Heavyweights move to ban creation
Creation Ministries International named as a ‘threat’ to Britain’s school children
Published: 21 September 2011 (GMT+10)
In May of this year, CMI-UK’s Philip Bell addressed some pupils at a Religious Education study day at a Church of England school in Exeter. As a result, the self-styled ‘British Centre for Science Education’ (BCSE) launched its ‘Creationism In Schools Isn’t Science’ (CrISIS) campaign, supported by the National Secular Society. This took the form of a letter to the UK Secretary of State for Education, signed by a number of prominent scientists, demanding that action be taken to prevent creationism being taught in schools as having any kind of scientific validity.
This week, the British Humanist Association (BHA) joined the party, making their bid to silence all who would seek to inform children of the scientific short comings of evolutionary theory and to present them with an alternative view of origins. Supported by a much more impressive group of scientists than those co-opted by the BCSE, the BHA has launched their ‘Teach Evolution, not Creationism!’ campaign. Backed by over twenty Fellows of the Royal Society, including Sir David Attenborough (pictured above) and Prof Richard Dawkins, they are calling for “enforceable statutory guidance that [creationism and intelligent design] may not be presented as scientific theories in any publically funded school.”1
Desperate to quash dissent
These people are demanding that the belief in ‘molecules-to-man evolution’ be taught as scientifically proven fact, and are determined that pupils should be denied the possibility of hearing any scientific criticism of this view. There’s no doubt that such a regime of indoctrination would ensure that very few would leave school knowing that considerable dissent about evolution exists among scientists, or that many of the top evolutionary scientists admit that they have no idea how inanimate matter could have evolved into living organisms. The co-discoverer of DNA Francis Crick admitted, “The origin of life seems almost to be a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”2 Similarly, the top evolutionary scientist Professor Stuart Kaufman wrote, “Anyone who tells you that he or she knows how life started on earth some 3.4 billion years ago is a fool or a knave. Nobody knows.”3 Committed evolutionist and former director of the human genome project Francis Collins wrote, “No current hypothesis comes close to explaining how … the prebiotic environment that existed on planet earth gave rise to life.”4
In fact, everything we know about science tells us that ordinary chemicals would not self-assemble to form living cells. The laws of chemistry dictate that the biopolymers required for life would break down rather than build themselves up. Moreover basic mathematical analyses make clear that, even if by some miracle they did self-assemble, it is absurd to imagine that undirected processes would cause them to have the correct form.5 Of course, informed evolutionists know all this very well—but still insist that ‘abiogenesis is a fact’.6 Why? Because they are committed to the religion of scientism, the belief that everything we see around us can and should be explained only by natural processes. The fact that we don’t observe natural processes that appear remotely capable of producing life from non-life is irrelevant. To them, such processes must exist, or must have existed in the past, because life exists—and it’s unthinkable that a Creator God is responsible for biological life. Such thinking makes clear that the creation/evolution debate is not about science; it is about one worldview versus another. Ironically, the faith of scientism flies in the face of scientific knowledge.
One of the prominent supporters of the BHA’s campaign is the Oxford University Neuroscientist Professor Colin Blakemore, who is quoted on the BHA website:
“The evidence for evolution as the basis of life on earth is overwhelming and we see it all around us – from the effects of selective breeding in domestic and farm animals to the continuous changes in ’flu viruses.”
Actually, all the observational evidence makes plain that, however much dogs, cows, chickens and horses are selectively bred, dogs remain dogs, cows remain cows, chickens remain chickens and horses remain horses. Moreover, whenever we study the changes which are claimed to demonstrate the evolution of flu viruses, bacteria resistant to antibiotics or insects resistant to pesticides, we are unable to find any evidence of the novelties that are required for microbe-to-man evolution. These ‘examples of evolution’ are invariably found to arise from the use of existing genetic information or the loss of genetic information and associated loss of function. For microbe-to-man evolution, mutations would be required that increase information and function—and on an enormous scale. Such changes are conspicuous by their absence.
Unfortunately, the media’s general reporting of this latest campaign is as misleading as the statements made by the scientists seeking to support the BHA and its apostles of secularism. According to the Guardian, “Speakers from Creation Ministries International are touring the UK, presenting themselves as scientists and their creationist views as science at a number of schools.”7 In fact, the majority of our speaking engagements are at churches and we visit schools only occasionally. When we do speak at schools, it is by invitation or has been instigated by someone known to the school locally and never solicited by CMI. Moreover, it is extremely rare for us to speak in a science class. It was also reported that “Creation Ministries International was unavailable for comment.” However, since the invitation to comment was received in an e-mail on Saturday at 8.15 pm, along with notification that the article had to be finished by the following Sunday at midday, it is hardly surprising that we were unable to respond before their publication deadline; but with this article we have now done so.
On their website, the BHA proudly quote the journalist Ariane Sherine: “All children should be free to grow up in a world where they are allowed to question, doubt, think freely, and reach their own conclusions about what they believe.” Ironically, this is exactly what the BHA and its associates are fighting so hard to prevent.
This latest move by the BHA is likely to be treated much more seriously than the BCSE’s CrISIS campaign. At times like this we particularly value the support and prayers of Christian people.
- See evolutionnotcreationism.org.uk and evolutionnotcreationism.org.uk/position-statement. Return to text.
- Crick, F., Life Itself: Its origin and nature, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1981, p. 88. Return to text.
- Kauffman, S., At home in the universe, Oxford University Press, 1995, p. 31. Return to text.
- Collins, F., The language of God, Free Press, 2006, p. 90. Return to text.
- That is, the necessary sequence of molecules (nucleotides or amino acids) required to give rise to something biologically useful. Return to text.
- Abiogenesis is the emergence of living organisms from non-living matter. Return to text.
- Butt, R., Scientists demand tougher guidelines on teaching creationism in schools, The Guardian, 19 September 2011; www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/sep/19/scientists-demand-guidelines-creationism-schools. Return to text.
You are doing a great job. Press on. The position that BHA adopted is typical for someone who lost the battle in the realm of evident reason. Now they moved it to another field, which is “who can scream louder”. Don’t give up brothers, the war has already been won by the Almighty Christ. These people know the truth (they are not naive evolutionists like the vast majority) but they blaspheme the Holy Spirit by denying it. Don’t you see the similarity between what they do and the words of the priests in the first century, “What shall we do with these men? For that a notable sign has been performed through them is evident to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it”.
So BCSE says ‘Creationism in Schools isn’t Science’. Why should this be regarded as a problem? BCSE is absolutely correct. Creation isn’t science. It’s history.
The same can be said for evolution. Evolution isn’t science either. It too is history (contextually). Didn’t the first biological cell arise as a result of one chance historical event (and circumstance) after another after another after another? That isn’t a scientific theory. That’s an historical scenario, as is the rest of evolution.
School education comprises, amongst other subjects, one called ‘science’ and another called ‘history’. Creation falls into the latter category, as does evolution. The difference is that the history of creation is based on an historical record. The history of evolution isn’t. Which means if the whole creation-evolution issue was taken out of the arena of science and placed in its correct domain (i.e. history), evolutionists would have no historical leg to stand on. Nor would they have a scientific leg to stand on, because logically and philosophically, novel history cannot be derived from science. Novel history can only ever be derived from an historical record or from imagination – in the case of evolution, atheistic imagination. In light of this, it is logically impossible for ‘molecules-to-man evolution’ to be presented as scientifically-proven historical fact.
I believe it is erroneous to attempt forging a direct link between science and religion/philosophy/worldview. There is no direct link between the two. The link between science and religion is an indirect one, with history as the intermediate. Science is based on one’s belief concerning history. It is one’s view of history that, in turn, is based on religion/philosophy/worldview.
Creation is an historical framework. Evolution is an opposing historical framework. The relevance of science is that the creationist and the evolutionist each place the scientific data into one of these historical frameworks (each claiming best fit), and by so doing, give the scientific data an historical context and the historical framework scientific validity (for what the latter is worth).
And these two historical frameworks are, in turn, based on religion. Creation’s historical framework is itself an historical record based on the Bible (it actually being the initial part of the Bible). Evolution’s historical framework is based on atheism (with no claim to an historical record).
Why worry that these eminent scientists are calling for “enforceable statutory guidance that [creationism and intelligent design] may not be presented as scientific theories in any publically funded school.” I would hope that creation never has been, and never will be, presented as scientific theory. I would hope it is only ever presented as historical fact. And interestingly, these scientists aren’t calling that creation may not be presented as historical fact.
Scientists may claim to have the right to say what can and what can’t be presented within a scientific context. But they cannot (as scientists) claim to have the right to say what can and what can’t be presented within an historical context.
For what it’s worth, I find when an evolutionist says in conversation ‘But creation isn’t science’, their response is always a deafening silence when told ‘You are correct, creation isn’t science, it is history’ and ‘Genesis is not meant to be a scientific account, it is meant to be an historical account’. It is a reply they are not expecting and one they have never considered. Why? Because their mindset has always been that creation is religion, and that the whole issue must fall into one of two categories—science or religion. They have never considered that there is a third category called history. So when they are told ‘Nor is evolution science, it too is history’ (contextually), the silence becomes even more deafening. Taking the whole issue out of science and placing it in history seems to gives the issue a completely different perspective, and makes it easier to subsequently demonstrate to them that fundamentally it is worldviews that is at stake.
Rejoice in persecution … the opposition will increase and the Lord will provide new openings. The enemy will be confounded, but those who seek the Lord will renew their strength. God bless you guys.
This is ridiculous. I took a look at their [BHA] website, under “Our values”:
In all our work, we strive to embody our values by:
engaging in debate rationally, intelligently and with attention to evidence
recognising the dignity of individuals and treating them with fairness and respect
respecting and promoting freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law;
being cooperative, working with others of different beliefs for the common good;
celebrating human achievement, progress and potential.
Seriously, how can you state that you work with others from different beliefs and promote freedom when you try to stop people from learning about other beliefs and remove their right to believe? I’m sorry but it looks like Britain is going down the drain fast-it is no wonder the youth are rioting, if there is no God (which there is) what does it matter what anyone does?
Evolution should not be taught in schools since it isn’t science.
Indeed, since the evolutionists cannot beat the creationists in fair debate, this is what they resort to. I would say that they are acting consistently with their evolutionary world-view: Anything to survive, morals and ethics are secondary. Even if they have to indoctrinate students and destroy intellectual freedom to survive, they will do it, so it seems.
It is indeed disingenuous on the part of BHA to quote “All children should be free to grow up in a world where they are allowed to question, doubt, think freely, and reach their own conclusions about what they believe” when this is exactly what they are suppressing in terms of questioning “Evolution”
I pray that supporters and would be supporters of BHA will see the irony and question and think for themselves.
The solution is simple. Teach evolution as it should be taught. With all its weaknesses. There are more problems with evolution than there are strengths, even if you look at it from an honest naturalistic paradigm. This should be enough to instill real critical thinking in students.
This is a gret answer to these critics. We are in a battle for our children's minds and souls. you are doing a wonderful job and you are in our prayers.I have been promoting the Question Evolution leaflet in our evangelism work. May the Lord continue to bless your efforts.
Thank you for letting us know about some of these battles for the truth. It is nothing new but very sad to see, just the same. I have just been studying through John Chapter 9, which is a powerful lesson on the sovereign grace of our Lord and the wilful blindness of men. These British science and education people seem to be just as wilfully blind as the Pharisees and just as condemned.
Thank you for your service to God’s people.
Sir David Attenborough, in one of his DVD videos, said that each religion has its own creation story for the universe and that not all these stories could be correct because of contradictions in them. But what he failed to mention is that even scientism or evolutionism has a creation story that nothing, ie singularity, became spontaneously ‘nice’ human over billions of years due to very slow rate copy mistakes, ie mutations, and genetic variation culling, ie natural selection.
If true predictive science—analytical, experimental, observational science, survived for thousands of years in spite religions, what are these heavy weights afraid of? So much for ‘free’ thinking and intellectual fulfillment that they cherish!
Soviet Union and China for many decades actively imposed atheism excluding all religions. Now atheism is fast vanishing in these regions. So much for being cultivated and adequate by atheism!
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win”—Mahatma Gandhi
I just came home from university, after hearing the biology prof repeatedly refer to adaptation as evolution and talking about it as if it’s and indestructible bastion of “science”. Seeing this article reminded me of how reality tends to get in the way of man’s pathetic attempt to ignore God. It seems everything they do gets in their own way.
You are guilty as so many are of quote mining, that is choosing part of a quote that suits your purpose and ignoring that which doesn’t. A fuller version of the Francis Crick quote is:
“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth’s surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against.”
So you see Crick supports the view that abiogenesis took place. Your quote from Francis Collins also falls into this category. His book “The Language of God” clearly warns that “the inability of modern science to develop a statistically probable mechanism (of the origin of life) is intriguing, this is not the place for a thoughtful person to wager their faith”
Also in your article you move from saying that abiogenesis is a mystery to science (as it is at present) to claiming the same state for evolution. But evolution as a theory has so much evidence for its veracity that only those who have another agenda cannot see it. Your claim that the the theory of evolution is scientifically in error in effect is saying that the scientists of the world who study and teach evolution are either hoodwinked or engaged in a gigantic conspiracy to conceal the truth.
Creationist views of whatever type should not be taught as science in schools because science deals with the material world and uses the scientific method to arrive at its body of knowledge. Religious faith deals with the spiritual world and is based on faith.
In my article, I referred to Crick and Collins as ‘top evolutionary scientists’ and Collins, particularly, as a ’committed evolutionist’. I did this because I wanted to make clear that I was quoting people who believed evolution and abiogenesis to be true. So I cannot accept that I have misrepresented them. Nor have I misrepresented the evolutionary scientific community generally. When interviewed by Ben Stein in the documentary Expelled Richard Dawkins, in answer to the question, How did life begin?, replied that he has no idea and nor has anybody else. Most significantly, he went on to say that that life on Earth could have been seeded by intelligent beings, although he argued that such beings would have had to have evolved elsewhere in the universe. Ben Stein commented, “So Professor Dawkins was not against Intelligent Design, just certainly types of designers, such as God.”
I believe that most scientists subscribe to evolutionary beliefs for two reasons. Firstly, they are committed to the view that life came about only by natural processes. However, since this is not a deduction from science, it is no more than a belief system masquerading as science. Secondly, the vast majority have only been exposed to the arguments for evolution and are woefully ignorant of the many strong arguments against it. (See, for example, 15 Questions for Evolutionists (pdf).) Moreover, it is my growing suspicion that most top evolutionary scientists know very well that the neo-Darwinian theory is inadequate to explain the complexity of life. As with abiogenesis, they believe that, if they keep doing their research, they will eventually discover a theory of evolution that does stand up to scientific scrutiny. But this, again, is scientism, not science. From the beginning, Darwin’s theory of evolution was ideologically driven, not scientifically driven, as I argue in my article, Darwin, Lyell and Origin of Species .
Yet again another sad and outrageous organisation demanding that others must not believe in God, and that His Word is a myth, leading many to atheism. I am a Biomedical Scientist, specialising in Clinical / Medical Biochemistry and Cellular Pathology and I have never, ever, required or witnessed evolution in the work place. Science has increased my Faith in Creation, and in turn, has actually improved my perception of all scientific principles. What I see, shouts “design and Creation”, and those that refuse to acknowledge this, and especially teach against it are very foolish, whether they have science qualifications and letters after their names as long as your arm. I have recently “witnessed” to my manager,particularly about Creation SCIENCE. He is very highly qualified, and he is showing great interest and enthusiasm and asks me many questions, which, without your amazing, beautiful website, I could not answer. I attend this website every day, and everything I find within, explains everything with clear SCIENTIFIC reasoning, that puts the evolutionist to utter shame. Never doubt that your site reaches many, even scientists!! The Lord Bless you all at CMI.
As Chuck Missler M Eng, says of people like this, “They claim to be liberal and tolerant. But to be liberal is to have an open mind, which they do not. And they are only tolerant if you agree with them.”
Long before the Nuremberg trials there were the of Nuremberg Laws. One was a natural consequence of the other.
ICR wrote the following in a 2007 article: “Evolution is the only ‘scientific theory’ that needs laws to protect it!” To my way of thinking, this fascist move to “suppress the truth in unrighteousness” on the part of so-called “science advocacy” [read: evolution enforcement] groups only evidences its progressive weakness. If it were not propped up by public school indoctrination, a credulous media, and a scientific establishment who “do not even like to retain God in their knowledge” and have accordingly “exchanged the truth for fables”, microbes-to-man evolution could not survive. They know this and what we are seeing now is their attempt to do what true science cannot: namely, to eliminate the idea of special creation from serious consideration as an explanation for our origins.
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children
Britain has a proud tradition of good education and I see no reason to lower this quality by introducing creationist myths.
Surely, the greatest myth that has ever been told in the whole history of humanity is the myth of molecules-to-man evolution. Particularly the evolutionary story that ordinary chemicals somehow came together to produce life has no scientific basis whatever. Why then teach this in science lessons?
I am responding to this article as a Scientist, and one who has the privilege of teaching Science.
I find myself very much in agreement with Philip M.’s comments: any ‘Theory of Origins’ is fundamentally History, not Science. Well, pre-history to be exact, since no human being was around to record the Creation events. I find Philip’s approach to be a breath of fresh air.
I have been involved in numerous discussions with students. The British mind-set of today is very anti-theist; it is assumed that evolution has been ‘proved’ by Science, and that anyone holding on to a belief in a Creator should be regarded as intellectually inferior and basically superstitious. Since I am a Chemist by profession, I particularly enjoy using ‘Origin of Life’ scenarios. As you say, abiogenesis by random chemical reactions is a very flawed hypothesis, and is easily discounted as a valid hypothesis by a straightforward thermodynamic approach (the formation of any plausible polymer that might be able to self-replicate involves a large reduction in Entropy. The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not allow this). Such discussions allow pupils to think out of their mind-set, and therefore should be encouraged!
A few more specific comments on the issue might be appropriate. Evolution is largely founded on Natural Selection, which actually does embody good Science. It is the construction of a sequence of life based on the fossil record which is History. Modern usage of genetic information to set up evolutionary sequences also falls into this category. Darwin’s idea of living organisms being either ‘primitive’ (bacteria) or ‘evolved’ (vertebrates etc.) seems to have fallen out of use. This is because we now understand something of the staggering complexity of all living cells, from bacteria to brain cells.
In sum, then, I would argue for schools to have the ability to teach both evolution and creation. But not as Science—as History.
As Bible believing creationists, we would agree with you that the fossils in the rocks record history—but not history over millions of years. Our view is that most of the fossils were laid down during the one year flood recorded in Genesis 7 and 8. The remainder, that is the upper rocks, were laid down later, through local catastrophes. (See http://creation.com/noahs-flood-questions-and-answers.) While natural selection is observed, and therefore part of science, it is powerless to produce major changes in anatomy, and is responsible only for minor changes to organisms, enabling plants and animals to adapt to their environments for example. (See http://creation.com/natural-selection-questions-and-answers.)
I would like to commend CMI, on behalf of many others I believe, for their work and the selfless stance they are willing to make by which they encourage others to take a stand for truth in boldness. It is sad how irrational thought is encouraged and praised among our youth worldwide. Thanks again for taking the lead and providing the means for the public to go to battle against this destructive trend.
More and more these organisations are resembling the Nazi party. They desire to wipe out Christianity particulary and anyone that doesn’t believe in Evolution is according to Dawkins stupid and in his opionion inferior. We all need to be re-educated and conform to the new order … the 4th Reich.
I think it is realy sad that fervant atheists and secularists argue insisting that inteligent design should not be tought in schools. I think this shows the lack of faith of the evolutionists if they are not willing to have it discused. It is a form of fascism to insist that evidence on the other side of the evolution vs creation debate can’t even be mentioned.
Great article, as usual. I especially like the comments by Phillip M, regarding creation/evolution being contextually history not ‘science’. I really like that approach, and will use it in future, thanks guys! This could be the ‘Achilles heel’ for CMI to use when invited into schools, to avoid the Science ‘Nazi police’ preventing them from going into schools.
I would be cautious about making such statements as “It is the construction of a sequence of life based on the fossil record which is History” (Ian D), and “ … the fossils in the rocks record history” (Dominic Statham). Fossils and fossil layers are not exactly an historical record. They are certainly a record of death (not life) occurring in history, generally as a result of rapid flooding, but I do not think they provide us with the history itself or any historical context. For that we must still refer to an historical record/scenario which we use as an historical framework into which we place the fossils and the fossil layers.
You make a valid point. The rocks do not record history as written documents do and it is misleading to refer to them as ‘history’. But evolution is presented as a story about the past and it would be good to move it from the arena of ‘science’ so we could apply standard historical tests to its claims.
The attempt to suppress freedom of thought and open scientific inquiry indicates that those pursing such an agenda are not true scientists. In fact, they are manifesting alarming anti-scientific and fascist tendencies. Keep on promoting the truth for it will prove victorious in the end.
Christians rejoice and give thanks to God for when the Christians were first persecuted and expelled from Jerusalem, they took the word and it was spread where ever they went. God’s will shall be done on earth as it is in heaven.
God told Joshua, “There shall not any man be able to stand before thee all the days of thy life: as I was with Moses, so I will be with thee.” I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee.” David said moreover, The LORD that delivered me out of the paw of the lion, and out of the paw of the bear, he will deliver me out of the hand of this Philistine—he took his staff in his hand, and chose him five smooth stones out of the brook,—I come to thee in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom thou hast defied.
This day will the LORD deliver thee into mine hand; The battle belongs to the Lord. One is needed to stand in the gap. Praise the Lord Jesus.
While History class may be one appropriate context for the teaching of evolutionary theory, I think that it would be best taught in religious studies. Given that it is effectively a faith based belief system that is used to intellectually satisfy atheists, it is much more religion than science (a bit like creationism, which should also be taught in religion classes).
I too agree with Phillip M.—mostly. The _events_ of creation and evolution are history, but there is some science involved today, as both sides do experiments (e.g. radioisotope dating), gather and interpret data, etc., etc. in an attempt to gain supporting evidence. So I think a case can be made for both science and history.
That said, I was a physics major, and the recurring motto was that “a scientific hypothesis cannot be absolutely proven true, but it CAN be proven false.” My Earth Sciences teacher (professing to be a Christian) rejected creation because it isn’t falsifiable. Fine. Neither is evolution!
What I find most illogical about this whole thing is that if the evolutionists are as certain of their “theory” as they claim to be, why do they feel the need to squash honest questions as quickly and loudly as possible? If the theory is as solid as they claim, then they should be glad to let people try to poke holes in it. They are contradicting themselves all over the place.
Much the same sort of things are happening here in the US. It’s quite sad, really.
Natural selection is a conservative process. It doesn’t gnerate new forms of life. It only (sometimes—but not always) weeds out those that are at a disadvantage. Since most systems and organs have irreducible complexity their host would be more unfit until the system / organ is fully formed. Hence natural selection goes against ‘evolution’. The concept that natural selection causes evolution is BAD science and should be taught as such.
God bless Creation Ministries and all those who refuse to compromise on the truth of creation.
I find it remarkable that these rabid God-hating evolutionists claim evolution is proved by science—this is a lie, it has not been proved because, of course, it is unprovable.
The evidence for intelligent design is tremendous.
However, a man who doesn’t wish to acknowledge God exists (because he doesn't like the thought of being accountable) will do anything to squash the Truth.
However, Jesus said “you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free”.
As was mentioned by another reader persecution against Christ is inevitable. Creationism is directly associated with Christianity, my point is these atheiests cannot handle the truth, which they also are fully aware of and would do anything to suppress the truth from being shared or told. We have to remember that Satan is at work through these groups and we as believers know that he is the king of lies and he will use every stratergy to advocate his lie to the populus, sadly the western world has been hit by this “humanist” philosophy and therefore an easy target for these groups. I come from an Eastern background and having partly educated in a South East Asian country know full well that religious education is part of every school child’s curriculum and have the freedom to study what he or she wants, I have studied Islam amd buddhism in my school years and was educated in a private catholic school. These groups fear the worst, to find school kids given the opportunity to use their intellect to choose the truth from the lie. If this was not the case these athiestic groups should be confident that no matter what the kids are being taught that evolutionsim will be the stronghold in these kids life. Hats off to CMI for doing the work they are doing, the only weapon we have is the power of prayer and so we should be all calling on those that believe in Intelligent design to fervently pray as the likes of BHA’s and other associated groups fervently push to advocate their blatent lies. The vicoty is ultimately our Lord’s—Jesus Christ.
If these intolerant fascist thought their silly ideas were proven and held so much weight in scientific evidence, then why do they strive to prevent any contrary ideas being explored. Once Evolution is shown to be the hoax it is, surely ID and creationism is the only realistic explanation, ie if it didn’t happen by naturalistic processes then it happened by a supernatural one.
The issue here is simple, this is not a debate about science this is a witch hunt conducted by those who feel threatened by an idea that holds them to account before a creator and exposes their sin before the light.
1 Timothy 6:20–21 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoid profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science FALSELY so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith.
Romans 1:18–22 V22 Professing themselves to become wise, they became fools.
Proverbs 21:30 There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the Lord.
This issue has nothing to do with science. It is a political move that intends to take a view of history and make it a mandatory standard belief of a society. I suppose that when you can’t successfully defend your view through logical analysis, you must use some kind of public enforcement.
Instead of demanding a ban on open and free thinking, they should promote mutual respect and encourage discussions on this subject among the school-going children. Do not force your own ideology on others, with the emphases on FORCE.
This for all Christians to participate by writing letters to the mass media over their biassed reporting. To the Secretary of State for Education and the the Secularist Society and the BHA. Challenge them to make a Scientific statement showing their actual evidence and pointing out that such an attempt to stifle freedom of speech is Fascism. These people have a Fascist mentality, they thing that they are right and everyone who disagreed with them is wrong. What next the prison camp for Creationists. I look forward to meeting you there brothers.
These are not heavy-weights, they are pip-squeaks.
Attenborough repeatedly trots out theological arguments to support evolution and to this day can’t see his mistake.
Blakemore’s quote in the article reveals he's only regurgitating evolution at high school level.
Don’t get discouraged by the roaring. You think it’s a lion but when you turn on the light it turns out to be a cockroach. Philip M, evolutionists I know would not be silent if I said it was history not science; they would try to claim the “fossil record” supported their version of history.
The science of DNA was sufficient to turn Anthony Flew from atheist to agnostic. Science of modern day observable facts is a significant part of the debate.
Yes keep up the great work CMI. Sadly the enemy isn’t just BCSE—it is our our own “brethren”. Recently a Brisbane Uniting Church minister posted comments on Facebook stating—the OT was written by Jewish warlords, that he didn’t believe in a 6 day creation & that fundamentalist Christians were an embarrassment. He uttered much more blasphemies to the point where I am considering leaving the Uniting Church which I have been a supporter/member of for most of my life. How we as a Church must grieve the Father’s heart.
Keep up the good work CMI. If God is on our side then who can be against us? I look forward to the day when Evolution is seen as as unbelievable as Greek mythology …
Dear people of CMI, please be aware that the battle is not yours but the LORD’S. He will bless your work, also for the children on the schools for the glory of His Name. In the Netherlands we pray for you!
I think that evolution is neither science nor history. In my view it is philosophy. It is a philosophy that proceeds on the basis that there is no god and there can be no god. Perhaps evolutionists are so committed to seeing things this way that they need to get rid of the idea that God is involved in anything.
However I want to tell you that in 1991 Carl Wieland spoke at a conference in North Queensland. For years I had been confused by the conflict between evolution and the Bible. Carl’s lectures freed me of that. Now I can freely believe the Bible without those dreadful lingering doubts. Now I see the Bible as God’s one cohesive message to mandkind. I pray that you all will read it in this light.
I cannot believe these evolutionists can be so dismissive of Creation. It really is an oxymoron bizaare twisted “miracle” of deception by Satan to fool these people this way. They are strictly physicists i.e. natural brute beasts and canivorous whereby Satan surely consider them as saps and a “piece of cake”. They make it too easy for a loser. Science has largely been corrupted and scientist-atheists-evolutionists has mostly chosen their abode when breath leaves their physical body.
Mother nature appears to have created the illusion of design. Isn’t another name for Mother Nature, God. Indeed the abrahamic God as evidenced by the fulfillment of God’s covenant with Abraham and the continuing prosperity, blessing and creative talents of the Jewish peoples.
Much of what is taught as Evolution is in fact Natural Selection. If is crucial to differentiate out Natural Selection as something totally different. In my view, the only really scientific aspect of Evolution (which is more aptly said a Religion) is Natural Selection. This is turn is clearly a teleonomic process much easier related to design and creation than chance.
I appreciate your forthright effort to present the a non-macro-evolutionary view of the origin of everything, including the big issue of how did life come about. We believe in the supernatural—there had to be Intelligence involved. Random chance, no matter the quantity of eons could accomplish this. And then the calculations of the super mathematics also show the chances for life to spring from non-life to be virtually impossible.
B.C.S.E. have decided to target children, in my experience children are very discerning. Scriptures have stood the test of time, the same cannot be said for Dawkings and company. We are warned not to put our faith in any man but in God our Creator. I will continue to teach my children what I believe to be the truth from the source of all truth.
Having grown up in a former communist country it is really “funny” for me to see how some “enlightened” scientist from the homes of modern democracy “persecute” a thought that questions their (scientific) belief. Exactly the same happened some decades ago in Communist Europe where stalinist and post stalinist regimes simply silenced (or more simply just imprisoned or sent to labour camp) those who came up with any thought that was against “scientific marxist materialism”. I see a very similar trait in how creationism or intelligent desing is attacked by some prominent figures of today. If it is a fallacy, then open argument (evidences ligned up pro and contra) is the best way to teach kids about the truth of evolution. But of course, this logic is also true vica versa … Maybe this is what they are so affraid of … So were the communists …
As a professional statistician, one would be first concerned with methodology, then the data, and then its possible conclusions to any study undertaken. Unfortunately, when one comes across the word “scientific”, uttering this word alleges to an aura or whim of “certainty” or of “proof”.
Let us fight those with evolutionary theories with method, that is with questioning their own methodology back at them. It may seem that books on evolution may have started in the mid 1800’s, and from then on, other authors simply “pasted and copied” other literature onto their own books without question.
1 Question methodology
Ever questioned why certain dinosaurs where given a time line of 200 million years ago and not 100 million? Why not 80 million years? They have no clue! If you want to confound them, ask them the question why not a few million years less or more? This uncovers their methodology, or rather the lack of it. This question is simple, safe and would potentially make them very embarrassed in front of other people if asked.
2 DNA is stable in its architecture.
DNA was stable 6000 years ago, 2000 years ago and also now. Rather than proving that DNA is stable, let the evolutionists explain the process of DNA altering its nature. After all the onus, or burden of proof should lie with them, because after all they are “promoting” the idea that DNA should change from a molecule to a human, in several “stages” of “development”. We would be very happy, with the explanation of ONLY one stage.
3 Divine Order vs Randomness
If evolution was truly random as some scientists led us to believe then creatures should be very different that what is know today. There is perfect symmetry with all things, and never have 3 eyes, 5 legs or 7 arms. This holds true for any living thing, unless it has a blemish, but this is not "normal".
If nothing is guiding DNA, then why do we find a great order of things? Why would the DNA on its own merits produce a brain, lungs, blood, legs, bladder, etc? This is because there is a God-driven order. What evolutionists subtly try to promote is the concept of “DNA randomness” which gives rise to order, when it is anything to the contrary. This disorder spiritually speaking stems from the loss of spiritual truths within themselves, and think that they can do away with God.
Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, [there is] none that doeth good.
14:2 The “I AM” looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, [and] seek God.
14:3 They are all gone aside, they are [all] together become filthy: [there is] none that doeth good, no, not one.
4 Elegance in creation and art.
When God created living things, the colours were all with a purpose, and in relevance to their nature, ambiance and the like. With a randomness that the scientists propose, we may get a blue polar bear or purple cat, or anything strange, but we do not. Butterfly wings are a touch of Divine genius that no random DNA can ever propose.
Can evolutionists propose how and why do ladybird spots have specific distance between themselves? They are far from random, which proves that randomness is only in the (pseudo) scientists’ mind.
We should not call evolution as such, and neither devolution. The only change within 2 centuries from today on earthly species is by elimination, for example by human intervention (such as the dodo), hence devolution. It is even unwise to speak of devolution, because of the connotation and promotion of the word evolution. Thus the change of this planet species is really either via a negative human intervention, or a Divinely inspired one via nature, but surely God would not want to destroy His own creation!
Under God’s loving hands,
Slightly of topic or isn’t it? I moved to the UK from a largely God believing African country a few years back. The first thing that struck me was how god-less UK society has become. The kids are immoral and direction less, drugs, sex etc are commonplace. Few ethics remain and the school system is a mess, by earlier standards a lot of UK school kids are illiterate nowadays. Teenage pregnancy is rampant and the counties generous benefits system is sorely abused.
I ask the question, if God is removed from the equation and we believe in evolution and everything is random, or a "mistake" then what is the point of life? Why should I not rape, pillage and plunder? Its immoral you say, why who says so? It is the mindset I see sinking in here amongst the youth, the attitude of who cares is on most peoples faces here.
Evolution not only promotes this behaviour but has done in the past. Hitler, Stalin and all the poor Aborigines being hunted to further advance scientific theories of evolution of evidence of this. Religions are often accused of causing many deaths but evolution was and is an extremely dangerous religion.
Gone are the days when we had the luxury of arguing whose religion was correct. All God believing people need to stand together and fight this modern evil.
I put my trust in God not man … amen.