A growing number of science students on British campuses and in sixth form colleges are challenging the theory of evolution and arguing that Darwin was wrong. Some are being failed in university exams because they quote sayings from the Bible or Qur’an as scientific fact and at one sixth form college in London most biology students are now thought to be creationists.
[…]
In the United States there is growing pressure to teach creationism or “intelligent design” in science classes, despite legal rulings against it. Now similar trends in this country have prompted the Royal Society, Britain’s leading scientific academy, to confront the issue head on with a talk entitled Why Creationism is Wrong. The award-winning geneticist and author Steve Jones will deliver the lecture and challenge creationists, Christian and Islamic, to argue their case rationally at the society’s event in April.“There is an insidious and growing problem,” said Professor Jones, of University College London. “It’s a step back from rationality. They (the creationists) don’t have a problem with science, they have a problem with argument. And irrationality is a very infectious disease as we see from the United States.”
[…]
Most of the next generation of medical and science students could well be creationists, according to a biology teacher at a leading London sixth-form college. “The vast majority of my students now believe in creationism,” she said, “and these are thinking young people who are able and articulate and not at the dim end at all. They have extensive booklets on creationism which they put in my pigeon-hole … it’s a bit like the southern states of America.”
#55
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html. Read the sections on abiogenesis and specifically
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html and get back to me.
Devo is one of my favorite bands. I really like their Freedom of Choice album.
Teaching something other than intelligent design is showing disrespect to Allah in which case you need to be killed.
Regrettable I suppose but if people insist on being unreasonable what do you expect?
I’m being sarcastic but you had better remember it if you are around believers. Dieing is so permanent. You do need to watch what you say in Islamic countries.
emhodew said,
The only reason the theory of evolution is not full of holes is it is moving target. They keep changing the theory so it is hard to say it is inaccurate. They simply say you just are behind the times. They fixed that ‘bug’ in the last re-write. You are just out of date!
Congratulations, you’ve just described the scientific process. If scientific explanations didn’t change to reflect new findings then it wouldn’t be science.
Dr Dodd said,
Proof of intelligent design is all around. From the design and function of the solar system to the many forms of life we take for granted.
There is an abundance of proof if you have a mind to recognize it.
There’s also an abundance of “proof” for leprechaun and pink elephants if you have a mind to recognize it. That doesn’t mean any of those things are real.
#60-Thomas-If everything is designed, how do you differentiate between not-designed and designed?
There is the original design and there is the evolution from that design.
One good example of that evolution is the continental shift.
#65-jccalhoun-There’s also an abundance of “proof” for leprechaun and pink elephants if you have a mind to recognize it. That doesn’t mean any of those things are real.
You mean there are no leprechauns or pink elephants? Devastating news and information I’m sure the Lucky Charms people would like to know about.
I suggest you tell them at once.
#67
Ergo, God is breakfast cereal. Why didn’t I see that before?
Oh hi shoob. Still can’t get any prestigious scientific organizations to take your “theories of creationism” seriously yet? Have you told them all about the time the “scientific physics paper” you submitted was ignored for being too wacky?
And how is Ellen G White doing?
#66 “One good example of that evolution is the continental shift.”
This has been studied to death before by Monty Python.
Sir Bedevere: …and that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana shaped.
King Arthur: This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere. Explain again how sheep’s bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.
#66–Dr Doodypants==you are an apostate!! EVERYTHING you see was designed to be that way. God actively willed things into existence at the same time that he willed evolution and every microscopic change to the genome and every microclimate butterfly effect to make the world exactly as you see it now and as it will be Trillions of Years into the future. All as he planed it to be quadtrilliontothetenthiestdegree – times – itself – that many times.
You certainly don’t understand the infinite nature of god do you!!!
Repent!
Hey DoodyPants–speaking of design, what is the point/design excellence of a universe with trillionsandtrillionsandtrillions of stars all over the place and as far as we know, just one little planet with as far as we know god-aware life on it for only 2000 years in a 15 Billion year old universe.
Where is the intelligence in that?
Silly Hooman.
#22–MrMigu==everybody knows about the appendix, the optic nerve, glucose oxidation, free radicals and what not. Thats why I said “interesting.” Hopefully, Animby will get off shift and finish his cappacino and give us his exciting evaluation?
#25–Benji==you got me there. Always go with the expert (defined by quality outcomes) regardless of what other dingbat IRRELEVANT stuff they do/believe in. BUT you present hypo’s like a repuglican. I’ll give an analogy: would you go to an architect who thought that god held up steel beams by our appeal to his good nature OR restrict your review of those who accepted physics? In your medical doctor hypo, I say it is “impossible” to be competent and not “know and apply” the science of the activity. So, you really are combining what DISTINGUISHES the believers from the non-believers by supposing a believer will ACT LIKE a non-believer. So, yeah==that happens in medicine “sometimes” but not often. And even then, when the guy gets older and forgets the science of his youth and starts practicing the creationism of his early indoctrination, he is no longer an expert. Kapiche?
#66
You avoided the question. The burden of proof is always on the claimant. Thus, regardless of whether you falsely start with “everything is designed” (falsely because it is a claim with no evidence) or with no assumptions, any claims the contrary must be proven. Thus, if you are going to claim that continental shift if not-designed, you must provide proof. For every argument you make, I can simple counter that this was part of the “design”. At then end of the day, we will end with the fundamental question of how you differentiate “designed” from “not-designed”.
#74 Thomas (the doubter) 😉
You often see this argumentative tactic by the pro-creation lobbyists. When you hear them say “You choose not to believe” then you know you have them on the ropes.
On the other side, I have time for people with real, honest to God, faith. I think it’s part of the human condition and I find it fascinating. Nonsense like Dr Dodd spouts is pure religious dogma and has very little to do with anyone’s faith.
For example, I have faith in family in friends. Some people have faith in a higher being or a cause. That doesn’t preclude curiosity. Lot’s of people have religion. There is only one way to put on a Broadway show. There is only one way to God. You need IBM if you’re going to run a company. When you have religious outlook, you’ve already made up your mind before you hear the facts or see the world.
That’s why people say they can see God in everything around them. Atheists who are actual skeptics (and I think you fit that mold) say “please convince me”. Religious types would be far better off taking a common sense approach to arguments rather than tired scholastic types of silliness. I would recommend they read The God Beyond Belief by Nick Trakakis except that it’s over priced. Or maybe John Loftus’ book Why I Became an Atheist. Both authors have a deep religious background.
# 54, Thomas said,
There is absolutely ZERO evidence that points towards a single creator or even single non-Terran species.
I’m not arguing for the existence of a Creator. I’m only pointing out what mainstream physicists teach. You either understand Sir Roger Penrose or you don’t. What is your objection to his 2-minute comment referenced in post # 41?
Shubee, you’re kind of switching gears all over the place. It appears to me that you’re arguing that species devolve instead adapt and evolve to the environment. This means there was a race of superhuman beings in the distant past and we’re on a steady decline to what? Rats? Werewolves? Italians?
qb said,
It appears to me that you’re arguing that species devolve instead adapt and evolve to the environment. This means there was a race of superhuman beings in the distant past and we’re on a steady decline to what?
Just as the universe began in an unfathomably great, highly ordered state and is in the process of decaying into inevitable extinction and non-existence (Sir Roger Penrose is right about that), so too will all life on this planet become extinct.
#78–shubee==what “model” of the early universe are you using? “Order”/”Design”/”highly ordered state”/ are words without meaning UNTIL you define them. When the universe blinked into existence, my understanding is that it was nothing but pure energy with all elementary forces combined in one–ie not in existence, then cooled for a nanosecond into matter/antimatter sub particles, more cooling and expansion with matter canceling out more anti-matter rather than vice versa and the formation of basic laws of physics we see today and atomic particles forming—etc, all the way up until now, still expanding and cooling. You can call any stage anything you want==order/chaos as you may define. It was however, what it was. The very best of tautologies.
What was once unfathomable becomes understood, unless you apply religion to it which requires mysticism and a great dollop of non-think.
#78 shubee
That was dodgeball. You got bruised but bad. He he he.
bobbo, the evangelical anti-theist asked, what “model” of the early universe are you using?
Sir Roger Penrose was discussing the standard big-bang model. Did you understand what he meant by a “highly ordered” beginning followed by death and non-existence?
Thanks Shubee–yea, I listened to the video, but not carefully==because of what I posted at #79 which is a laypersons explanation of what I think is the standard model of the big bang theory. AS STATED–it is what it is and calling anything “ordered” in the big bang is just a human enforced attribute of NO MERIT in a discussion of god, the universe, or anything else.
I don’t know where it best fits, but the big bang is irrelevant in a discussion of creationism whether it was organized or not, or any other adjective that might be applied.
Religion/God==belief regardless of facts.
Science==belief based on best evidence of reproducible events.
You do the math, or keep the faith.
#76
Let’s step back to #41.
I said that there are scientific theories of creationism.
High ranking cosmologists already teach that a highly ordered physical reality can spontaneously materialize out of nothingness
While the second statement has some truth, it in no way supports the first statement. Highly ordered does not by definition equate to proof of a designer. There are many molecules that exist in nature that are highly ordered which are not created. My statement still stands: there are no scientific theories of creationism. Creationism is not science.
(Also from #41)
As you suspect, the whole debate about the validity of creationism is really about the definition of science.
This statement is also false. There is very clear delineation from what is considered science and what is not. Penrose has, I’m sure, proposed a falsifiable hypothesis which requires new data to be gathered. That data will either support his hypothesis in which case the cosmological community will change their mind, or cause his hypothesis to be rejected at which point he’ll evaluate the new data and change his mind.
(Also from #51)
Tell that to the vast consensus of mainstream physicists that teach that the universe exploded into existence out of nothingness
That cosmologists change their opinions about how the universe was created in no way supports the idea of a creator nor suggests that mainstream physicists are wrong or right. They either have hypotheses that fit the data or they do not.
We don’t yet know about the validity of Penrose’s hypothesis to which he himself admitted. He needs more data. In your link, he even mentioned that many theories have been proposed about the nature of the beginning and ending of the universe. At one point, leading cosmologies felt that the universe would end with a big crunch. With new data, they now no longer believe that.
So that brings us back to #76 (and #81). You appear to be hinting that “highly ordered” = “created”. This of course does not follow. Something can occur naturally and be highly ordered. I understand Penrose’s idea. What I fail to see is how it supports any position you have proposed in this thread.
Thomas said,
“Highly ordered does not by definition equate to proof of a designer.”
I agree. However, there is no question that the standard big bang model, which claims that there was nothing, then something, is a scientific theory. In this instance, a highly ordered physical reality comes about virtually instantaneously. Compare that theory to quantum theory, which allows for fantastically improbable events to happen. For example, quantum mechanically, is it possible for the Red Sea to split (Exodus 14:21) and for a man to be fully formed out of the inanimate material of the earth in a single day? (Genesis 2:7). The answer to that question is yes.
http://everythingimportant.org/quantumcreationism/
#84
However, there is no question that the standard big bang model, which claims that there was nothing, then something, is a scientific theory
Yes, which means at present we have models which fit the accumulated data. However, that does not mean we might not get new data that contradicts the models and that would be cause new hypotheses to be devised. Further, none of this provides any credence to the idea that man “popped” into existence fully formed. Thinking that a revision of models or quantum mechanics might provide such support is folly.
I’m very content with the precedent and scientific consistency of a fantastically highly ordered reality just popping into existence. There is no logical reason to be ashamed of science or excuse to not acknowledge the set of all scientifically admissible possibilities.
#85-Thomas-we have models which fit the accumulated data.
There were also models for global warming with claims of settled science and we all know what nonsense that turned out to be.
As we have learned models are not proof of anything other than what theory needs hyping at the moment.
#87
Your example is not relevant. What is being discussed is the teaching of the latest scientific understanding about how species evolve as opposed to making policy based on the conclusions of some very young and still disputed scientific theories. There is a significant difference.
Now, if the discussion were about teaching anthropomorphic climate change instead of the “God is making it warmer”, then that example might be relevant.
The theories used to explain how evolution occurs have far more testing and far more data than do the theories explaining climate change. There is no dispute in the scientific community that evolution occurs.
As long as we are also teaching children the fundamentals of the scientific method, there is no problem with teaching the current scientific understanding with the caveat that with new data, those theories might change. We should still teach Newtonian physics even through in some circumstances they are flawed.