CMI article image.
Posted on 03/10/2014 8:49:30 AM PDT by fishtank
The attack on biblical creation in UK schools continues
by Phil Robinson
Published: 9 March 2014 (GMT+10)
CMI have frequently published articles regarding the unbalanced way in which creationism is dealt with at Government level, and in some instances banned in the UK education system.1,2,3,4 Only a few weeks ago, we ran with an article, appealing to End bad science and discrimination in education policies. The attacks are relentless and display a level of aggressive intolerance that is hard to stomach, coming as they do from the self-proclaimed ‘voices of reason’.
Four recent news stories from the UK demonstrate the manner in which the offensive continues:
In Kirktonholme primary school, East Kilbride, Scotland, Headteacher Alexandra MacKenzie and her deputy Elizabeth Mockus were redeployed to backroom duties while an investigation was to be carried out. A number of parents had complained about two books which had been handed out to their children during a school assembly. One answered the question ‘How you know God is real?’, and the other was titled ‘Exposing the myth of evolution’.5,6
A parent and also a Member of the Scottish Parliament have called for an investigation, after a physics teacher, Leonard Rogers, during a discussion on the big bang with his class at a school in Midlothian, informed them that evolution was not proven. Apparently, he also told the class that he was a Christian with strong creationist beliefs.7
As a result of the first two news stories, the Scottish Secular Society called for the ban of creationism in science classes in Scottish schools. While they acknowledged that they had no issue with pupils understanding that not everyone accepts evolution, they stated that the only place that creationism had in Scottish schools was “within a discussion context in religious and moral education classes”.8
More at link.....
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
CMI article image.
Biblical Creationism should be taught in philosophy and/or theology classes. I think looking at different lenses of what Reality means and How we got here is a great mental exercise.
But it is no more proper in science than any other creation story.
I’ll believe they’re serious about wanting ToE and Creationism treated equally when they start referring to it as “the theory of Biblical creation”.
Ask your embarrassing questions.
Just don’t harass me for providing scientific answers.
Note: AIG is not a scientific publication.
Roger that. Like “throw some chemicals together and create even the most “simple” single celled life, as you claim happened.” It’s called the “Law of Biogenesis” for a reason.
And “provide even one incontrovertible example of macroevolution.”
The point is, evolution is just as much “faith-based” as creation, but it has become the de facto state religion. Along with the religion of homosexuality, of course.
i’d say it requires an even greater degree of faith than Christianity.
for evolution you must believe:
1) something came from nothing
2) life comes from lifelessness.
that’s faith, brother!
By replacing it creationism, which is no science at all?
Hey, news flash, this is from CMI, not AIG.
Look at the two sites and tell me if you see a difference.
The lack of freedom of speech or thought is even worse there than what it has become here.
CORRECTION:
Evolution and abiogenesis should be taught in philosophy and/or theology classes. I think looking at different lenses of what Reality means and How we got here is a great mental exercise.
But it is no more proper in science than any other creation story.
It’s merely a world view, not actual science. It’s guesswork about what happened in the past. It fails the Scientific Method because it hasn’t ever been observed. It certainly wasn’t observed by anyone millions or billions of years ago.
>>Roger that. Like “throw some chemicals together and create even the most “simple” single celled life, as you claim happened.” It’s called the “Law of Biogenesis” for a reason.<<
TToE is no more reliant on Abiogenesis than physics, geology, astronomy or chemistry. If you do not hold them to that standard you cannot hold TToE to it.
>>And “provide even one incontrovertible example of macroevolution.”<<
Your use of “incontrevertible” makes this semantically null. Human beings are the best example.
>>The point is, evolution is just as much “faith-based” as creation, but it has become the de facto state religion. <<
Just like electronics, engineering and medicine are “faith-based.”
>>Along with the religion of homosexuality, of course.<<
Got non-sequiteur?
>>for evolution you must believe:
1) something came from nothing
2) life comes from lifelessness.
that’s faith, brother!<<
That is abiogenesis, not TToE.
Learn your science before attacking it.
for evolution you must believe:
1) something came from nothing
2) life comes from lifelessness.
that’s faith, brother!*
The odds of even a single cell organism coming about by chance has been calculated as being 1 in 10 to the 100,000th power against.
Scientists plus billions of dollars over the course of 5 or 6 decades have failed to produce life from scratch when they have all the ingredients and lab equipment at their disposal.
Seems quite a stretch to think that it happened by chance.
Seems a little hard to believe that any of the first male creatures just happened to evolve in exactly the same way as another female creature at exactly the same time during that last few billion years.
Seems hard to believe that a few guys in white lab coats know more than God and expect you to believe that God is a lair, but the lab coats guys are telling you the truth.
>>It’s merely a world view, not actual science. It’s guesswork about what happened in the past. It fails the Scientific Method because it hasn’t ever been observed. It certainly wasn’t observed by anyone millions or billions of years ago.<<
So astrophysics, geology and planet cosmotology are just guesses as well?
>>Hey, news flash, this is from CMI, not AIG.
Look at the two sites and tell me if you see a difference.<<
Yes, it appears CMI is purely political without pretending to do what AIG self-referentially calls (laughingly) “science.”
>>Hey, news flash, this is from CMI, not AIG.
Look at the two sites and tell me if you see a difference.<<
Yes, it appears CMI is purely political without pretending to do what AIG self-referentially calls (laughingly) “science.”
I know my science.
And something can’t come from nothing as espoused in the Big Bang Theory.
Life can’t come from lifeless matter.
That is the TToE.
You have a LONG way to go...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolution-Creationism-Intelligent-Design.aspx
And you are loosing!
Genesis, too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.