Creationism to be taught on GCSE science syllabus (you can't keep a good idea down)

The Times of London ^ | 10 March 2006 | Tony Halpin

[Greg o the Navy]

AN EXAMINATIONS board is including references to “creationism” in a new GCSE science course for schools.

[From many - one.]

Well, what is it?

I offered in post 453 to analyse a piece of your evidence. You haven't presented any to me yet.

[js1138]

It is NOT a uniquely individual set of properties.

Then the common set of properties associated with creation science seems to result in a myriad of conflicting histories. Denton, the author of Evolution, A Theory In Crisis, believes that the mainstream description of natural history is completely accurate. Behe accepts the mainstream age of the earth and common descent.

[Coyoteman]

The problem is, your evidence goes back to the bible and to your belief in it and in its accuracy.

Wrong!

OK, a little research. In #456 above you cited a series of websites for the creationist side of the story.

The first link you provided was Answers in Genesis.

The first (lead) article on their site today is:

The battle for men’s souls: part 2:

What can the concerned, Bible-believing Christian conclude from the AAAS conference, and how might we respond to its challenges?

It looks like my statement was not so wrong after all. The first source you cited helps disprove your point.

[VadeRetro]

1) Archaeopteryx is a bird, just a bird... unless it's just a dinosaur with faked feathers.

2) The flood waters came from the fountains of the deep... unless they came from the vapor canopy.

3) There were no real mountains pre-flood, says Dr. Walt Brown, since they formed in post flood tectonic disruptions of astonishing proportions... unless there were real mountains, which gave the flood something to cover (say most other YECs).

4) The flood sediments can be found at (fill in anything you want here) in the geologic column.

And so forth.

[VadeRetro]

"...the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God's Word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture."

Henry Morris, Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science
(1970) p.32-33

Flood Predictions.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Le's just dismiss the evidence and call it not evidence because you say so,...

No. Let's not call it evidence just because you say it is.

You have no evidence whatsoever that any species is indigenous to this earth - - none. Nor do you have any evidence that differences in such species is influenced (or engineered) by extraterrestrial intelligence.

You believe the universe revolves around this pathetic ball of dirt we call Earth.

Evolution is a faith based theory...

[Elsie]

2) quoting the bible (Elsie comes to mind, so I am pinging him)

Yeah.... who else (eee)? ;^)

[LiteKeeper]

The evidence validates the Scriptural record, but the evidence is extra-Biblical. And the conclusions drawn are from the evidence, not from the Scriptural record. You have the cart before the horse.

Creationists look at the same evidence that evolutionists look at. They draw conclusions from their research. As it happens, frequently the conclusions drawn validate the Scriptures...but are not the basis for the conclusions.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

The evolutionists still think the Earth is the center of the Universe.

Evolutionists make the fallacious assumption this planet is the starting point for all life and is the encapsulated center of the universe unaffected by anything (or anyone) beyond it. It is akin to saying the sun revolves around the earth.

Not at all scientific of them; it is a faith based theory no different in logical fallacy than creationism in the ‘appeal to false authority.’

What do evolutionists think about teaching the idea that life may have originated from outer space? They already do teach the Big Bang theory, which is an Immaculate Conception.

Bullcrap...

[Coyoteman]

Evolution is a faith based theory...

From an NSF abstract:

As with all scientific knowledge, a theory can be refined or even replaced by an alternative theory in light of new and compelling evidence. The geocentric theory that the sun revolves around the earth was replaced by the heliocentric theory of the earth's rotation on its axis and revolution around the sun. However, ideas are not referred to as "theories" in science unless they are supported by bodies of evidence that make their subsequent abandonment very unlikely. When a theory is supported by as much evidence as evolution, it is held with a very high degree of confidence.

In science, the word "hypothesis" conveys the tentativeness inherent in the common use of the word "theory.' A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world. Through experiment and observation, hypotheses can be supported or rejected. At the earliest level of understanding, hypotheses can be used to construct more complex inferences and explanations. Like "theory," the word "fact" has a different meaning in science than it does in common usage. A scientific fact is an observation that has been confirmed over and over. However, observations are gathered by our senses, which can never be trusted entirely. Observations also can change with better technologies or with better ways of looking at data. For example, it was held as a scientific fact for many years that human cells have 24 pairs of chromosomes, until improved techniques of microscopy revealed that they actually have 23. Ironically, facts in science often are more susceptible to change than theories, which is one reason why the word "fact" is not much used in science.

Finally, "laws" in science are typically descriptions of how the physical world behaves under certain circumstances. For example, the laws of motion describe how objects move when subjected to certain forces. These laws can be very useful in supporting hypotheses and theories, but like all elements of science they can be altered with new information and observations.

Those who oppose the teaching of evolution often say that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact." This statement confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.

Modified from RadioAstronomers's post #27 on another thread.

ps. I didn't see the word faith in there anywhere.

[Elsie]

I guess the main biblical complaint is that it doesn't 'address' science, as such.

True, there isn't much detail, but overviews of grand concepts.

Unlike fractals, where zooming in shows basically the same stuff, the Bible COULD do that, I suppose, if increasing detail would actually cause more folks to turn to God, but it appears that was neither the writers nor the compilers intent.

What's baffling on the other side, the more 'detail' they know, the less inclined they are to give God credit for it.

Go figger.

[VadeRetro]

There's no point in trying to spin it. The Scriptural record was there before and your conclusions were cast in stone when somebody decided it had to be read as a science book. How you get there from the unsupportive data is a matter of personal art. Hence the divergent circus acrobatics I cited just previously.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

The flood waters came from the fountains of the deep... unless they came from the vapor canopy.

Or, from outer space, as the Big Bang theory suggests all matter originated from... last time I checked water is H₂O and still scientifically considered to be matter.

Evolutionists make the fallacious assumption this planet is the starting point for all life and is the encapsulated center of the universe unaffected by anything (or anyone) beyond it. It is akin to saying the sun revolves around the earth.

Not at all scientific of them; it is a faith based theory no different in logical fallacy than creationism in the ‘appeal to false authority.’

What do evolutionists think about teaching the idea that life may have originated from outer space? They already do teach the Big Bang theory, which is really an Immaculate Conception.

[Coyoteman]

What's baffling on the other side, the more 'detail' they know, the less inclined they are to give God credit for it.

Go figger.

I disagree. The attitude I see more often here is that evolutionists see God's hand in evolution.

Perhaps they just think that the bible oversimplifies some details and get a few others wrong.

Perhaps, as Catholics do, they are giving the bible a little more leeway, and not such a strict interpretation?

[js1138]

What exactly do you mean by outer space? I realize it's a common term, but what do you mean by it?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Evolutionists make the fallacious assumption this planet is the starting point for all life...."

Evolutionary biology doesn't even pretend to touch on the origins of life. That being said, do you have any evidence that the assumption that the life we see on earth originated on earth is fallacious? What evidence is there that the life we see on earth started somewhere else?

"... and is the encapsulated center of the universe unaffected by anything (or anyone) beyond it."

This is nonsense. Please supply some supporting evidence that ANY evolutionary biologist has ever said that the earth is the center of the universe, or that the earth is unaffected by anything beyond it?

"What do evolutionists think about teaching the idea that life may have originated from outer space?"

Forgetting for a second that the origins of life are outside of the ToE, scientists HAVE considered the idea that life may have originated from somewhere else in outer space. As far as teaching it though, there is simply no evidence that life DID originate from anywhere other than the earth. The origins of life are however hardly touched on at all in most classrooms; it is taught as something that has no answer yet. Why do you concentrate on something that gets maybe 2-3 sentences in a biology classroom?

"They already do teach the Big Bang theory, which is an Immaculate Conception."

No, it's the best theory we have on the origins of the universe. It also has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. In fact, the earlier Steady State theory was better for evolution that the Big Bang. The Big Bang, unlike the Steady State, puts a constraint on the amount of time that evolution has to work. The Steady State provided infinite amounts of time as the universe was thought to be eternal. Again, why do you bring up the Big Bang when it has nothing to do with evolution?

I am still waiting for your critique of something that has to do with the ToE, as apposed to theories about the origins of the universe or of life.

[VadeRetro]

Crickets still strangely chirping on this post even as I am chided for post 85 just above. So odd, the workings ...

[VadeRetro]

Or, from outer space, as the Big Bang theory suggests all matter originated from... last time I checked water is H2O and still scientifically considered to be matter.

Fine! A new one. The flood water came from the fountains of the deep, or the vapor canopy, or outer space. More diversity! Evidently, your diversity is your strength.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

What exactly do you mean by outer space? I realize it's a common term, but what do you mean by it?

Extraterrestrial - - not of the Earth (the planet Terra).

[Virginia-American]

Me: I just want anything taught as science to be backed by a consensus of scientists.

FC: IOW, you're happy with the status quo.

I think that's appropriate for HS-level science. They need to learn well-established facts and theories.