This letter recently appeared on the CADPAG site in support of teaching creationism in schools. 6th September 2004
Hi
It’s good to see parents with genuine concern for the education of their kids. With regard to the so called brainwashing of kids: This has been going on for years through the lie of Darwinism & evolution. Rather than getting into theological discussions (which usually tend to infuriate people for some strange reason especially those who have an aversion to religion-one wonders why it creates anger?) I would recommend an excellent book by the Design Engineer Dr Stuart Burgess, BSc, PhD, CEng, MIMechE called Hallmarks of Design (ISBN 1 903087 31-7)-It would be a welcome corrective to the evolutionary myths that are taught in our state schools!
Not only that, do parents not think that Television, Magazines, Hollywood blockbuster movies etc have a “Brainwashing” effect on their kids but we rarely hear of parents with objections to those-then again it begs the question are the parents already addicted to TV etc themselves. When we see the decline in Christianity & Biblical teaching it is rather easy to see the correlation with rises in Drug or Alcohol abuse, teen pregnancies, over 20 000 Abortions performed per month in UK alone, Divorce rate increasing drastically, self abuse, body piercing tattoos, pornography etc need I go on?
It is rather fanciful to be scared of Christianity considering the British Empire grew & prospered while the nation’s leaders promoted the spread of the faith worldwide. We must not forget that our Queen is defender of the faith which is Christianity NOT other false doctrines such as Islam, Buddhism, Romanist Catholicism, Materialism etc. Secularism is just a fancy name for humanism more accurately known as paganism.
I’d far rather put my faith in the divine authoritative word of God than scientists whose promotion of nonsense such as evolution is absolutely riddled with holes. It was only ever a theory & is not proven but never will since it is a religion itself. Don’t know about anyone else but I know I am not a descendant from an ape. If you ever hear scientists prattle on about millions & millions of years ago then warning lights should appear to you as they are into fantasy land. Thank goodness Columbus didn’t put his faith in scientists the way people (who are too lazy to study & think for themselves) do nowadays.
For another excellent book check out “The Answers Book” by Dr Jonathon D. Sarfati, Carl Weiland & Ken Ham. This book will allow you to take a brief overview of creationism & compare it with evolution theory. Personally I would teach both at school as theories & let the kids come to their own conclusion. I am a qualified Manufacturing Systems Engineer & worked in I.T. but have come to the conclusion that evolution is the theory which has been indoctrinated into the last few generation’s of schoolchildren worldwide (you may be one of these kids who took it all in but then again do we like to admit to being duped?). Evolution requires as much faith as creationism & has been itself an attempt to discredit Christianity & the Genesis account of creation.
I hope you have time to view these excellent books & I’m sure they will answer many questions which you may have about both the theories. I do hope the school turns out a success for all the younger generations in your area for years to come.
God’s blessings & prosperity to all who attend the school & their families I pray
Take care,
Gary (Church of Scotland Ministry Candidate)
And the following are some replies to it.
Reply 1 (From Alan B).
< Gary > It’s good to see parents with genuine concern for the education of their kids.
< Alan B > Yes that’s true, because after the ease with which the fundamentalists snapped up Thorne Grammar School without as much as a murmur from the local community & biased reporting from the regional press; it is indeed encouraging to find people with the guts to stand up for themselves.
< Gary > With regard to the so called brainwashing of kids:
< Alan B > Well, how else would you describe teaching a school full of children that the universe & contents was just “zapped” into existence some 6,000 – 10,000 years ago, when nobody in their right mind would ever believe such crazy stupid thing? If this is not brainwashing than I don’t know what is. The real position is actually worse than this, as anyone who is aware of the true evil of creationism will testify. For not only do they fill the heads of schoolchildren with bronze age biblical nonsense, they also (as part of a two pronged attack) attempt to undermine the child’s faith in established & uncontroversial modern scientific theories using some extremely dishonest & disreputable techniques developed in America & best described by the terms “teach the controversy” (link) & “critical thinking” (link). The effect of these teachings is to perform the equivalent of a scientific lobotomy on the intellectual development of the child. This not only leaves them dangerously exposed to crackpots such as the creationists, it is also, in a modern technological society dependent on scientific knowledge for its wellbeing & development, extremely undesirable.
< G > This has been going on for years through the lie of Darwinism & evolution.
< A B > Yes, people like Gary have repeated over & over again the same old lies about evolutionary theory. Again & again, their arguments have been defeated totally, not once or twice but probably hundreds of times over many decades. Yet here we are in 2004 & have someone coming out with the same rubbish as if nothing had ever happened. If this is not frightening enough, then remember this; the same people are now taking over our schools.
< G > Rather than getting into theological discussions (which usually tend to infuriate people for some strange reason especially those who have an aversion to religion-one wonders why it creates anger?)
< A B > Whenever people like Gary pick a fight with & attempt to defeat modern science using “theological” arguments, the outcome is always the same. To say they are blown out of the water would be the understatement of the year. A much better comparison might be to consider the effect a one-megaton atomic bomb has on a 6 foot fishing boat. Ouch! This is the real reason why Gary has decided to avoid this issue!
< G > I would recommend an excellent book by the Design Engineer Dr Stuart Burgess, BSc, PhD, CEng, MIMechE called Hallmarks of Design (ISBN 1 903087 31-7)-It would be a welcome corrective to the evolutionary myths that are taught in our state schools!
< A B > The history of the creationism versus modern science controversy is peppered with individuals who, whilst highly qualified in their own individual fields, are not qualified in subjects such as evolution. Although this doe not disqualify them from engaging in the debate, it nonetheless remains true that their understanding of evolutionary theory may be no better than that of someone working in a bank or on a building site. What gives them a right to assume an academic status in the field of evolution?
Before the reader is tempted to waste their hard earned money on this book they might consider reading some of the criticisms & reviews of it, some of these can be found at Amazon & New Humanist
Note: As www newhumanist org uk volume117issue2 1 June 2002 is no longer available, it is reproduced here – Creationism Expounded
Finally, to understand where Burgess is really coming from, consider that he said, Einstein's Theory of general relativity is "not only wrong, it is probably the work of Satan". This would not be the same theory of general relativity that is used to ensure the accuracy of satellite navigation & positioning systems by any chance? Or the same theory which the renowned physicist, Roger Penrose has described as being confirmed to an error of no more than about 10 raised to the power of -14 & making it in this sense the most accurately tested theory known to science?
< G > Not only that, do parents not think that Television, Magazines, Hollywood blockbuster movies etc have a “Brainwashing” effect on their kids but we rarely hear of parents with objections to those-then again it begs the question are the parents already addicted to TV etc themselves. When we see the decline in Christianity & Biblical teaching it is rather easy to see the correlation with rises in Drug or Alcohol abuse, teen pregnancies, over 20 000 Abortions performed per month in UK alone, Divorce rate increasing drastically, self abuse, body piercing tattoos, pornography etc need I go on?
< A B > If Gary believes that there is a problem with say excessive violence on TV then I believe this is a valid concern & something he is perfectly entitled to voice his legitimate opinions on. However, why should he use this as an excuse to justify corrupting the teaching of science with religious nonsense? It is irrational for people like Gary to blame evolution for the perceived ills of our society. And before anyone points out that this is not what he has said, I will note that Gary has stopped short of making this allegation. However, anyone familiar with these issues will tell you, the internet is overflowing with religious websites accusing scientists of causing the so-called decline in the morality of our society & that at the end of the day this is what Gary really meant. I am personally sick & tired of having to read such nonsense & it is about time that the perpetuators were confronted with their lies. How sad it is, that in a world of unending strife & turmoil, these people find it necessary to single out one of the only areas of sanity & reason, then attack it like this.
As to Gary’s assertion that drug & alcohol abuse has risen as Christianity has declined, it should be pointed out that some of the worst stories I have ever read about these issues originated in the slums of London during the nineteenth century, when Christianity was at its height. From some accounts, many people lived in a drunken haze, with violence, poverty & prostitution commonplace.
< G > It is rather fanciful to be scared of Christianity considering the British Empire grew & prospered while the nation’s leaders promoted the spread of the faith worldwide.
< A B > Let’s make one thing very clear, Gary & other creationists do not under any circumstances represent Christian mainstream thinking on the issues of cosmology, evolution, geology, astronomy or any other areas of scientific endeavours that conflict with their biblical literalism. Most Christians in this country accept these theories without a problem. Therefore, people who are opposing the spread of creationism are not opposing Christians & therefore have nothing to fear from them. In fact, many of the people who are so strongly objecting to the creationist movement are Christians. Some are theologians who believe that creationism is bringing Christianity into disrepute & others are Christian scientists who believe creationism is bringing science into disrepute as well.
< G > We must not forget that our Queen is defender of the faith which is Christianity NOT other false doctrines such as Islam, Buddhism, Romanist Catholicism, Materialism etc. Secularism is just a fancy name for humanism more accurately known as paganism.
< A B > Do we really need people like this running our schools? Incidentally, Microsoft Encarta dictionary clearly defines secularism as;
“Exclusion of religion from public affairs: the belief that religion and religious bodies should have no part in political or civic affairs or in running public institutions, especially schools; the rejection of religion or its exclusion from a philosophical or moral system”. Given that secularism is clearly a complete rejection of religion, how then is it possible for it to be another name for paganism (a form of religion)?
< G > I’d far rather put my faith in the divine authoritative word of God
< A B > Which one? There are loads of them & they are all different!
< G > than scientists whose promotion of nonsense such as evolution is absolutely riddled with holes.
< A B > Most scientific theories come under a lot of scrutiny before they are accepted as the established version of events. Evolution is no different. In fact, evolution has been subject to more scrutiny & criticism than most. Yet it has emerged unscathed from all this & the whole process can quite rightly be said to have strengthened it.
< G > It was only ever a theory
< A B > General Relativity is “only” a theory, but as pointed out above it is nevertheless extremely accurate. It is also a very interesting & useful theory that helps physicists, astronomers & cosmologists understand the world we live in. Likewise, with evolution, that it can be described as a theory detracts nothing from the fact that it is the one & only premier description of how life evolved over millions of years on this planet. To denounce evolution as “only a theory” is then to reveal ones own complete ignorance of the subject.
< G > & is not proven
< A B > Rubbish
< G > but never will since it is a religion itself.
< A B > Pure horse-shit
< G > Don’t know about anyone else but I know I am not a descendant from an ape.
< A B > Nobody ever said you were. More precisely the scientists have said is that humans & apes share a common ancestor.
< G > If you ever hear scientists prattle on about millions & millions of years ago then warning lights should appear to you as they are into fantasy land.
< A B > The reason scientists can talk about “millions of year”, is that there is a massive amount of overwhelming evidence pointing to it. For instance, the age of the universe can be computed from its size & expansion rate. This works out at approximately 15 billion years. If Gary has any evidence to the contrary, then he should present it.
< G > Thank goodness Columbus didn’t put his faith in scientists the way people (who are too lazy to study & think for themselves) do nowadays.
< A B > This is nothing but an insult to the many scientists who are often the intellectual cream of their communities, who worked hard at school, studied diligently to get through university & whose ability to think for themselves is the main reason we know as much as we do about the natural world.
< G > For another excellent book check out “The Answers Book” by Dr Jonathon D. Sarfati, Carl Weiland & Ken Ham.
< A B > Ken Ham theories have been blown apart by scientists on the internet; who cares less what he or his mates thinks.
< G > This book will allow you to take a brief overview of creationism & compare it with evolution theory. Personally I would teach both at school as theories & let the kids come to their own conclusion.
< A B > That is impossible, there is no scientific of creationism, so how can you teach it? All you end up doing is destroying the integrity & quality of the real scientific information being imparted. It would be like teaching children that the earth is both flat & round at the same time.
< G > I am a qualified Manufacturing Systems Engineer & worked in I.T.
< A B > In other words you know nothing about evolution.
< G > but have come to the conclusion that evolution is the theory which has been indoctrinated into the last few generation’s of schoolchildren worldwide
< A B > Children are taught evolution, not indoctrinated with it. Would you assert the teaching of say geography as indoctrination?
< G > (you may be one of these kids who took it all in but then again do we like to admit to being duped?)
< A B > Now Gary is mind reading.
< G > Evolution requires as much faith as creationism
< A B > To believe evolution all you have to do is look at the EVIDENCE. There is a massive amount of evidence in support of evolution. There is no evidence at all for young or old earth creationism.
< G > & has been itself an attempt to discredit Christianity & the Genesis account of creation.
< A B > rubbish
< G > I hope you have time to view these excellent books & I’m sure they will answer many questions which you may have about both the theories. I do hope the school turns out a success for all the younger generations in your area for years to come.
< A B > A success for whom, society or the creationists?
Reply 2 From Mike Brass. (Author of “The Antiquity of Man”).
School children are required to learn the fundamental principles of scientific analyses for a number of reasons, including which are honing analytical skills and equipping them with a basic understanding of the biological functioning of the world around them. If any of them wish to pursue careers such as paleontology, archaeology, palaeoanthropology, zoology, chemistry, biology, et al., they need to have mastered the observed principles that life forms have and do alter over time. Such speciation changes have been observed on numerous occasions.
The mere mention of the word evolution conjures up images either of the workings of the natural world or of propagandist materialism in people’s minds. To put it into perspective, the contrast is between changes in allele frequency over time and observed speciation, and science force-fitted into personal belief systems. Alleles are alternate characters in genetic material and are integral to the process of speciation. Microevolution is the changes in allele frequency within a species, whereas speciation is macroevolution and alleles are not exchanged between populations under natural settings. The difference in allele frequency grows the further back in time the search for a common ancestor extends. The molecular clock, with its neutral proteins, is related to this process and the timing of the chimpanzee, gorilla and human split has been estimated through analysing the amino acid sequence differences of the protein albumin. The creative process of evolution is complex and installs a sense of wonder.
The common denominator of all creationist movements is the deep-rooted conviction that only their religion is true and that their interpretation of a particular religious tract is the most accurate. This has the effect of creationism being a highly fragmented religious stream of thought seeking support for their views in the geological and fossil records (natural science), as they want the benefit of scientific authority without the responsibility of its method. In order to accomplish their goal of preaching and brainwashing, creationists seek to refute the ruling paradigm of evolution by whatever means possible: from claiming evolution is merely a “faith” to actively promoting variant forms of creation “science” in public arenas outside the realms of academic journals. Readers are encouraged to visit the http://www.talkorigins.org website where various creationist arguments are listed, explained and rebutted in great detail; printed materials which cover this arena include Godfrey (1983), Scott (1997) and Strahler (1999).
Mainstream evolutionary science does not pass judgement on personal religious beliefs which are outside the realm of science, despite the protests of some prominent atheists. All mainstream churches, including the Roman Catholic Church and Pope John Paul II, regard creationism as unscientific and do not view a conflict between the findings of scientists and the Christian Bible. Saint Augustine, who lived before evolution became the dominant theory, also disagreed with a literal interpretation of the Bible. Anyone wishing to locate and read counter-arguments to Intelligent Design are encourage to obtain a copy of this book:
Pennock, R. (ed.) 2001. Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives. London: MIT Press
Those readers curious to explore how a prominent biologist has reconciled his scientific views and Christian beliefs, with his reaction against the creationist movement as a whole, should read:
Miller, K. 1999. Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution
How evolution is defined and recognised in the fossil and gene records is not fully understood by the general public beyond generalities. Schools, particularly in North America where the vast majority of creationist organisations are based, need to improve the quality and quantity of their evolutionary science teachings. The public know changes occur in nature, yet this is normally where their understanding peters out. Evolution is essentially the change in gene (allele) frequency over time, which began to operate after life first began. The origin of life is the realm of the separate scientific discipline of abiogenesis. Creationism attempts to link abiogenesis, cosmology and evolution under the broad banner of “evolution” but, as can be seen from the basic definition of evolution, that is nothing more than a misinformed stab in the dark which reveals a distinct lack of knowledge about the theory against which they are arguing. Evolutionary theories propose mechanisms to interpret these changes. In this regard confusion arises between scientists and the general public. As expressed eloquently by Dr. Eugenie Scott, head of the National Centre for Science Education in America, “the problem is that ‘theory’ and ‘fact’ are used differently in science and among the public. In science, a theory is a logical construct of facts, hypotheses, and laws that explains a natural phenomenon. To the general public, however, a theory is not an explanation, but a hunch or guess. To teach evolution as a theory in this sense is to teach it as something students don’t have to take seriously” (Scott 1997: 278).
In “Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism,” Kitcher (1982: 37) puts forward a wonderful definition of the scientific method: “Theories are collections of statements. The observational consequences of a theory are statements that have to be true if the statements belonging to the theory are all true. These observational consequences also have to be statements whose truth or falsity can be ascertained by direct observation. Any theory that has a false observational consequence must contain some false statement (or statements). For if all the statements in the theory were true, then, according to the standard definitions of deductive validity and observational consequence, any observational consequence would also have to be true. Hence, if a theory is found to have a false observational consequence, we must conclude that one or more statements of the theory is false.”
In other words, good scientific theories have observational predictions that would falsify all or components of a theory should they prove to be incorrect. Quality online introductions to evolutionary biology, detailing the evidence for evolutionary change, are to be found at http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html and http://www.ncseweb.org . Both websites contain numerous other materials which will assist the reader both in understanding the issues surrounding the creation-evolution "debate" as well as provide a solid grounding in the overwhelming evidence for the fact and theory of evolution.
There is a charge which needs answering in particular. Gary states, "When we see the decline in Christianity & Biblical teaching it is rather easy to see the correlation with rises in Drug or Alcohol abuse, teen pregnancies, over 20 000 Abortions performed per month in UK alone, Divorce rate increasing drastically, self abuse, body piercing tattoos, pornography etc need I go on?" How then does he explain the rampant drug (especially opium) abuse which occurred in Victorian England ? How does he explain the common behaviour of women and men having extra-marital affairs also prior to Darwin ? How does he explain the exploitation of other human beings, slavery, which were justified at the time through passages from the Bible ? It appears moral decay is in the eyes of the beholder.
I would like to end off by illustrating how the evidence for human evolution is overwhelming and irrefutable, based upon anatomical and genetic analyses:
The anatomical characteristics that link the australopithecines to Homo, and show their intermediate form between modern humans and the last common ancestor between humans and chimpanzees, include: The canines of the australopithecines do not project much further forward in relation to the other teeth than they do in Homo.
Australopithecine canines also show a decrease in sexual size differences over time – the more recent forms are more like the condition of modern humans. Tooth enamel progresses to a more Homo-like thickness over time. Wear patterns on australopithecine teeth suggest a “crushing” action, similar to that of Homo; The cranial capacity of the australopithecines increases to a capacity range approaching that of early Homo.
The australopithecine foramen magnum, which allows the spinal cord to connect with the base of the brain, is located more toward the base of the skull than in apes, yet not completely under the skull, as in Homo -, except for in the robust australopithecines (also known as Paranthropus) where it was just as in Homo.
The features of the tibiae (orientation angle, thickness and internal structure) shared by australopithecines and Homo reflect the demands placed on their bodies by bipedalism.
The anatomical similarities between chimpanzees and anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens) can be summarized as follows:
In both species, the rib cage is broad from side to side and shallow from front to back; the rib cage extends back beyond the vertebral column.
Both have a dorsally-placed scapula and shoulder joints facing outward to the side, giving humans a mobile shoulder joint; a hangover from our arboreal ancestry.
The positioning and angle of the humeral shaft and humeral head and other joints in the forelimb are the same in both species
===========
Mikey Brass
MA in Archaeology student
"The Antiquity of Man" http://www.antiquityofman.com
Book: "The Antiquity of Man: Artifactual, fossil and gene records explored"
- "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would it?"
(Albert Einstein)
Reply 3 (From Ian Robinson).
< Ian > Some thoughts and observations on the post from Gary (6th September).
< Gary > This has been going on for years through the lie of Darwinism & evolution.
< Ian > This statement is incorrect on many levels. Firstly the amount of evolution actually taught in schools is very minimal. Indeed it has been suggested, correctly in my opinion, that the biology curriculum in use in the UK should be revised to place more emphasis on the evolutionary foundations of the subject. As the geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution".
Secondly, current evolutionary theory is no more a lie than the theory of gravitation, the theory of plate tectonics or the heliocentric model of the Solar System. Perhaps our esteemed ministry candidate also believes that these theories are some sort of lie that is being imposed on children by science?
The modern theory of evolution is known as the modern synthesis. This is because it is derived from evidence in many scientific disciplines. These include, but are not limited to, biochemistry, palaeontology, genetics, biology, anatomy, geology, and many others. The evidence from these disciplines would, singly, be highly supportive of the fact that populations of organisms evolve over time. Taken as a whole the evidence from these myriad areas of science is simply overwhelming. Life evolves. This observation is simply inescapable.
Why this fact should be so threatening to some, but not all, people who profess a faith in a deity is not a question I am equipped to answer. I do find it disturbing that such people who say they follow a doctrine that includes the commandment "You shall not lie" seem to think it acceptable to ignore the overwhelming evidence for the fact of evolution. I suspect that many don't actually understand what evolution is. Those that do are willing to lie about it for some reason.
< Gary > Rather than getting into theological discussions (which usually tend to infuriate people for some strange reason especially those who have an aversion to religion-one wonders why it creates anger?)
< Ian > You would do well not to get into theological discussions on this point. You would lose. Every time that religion has attempted to dictate how the Universe should be, in contradiction to the evidence delivered by the scientific method, it has lost. From the flat Earth, through the Earth is the centre of the Universe belief, to the humans are different from other animals assertion. All, and others, have been shown to be false.
< Gary > I would recommend an excellent book by the Design Engineer Dr Stuart Burgess, BSc, PhD, CEng, MIMechE called Hallmarks of Design (ISBN 1 903087 31-7)-It would be a welcome corrective to the evolutionary myths that are taught in our state schools!
< Ian > Whilst I'm sure that Dr. Burgess is an excellent mechanical engineer I'm left wondering how this qualifies him to write about biology. Are any of his degrees in subjects related to biology or related fields? I would also encourage readers to read the above book (though I would caution against buying it - use the inter-library loan system to get a copy). It will show you the doublespeak and hand-waving away of evidence that is common in the creationist and intelligent design advocates camps.
After reading the above book readers should consider reading "Climbing Mount Improbable" by Richard Dawkins (ISBN 0-670-85018-7). Again this should be available from libraries. In this book Professor Dawkins, who actually has expertise in the topic at hand, outlines how animal characteristics which appear designed are in fact examples of designoid features resulting from evolution by natural selection.
< Gary > When we see the decline in Christianity & Biblical teaching it is rather easy to see the correlation with rises in Drug or Alcohol abuse, teen pregnancies, over 20 000 Abortions performed per month in UK alone, Divorce rate increasing drastically, self abuse, body piercing tattoos, pornography etc need I go on?
< Ian > Please do. You are damned by your own words. A common occurrence with fundamentalists. We see the true colours of our esteemed ministry candidate coming to the fore here. The implication is that society today needs taken back into the control of the self appointed guardians of our morals. They think that by taking control of schools they will have a captive impressionable fertile ground on which to sew their stone age mythology. I recall that the last time we let religion dictate how we should think and act is known as "The dark ages".
< Gary > We must not forget that our Queen is defender of the faith which is Christianity NOT other false doctrines such as Islam, Buddhism, Romanist Catholicism, Materialism etc.
< Ian > So basically anyone not a member of our correspondents particular sect. It's interesting how our minister candidate thinks he can get to choose who the true Christians are. I'm sure all those Roman Catholics he mentions above will be delighted to know that they have been wrong all these years. You're not really Christians. Why? Because Gary and his narrow sect say so!
< Ian > live in Belfast. I've seen the nonsense that goes on when religion is allowed to be used as a tool for division. Do the people of GB really want to sew the seeds of religious division by allowing people with the bigoted views of Gary to have any say in the education of children?
< Gary > Secularism is just a fancy name for humanism more accurately known as paganism.
< Ian > Not bad. Three separate outlooks, only 2 of which are actually belief systems, conflated to be the same thing. Just cause Gary says so? It must be true. After all Gary knows all doesn't he?
< Gary > I'd far rather put my faith in the divine authoritative word of God
< Ian > Which is fine. Everybody can believe whatever particular fairy story they like. You have chosen to believe in the stone age one that originated in the middle east. I'll defend your right to believe this, whilst thinking it is nonsense. I do not however have any time for people of your ilk who wish to proselytise your myths to children by "buying" schools.
< Gary > than scientists whose promotion of nonsense such as evolution is absolutely riddled with holes.
< Ian > This turns out not to be the case. I expect that our ministry candidate has a very shallow understanding of evolutionary theory.
< Gary > It was only ever a theory & is not proven
< Ian > This is actually true. Evolutionary theory IS only a theory. In much the same way that all the rest of science is only a theory. As theories go however, the modern synthesis theory has so much evidence supporting it that it is very unlikely that the basic postulates will change. Sure the fine detail will change as we learn more about the molecular workings in cells etc. but the basic fact that animals evolve over generations is unlikely to change.
< Ian > It will never be proved as science does not prove things. What it does is provide the best explanations at a given time to fit the data we see in the universe around us. All the evidence we see in the biota on Earth points to evolution being a fact.
< Gary > but never will since it is a religion itself.
< Ian > This is simply not true and is one of the usual canards tossed out by creationists to try and muddy the waters. Evolutionary theory is the same as every other scientific theory in that it is subject to experimentation and falsification. It is the best explanation we have for the biodiversity we see on Earth today and in the fossil record.
< Gary > Don't know about anyone else but I know I am not a descendant from an ape.
< Ian > Both humans (Homo sapiens) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) are both descended from a common ancestor. You are, we all are, in fact descended from an "ape-like" animal that inhabited the African continent approximately 10 million years ago. Why you should find this so upsetting is a mystery to me. It doesn't make any of use any less human.
< Gary > If you ever hear scientists prattle on about millions & millions of years ago then warning lights should appear to you as they are into fantasy land.
< Ian > This turns out not to be the case. Many independent dating methods can be used to date fossils, artefacts, the Earth, The Solar System and the Universe. They are both independent and consistent in the dates they return.
< Gary > For another excellent book check out "The Answers Book" by Dr Jonathon D. Sarfati, Carl Weiland & Ken Ham. This book will allow you to take a brief overview of creationism & compare it with evolution theory.
< Ian > Readers who want to get a handle on the three people mentioned above should search for their names at the Talk Origins web site. The "arguments" they put forward have all been dealt with. See -
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/search.html
If you really want to learn about evolution then I suggest getting a copy of "What evolution is" by Ernst Mayr (ISBN: 0-465-04426-3). This will give you the actual science and not the falsehoods that Sarfati et al. try to pass off as evolutionary theory.
< Gary > Personally I would teach both at school as theories & let the kids come to their own conclusion.
< Ian > I'm at a bit of a loss to understand what creationist story should be taught in schools. I was under the impression that science classes were meant to be based around factual evidence. There is no factual evidence to teach in the Judeo-Christian myths that is not based on dubious ancient writings and personal revelation. By all means teach your superstitions in church and Sunday school. The public education system is not the appropriate forum.
< Gary > I am a qualified Manufacturing Systems Engineer & worked in I.T. but have
< Ian > And how does this have any bearing on the topic at hand? Are we supposed to be impressed that you work in IT and therefore accept your ill-founded pronouncements on biological subjects?
< Gary > Evolution requires as much faith as creationism & has been itself an attempt to discredit Christianity & the Genesis account of creation.
< Ian > This turns out not to be the case. Evolutionary theory flows as a logical consequence of the available evidence. It was not an attempt to discredit any particular ancient text. BTW as a ministry candidate you are aware that Genesis has 2 creation accounts that are contradictory?
< Gary > I hope you have time to view these excellent books & I'm sure they will answer many questions which you may have about both the theories.
< Ian > I agree. They will show that evolutionary theory is the logical result of looking at the evidence whilst the creationist position is an attempt to force outdated, narrow religious dogma onto the general populace.
< Gary > I do hope the school turns out a success for all the younger generations in your area for years to come.
< Ian > I wonder why the so called Christian led organisation behind the school needs to have control as well? Surely if they were following the Christian teachings that would just donate the money as an act of charity and then let the parents run the school. Why this need to have control? Perhaps it is so they can push their religious agenda?
> Gary (Church of Scotland Ministry Candidate)
< Ian > I ask again of the parents in this schools area and other areas. Do you really want to import the views of people who set themselves up as the arbiters of who is a real Christian and then have them poison the minds of your children with their stone age mythology?
< Ian > Fight this religious take-over of your school with every legal device available.
Ian Robinson
Belfast UK
Reply 4 (From Maria Maclachlan).
Thank you Gary for your very helpful letter. You make the case for the need to combat Christian fundamentalism so much better than any of its opponents could. I write from the privileged position of one whose children attended a secular school where they learned about all belief systems, were encouraged to question and were free to make up their own minds. I’m so glad they did. I shudder to think of their wasted potential if they had gone through the kind of ‘education’ that leaves young people,
(1) unable to comprehend the word ‘theory’ in the context of science;
(2) wilfully ignorant of what evolution actually is and of the mountains and mountains of evidence for it; and
(3) with their reasoning powers so undeveloped that they will blindly follow and obey rather than question and examine the evidence – and I mean the evidence for anything!
We want an educated younger generation not a population of bigoted ignoramuses. Science should be taught as science and religion, philosophy and myth as exactly what they are. With respect, Gary, you seem to have trouble distinguishing between all these and even recommend a book by a mechanical engineer (Dr Burgess) as a ‘corrective to evolution’. Anyone familiar with the works of Sarfati, Wieland and Ham (bible literalists who’ve wasted millions of words ‘explaining’ to the naďve and gullible how Noah’s Ark and the flood are fact not fiction) will know that if any of them got jobs teaching science in anything but a creationist academy they would be quickly sacked for gross incompetence. Gary, if you had studied some of the works of evolutionary biologists and then told us what exactly you had trouble understanding, I would have had more sympathy – and would have recommended a trip to the Natural History Museum where there is much to assist people of no scientific background or previous knowledge in understanding evolution. Every school should visit – Vardy Academy included.
But to dismiss the results of scientific research of the last century and a half in favour of blind faith in a book of stories written thousands of years ago doesn’t really do you any favours. And to call those of us who do question and read and seek knowledge and understanding “too lazy to think and study for themselves” is really rather insulting (not to mention ironic). I do study and wouldn’t mind betting that I have studied more of the bible than you have studied serious works on evolution.
If you would like to debate theology or put some substance to your assertions that evolution is ‘riddled with holes’, or that ‘humanism is the same as paganism’ then I will happily do so on an internet discussion forum: www.iidb.org is a good one and people of all beliefs are welcome (unlike most Christian forums I have visited where atheists aren’t even allowed to register).
In the meantime, please do some serious homework before you make any more public pronouncements. Must try harder!
Best wishes to you and to everyone involved in CADPAG.
Maria MacLachlan
Reply 5 (From Peter Hearty).
< GARY > It's good to see parents with genuine concern for the education of their kids. With regard to the so called brainwashing of kids: This has been going on for years through the lie of Darwinism & evolution.
< P H > Argument by innuendo - label evolution a lie before you even refer to it as a theory.
< GARY > Rather than getting into theological discussions (which usually tend to infuriate people for some strange reason especially those who have an aversion to religion-one wonders why it creates anger?)
< P H > Theological arguments are fine - in a theology class, not in a science class. If theology is now considered a science then it would be interesting to hear what experiments he proposes to do on God.
< GARY > I would recommend an excellent book by the Design Engineer Dr Stuart Burgess, BSc, PhD, CEng, MIMechE called Hallmarks of Design (ISBN 1 903087 31-7)-It would be a welcome corrective to the evolutionary myths that are taught in our state schools!
< P H > Argument from authority - we're supposed to be impressed by a long string of letters after his name. The book will undoubtedly have all the usual Intelligent Design arguments in it. It's interesting that the only people who believe in Intelligent Design are the creationists which gives the lie to their claim that it is independent of their support.
< GARY > Not only that, do parents not think that Television, Magazines, Hollywood blockbuster movies etc have a "Brainwashing" effect on their kids but we rarely hear of parents with objections to those- then again it begs the question are the parents already addicted to TV etc themselves.
< P H > All of which is completely irrelevent. School is an antidote to the above, not a part of it (unless Rev. Blair gets big business to sponsor school activities now - which wouldn't surprise me in the least).
< GARY > When we see the decline in Christianity & Biblical teaching it is rather easy to see the correlation with rises in Drug or Alcohol abuse, teen pregnancies, over 20 000 Abortions performed per month in UK alone, Divorce rate increasing drastically, self abuse, body piercing tattoos, pornography etc need I go on?
< P H > Yep, take xianity away and the whole country'll just go to the dogs. Just ignore all the millions of other socio-economic factors which lead to all of the above. (Tattoos? O, and someone should point out that self abuse in men is good for the prostate).
< GARY > It is rather fanciful to be scared of Christianity considering the British Empire grew & prospered while the nation's leaders promoted the spread of the faith worldwide. We must not forget that our Queen is defender of the faith which is Christianity NOT other false doctrines such as Islam, Buddhism, Romanist Catholicism, Materialism etc.
< P H > BHAAAA, HA, HA, ha, ha....ROTFLMFAO!!!
< GARY > Secularism is just a fancy name for humanism more accurately known as paganism.
< P H > O dear, I can't believe I'm still writing this. Secularism is a political situation where church and state are seperate. Humanism is a belief in the natural basis of morality. Paganism is worshipping any imaginary god other the jew-on-a-stick one.
< GARY > I'd far rather put my faith in the divine authoritative word of God than scientists whose promotion of nonsense such as evolution is absolutely riddled with holes.
< P H > Argument by ridicule. Irrelevant.
< GARY > It was only ever a theory & is not proven
< P H > Perhaps our "qualified Manufacturing Systems Engineer" who works in I.T, could compare Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism and Darwin's theory of evolution. They're near contemporaries, have similar amounts of evidence for them and made similar numbers of predictions - all of which proved correct.
< GARY > but never will since it is a religion itself. Don't know
< P H > That's right, all praise the baby Darwin. Bow before His Holiness, Pope Dawkins. Utterly ridiculous assertion.
< GARY > about anyone else but I know I am not a descendant from an ape. If you ever hear scientists prattle on about millions & millions of years ago then warning lights should appear to you as they are into fantasy land. Thank goodness Columbus didn't put his faith in scientists the way people (who are too lazy to study & think for themselves) do nowadays.
< P H > Presumably he wouldn't want modern boats to be guided by GPS. They could just pray to be taken in the right direction.
< GARY > Personally I would teach both at school as theories & let the kids come to their own conclusion.
< P H > This is the "isn't it reasonable to teach both" argument, the answer to which is "no it isn't". Evolution is a well documented, verifiable scientific theory. Biblical creationism has none of the hallmarks of a scientific theory so it has no place in a science class.
< GARY > I am a qualified Manufacturing Systems Engineer & worked in I.T. but have come to the conclusion that evolution is the theory which has been indoctrinated into the last few generation's of schoolchildren worldwide (you may be one of these kids who took it all in but then again do we like to admit to being duped?). Evolution requires as much faith as creationism & has been itself an attempt to discredit Christianity & the Genesis account of creation.
< P H > Which genesis account? There are two and they contradict each other. Scientific theories require only a belief that the world is governed by natural laws rather than the arbitrary whims of mythical hobgoblins. After that it's based on evidence and hard work.
< GARY > I hope you have time to view these excellent books
< P H > Don't waste your time. My experience is that creationists as so blinded by their need to justify their creation myths that they cannot be relied upon to argue honestly. They frequently quote out of context, use argument from authority and argument from ignorance as valid means of discussion. Anyone has the time and money to waste on this stuff will find the standard refuatiuons at http://www.talkorigins.org/.
< GARY > God's blessings & prosperity to all who attend the school & their families I pray. Take care
< P H > After the blatant attempt to drag us all back to the dark ages, the happy, smiley, "aren't xians nice" closing line.
'''Reply 6 (From Karl Lembke).
< GARY >It's good to see parents with genuine concern for the education of their kids.
< KARL > Indeed. This concern inspires parents to do the work of sifting through the garbage people want to put in school curricula, to pass off to captive audiences.
< GARY >With regard to the so called brainwashing of kids: This has been going on for years through the lie of Darwinism & evolution.
< KARL > It might be a good idea to define some terms here. When people talk about "evolution", they usually mean one of at least five different things. (Some people engage in very fuzzy thinking, and refer to more than one, without making clear distinctions among them.) Some of these statements are:
1) All living things trace back to one, or at most a very few, common ancestor(s). Somehow, changes occurred which is why humans are so very different from their distant cousins, the oak trees.
2) Random variation and natural selection happen. (Hard to avoid that bit -- both have been observed in nature, and the denial of either one is utterly senseless.) All change in life from the first living thing is the result of random change and natural selection. (This is classical "Darwinism" -- the notion that all the differences between humans and oak trees are the result of Darwinian mechanisms.)
3) All variation among the descendents of the original living thing are the result of the normal operation of natural laws. That is, the processes that led one line of descent to become oak trees and another to become humans are entirely natural, and there is no need to invoke any forces outside of known, or at least discoverable, natural laws.
4) There was a first living thing on this planet, and for those who believe life may have arisen elsewhere and been seeded here, there was a first living thing in this universe.
5) The first living thing arose from non-living matter by the operation of known, or at least discoverable natural laws.
6) Because all of this can be explained by natural law, there is no need to involve any supernatural force or being, and therefore none exist.
7) Because there is no supernatural being, there can be no divine source for morality, and therefore, anything goes.
Statement #6 is where the trouble comes in. It's bad enough that gravity has pulled the hosts of heaven away from their duty of guiding the stars in their courses, or that modern medicine has made illness the result of germs or chemicals instead of evil spirits and divine curses, now we learn our very existence may have been the result of the unthinking operation of natural forces?
Well, it kind of looks like it. Life exists because the universe is built to generate life.
< KARL > For what it's worth, many, if not most, scientists believe statements #1 - #5. Some believe #6. Some, like Richard Dawkins, believe it very loudly. Nevertheless, statements about the supernatural, about God, and about morality remain statements of opinion. Richard Dawkins is no more qualified to make statements about the existence of God than are you or I. Or our distant cousin, the oak tree. (And I've seen how he mangles subjects outside his area of specialization, and kind of wish he'd shut up about them.)
< KARL > Statement #7 really doesn't follow from evolution, or from any other scientific topic. And in fact, history shows that people have been quite capable of gross immorality and evil without any reference to evolution whatsoever.
< GARY > Rather than getting into theological discussions (which usually tend to infuriate people for some strange reason especially those who have an aversion to religion-one wonders why it creates anger?)
< KARL > It's good that you don't need to get into theological discussions. Since we're discussing science, there should be no need to bring in any religion at all, never mind any particular religion.
< GARY >I would recommend an excellent book by the Design Engineer Dr Stuart Burgess, BSc, PhD, CEng, MIMechE called Hallmarks of Design (ISBN 1 903087 31-7)-It would be a welcome corrective to the evolutionary myths that are taught in our state schools!
< KARL > I agree that any number of such books could be used in schools, provided they came with a gloss explaining the misconceptions the authors bring in. From the review on Amazon.com, I note that Burgess compares the genetic code with a "complete set of engineering drawings". This is enough to give those who work with the genetic code fits of giggles. Unlike engineering drawings, there is no portion of an organism's genome that describes the form of any body part or system. You can't turn to the DNA of any organism and say, "Here's the plan for the nose, and it's supposed to look like an elephant's trunk." It doesn't work that way.
< KARL > In addition, when discussing why mutation and selection is inadequate to account for what we see around us, Burgess ignores types of change that have been observed in the lab and in nature. It would be like an engineer declaring a bead must be the result of supernatural design because there's no way to chisel a hole that small -- and ignoring the demonstrated existence of drills. Yes, this book could be very educational, as an example of where people go wrong.
< GARY >It is rather fanciful to be scared of Christianity considering the British Empire grew & prospered while the nation's leaders promoted the spread of the faith worldwide. We must not forget that our Queen is defender of the faith which is Christianity NOT other false doctrines such as Islam, Buddhism, Romanist Catholicism, Materialism etc. Secularism is just a fancy name for humanism more accurately known as paganism.
< KARL > So what bearing does this have on the science of evolution? What science -- what testable scientific notions are being offered in place of evolution?
< Karl> And, since by now it's obvious that Gary is pushing a particular religion, what makes his particular variant of Christianity true, and all the others false? What scientific evidence does he have that Islam and Buddhism are false? (And if it's to come down to a fight over whose religion winds up in the science classes, what makes anyone think his or her preferred religion will be the one that's adopted?)
<Karl> And in particular, what alternative is being offered in place of statement #5 -- life arose by the operation of natural law?
< GARY >I'd far rather put my faith in the divine authoritative word of God than scientists whose promotion of nonsense such as evolution is absolutely riddled with holes. It was only ever a theory & is not proven but never will since it is a religion itself. Don't know about anyone else but I know I am not a descendant from an ape. If you ever hear scientists prattle on about millions & millions of years ago then warning lights should appear to you as they are into fantasy land. Thank goodness Columbus didn't put his faith in scientists the way people (who are too lazy to study & think for themselves) do nowadays.
< KARL > Here's the problem. The stuff that's taught in science classes has data and evidence backing it up. Sometimes the people presenting it do a bad job of it. However, that doesn't mean the data and evidence aren't there. Ask any science teacher for the best evidence that the earth is round, for example, and I doubt as many as half of them would be able to answer without a great deal of thought. (As it happens, there are two very good pieces of evidence, both of which were known centuries before Columbus. The scientists of the time knew the world was round. And what's more, on the detail they were arguing over, they were right, and Columbus was wrong. The world was bigger than Columbus thought, and Asia was much further away. If there hadn't been another continent in the way, he and his crew would have starved to death before reaching Asia.)
< KARL >The evidence for common ancestry is there. It's abundant and irrefutable. The evidence for the world having been around for thousands of millions of years is also abundant and irrefutable. Those who claim otherwise either don't know the evidence, or have chosen to lie about it.
< KARL >If the alternative to learning about evolution is learning from the ignorant and the mendacious, my choice is made.
Reply 7 (From Alan Wilson).
< GARY > Not only that, do parents not think that Television, Magazines, Hollywood blockbuster movies etc have a "Brainwashing" effect on their kids but we rarely hear of parents with objections to those- then again it begs the question are the parents already addicted to TV etc themselves.
< Alan > Well I can certainly see the similarities between creationism and blockbusters, since both are fictions but surely no sane person wishes to teach either as "real"?
< GARY > When we see the decline in Christianity & Biblical teaching it is rather easy to see the correlation with rises in Drug or Alcohol abuse, teen pregnancies, over 20 000 Abortions performed per month in UK alone, Divorce rate increasing drastically, self abuse, body piercing tattoos, pornography etc need I go on? It is rather fanciful to be scared of Christianity considering the British Empire grew & prospered while the nation's leaders promoted the spread of the faith worldwide. We must not forget that our Queen is defender of the faith which is Christianity NOT other false doctrines such as Islam, Buddhism, Romanist Catholicism, Materialism etc. Secularism is just a fancy name for humanism more accurately known as paganism.
< Alan > Bwah haw haw hee hee. So Christianity in its hundreds of sects and forms is the "only true religion"? Bwah haw haw hee hee.
< GARY > I'd far rather put my faith in the divine authoritative word of God than scientists whose promotion of nonsense such as evolution is absolutely riddled with holes.
< Alan >
You will have the opportunity to do this the next time you are ill. Go to your GP and tell me that you do not want any evolutionary based antibiotics or treatment based on the scientific Theory of Disease. Just ask for a few leeches and all will be well!
Bwah haw haw hee hee.
< GARY > It was only ever a theory & is not proven but never will since it is a religion itself.
< Alan > So is Gravity so lets all worship Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein. Bwah haw haw hee hee.
< GARY > Don't know about anyone else but I know I am not a descendant from an ape.
< Alan > If you are going to comment on evolution, do try and get a minimum
understanding of it. You can start with: "Apes and humans share common ancestors. Humans are not descended from Apes".
< GARY > If you ever hear scientists prattle on about millions & millions of years ago then warning lights should appear to you as they are into fantasy land. Thank goodness Columbus didn't put his faith in scientists the way people (who are too lazy to study & think for themselves) do nowadays.
< Alan> Yeah right! Columbus relied on the Bible to circumnavigate the world and used his navigation science text books and maps to read at Sunday prayers!
< GARY > For another excellent book check out "The Answers Book" by Dr Jonathon D. Sarfati, Carl Weiland & Ken Ham. This book will allow you to take a brief overview of creationism & compare it with evolution theory. Personally I would teach both at school as theories & let the kids come to their own conclusion. I am a qualified Manufacturing Systems Engineer & worked in I.T. but have come to the conclusion that evolution is the theory which has been indoctrinated into the last few generation's of schoolchildren worldwide (you may be one of these kids who took it all in but then again do we like to admit to being duped?). Evolution requires as much faith as creationism & has been itself an attempt to discredit Christianity & the Genesis account of creation. I hope you have time to view these excellent books & I'm sure they will answer many questions which you may have about both the theories.
< Alan > If "creation science" were a scientific theory, it could be tested using the
the scientific method. It isn't a scientific theory so it cannot be scientifically tested. Therefore it is religious dogma and "Creation Science" is an oxymoron. Evolution is a well tested scientific explanation for the Earths biodiversity and it has been demonstrated in the laboratory and in the field. A good book to read on the subject is "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth R Miller.
Reply 8 (From Lenny Flank)
< GARY > It's good to see parents with genuine concern for the education of their kids. With regard to the so called brainwashing of kids: This has been going on for years through the lie of Darwinism & evolution.
< L F > What a coincidence --- the geocentrists say exactly the same thing about the Lie of Copernicism.
< GARY >Rather than getting into theological discussions (which usually tend to infuriate people for some strange reason especially those who have an aversion to religion-one wonders why it creates anger?)
< L F > Maybe because IDers keep claiming their nonsense is really "science" and not religious doctrine at all?
< L F > Are they just lying to us when they make that claim?
< GARY >I would recommend an excellent book by the Design Engineer Dr Stuart Burgess, BSc, PhD, CEng, MIMechE called Hallmarks of Design (ISBN 1 903087 31-7)-It would be a welcome corrective to the evolutionary myths that are taught in our state schools!
< L F > Does it have a scientific theory of intelligent design that can be tested using the scientific method?
< L F >Why not?
< GARY > Not only that, do parents not think that Television, Magazines, Hollywood blockbuster movies etc have a "Brainwashing" effect on their kids but we rarely hear of parents with objections to those- then again it begs the question are the parents already addicted to TV etc themselves. When we see the decline in Christianity & Biblical teaching it is rather easy to see the correlation with rises in Drug or Alcohol abuse, teen pregnancies, over 20 000 Abortions performed per month in UK alone, Divorce rate increasing drastically, self abuse, body piercing tattoos, pornography etc need I go on?
< L F > <yawn> People have been bemoaning the end of western civilization for centuries.
< GARY > It is rather fanciful to be scared of Christianity considering the British Empire grew & prospered while the nation's leaders promoted the spread of the faith worldwide. We must not forget that our Queen is defender of the faith which is Christianity NOT other false doctrines such as Islam, Buddhism, Romanist Catholicism, Materialism etc. Secularism is just a fancy name for humanism more accurately known as paganism.
< L F > I thought you weren't going to discuss theology. Or were you just lying about that, too.
< GARY > I'd far rather put my faith in the divine authoritative word of God than scientists whose promotion of nonsense such as evolution is absolutely riddled with holes. It was only ever a theory & is not proven but never will since it is a religion itself.
< L F > Does the name "Galileo" ring any bells for you . . . .?
==========================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank