The Guardian: Experts call for creationism in the classroom

| 38 Comments | 1 TrackBack

Guardian Online

The ‘controversy’ about teaching Intelligent Design Creationism in schools may have an unexpected side-effect, namely that schools will more strongly emphasize the teaching of the scientific theory of evolution while also pointing out how Intelligent Design and other forms of creationism are not scientific and in many cases even anti-scientific and misleading.

Growing numbers of pupils believe in creationism, and science teachers should be prepared to cover the topic in their classes, education experts said today.

Talking about the recent decision by the Council of Europe

The parliamentarians said there was “a real risk of a serious confusion” being introduced into children’s minds between belief and science.

They added: “The theory of evolution has nothing to do with divine revelation but is built on facts. Intelligent design, presented in a more subtle way, seeks to portray its approach as scientific, and therein lies the danger.”

They said creationism was affecting “quite a few” CoE member states, including Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Russia, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the UK.

showing that the COE is concerned about the misleading aspects of creationism and Intelligent Design. As I have argued, and I am hardly alone here, Intelligent Design uses confusing language to suggest to its followers and adherents conclusions which cannot and do not follow from the foundation of Intelligent Design. In addition, Intelligent Design attempts to use ‘doubt’ to present its own alternative which is nothing but another form of ignorance.

A spokesman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families said creationism should not be taught in science lessons.

“Guidance for schools and teachers, published today, makes it clear that creationism and intelligent design are not recognised scientific theories, and therefore must not be taught as fact in science classes,” he said.

“When questions about creationism and intelligent design come up in science lessons, it may provide the opportunity to explain or explore what makes a scientific theory. There is a real difference between teaching something and discussing something.

“It is important that young people learn about the world around them, and are aware of different beliefs. There is scope for discussions around different beliefs in RE, history and citizenship classes.”

Only by exposing the misleading aspects of Intelligent Design can education provide the necessary background that will minimize the damage to science. As a Christian I applaud their efforts and I believe most Christians would accept the simple warning by St Augustine that when Christians are perceived to be teaching scientific nonsense as fact that this kind of foolishness will affect how non-Christians perceive the rest of Christianity.

In fact, YEC and Intelligent Design may be some of the best ‘fund raisers’ for atheism and agnosticism.

As such it is good that

[t]he national science academies of 67 countries warned that scientific evidence about the origins of life was being “concealed, denied, or confused”.

Source BBC

Read the full statement

We, the undersigned Academies of Sciences, have learned that in various parts of the world, within science courses taught in certain public systems of education, scientific evidence, data, and testable theories about the origins and evolution of life on Earth are being concealed, denied, or confused with theories not testable by science. We urge decision makers, teachers, and parents to educate all children about the methods and discoveries of science and to foster an understanding of the science of nature. Knowledge of the natural world in which they live empowers people to meet human needs and protect the planet.

We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.

2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.

3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.

4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

We also subscribe to the following statement regarding the nature of science in relation to the teaching of evolution and, more generally, of any field of scientific knowledge :

Scientific knowledge derives from a mode of inquiry into the nature of the universe that has been successful and of great consequence. Science focuses on (i) observing the natural world and (ii)

1 TrackBack

Mr. Dembski: “Good Morning Class!” Students: “Good morning, Mr. Dembski!” Mr. Dembski: “We will start off with our prayer. Dear Lord, help us to understand your wisdom in creating gasoline/air mixtures so that they can be ... Read More

38 Comments

For some reason movable type is refusing to let me add more text so here is the rest

formulating testable and refutable hypotheses to derive deeper explanations for observable phenomena. When evidence is sufficiently compelling, scientific theories are developed that account for and explain that evidence, and predict the likely structure of process of still unobserved phenomena.

Human understanding of value and purpose are outside of natural science’s scope. However, a number of components scientific, social, philosophical, religious, cultural and political contribute to it. These different fields owe each other mutual consideration, while being fully aware of their own areas of action and their limitations.

While acknowledging current limitations, science is open ended, and subject to correction and expansion as new theoretical and empirical understanding emerges.

