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.

[fabian]

But alot of parents don't want a theory of evolution taught to their kids without the many holes also taught and without the theory of creationism which has much evidence being hidden from them. They pay the taxes too and many can't afford a christian private school.

[King Prout]

there comes a point of diminishing returns, beyond which additional recapitulation of matters already clearly and thoroughly and repeatedly explained becomes simply too aggravating.

[Ichneumon]

But alot of parents don't want a theory of evolution taught to their kids without the many holes also taught

Could you name, say, five of these "many holes"? And if it turns out that what you list turn out not to be "holes" in the theory of evolution, but "holes" in your understanding of it, will you stop whining about biology being taught in science class?

and without the theory of creationism

There is no such thing as "the theory of creationism". "Theory" has a specific meaning in science, and nothing the creationists have put forth rises anywhere near the level of "theory". What you want to be taught is your *faith*, not a theory. And if we teach *your* particular faith, we'll have to teach all the others too.

which has much evidence being hidden from them.

ROFL! Okay, this ought to be good -- what is this "evidence" for the "theory of creationism" to which you allude? Give me your five best examples. Again, if it turns out that your list is flawed upon closer examination, will you agree to stop trying to influence science teaching without knowing what you're talking about?

They pay the taxes too and many can't afford a christian private school.

I'm all for vouchers. But I hope any decent Christian private school will competently teach science, and not teach the BS that the anti-evolution folks try to ladle on with oversized shovels.

[metmom]

Your thought exercise is basically what I had in mind. I just didn't want to make the post too long. Of course God would know that the Bible is going to be read mainly by people of very limited education, even if they can read. But I believe that He gave the information as accurately as possible, in a way that most people could understand, in as few words as possible and yet be true.

I think that's where some of the issue scientists have with the creation account comes from. I believe that it's true, that it is not a parable or allergory but it could be interpreted that way by some because of it's necessary briefness in dealing with the subject. There simply was not the time, or space, or necessity, to deal with it in the depth needed to give enough details to verify it by today's scientific standards. Since the main message of the Bible is not concerned with the creation of the universe, earth, and man, only enough information is given to explain what follows. It sort of just sets the stage to explain the need for the redemption of man.

[RunningWolf]

BTTT

W.

[King Prout]

there's something which ought to be put on the public record. here is as good a place as any:

I do not consider myself a Christian, as I have no belief I can find within me that a fellow named Yeshua died for my sins. I don't reject the idea, but I'll need

hrmn....

I'm being false, or so my gut tells me.
I'll have to think on this.

I believe I can state that I cannot *espouse* belief in such.

However, I do believe in an entity who can fairly be described as God, with attributes science cannot deal with.

I believe as a result of empiricism, yes - but the data set is entirely personal and cannot be reviewed, tested, verified in any systematic manner or to any satisfactory degree of completion.

As such, I cannot use my personal experience as basis for evangelism or "witnessing" - the best I can do is be what I am called to be, allowing others to see and draw what lessons they may.

What belief I have is not in any way in conflict with natural science, cosmology, or evolution. Those mundane (and, afaik, factual) details have no impact on what is important, so far as I can see.

[King Prout]

I attended high school at a Jesuit school, and they taught natural science in the science classes, (relatively) verifiable history in the history classes, and theology and comparative religious studies in the religion classes.

of course, unlike most public schools, most of my teachers had DOCTORATES in their fields of expertise. And many of them wore the collar. As did my Biology teacher. Who taught the ToE quite cheerfully.

[RunningWolf]

//I don't deny that sometimes the reactions are hot and irrational. It's the case on both sides. But we shouldn't let that detract from the true debate//

I agree bump

W.

[Sola Veritas]

"Plus wouldn't that mean all humans are descendants of Noah. How do you explain black, Chinese, native American people having totally different features?"

Yes, it does mean that all humans today decended from the 4 couples on the Ark (Noah and wife plus 3 sons and their wives). That would ensure sufficient genetic diversity to account for all current races and ethnic groups.

However, I doubt that answer will satisfy you. So, let me make it even harder. Noah wasn't that far removed from Adam and Eve. So, those two had to contain the full genome (except for aberations) as it exists today. That really has to be hard for you to accept.

