The United Kingdom has banned the teaching of creationism

Got a question? We may have some answers!
Forum rules

1) This is a Christian site, respect our beliefs and we will respect yours.

2) This is a family friendly site, no swearing or posting offensive links, pictures, or signatures.

3) Please be respectful of others.

4) Trolls are not welcome and will be dealt with accordingly.

5) No racial comments, jokes or images

6) If you see a dead thread over 6 months old, let it rest in peace

7) No Duplicate posts
User avatar
ArchAngel
CCGR addict
Posts: 3547
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 12:00 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: The United Kingdom has banned the teaching of creationis

Postby ArchAngel » Thu Jun 19, 2014 10:47 pm

Look, I'm going to try not to get into another Creationism vs. Evolution debacle, but I feel like I should atleast stress what Evolution is and is not.

Evolutionism is not a thing. It's a dishonest, semantic attempt to miscategorize a scientific theory and field of study as a belief system. No matter how often or loudly you insist upon it, you will always miss the point if you keep pulling this line.

Evolution is a scientific theory. At it's core, it's about incremental changes in population propagated though genetic inheritance over competition for limited resources. It started as a hypothesis, withstood over a century of research and is a firm theory in the explanation of biodiversity and goodness of fit. If you step outside the Creation vs. Evolution arena for a bit and see what "evolutionists" actually do, it's research. That's what the scientists really care about. If you can't spend the time to understand what Evolution is, why should anybody listen to what you have to say about it?

Yes, it is a theory. Unfortunately, not only is your conception of what Evolution is incredibly fallacious, so is your idea on what a scientific theory is. A theory is not an "unproven" fact or law. A theory is a good as a scientific idea gets. It's a well-defined explanation of natural phenomena. It has passed peer review and experimentation. It does not graduate into anything else.
This is different than a scientific law, which is a prediction. They are often represented in formulas. The Law of Gravity describes how objects would attract each other. The Theory of Gravity would be an explanation on how gravity works. The Germ Theory explains that sickness is caused by microbial life. The Plate Tectonics theory explains how continental plates float on a molten magma and their collisions causes earthquakes. The theory of Evolution explains how life evolve to adapt to their environment.

So tell me, what does your study tell you not only how Evolution is so wrong, but also what it even is?
I guess this is the kicker for me. I get you don't buy into the theory of Evolution. It's just be a whole lot more palatable if you were a little more humble, considering the lack of knowledge of Evolution itself.
For now I'm okay with public education, but if I were home schooling I would teach both view points and let the kids decide which side of the fence they're on.
This works from education in your own home as you have the right to teach your children religion and science and I know you believe in Creation, I applaud you for giving both he religious explanation and the scientific explanation to your children.
My problem with the quoted rhetoric is not in how you are using it, but that it's often used by others in a very misleading way. People frequently use this argument to have Creation or ID taught in schools as a science, when it has clearly not passed the qualifications for it.
Everybody is free to believe whatever they want to, but it's dishonest to present to children an idea as science when it clearly is not. We do not teach that babies come from storks in bio class, or that the earth is flat in geography, or the Holocaust never happened in history, or that the world is formed from the body of the Giant Ymir according to Norse myth in science. None of these have passed qualifications of their respective fields. It's not about silencing differing ideas, it's about providing the best results from the respective fields of study.
Pew Pew Pew. Science.

RoA: Kratimos/Lycan
UnHuman: Tim

User avatar
ChickenSoup
CCGR addict
Posts: 3286
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: the doomed ship HMS Sinkytowne

Re: The United Kingdom has banned the teaching of creationis

Postby ChickenSoup » Fri Jun 20, 2014 1:51 am


So anti-creationism is a moral incentive now?

I can respect allowing people decide. I think that's truly the only way for a multi-religious society...but saying that evolutionism is science is a bunch of horse dung.
First things first. This is going to turn into an explosive argument. Constructive arguments are much more fulfilling overall, so let's remember that we're disagreeing with ideas and not people.

Second things second. It would be healthy for your beliefs overall if you sat down and gave evolution and natural selection and the lot an unbiased, scientific approach and examination. Either your perspective changes and somehow you see it supplemental and beneficial to your beliefs or your old beliefs intensify as your newfound understanding of evolutionism only furthers your notion that it is all nonsense.

Seriously though, there is nothing worse you can do than write something off as false without examining it. I can speak from experience on that.
I'm not debating atheists here. Who I am debating here are Christians who seem to be hesitant to address my statements that 1) evolutionism is just a theory(it's not concretely scientific) and 2) God and sin had to exist for Jesus's sacrifice to have any meaning. These are the very basic principles of the gospel! Creation - sin - sacrifice - resurrection - salvation.
We're not hesitant, we disagree with you. I mean, your point #2 isn't mutually exclusive to having evolution be true. I understand you feel strongly about it but you have to understand that disagreeing with you doesn't put us into the camp of atheists, especially with your condescending remarks about us being Christian atheists.

I don't even know how to respond to some of your comments because you're so obviously inflammatory that I'm not sure how it wouldn't turn into a flat-out argument/flame war.
My name is ChickenSoup and I have several flavors in which you may be interested

I also have a slightly PG-13 tumblr that you may not enjoy

Sacntus_Incendia
Noob
Noob
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2014 3:06 am

Re: The United Kingdom has banned the teaching of creationis

Postby Sacntus_Incendia » Fri Jun 20, 2014 3:26 am

Hey guys! I've been observing the debate progress, and figured at this point I would give, as ccgr put it, my 0.02 at this point. About 2 years ago now, I did just what ArchAngel had put forth as a suggestion for the whole Creation/Evolution debate and our stance thereof. Research. It was a hard battle for me because of the evidence put forth from the scientific community, and also because of my understanding of theology, which is one of my favorite areas of learning. You see, (primarily towards ChickenSoup), the C/E debate is not only important towards the gospel, it's fundamental. Like, foundations of faith. Here's why:

According to Scripture, God created the world. But the qualifications don't end there. Genesis also states that when God created the world, man was already present at the end of the 6 days (Gen 1:26-28). It goes further, and this is where it gets really important. It also states that nothing died (Gen 1:29, Romans 5:12)(diets were only plants for all creation, so nothing could have died, because there weren't even detrivores to clear out remains. Obviously, this does not pertain to plants because it is also stated that plants were intended as the source of food (Gen 1:29), not so much a living thing such as a human, dog, bird or fish).Being that nothing died, millions of years of death and survival only of the adapted wouldn't work for the beginning. But man was already there, without death. So what that means is this:

Either Evolution is correct, or Creation (Genesis) is correct.

Now Deepfreeze said that this is irrelevant to the Gospel. It's not. It's very important, because in the beginning there was no sin, therefore no death, because sin is the ultimate cause of death (Romans 5:12). That would mean that without Genesis and Creation there would be no need for Jesus (whom I call Yeshua, proper Hebrew pronunciation) to have died on the cross, because Yeshua's death was the payment for all sin. But without Genesis, sin doesn't exist. All or nothing.

Okay, now that that's explained I'll go back to my story. I struggled with this for a long time because of the fundamentality towards my faith. I asked around, and began to recognize the lack of understanding on both sides. Not just the Creationists, Evolutionists didn't understand the Gospel and therefore couldn't apply it. So I did what was best. I dug really deep into Evolution and Evolutionism (As a belief that affects your world view, Evolutionism is a correct term, and Creation is correct for the study of Creation) and also into mitosis, meiosis, survival of the fittest, and the millions of years model. What I found was this:

1. The explanation of survival of the fittest being the cause of Evolution doesn't work. Survival of the fittest actually dwindles genetic diversity, therefore making it severely irrational that all life in its abundantly diverse nature could have arose from the changes of one source (And yes, I know some alleles turn on and off through generations, therefore old traits could return, but they would still die off from not being adapt to the environment).

2. Mutations being the cause of evolution doesn't work. This is because in most instances, the mutation would make the new "type" either sterile or at least unable to reproduce with others around it unless something with the same mutation arose at the same time. Obviously if it were small enough of a change the species could still mate, but its offspring would be sterile, ending the chain.

3. Meiosis + Evolution = No Go. Just think about it. How does an organism "evolve" from only depending upon itself to depending on another type to reproduce. This would entail that both male and female types would mutate and develop at the same time, would be around each other, would be the same species, would actually work and fit together, and would have to all change within only a few if but one generation(s). These changes are too unlikely and radically different in a short amount of time to be logical.

4. "Evidence"- I also looked at many evidences of evolution, such as fossil records and observed changes, and found that in the case of fossils it could have easily been an extinct species or a deformed one. And there isn't just one missing link. There's a ton. Too many to not make assumptions. As for observed instances, they all either created a sterile generation afterwards or were errors in meiosis such as doubling of alleles, which would make the species itself sterile.

5. Likelihood - The likeliness of the conditions of our planet in the solar system to its makeup to the chances of evolution actually occurring are so unlikely that no person would be willing to bet on it if it were the lottery. No one.

6. Origins - The origin of the beginning replicating cell (Replicating RNA isn't logical, you need the whole cell's functions to make it work, so it would have to be a cell) is not just unlikely, it's impossible. Never in any case have we ever observed life come from non life. It would have had to have come from a living source (Such as an eternal living God ;) ) Plus, a cell, even a prokaryote, is far too complicated to arrange in nature with all of the proper placement and materials by chance.

7. "Nature doesn't jump" - If the existence of the universe were placed on a clock, all of the progressions of life straight from origin would occur in the last 5 seconds if it were 60 seconds. Darwin himself said, "Nature doesn't jump". That seems like a pretty fast jump to me, and many scientists are beginning to think the same.

The deeper I dug, the more holes that I found. And I get that this is only my research done and someone could easily put it forth as being irrelevant, but I wasn't going to just take someone's word on either side and just accept it. This is what I found on my own, and after looking at it I decided on my own that Creation was a more logical conclusion. Not because of religion, but because of science itself. And one could easily claim that Creation isn't science. Wrong. In fact, there are several different groups of well rounded scientists do research how Creation works and how ecosystems would have differed before the Fall of Man through sin. This leads me into another thing. The reason everything started dying and eating each other is because of the Curse of Sin. Sin is a destructive force, and when it entered the World it also changed other creatures. This included but was not limited to diets, which for some changed to being carnivorous, thus changing the food web. And because of the Curse of Sin Yeshua came into the world and died on a cross as payment for our sins, because the price of sin is death.

Now, as for this in schools I will say this. Due to the controversy, I don't think either should be taught in school. And I see no reason why this would be a problem. The study of evolution does not pertain to any part of science except for the study of evolution (another reason I question it, since all other science interlocks). Therefore, there should be no educational setbacks. In fact, education could move forward by having more time to look at other, more advanced aspects of Biology.

So that's my piece for the day. Cheers! :D

User avatar
ChickenSoup
CCGR addict
Posts: 3286
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: the doomed ship HMS Sinkytowne

Re: The United Kingdom has banned the teaching of creationis

Postby ChickenSoup » Fri Jun 20, 2014 3:58 am

You see, (primarily towards ChickenSoup), the C/E debate is not only important towards the gospel, it's fundamental. Like, foundations of faith.
You'd be surprised how fundamental it isn't for a lot of people.
My name is ChickenSoup and I have several flavors in which you may be interested

I also have a slightly PG-13 tumblr that you may not enjoy

User avatar
JOJ650s
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1694
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 4:08 pm
Are you human?: Yes!

Re: The United Kingdom has banned the teaching of creationis

Postby JOJ650s » Fri Jun 20, 2014 5:51 am

Good. It's not science.
So history is still a go? ^-^
Be part of the answer, not part of the problem.

Image
1 Corinthians 13; remember it always.

User avatar
Sstavix
CCGR addict
Posts: 2951
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:47 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Eastern Washington. Not the crazy side.

Re: The United Kingdom has banned the teaching of creationis

Postby Sstavix » Fri Jun 20, 2014 6:24 am

I've got some popcorn in the air popper warming up, so I figured it would be a good time to toss in my two cents. :)

One of the things I love about this community is how friendly it is. We can have debates like this and not fall into the usual back-and-forth of name-calling that would happen on a lot of Internet forums. (Or Facebook even. I left one particular discussion that focused on climate change because some dippy-doodle showed up - not friends of the original poster, even - with an extremely belittling attitude and a string of obscenities for those that disagreed with him. He wasn't looking for a discussion - he was looking for a fight.) To me, it's good that we have these opportunities to discuss our beliefs in a civil, polite fashion - because out in the real world, these kinds of discussions often aren't polite or civil. These forums are a place for us to practice our debate skills, learn more about what the other side thinks, and further hone our own testimonies and beliefs. Even if we do have different beliefs, opinions and origins, we can all be friends here. And that's a good thing!

I don't really have a dog in this particular fight. As I've mentioned elsewhere, it doesn't really matter to me what humanity's origins are. We could be placed here by God, or we could all be evolved from bears (bonus points to those who catch that reference) or we could be descendants from alien hairdressers and telephone sanitizers (more bonus points!) The fact is that we're all stuck here on this planet together[img]now[/img]. Personally, I think science should be looking more towards where we're going, rather than where we've been. Or, more precisely, how we're going to get there - isn't it about time we developed a faster-than-light warp engine? Or at least hovercars? C'mon, guys!

One thing that Cheryl brought up resonated with me, though.
For now I'm okay with public education, but if I were home schooling I would teach both view points and let the kids decide which side of the fence they're on.
I firmly believe this as well, and it is a bit troubling to me that there is an emerging trend over the regulation of homeschooling in this nation. It's one of the reasons why we live in Idaho, actually - homeschooling laws are much more relaxed in this state than other places. Frankly, there are some things that I don't want my kids learning from other kids in public schools (evolution vs. creationism is one of the least of my worries...). So I think that we need to have the freedom to educate our children the way that we, as parents, see fit. I know that the laws in the UK don't apply to us here in the U.S., but it's still something we need to remain vigilant about.

Ah, sounds like the popcorn is done! Let me get some butter on it, then I'll get back to watching the debate. Carry on! :D

User avatar
Wildebear
Regular Member
Regular Member
Posts: 112
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 1:49 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: South Africa

Re: The United Kingdom has banned the teaching of creationis

Postby Wildebear » Fri Jun 20, 2014 6:59 am

Not satisfied with what I've seen, but I rest my case.

Sacntus_Incendia hits the proverbial nail.
“Conquer yourself rather than the world.”
― René Descartes

User avatar
ChickenSoup
CCGR addict
Posts: 3286
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: the doomed ship HMS Sinkytowne

Re: The United Kingdom has banned the teaching of creationis

Postby ChickenSoup » Fri Jun 20, 2014 5:21 pm

Not satisfied with what I've seen, but I rest my case.

Sacntus_Incendia hits the proverbial nail.
Um... sure.


As for homeschooling: I completely understand why the government wants to regulate it. Most parents actually aren't qualified to give their kids a comprehensive education. People go on about government education until the cows come home, but no one talks about how incompetent most parents are. And you know what? That's completely okay. Just... just don't pretend to be giving kids an expansive, comprehensive education that will easily surpass public or private schools.

I mean, if you CAN, go for it, I guess. But there's also the social aspects of school that most homeschoolers miss as well. Yes, there's youth groups and homeschool groups, but I'm of the opinion that those are all a little too nice and don't use social pressure to eliminate annoying behaviors :P
My name is ChickenSoup and I have several flavors in which you may be interested

I also have a slightly PG-13 tumblr that you may not enjoy

Sacntus_Incendia
Noob
Noob
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2014 3:06 am

Re: The United Kingdom has banned the teaching of creationis

Postby Sacntus_Incendia » Fri Jun 20, 2014 7:55 pm

You'd be surprised how fundamental it isn't for a lot of people.
You're right, ChickenSoup. For a lot of people it's not. But as for a good understanding of the Gospel, it is. I used to go to a church where (actually, while I was searching) the priest once stood before the church and explained that the book of Genesis was just a "storybook made up to try to explain the world to ancient people before our new, modern, and more intelligent era." He then stated that it wasn't important to the rest of the Bible. This was actually directed towards me when he did this, because I had been asking him and also my Confirmation teachers what the Catholic stance was on Creation. It was then that I realized that the reason he thought this was because he didn't understand the Gospel. In fact, I realized that until I had visited other churches I had never heard the Gospel, because they didn't teach it there. When I saw this happening it shocked me, because I knew of a piece of Scripture that said "For all Scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16). This was another all or nothing lesson for me. Either Genesis was God breathed and true, or nothing was God breathed so nothing in the Christian faith was true. This was further motivation for learning.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, it doesn't really matter to me what humanity's origins are.
Yes and no. You're right, Sstavix, in the sense that it is not important for developments in science and innovation. In that case we only need the world around us. For a philosophical and moral grounding, however, it is. Our origins are our roots, and our roots are our foundations on which everything else in our lives is built.
But there's also the social aspects of school that most homeschoolers miss as well. Yes, there's youth groups and homeschool groups, but I'm of the opinion that those are all a little too nice and don't use social pressure to eliminate annoying behaviors
Honestly, I think that's a really stereotypical view of homeschoolers. My little sister went through homeschooling for the duration of middle school, and from that she was actually about to avoid a ton of the social manipulation that is created during that time period. Yes, I could see how it could be such a case for some, but I think for others it would actually be a healthy thing. And as for the whole government regulation thing, a lot of nations that have strict regulations regarding homeschooling actually banned any teaching of Creation, whether it be one sided or decision based. Now for some I know this is almost a Godsend because they see Creation as being inferior to education, but I would ask you to look at it from a Creationist standpoint. It would be like the government banning you from teaching your kid evolution because whoever was in charge didn't agree with it. It's not a just thing to do.

User avatar
Sstavix
CCGR addict
Posts: 2951
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:47 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Eastern Washington. Not the crazy side.

Re: The United Kingdom has banned the teaching of creationis

Postby Sstavix » Fri Jun 20, 2014 8:03 pm

As for homeschooling: I completely understand why the government wants to regulate it. Most parents actually aren't qualified to give their kids a comprehensive education. People go on about government education until the cows come home, but no one talks about how incompetent most parents are. And you know what? That's completely okay. Just... just don't pretend to be giving kids an expansive, comprehensive education that will easily surpass public or private schools.
Erm... hate to use a pun in regards to this issue, but you seem a bit uneducated in regards to home-schooling. Recent studies have indicated that homeschoolers have a tendency to exceed the average test scores in contrast to public school students. One such study can be found here, and a search on-line can find plenty of other examples, if you're so inclined.

Sure, the parents are a factor, but you may find that those parents who are willing to undergo the homeschooling challenge tend to be more than adequate to meet it. Probably even better than some teachers who actually get teaching certificates (not all teachers, but certainly moreso than cases like these). So while "most" parents may not be equipped to teach their children, those parents that do choose to homeschool their children do tend to be well-equipped to give their children the one-on-one education in order to help them exceed.

We are homeschooling our children, and I can tell you that there are no issues whatsoever in regards to our kids being social. In my eldest daughter's case, I'm sometimes afraid that she's a bit too social, really. So anyone who thinks that homeschooled children tend to be reclusive and quiet obviously haven't met my kids....

User avatar
ArchAngel
CCGR addict
Posts: 3547
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 12:00 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: The United Kingdom has banned the teaching of creationis

Postby ArchAngel » Fri Jun 20, 2014 8:05 pm

Both C$ and I used to be homeschoolers. Am I right, C$? Well, anyhow, I was. And I spent more than enough time defending it.

But I would not homeschool my children. I'm still dealing with issues from it today. Yes, in more academic fields, I excelled past my schooled counter parts, but there was much that was delayed and pushed back, leading to various inexperiences and anxieties.
I honestly didn't notice it much until later in life. The fact of the matter is, I grew up in a bubble of my parent's design. An artificial environment. It's really hard to try rewriting yourself but if I want to survive or succeed, I need to undo what was done by homeschooling.
I'm not saying homeschooling is across the board disastrous, but it gives an inordinate amount of power to the parents and my parents spent most of their energy raising a child and not a man.


I don't know. This must be the umpteenth time editing this post. I didn't realize opening this subject up would let out so much emotion and anxiety. I feel it crushing me. I feel like breaking down. What's the deal with me?
Sometimes, I just can't even; I'm just odd.
What a terrible pun.

Sorry.

Whatever.
Pew Pew Pew. Science.

RoA: Kratimos/Lycan
UnHuman: Tim

User avatar
Orodrist
CCGR addict
Posts: 7836
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 6:38 pm
Location: Surrounded by blood and bathed in fire on a frozen lake

Re: The United Kingdom has banned the teaching of creationis

Postby Orodrist » Fri Jun 20, 2014 8:29 pm

or that the world is formed from the body of the Giant Ymir according to Norse myth in science.
BLASPHEMY!

<_<


But yeah, another homeschooler. Sure I had a decent education. I also had enough time in isolation to turn ax crazy and my rule for social interactions is be polite, be professional, and have a plan to kill everybody I meet. The gods know I might have turned out the same way in public school, but at least I'd have ended up locked up <_<
I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do - Robert A Heinlein

Courage ~ Discipline ~ Fidelity ~ Honor ~ Hospitality ~ Industriousness ~ Perseverance ~ Self Reliance ~

User avatar
Bruce_Campbell
Master Gamer
Master Gamer
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:00 am

Re: The United Kingdom has banned the teaching of creationis

Postby Bruce_Campbell » Fri Jun 20, 2014 9:03 pm

Homeschooler here. My experience wasn't a nightmare, but it wasn't ideal. A lot of things came back to bite me in the butt as an adult. I think there should be some regulation.
A vegan atheist walks into a bar. Bartender says "Hey, are you a vegan atheist? Just kidding, you've mentioned it like eight times already."

User avatar
ArchAngel
CCGR addict
Posts: 3547
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 12:00 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: The United Kingdom has banned the teaching of creationis

Postby ArchAngel » Fri Jun 20, 2014 9:05 pm

I liked it enough at the time, but I've come to realize how woefully unprepared I was.
Pew Pew Pew. Science.

RoA: Kratimos/Lycan
UnHuman: Tim

Sacntus_Incendia
Noob
Noob
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2014 3:06 am

Re: The United Kingdom has banned the teaching of creationis

Postby Sacntus_Incendia » Fri Jun 20, 2014 9:08 pm

How so?


Return to “Spiritual Matters”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron