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
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schools’ that teach creation or intelligent design in science lessons will, from now on, have their financial support withdrawn.3 However, now that the new free schools funding agreement has been published, it’s clear that the situation is far worse than was originally apparent.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, 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.
Blatant censorship
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.”
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
Related Articles
Further Reading
Related Media
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.
Readers’ comments
"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.
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!
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.
'[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 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.
This is a call to some of you!
Another reason to homeschool.
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.’
http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/leadership/typesofschools/freeschools/a0074737/free-schools-model-funding-agreement
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.
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/flyers/15-questions-for-evolutionists-s.pdf
http://creation.com/a-great-way-to-spread-the-news
As a UK tax payer I ask you to change this unbalanced, bigoted, totalitarian Policy forthwith.
Yours sincerely,
Andrew N BSc (Hons) MRPharmS
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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!
"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?
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.....
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!!!
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.
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).
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#).
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.
Mark
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.
Also, evolution is not a theory of the origin of life (The study of the origin of life is actually called abiogenesis).
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
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.
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!
He needs to understand that belief in creation is evidence based, and is absolutely not contrary to scientific and historical evidence
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.
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.
"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.
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?
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?
Such an extraordinary protection for the ‘established science and explanations’ only reinforces how unsustainable and bad the ‘established science and explanations’ are.
Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.