[RunningWolf]

//those two had to contain the full genome as it exists today// I think I understand what you are saying here Bump.

Actually I understand you. The question is whether I can articulate it back to you

Wolf

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Gosh, can we rule out magic pixies placing them there?

You are the one that has such a user name...

[js1138]

That would ensure sufficient genetic diversity to account for all current races and ethnic groups.

That's fantasy. Not to mention there's only one Y chromosome in the Noah family. We can trace the lineage of Y chromosomes, and it doesn't point to a recent common ancestor.

[Elsie]

Last I looked, Catholics were the original Christians. Fact is, they got about 1,600 years head start on the rest of the folks.

It's time for another look....

---

ACTS 11

25. Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul,
26. and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

[Elsie]

Adam was asleep and God took a rib from Adam to make Eve and brought her to him...

This is why Satan was able to cause her to doubt, asking, "Did God REALLY say....."

The command NOT to eat of the tree was told to Adam BEFORE ol' Eve appeared on the scene.

This is how she was deceived, for she, herself, had not herad the voice of God, only what Adam had (or had not) told her.

---

NIV 2 Corinthians 11:3
But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

NIV Revelation 20:10
And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

[PatrickHenry]

to avoid insulting anyone's creed, let's jump to a harmless substitute: Aesop. I surely hope that not one adult alive today is under the impression that there has ever *actually* been a fox capable of human speech and hungry for grapes... yet, otoh, the truth of that story and its "I bet they're sour anyway" punchline is so evident and applicable to human behavior.

I've never seen Aesop used as an example in that argument before. Very good.

[Elsie]

 I coulda sworn I saw an exhibit showing a lot of intermediate steps between Hyracotherium (aka Eohippus) and modern horses, zebras, asses, etc.

This is evidence that all these species lived on the Earth, and some of the species, at least, merge almost imperceptibly into the "next" one.

 

 

---

An astronomer, a physicist and a mathematician (it is said) were holidaying in Scotland. Glancing from a train window, they observed a black sheep in the middle of a field.

"How interesting," observed the astronomer, "all scottish sheep are black!"

To which the physicist responded, "No, no! Some Scottish sheep are black!"

The mathematician gazed heavenward in supplication, and then intoned, "In Scotland there exists at least one field, containing at least one sheep, at least one side of which is black."

 

[Elsie]

Adam's fossil, which resides in the basement of the British Museum, has one less than Eve's...

[Elsie]

Males and females have the same number of ribs.


1 Corinthians 11:8-9
8. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man;
9. neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

1 Timothy 2:13
For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

[Ichneumon]

[Sorry, that is not the case. We have data and well-supported theory on our side. Here is some of the data. Fossil: KNM-WT 15000]

Turkana Boy?

Yes. That nickname was included in Coyoteman's post, it's not like you figured it out on your own.

He was reconstructed by evolutionists from skull fragments unearthed in Kenya.

This is a bit more than "fragments", son, but then I'm used to anti-evolutionists grossly misrepresenting things:

You then go on to dig yourself even deeper:

Later reconstructions by researchers like Bromage and Dean removed much of what had been previously been considered human traits. See The rise and fall of Skull KNM ER 1470

WRONG!

Congratulations, DaveLoneRanger -- like almost every anti-evolutionist I've ever met, you know so little about these topics that you quickly reveal your incompetence to discuss them, but that doesn't stop you from trying to recklessly *pretend* that you're up to the task and that you're qualified to distinguish valid science from horsecrap.

That creationist link you direct us to describes ANOTHER SPECIMEN ENTIRELY, not the "Turkana Boy" skull designated KNM-WT 15000. The very title of your link should have tipped you off, since it clearly mentions specimen number KNM ER 1470, which even those with really poor reading comprehension should have been able to note is different than KNM-WT 15000.

Your mention of reconstructions by "researchers like Bromage and Dean" refers to the KNM ER 1470 skull, not the KNM-WT 15000 skull (nicknamed "Turkana Boy") which Coyoteman included in his post and which you incompetently are attempting to comment on.

You're talking about an entirely different fossil!!

You also include the link:

Homo erectus 'to' modern man: evolution or human variability?

That's nice, but it doesn't do anything to undercut Coyoteman's point, nor to dispute the material he quoted.

It does, however, contain material that CONTRADICTS THE CLAIM YOU JUST MADE, and SHOWS THAT YOU DIDN'T EVEN BOTHER TO FREAKING READ THE LINK before you included it in your post in an attempt to "dismiss" Coyoteman's post.

Because if you had bothered to read it, you'd have seen that it contradicts your own bone-headed mistake -- you (incorrectly) tried to say this about "Turkana Boy": "Later reconstructions by researchers like Bromage and Dean removed much of what had been previously been considered human traits." But if you had actually *READ* the links you mindlessly stuffed into your post in the hopes that they might, possibly, have some relevance to the discussion, you'd have noticed the following passage in the second link:

"...WT 15000 [now that *is* the "Turkana Boy" skull -- Ich.] is plainly a human being - even in the post-cranial features. [...] In all vital respects WT 15000 was as human as you or I.

Even YOUR OWN LINK blows away your attempted claim about the "Turkana Boy" skull.

You clearly DIDN'T EVEN READ the links you flung at us, because the first one IS ABOUT A DIFFERENT SKULL ENTIRELY, and the second one -- YOUR OWN LINK -- clearly and explicitly CONTRADICTS the claim you just tried to make about "Turkana Boy" reconstructions having "removed much of what had been previously been considered human traits". On the contrary, even your precious AiG in THE LINK YOU YOURSELF POSTED describes it as, and I quote, "as human as you or I".

So how did you do something so monumentally lame as including two links that not only didn't support your claim, but actually *contradicted* your claim? The answer becomes obvious when we Google for any reference to "Turkana Boy" within the popular creationist website "AnswersInGenesis.org": That search turns up ONLY TWO PAGES -- the two you linked. Obviously, you just Googled your favorite creationist site for the name of the skull Coyoteman mentioned, pasted in the links without bothering to see if they were actually relevant or helped "rebut" Coyoteman's post, then you smugly declared victory against evolutionary biology...

Please explain to us why you are using two links YOU DIDN'T BOTHER TO READ in order to merely pretend to "support" FALSE CLAIMS you made about the skull Coyoteman mentioned? And since you were just desperately bluffing like a poker player with a busted flush, why did you feel justified in arrogantly dismissing it with your final line:

Next?

...as if you had blown away Coyoteman's post so utterly that he had to slink away, perchance to try again another day? What kind of dishonesty compells you to behave this way -- to posture and bluster and maybe even believe your own bull***t in such a foolhardy way that you tried to beat your chest using MATERIAL YOU CLEARLY DIDN'T READ well enough to even be sure that it supported your swagger, because NOT ONLY DOES IT NOT, it actually BLOWS AWAY YOUR OWN CLAIM!

Yes, "next" indeed -- you've done this sort of thing before, what will you do to yet again fall on your face *next* time?

Recently you wrote:

People often want to make it "creationists oppose science." Sorry, we oppose certain interpretations of science.

Well, yeah -- you oppose the "certain interpretations" that involve talking about the *right* skull instead of the wrong one and the "interpretations" that involve actually reading and understanding the material you provide in alleged support of your claims... Unlike creationists, on the other hand, real scientists prefer the "certain interpretations" that involve knowing what in the hell they're talking about.

Now, do the honorable thing and ping to this post the ping list you used on your flawed post #512, in order to correct the false information you wrote and pinged them to. I'd do it myself, but I can't read the entirety of the ping list you used, it trails off to "..."

And speaking of honorable things, on your Freeper homepage you provide an out-of-context quote from one of my posts -- why don't you go ahead and turn that quote into a link to the original post, so that readers can see for themselves why I was saying what I did about you in that quote snippet, and that I documented my reasons for saying it? Why not do that, rather than leaving them with the false impression that all I did was some kind of empty ad hominem? Gosh, you wouldn't be trying to mislead your readers, would you? That would be totally uncharacteristic behavior for an anti-evolutionist... Oh, wait, no it wouldn't.

Do the right thing for a change and alert your ping list to this post, and turn the quote in your Freeper homepage into a link to the post from which it comes.

[Elsie]

 

 
BARF ALERT!!

 

Or spiritual faries pulling them out of your bum? 

 

Or The Invisible, Pink Unicorn creating them in an orderly fashion in sync with the Universe aging?