right then When you die nothing happens. But, if creation theory is right and you haven't accepted Jesus Christ as you personal savior - the son of the only living God The Great I Am - then you have condemed your soul to eternal Hell - I would think people might spend a long time meditating over the decision - Worm dirt or burn in Hell forever - it s a decision you should think about a long time. The christian s who bring you this message do so at a personal sacrifice of their time and money and being ridaculed and for what- they dont get paid to - they do it because they love as Christ loved them and they wish that none should perish . But , I can tell you - if I were to sacrifice my son for you and you denied he ever existed I would not have mercy on you , and none of you atheist would either if you were in the same position . so take a long time to think and meditate on your position before you knock - Gods messengers.
Christians everywhere need to stand up and take notice here. Modern science would also say dead men don't rise from the grave, so how long before teaching the resurrection is banned from RE class?
In my view this is a very serious situation but one that is best dealt with by providing/promoting the scientific evidence that evolution as a source of significant new genetic information is scientifically impossible and has never been observed in the laboratory. I have recently published evidence from mainstream scientific journals in my latest book "EVOLUTION IMPOSSIBLE: 12 Reasons why evolution cannot explain the origin of life on earth". My guess is that most scientists who support evolution are actually unaware of the lack of scientific evidence for evolution, and confuse the observed evolutionary processes that result from the loss of genetic information as evidence that new types/classes of organisms with new genetic codes can form.
I think it's important that your readers know what "free" schools in the UK actually are. The word "free" in this context does not refer to "free education" ie no payment, no fees, because all UK state schools provide that. "Free" means a particular category of school which is funded by the Government but which is "free" from syllabus control by the Local Education Authority. From September 2012 there will be about 100 such "free" schools in the UK (mostly Secondary schools) compared with nearly 4000 conventional Secondary State schools. So this new legislation doesn't affect the majority of schools in the UK, whether State or Private, which still have perfect freedom to discuss evolution and creation.
Jesus never promised that it would be easy in the last days. There are many people out there that have greatest interest to persecute Christians. This is not about scientific debate because none really makes a big debate about physical laws like gravity or electricity they are simply accepted. The dispute between us Christians and Evolutionists is the battle between God and the devil and those who choose which side to follow in their lives. May God forgive those who choose the side of the evil one and open their eyes, because the good thing is God equipped us with freedom of choice which not even the devil can take away from us. God bless you all!
Obviously a school is there to educate children, I am sure that many creation myths as well as yours will still be covered, but they will not be taught as fact. The important thing is that children will not be taught that there is some sort of equality between scientific knowledge and religious beliefs, If people feel they must damage their children's education then they can home school or pay to send them to fee charging schools. The state education system is not there to peddle any persons faith. Cue the childish retort that evolution is a myth and atheism a faith, like not stamp collecting is a hobby. Religion your time is up, please be quiet as you leave the building.
The state education system is, indeed, not there to indoctrinate children into any particular faith. Why then are they teaching philosophical naturalism in science classes?
People who claim evolution is not a faith are either deceived, deceiving or simply ignorant of the facts - as many articles on our website make clear.
I certainly agree with Christians taking on this issue, making a stand and challenging the powers-that-be. Well done Mike V. However there is a deeper deception and tragedy going on here and I wonder if it is being addressed. Christian parents, WHY ARE YOU SENDING YOUR CHILDREN TO THESE SCHOOLS ANYWAY? Please, do a bit of Bilical research on the responsibilities of parents to teach their children, also the history and aims of public (government) education. I'm sorry if this is getting off the original article, but it does lead there. Education by the state is a sacred cow in our western cultures, and we can be so used to it that we no longer see how Biblically indefensible it is. P.S. At least check out CMI's home school corner!
The only thing I really find strange is the way creationists seem to have misinterprented the real conclusions they made during this meeting. The issue, including what was really concluded contrary to the creationist misinterprentation, is summarised in Prof. Massimo Pigliucci blog:
"The new information includes findings from the continuing molecular biology revolution, as well as a large body of empirical knowledge on genetic variation in natural populations, phenotypic plasticity, phylogenetics, species-level stasis and punctuational evolution, and developmental biology, among others.
The new concepts include (but are not limited to): evolvability, developmental plasticity, phenotypic and genetic accommodation, punctuated evolution, phenotypic innovation, facilitated variation, epigenetic inheritance, and multi-level selection.
By incorporating these new results and insights into our understanding of evolution, we believe that the explanatory power of evolutionary theory is greatly expanded within biology and beyond. As is the nature of science, some of the new ideas will stand the test of time, while others will be significantly modified. Nonetheless, there is much justified excitement in evolutionary biology these days. This is a propitious time to engage the scientific community in a vast interdisciplinary effort to further our understanding of how life evolves."
It seems creationists have truly jumped into hasty conclusions, claiming the scientists somehow showed doubt of the explanational power of Darwinian evolution to account for the current biodiversity. However, after seeing them practicing quite hilarious quote mining on notable scietists like Gould etc. I'm not that surprised to have found out that the conclusion the group made was far from what the creationists thought.
I simply cannot see how you can have missed the point. You wrote, "It seems creationists have truly jumped into hasty conclusions, claiming the scientists somehow showed doubt of the explanational power of Darwinian evolution to account for the current biodiversity."
What, then, do you think Professor Antonio Lima-de-Faria meant when he argued that, not only is the Darwinian paradigm wrong, but it "actually hinders discovery of the mechanism of evolution"? What do you think Professor Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini meant when he stating that natural selection "is not the way new species and new classes and new phyla originated"?
Those seeking to discredit creationists, of course, argue that we distort evolutionists' words by quoting them out of context. My hope and prayer is that those reading this will look for themselves. If they do, they will see that it is abundantly clear that we are not misquoting these people.
None of the "new information" mentioned above amounts to a new theory of evolution. This is just a list of new discoveries in biology! Professor Jerry Fodor spoke the truth when he said,"I don’t think anybody knows how evolution works." But, no doubt, you will say we're misquoting him too!
WOW!!! THIS MAKES ME SO FURIOUS!!! THOSE HYPOCRITES!!!....I may not be a citizen of Britain but this is a major hindrance to the churches evangelistic ministry. Preaching the gospel is going to be more difficult over there then it already has been.