1. Albanian Academy of Sciences 2. National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina 3. Australian Academy of Science 4. Austrian Academy of Sciences 5. Bangladesh Academy of Sciences 6. The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium 7. Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina 8. Brazilian Academy of Sciences 9. Bulgarian Academy of Sciences 10. RSC: The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada 11. Academia Chilena de Ciencias 12. Chinese Academy of Sciences 13. Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan 14. Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences 15. Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences 16. Cuban Academy of Sciences 17. Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic 18. Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters 19. Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt 20. Académie des Sciences, France 21. Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities 22. The Academy of Athens, Greece 23. Hungarian Academy of Sciences 24. Indian National Science Academy 25. Indonesian Academy of Sciences 26. Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran 27. Royal Irish Academy 28. Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 29. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy 30. Science Council of Japan 31. Kenya National Academy of Sciences 32. National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic 33. Latvian Academy of Sciences 34. Lithuanian Academy of Sciences 35. Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts 36. Academia Mexicana de Ciencias 37. Mongolian Academy of Sciences 38. Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco 39. The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences 40. Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand 41. Nigerian Academy of Sciences 42. Pakistan Academy of Sciences 43. Palestine Academy for Science and Technology 44. Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru 45. National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines 46. Polish Academy of Sciences 47. Academie des Sciences et Techniques du Senegal 48. Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts 49. Singapore National Academy of Sciences 50. Slovak Academy of Sciences 51. Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts 52. Academy of Science of South Africa 53. Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain 54. National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka 55. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 56. Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies 57. Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan 58. The Caribbean Academy of Sciences 59. Turkish Academy of Sciences 60. The Uganda National Academy of Sciences 61. The Royal Society, UK 62. US National Academy of Sciences 63. Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences 64. Academia de Ciencias Fisicas, Matematicas y Naturales de Venezuela 65. Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences 66. African Academy of Sciences 67. The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS) 68. The Executive Board of the International Council for Science (ICSU)

I see the academies of sciences are cautious enough to use 5 sigma or so data instead of models. (IIRC the concordance cosmology model is currently at 2.3 sigma or thereabouts, awaiting Planck data for test at 3 sigma.) That is “framing”! :-P

PvM, I sympathize with your concerns, but I would add the caveat that doubts are really ignorance only when we have preexisting tested science data or models as baseline. But payleists are beyond the pale.

PvM, I sympathize with your concerns, but I would add the caveat that doubts are really ignorance only when we have preexisting tested science data or models as baseline. But payleists are beyond the pale.

Which is why I attempted to explain how ID abuses doubt. Yes, much of the ‘doubt’ cited by ID shows how scientists are discussing the relevance of mechanisms, etc. What ID attempts to ‘argue’ is that this form of doubt somehow legitimizes ID.

A very useful statement for myself. I do believe I will start my next evolution unit with this as a reading assignment and in class discussion of each of the points.

Well, the ID activists are always insisting that their “theories” ought to get equal treatment in schools.

I wonder how they’d react if the ID was regularly brought up in science class right alongside evolution.

The chart marked “Evidence Supporting Evolution” would have about a dozen clean, clear bullet points, many of which would be immediately obvious with a cursory examination.

The chart marked “Evidence Supporting ID” would show a graphical representation of an audio .wav file - the sound of crickets chirping.

stevaroni:

The chart marked “Evidence Supporting ID” would show a graphical representation of an audio .wav file - the sound of crickets chirping.

Don’t forget the sound of a farting Judge - that’s the real strength of ID

Dare I say it - “Teach the controversey”? I’d say to the ID’ers, “Be careful what you wish for”.

Speaking of ID proponents using confusing language, I’m increasingly concerned about the use, and acceptance, of the term “creationism” when referring to creation science/ID. Its commonly understood that theological evolution, what the majority of educated believers subscribe to, is creationism, but rejects creation science. With the exception of PZ Meyers, I don’t know of many people who are concerned with the problem of the creation science campaigns who also have a problem with theological evolution. It would be insane to lump this majority into the enemy camp, but its just that confused impression we give to reporters and the general public when we use “creationism” as jargon without paying attention to what we mean. Not trying to pick on anyone here (with the possible exception of PZ Meyers), but this is a problem. The term “creationism” means several different things, and its creating unnecessary confusion. I don’t think its trivial. Isn’t it time that we started being more precise?

Speaking of ID proponents using confusing language, I’m increasingly concerned about the use, and acceptance, of the term “creationism” when referring to creation science/ID. Its commonly understood that theological evolution, what the majority of educated believers subscribe to, is creationism, but rejects creation science.

Good point, which is why I prefer Intelligent Design Creationism, which is a variant which forces its ‘designer wink wink’ into the darknesses of our ignorance.

The Council of Europe seems to have understood that the danger is not neccesarily creationism but rather the attempts to pretend that creationism is scientific.

Mike and PvM,

Don’t forget that the confusion among reporters and the general public between evolution denial and theistic evolution has been systematically cultivated by evolution deniers of all ilks– YECers, OECers, IDers, and whatever else they’re calling themselves lately. These are, remember, the same people who assured everyone that Steven Jay Gould opposed “Darwinism” because he and Niles Eldredge proposed punctuated equilibrium.

I think it’s an excellent idea to be as clear as possible with our own words, and I think antagonizing people who want to remain theists but fully accept the scientific evidence for evolution is borrowing trouble.

But let’s not kid ourselves that the Lords of the Quote Mines are ever going to behave ethically. No amount of clarity is immune to their dirty tricks.

With the exception of PZ Meyers, I don’t know of many people who are concerned with the problem of the creation science campaigns who also have a problem with theological evolution.

Well there’s that bloke Dawkins, and quite a few of us in the UK who don’t have the tactical consideration of making an alliance with moderate Christians to defend the constitution?

Schools in the UK have Religious Education/Religious Instruction as part of the curriculum; and there was a welcome recent announcement that Creationism and ID could be discussed in schools - ans part of the religious curriculum, not in science lessons…

Heck, Mike, I wish you would use your last name. This Mike sees no reason to single PZ out as having objections.

As Dean pointed out, in the UK it seems to be okay to discuss the issue in Religious Education/Religious Instruction; in which subjects the instructors are given a bit more lenience as to what to teach.

Why on earth do they need to introduce religion into the science courses? I should think that would lead to more confusion than is warranted. Do they need to accommodate Theistic Auto Mechanics? How about Theistic Algebra or Theistic Calculus?

Evolution isn’t part of biology, it is biology, and through proper teaching and instruction it really needs no discussion of theological implications at all. Unless, of course, it is treated as a separate facet of biology, a single chapter which can be ignored if the instructor is uncomfortable with the “e” word.

It would be insane to lump this majority into the enemy camp, but its just that confused impression we give to reporters and the general public when we use “creationism” as jargon without paying attention to what we mean. Not trying to pick on anyone here (with the possible exception of PZ Meyers), but this is a problem. The term “creationism” means several different things, and its creating unnecessary confusion. I don’t think its trivial. Isn’t it time that we started being more precise?

Theistic Evolution may not directly interfere with the science of evolution, and I guess in England if an Anglican wishes to open each day’s lesson with a statement that “I believe in the God of Henry VIII and that this is how that God created things; please open your lab text to page 155 and retrieve your gear so that we can begin our experiments” that would be okay. But I hardly see how it adds to the science part of it. They’re going to get religion anyway, why bring it into the science class?

One of the Mikes wrote:

“Speaking of ID proponents using confusing language, I’m increasingly concerned about the use, and acceptance, of the term “creationism” when referring to creation science/ID. Its commonly understood that theological evolution, what the majority of educated believers subscribe to, is creationism, but rejects creation science.”

I agree that careful and precise use of terminology is important. IMO there is no such thing as “creation science” only creation antiscience, so I definately prefer terms like “ID creationism”. Indeed, I think that the label “creationist” should be applied to any who embrace the magical “poof” idea, whether ID, YEC or OEC. However, the term “creationist” should not be applied to theistic evolution, since those who accept the scientific evidence for evolution do not conform to an irrational belief system in defiance of the evidence. Likewise, the term “evolutionism” is a complete nonsequiter, for exactly the same reason. “Creationists” like to use that loaded term in order to imply that their belief system is just as valid as the science of evolution. Since it is not, I don’t think that anyone should let them get away with that tactic. It is much better to use the terms like “the modern theory of evolution” rather than terms like “evolutionism” or “Darwinism”. Whenever you see those terms being used you should automatically reject them and point out why they are inapporpriate.

Its commonly understood that theological evolution, what the majority of educated believers subscribe to, is creationism

No, that’s a very uncommon understanding, and is flat-out false. As Wikipedia says, (emph added): “Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity or deities”.

With the exception of PZ Meyers, I don’t know of many people who are concerned with the problem of the creation science campaigns who also have a problem with theological evolution.

His name is “Myers”, and just about everyone who comments at his blog shares his concern, for reasons they have enumerated at length.

It would be insane to lump this majority into the enemy camp

Ah, the joys of manichaean thinking. There are degrees of threat. PZ of course, as he has said many times, does not think that theistic evolutionists are nearly the threat to science as the YEC/OEC/IDiot creationists, and does not lump them together.

As a Christian I applaud their efforts and I believe most Christians would accept the simple warning by St Augustine that when Christians are perceived to be teaching scientific nonsense as fact that this kind of foolishness will affect how non-Christians perceive the rest of Christianity.

All Christians accept that kind of a warning because it’s absurdly obvious. I don’t know why you stress your time on something so obvious like that.

What you should tell us Darwin-skeptics is why believing in the magical powers of impersonal forces doesn’t fit the ball as “scientific nonsense”, given the total absence of evidence suporting that belief.

I think that people like you, who claim to be theists while accepting materialistic philosophies, are doing more harm to theism in general, Christianity in particular. You are the one who should take heed on Augustine’s advice, since you are defending an unscientific belief (creative powers of mindless forcs) while at the same time claiming to be a “Christian”. To quote a very famous Book “Physician, heal thyself”

The theory of evolution that is testable is dependent upon the quality and precision of the instruments. If we agree that there is a human instrument involved, then we can imagine how when that instrument is used to attempt to discern a higher kingdom, that instrument changes to become that higher kingdom, thereby verifying and proving the value of the theory.

Scientists currently have no plan by which humans can evolve, however religion has a very definite plan to take us forward.

Below is a response to the number items in the IAP statement:

3. Can you believe that the theory of evolution found in THE SECRET DOCTRINE by H.P. Blavatsky claims that in the 3rd round (unknown to science) all life occurred under water rather than on earth and breathing?

4. All life appears to evolve, however this could be classified as an illusion since no recognition has been giving to living beings on the reverse cycle of involution. Imagine lives that could actually benefit from a reverse cycle!! Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code can be accounted for if we understand that it is a human descending for 300 million years (and each kingdom in order prior to that) and that this human has created all forms from their own knowledge base and ability to provide earth with forms beyond that occurring through evolution. The animal may have only reached its 4th race stage prior to the human descent. Once the humans enter the earth stage, then it is the human impacting all forms on earth through our knowledge of every stage that the animal passes through due to the human having accomplished all of those stages in their own past. The animals which share our genetic code are offshoots of our own descent into matter - created due to our responsibility and willingness to assist animals, angels, and to create for ourselves an environment that we love and benefit from.

Bloggers: Why was the quote from the paper cut off after (i) when by matter of interest it is the (ii) which follows that allows a new case to be made against illusionary scientific claims.

“(ii)􀀀formulating testable and refutable hypotheses to derive deeper explanations for observable phenomena. When evidence is sufficiently compelling, scientific theories are developed that account for and explain that evidence, and predict the likely structure or process of still unobserved phenomena.

Human understanding of value and purpose are outside of natural science’s scope. However, a number of components – scientific, social, philosophical, religious, cultural and political – contribute to it. These different fields owe each other mutual consideration, while being fully aware of their own areas of action and their limitations.

While acknowledging current limitations, science is open ended, and subject to correction and expansion as new theoretical and empirical understanding emerges.”

Quote taken from the same link provided as “statement” in the above bloggers initial post and exists in a paper identified by the title “IAP STATEMENT ON THE TEACHING OF EVOLUTION” with IAP referring to Interacademy Panel on International Issues.

The theosophical or seven race theory of evolution explains how religion differentiates each of the evolutionary stages defined by the word “race” as used in theosophy. The first race is human penetrating animal. The second race is human existing alongside animal in one body. The third race is animal ascended beyond the material into a “departing” stage prior to leaving the earth. The fourth stage is human alone with the angelic kingdoms that live through all forms as an aid and accompaniment to humans. Fifth is the beginning of the descent of the girasas kingdom into and through the humans, a penetrating of the human by the higher kingdom that “ascends” us off the earth. Sixth race is side-by-side girasas and human living as one body. Seventh race is the human ascended beyond an equal level with the girasas, hovering above the material world prior to our departure from the earth in a journey that will lead us back into the animal kingdoms for further impact.

The BBC reports that “Teachers ‘fear evolution lessons’,” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7028639.stm “The days have long gone when science teachers could ignore creationism when teaching about origins.”, Instead, teachers should tackle the issue head-on, whilst trying not to alienate students, he argues in a new book.…

Available soon: “Teaching About Scientific Origins: Taking Account of Creationism (Studies in the Postmodern Theory of Education)”, described as “This book takes an educational point of view that respects both the teaching of evolution and religious beliefs. Authors from different academic traditions contribute to a collection of perspectives that begin to dismantle the notion that religion and science are necessarily incompatible.”

http://www.amazon.com/Teaching-Abou[…]1&sr=1-3

you are defending an unscientific belief (creative powers of mindless forcs)

Calling it “unscientific” doesn’t make it so, bozo.

I gotta say though that I prefer your immense dishonesty to Brenda Tucker’s sincere insanity.

In addition to what we can learn in theosophical books regarding evolution, cosmology is also taught a lesson.

As we claim the earth to exist for seven rounds, so too each of the planets in our solar system exists for seven rounds with Mercury described as only a shell after all seven rounds were completed. Venus is in their last round. Mars is in pralaya between their 3rd and 4th round. Earth as we read is 4th round, 5th human race.

What will be fascinating to watch if we are allowed is the awakening of Mars into their 4th round.

What is also of interest is Jupiter. As Jupiter draws closer and closer to the sun, does it become a planet more and more dense? Does it pass through the asteroid belt and do those pieces become Jupiter’s solid surface? What is the ratio of asteroid mass to Jupiter’s core size?

Mats Wrote:

What you should tell us Darwin-skeptics is why believing in the magical powers of impersonal forces doesn’t fit the ball as “scientific nonsense”, given the total absence of evidence suporting that belief.

This mantra gets repeated over and over again by Mats and the other blinkered believers who never take the time to find out what it is they are parroting. They never parse this kind of junk to find out what the words mean (essentially nothing), nor do they ever take the time to find out what science is really all about. Every word that comes out of their mouths is a sneering accusation to the effect, “Well, what do you have to say about that Mr. Evilutionist, huh, huh, huh?”

This is the kind of junk that should be kept out of the science classroom, especially since it is deliberately meant to confuse. However, discussing these confusions in a critical thinking course would provide a clear example of how the ID/Creationist crowd carefully constructs its arguments to cloud the issues.

I believe most Christians would accept the simple warning by St Augustine that when Christians are perceived to be teaching scientific nonsense as fact that this kind of foolishness will affect how non-Christians perceive the rest of Christianity.

Yes, but the unfortunate fact is that most non-Christians being devotees of other, eually useless faiths, actually look up to the ID movement for ideas on how to overpower scientific thought. Witness the trend where the new Hindu evangelists and Islamists are attacking evolution with their own brand of creationism

Brenda Tucker:

What is also of interest is Jupiter. As Jupiter draws closer and closer to the sun, does it become a planet more and more dense? Does it pass through the asteroid belt and do those pieces become Jupiter’s solid surface? What is the ratio of asteroid mass to Jupiter’s core size?

I’m not sure what wrong with you, but I’m sure it’s hard to pronounce.

Brenda, seriously. See your doctor and get your meds fixed.

Mats,

Take a look at the thread on the evolution of mammalian molars and then come back and tell us how blind, mindless processes cannot do this or that.

I thought I recognized Brenda from somewhere. For your safety, please don’t follow to her website. It burns! It burns!

Mats Wrote:

All Christians accept that kind of a warning because it’s absurdly obvious. I don’t know why you stress your time on something so obvious like that.

What you should tell us Darwin-skeptics is why believing in the magical powers of impersonal forces doesn’t fit the ball as “scientific nonsense”, given the total absence of evidence suporting that belief.

There you go again, the absurdity of your claim “total absence of evidence supporting that belief” is absurdly obvious. Why do you waste our time with your nonsensical claims? You are rejecting out of hand, as non existent, tens of thousands or more, scientific papers on this topic. Papers which outline how evolution has shaped life.

Nothing magical about the powers of nature. Just good science.

Any particular item you insist on denying? Global warming deniers are nothing different from your denial. Both are absurdly obvious …

That you insist on showing the depth and breadth of your ignorance about something which you deny and oppose, and that such an act, per St Augustine’s obvious warnings, results in people assigning the same kind of lack of depth and breadth to Christianity, is unfortunate. That you have been warned and asked to support your empty claims and that you still continue to ignore Augustine’s warnings and show unwillingness to discuss any particular topic on its merits, seems obvious. The damage you are inflicting to Christian faith is worrisome to me. As a Christian and a scientist, I have always been amazed at those Christians who are willing to deny science because of their (lack of?) faith. Even to me as a Christian I feel a sense of pity and in some cases outrage, when such ignorance is continued under the veil of ‘science’ or ‘faith’ or both, because we Christians should know better than to deny that which God is showing us via science. If we have to deny the facts of science because they contradict our ‘faith’ then I suggest, there is something wrong. In most cases, history has shown that it was ‘faith’ not science which was wrong. And so we adapt and evolve.

You deny that there is any evidence to support evolutionary science? Having already admitted that there is no evidence to support ID’s claims, all we need to establish is that you are wrong. That’s trivially simple.

Darwinism requires variation and selection. Both have been observed in nature, so there is no sense in denying these obvious facts. Now the question becomes, can evolutionary theory explain the origin of information and complexity? Once again, science has shown that the processes of gene duplication are an important factor in the origin of new genes. Is selection an important factor? Again, science has shown that many genes are under selective pressures. And we are not even discussing the evolutionary potentials of developmental pathways, regulatory pathways etc. PZ Myers has shown many excellent examples that show how science is dealing with this and how ID remains totally empty handed.

Even a cursory look at science would have indicated that your claims are absurdly obviously false.

I agree with Popper’s ghost Brenda’s mumbo jumbo is terribly frightening. It’s like a nightmarish Conan O’Brien skit where bad religion and bad science had some sort of purely unnatural offspring. So Mats when we grow e. coli in a closed system for a few weeks and discover that they show the ability to sacrifice a huge chunk (about 1/3 as I recall) of their genome. There’s no natural selection? Or when we can demonstrate the exact mutations that confer color vision in some primates and not others again no natural selection? Or show the exact sequence of stepwise beneficial mutations required to change an enzymes from one type to another we have NO evidence of natural selections ability to generate novel functions?

Mats,

Is there variation?

Is there selection?

in Christ,

rog

We’re all looking at a puzzle that is life, not just scientists. We like what scientists are providing in the way of data. We value that we are able to use what others find in our studies and life decisions.

How do we get scientists to value what we are finding? We are finding that we are better people because we attempt to follow a law of life. That law is explained to us by religion and that law embraces religions.

See, each race can be shown to be represented by a particular religion because even though we are currently all one race, the seven subraces within that one race stand for the decisions and life-styles that occur during that race.

Using symbols, the first race or Egyptian shows a dogface on some of the bodies of figures. Head-first we dive into animals and it takes long ages to change them into something we can use as we enjoy using - the fullest development of our human life.

Second subrace has symbolism in Hanuman, a divine being disguised as a monkey.

Third subrace seems to fit with the Greek (or Roman) mythology, although it is reversed during this fifth race since the hovering being is greater than the mortal being.

These three groups are associated with small land masses. Egypt, India, and Greece take us into ancient times and even though geologically today they are small, world thought is very familiar with their contributions.

Fourth subrace is a much larger land mass and religion. Buddhism and by association Asia have many people today as the history is less ancient.

Fifth subrace would be Christianity associated with Europe in which there is no need for a subrace as we are currently the fifth race.

Sixth subrace is unknown, but thought to be coming forth in the Americas, eventually to burgeon into a global existence, where the fifth subrace subsides and the sixth subrace replaces it when the fifth dies out.

Seventh subrace is mysterious. I think that the seventh subrace (Israel and Judaism) has guided all of humanity during the fifth race, but that when the sixth race begins, it has to be replaced by a new “seventh” that can then guide the rest of the sixth race towards its goal. THE SECRET DOCTRINE speaks of a very special circumstance whereby the seventh is not quite a subrace until the end of the race (at its proper time and place), but that it is born at the beginning when the first and second subraces exist. This “family race” as it is referred to until its fullest blossoming is what lets the rest of the humans know what it is we have for a goal.

Before the 6th race, 1st & 2nd subraces, can take hold on earth, the 7th “family race” of Muslims and Middle East has to have a firm foothold, wherefore the existing conflict between Judaism and Islam.

It IS frightening and I am afraid that if this could become a newsstory as I want it to become, that there may be fatalities along with it, such as heart attacks, strokes, etc. That is why we need a plan, we need people to put aside their differences and work out some type of recovery plan so that when people hear it they can seek counsel or comfort.

My best guess is that the churches will serve to reassure people about their standing.

I also think that many people may feel relieved that if they wish to begin a personal relationship with the girasas, that upon their death, the girasas body will serve as their ticket to continued life and that they will witness many miraculous seeming events if they care to join into the girasas lifestructure.

When this way of thinking first occurred to me, I was overwhelmed with the prospect of telling both religions and scientists about my findings. It took me nearly a year of nervous reluctance and “adaptation” before I was assured enough of an approach that would not appear too overwrought. I remember thinking my brain was electrical and that it was rewiring. (Burning, I’m not as familiar with probably due to the continual use of this symbol in my worship at the “I AM” Temple.

If you are burning at the thought of it, just rest, relax, give yourself some time to heal. I finally healed enough to begin the process of discussing the idea, however it was approx. another 7 years before I felt I had experienced every possible reaction from people and so I closed down my bewilderment about how to help people through their reactions as I felt the set which I was experiencing had closed.

If you can get over this really fast, say in a few weeks, you would be a superperson.

Don’t even bother with trying to tell the Europeans. We are the Americas and we are different than they are.

Theistic evolution is creationism as far as I understand the term, since at a minimum they propose teleological designs.

I would also claim that the absence of specifying mechanisms has a definite kinship with the same tactic in the IDC scam, as evidenced by the correlation with theism.

Popper's Ghost Wrote:

I gotta say though that I prefer your immense dishonesty to Brenda Tucker’s sincere insanity.

What a ghastly truth!

We had a Brenda Tucker moment over at Good Math, Bad math when theosophy scam artists appeared in a thread. Beware, as all anti-science movements they tend to hunt in packs.

Torbjorn-

Europeans seem to be confused about what theistic evolution entails in America. It is unconstitutional to preach any religious doctrine in American public schools. Creationists are trying to undercut the constitution by passing the biblical book of Genesis off as science. Theistic evolutionists, on the other hand, want the ToE taught in biology classes– but also happen to have some belief in a deity.

What a lot of us are saying here is that we consider that anyone who stands up to the biblical literalists and demands good science teaching is on our side, whether their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) agree with ours or not.

Whether you or anyone thinks the religious belief that evolution was inspired by some deity is creationism, is irrelevant, because that issue has no place in an American public school classroom. As long as the science is taught correctly, people are free to put any teleological spin they want on it. They just can’t use taxpayers’ money to force their teleology on other people’s children.

Creationism has multiple meanings - in the 19th century it meant belief that souls were directly created by God at birth, as against Transduciansim (sp?) which held that souls were inherited.. but some, including Charles Darwin in his private notes, used “creationists” to refer to opponents of transmutation of species. In the late 1920s it was adopted as a label by the anti-evolution Fundamentalists, and there was a tussle over who owned the label, with what we now call theistic evolutionists feeling that they too believed in Creation. The result was that, particularly in the US, creationism now refers to anti-evolution religious literalists. There’s also denial by IDists that their brand is creationism, since they choose to define creationism as young earth creationism including ye fludde, so that they can claim to be purely scientific. Subject of course to Truth being Jesus, and lies ok in His name.

hoary puccoon:

I was commenting on theistic evolution in general, in the widest meaning of the term creationism, and the similar scam of trying to conflate it with science proper. How north americans deal with religions is not for me to say.

[quote] Brenda Tucker said:

Don’t even bother with trying to tell the Europeans. We are the Americas and we are different than they are.[/quote]

- clearly we diverged somewhere in our evolutionary past Brenda - although you guyrs seem to have retained a few primitive characteristics…

Like calling autumn ‘fall’ for example ;)

If a “type” of human being is destined to exist on a certain continent or land mass(es), then why fight “city hall?”

And if religion contains the truth (hidden as it is), then we should study it in school. Those laws were written when the founders and lawmakers didn’t see religion progressing.

Religion means “to tie,” right? Or some roots of the word suggest this. No one ever knew hot to apply the word. I do. Apply it to the relationship with have with a far off kingdom of nature.

And I can explain “virgin birth”, communion “sacrament”, how we are able to live after death (resurrection) when sins are forgiven, and the story of Adam found in Genesis. How many people can claim to be able to do that in a way that fits within a theory of evolution?

I like writing here because it’s a “deadened” discussion, like I am a “deadened” life now.

I used to have an inquiring mind and an eager heart. I read everything I could in theosophy and practice was so “revealing” in the “I AM” Temple activities. I’m not trying to shirk my duties to my children, but can’t help but wonder how to get out of this stagnant pool that I find myself in.

For 12 years all I find myself able to do is repeat myself over and over to strangers, work long hours - mostly to take my mind off my troubles - and sometimes try to recover what I what had. I did manage FINALLY to get back a little of the “loving” nature that I had, but it is still in shreds.

I mostly think of protest moves I could make, i.e., gather a march on City Hall, and every thought I have is geared towards stopping the debate between science and religion and engaging them all towards a new future. It’s like somebody handed me this remote and I need to lock on to keep them from rushing headlong down a cliff.

I’m actually not afraid of anything the two groups are doing, but I am afraid of myself. I am afraid that I either don’t know how or won’t stimulate my child to learn. I wonder if he doesn’t get the impression from me that real progress in education is futile. How do I give my son hope that hard intellectual work pays off? Why can I no longer face the culture I live? Will I ever get back that old spark I used to have?

I know you are not interested in the “stagnant pool” of dingy thoughts that I’ve become, but for the sake of my children, you could allow this work of mine to be heard. Do you even consider what I know to be a disability? How can I any longer work alongside my fellows? Where do forward steps like when you’ve seen what I’ve seen?

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on October 6, 2007 2:22 PM.

Digital forensic versus ID’s design inference was the previous entry in this blog.

Council of Europe resolution sure to spark interest in intelligent design is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter