Humanists outraged over approval of new academy that will teach Creationism
State education: children might as well leave their brains at home as they are told what to think, not how to think.
Those delicate flowers, the secular humanists, just cannot bear for anyone not to believe like they do. They get really upset that after over a century and a half, millions of us still don’t buy the idea that we evolved from pond slime via apes – goo-to-you-via-the-zoo! Religious ideas produce intolerance, they insist, and so they cannot be tolerated. No, humanists are convinced that they have a better idea of how to create a good society: have everything to do with faith banned. They obviously just forget, or never found out, that every other country humanists have taken over very quickly degenerated into very unpleasant dictatorships.
The Independent explains,
The evangelical Everyday Champions Church first proposed a free school that would teach creationism as a valid scientific theory last year.
That application was rejected by the Government on the basis that “the teaching of creationist views as a potentially valid alternative theory [to evolution] is not acceptable in a 21st-century state-funded school”.
Now a new bid submitted by a group of individuals from the Church, but without its formal backing, has been accepted. The backers say Exemplar Academy in Newark, Nottinghamshire, will have a faith ethos but will not be formally designated a faith school, and will only teach creationism in RE.
Richy Thompson, campaigners manager at the British Humanist Association, said that the proposed school was “absolutely still dangerous”.
The Department of Education said that the new school would be banned from teaching creationism in science classes, but it would be allowed in religious education lessons.
Let us get this into some sort of perspective.
A) The Theory of Evolution is a 19th Century assumption based on an 18th Century unscientific philosophy called Uniformitarianism.
What gives the state a right to teach this and exclude everything else? Such blindness in science obviously isn’t restricted to 17th Century Florence – it is happening here and now, but in the name of Secular Humanism this time, rather than the Inquisition.
B) Creation Science can be demonstrated to be a valid alternative to Evolution Theory, especially in light of revelations which have emerged since Darwin’s time. For example, the sheer complexity of living cells was obviously unknown when the Theory was in its infancy. If Darwin had witnessed the wonder of DNA and known about molecular machines, he may have admitted that intelligent life (any life, even) is far too complex to have arisen by random mutations. We will never know.
What we do know is that he considered the deficiency of transitional fossils to be his biggest problem. He wrote in The Origin of Species,
“…the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, [must] be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.”
Unfortunately for Darwin, the fossil record still hasn’t yielded what he would have expected and never will.
Under the circumstances, shouldn’t children be given the chance to learn about Creationism? Could they not be afforded this courtesy, or do we now organise our culture and learning according only to what the Secular Humanists dictate?
—
That was supposed to be the end of this post; After I had written it, I went off to look for a picture to go along with it. By chance, the website I spotted the photo on has this to say about children,
They learn everything automatically from the time they were born. They do this through imagination, visualization and by being in the alpha state of creativity and learning.
That all changes, however, between the ages of 7 and 14. That’s when well-meaning but ignorant teachers and parents direct them to abandon this natural learning ability in favor of the analytical, senses-based, left-brained learning system that is our educational system.
Our education system should teach fact and forcefully educate science to all.
Creationism has no place in the system.
My point is, Foggy, that the *Theory* of evolution is not fact. I had tried to make that clear. Did you just read the headline?!
Stewart,
I did read all the way. My view is that the youth of today is poorly educated, so to a certain degree I agree with you – not enough hands on experimenting and finding out how the world works rather than learning by lecture.
Do you really believe the earth is only 6000 years old?
Would you like all religions to be taught at school or just the one you prefer?
Foggy,
Obviously, if children are only taught one side of a debate, they will never be able to think properly. They are increasingly having their natural inclinations and perceptions altered on moral issues too. I bet that if there weren’t religious connotations to this, these same humanists would be demanding that children had the right to learn about Creationism as it is a valid scientific theory!
I believe the earth is probably much younger than evolution scientists insist upon. As I said, the basis for their belief is in Uniformitarianism, a philosophy with no scientific underpinning.
This isn’t about religion, but science: Creation *Science*!
Yes, there is a faith element, of course, i.e. does science fit in with the Bible, but there is a large faith element to evolution theory too, i.e. they must make it fit in with old-earth chronology, which they *believe* to be true (even though it is illogical and quite wrong, because the natural processes we see slowly changing the earth are NOT responsible for all its geological features. They even talk of meteorites wiping out the dinosaurs. The dormant and extinct super volcanoes could have changed half a continent in a matter of days or weeks!
But let’s hide all this from the children in case they get religion! That’s what the humanists are afraid of.
Either way, the science usually starts *after* a position of faith has been established. Some people can look at it from both sides, of course, but both sides are still faith-based and presumptuous.
Everyone has the same evidence, but it can be interpreted in different ways and can fit (or be made to fit!) into either belief system.
Hi Stewart. I left a comment but it might have drifted into spam because I use a different email and I am on wordpress rather than blogspot now. So I’m back in the ‘you don’t know who I am’ pile
“Our education system should teach fact and forcefully educate science to all.
Creationism has no place in the system.”
Nice, open-minded approach to the debate, there, Foggy. You are right, any other opinion is wrong; therefore, ban it.
SC is right, Darwin’s theory is just that – a theory. As with all theories, it should be open to study and debate; to deny that is to deny the very scientific principles you claim to uphold. Unless, of course, you have absolute proof that creation did not happen – and, if you do have this proof, why have you kept it secret?
Hi Leggy,
I’ll search the spam. Only a few hundred in there at the moment…
Thanks, Mr Rodent. Well said.
Sorry, L-I, unless you were one of the many people concerned about my sexual prowess or trying to sell me rattan furniture, I’m afraid it’s gone. There are 518 spam comments dating back to 3.15 yesterday, so I assume you left a comment before that time. I don’t know why they waste their time considering Wordpress’s spam catcher even removes genuine comments. Sorry. What was the gist?
Rodent, I tell you what, show me proof of creation and I’ll walk away a beaten man.
I’m not banning the teaching of creationism, just in schools. In your chosen place of worship you’re free to believe in whatever.
IMHO there is no evidence for creationism – it is presented as is, take it. At least the theory of evolution puts some effort in. And no, I don’t have all the answers, but I’ll keep learning and make my own judgements. Just because it’s stated as fact in a book or a teacher tells you does not mean it’s true!
Just to pick up on your “ban it” and “open-minded debate” comments that Stewart has agreed with – will we get open minded debate on homosexuals and any other frowned upon non-Christian activities on this blog soon?
I see Stewart is just as stupid as ever, still pushing the Creationist canard that Evolution “is just a theory” and pretending there is such a thing as “Creation science.”
We know you hate science and reality with a passion, Stewart, but you are just showing everyone how utterly stupid religionists like you are.
Amazing.
BJ Edwards, you are that troll on the 9/11 thread, aren’t you, and who followed me to the cross-post on Subrosa’s blog?
You have already proven that you have absolutely no understanding of anything whatsoever. I was so tempted to make you the first person ever to be banned from my blog, but I might just have some fun with you. I wouldn’t normally do such a thing with the terminally stupid, but you are so full of it, that I think I will.
…or maybe you aren’t stupid.
This is what someone had to say about you on the 9/11 thread…
“bjedwards has been using the same old crappy suppression techniques for years – trying to bully and ridicule people into shutting up about alternate theories to the official version of events.”
“A paid back-room mole to infiltrate every possible 9/11 chat room, message board, and forum to create as much din, disruption, “noise,” and chaos as possible which constantly litters and pollutes the soup.”
“A seeming obsession with minutiae where researchers spend an inordinate amount of time endlessly fixating on the tiniest of details… Or else they’ll engage in rhetorical debates for debate’s sake; all of which is sterile, self-contained, and circular in nature.”
“I have found him to be a despicable person – when I have dealt with him in the past.”
Bullies are cowards, BJ. I think that’s what you are. Maybe you really are a “paid back-room mole” to try to ridicule anything which is non-establishment, non-conformist, or independently-minded.
Unfortunately for you, BJ, I have the better arguments and people see you for what you are.
I am sorry your feelings are hurt, Stewart, but the fact remains that you are still pushing the Creationist canard that Evolution “is just a theory” and pretending there is such a thing as “Creation science.”
Only you can change that.
Evolution is not just a theory but is a ‘religion’.Faith[albeit misplaced] is definitely involved .Evolution is ‘the atheists religion’ which sets out to disprove God and that is its main function.
len,
Total nonsense.
Creationism is nothing more than religious nonsense based on arguments from ignorance promoted either by ignorant, bamboozled souls or dishonest yahoos.
Evolutionary biology is perhaps the most solid science ever and Creationists know they cannot refute Evolution. That’s why Creationist perpetually lie about sceince and misrepresent it and why ALL religions are going down the tubes.
Get a grip and learn what a Scientific Theory is. Stewart Cowan doesn’t want you to know.
Stewart,
Why do you keep saying there are no transitional fossils? I provided a link just a few posts ago that lists dozens of them and you just ignored it. Here is that link again, please have a look and respond.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
Whatever the truth of Creationism/Evolutionism, do people like “Isitfoggy” accept the point made at the beginning of this article: that the modern State/education tells you what to think, not teaches you how to think (and, going further I would say teaches you not to question things (such as materialist ideology) rather than the need to question everything)? If he/she doesn’t accept this, he/she should, either way, Isitfoggy, and the rest of us, should be appalled by this situation. We are in the hands of Statist Stalinism … it’s awful …
JT, I’ve already agreed with the fact that modern education is poor.
At the risk of sounding like a grumpy old man, I see 20 somethings graduate from university with a) poor spelling, b) poor grammar, c) no common sense and d) a distinct lack of general knowledge – if they have not been taught it or seen it in a textbook then they are lost.
John Thomas,
No, that is a standard right wing red herring used by Creationists to argue that teaching particular religious beliefs in schools is “legitimate,” e.g., that Christian fundamentalists beliefs in creationism magically qualifies as science. As with all Creationist assertions, it is intellectually dishonest, fallacious reasoning.
The implications of claiming that Creationism is a “legitimate” subject to be taught in schools as science is clear: there would be no legitimate reason to keep out teachings of any other religion’s competing beliefs.
Fortunately, in the USA, we have had more experience in dealing with Creationists, and repeteadly knock down their assaults on reason and science, and their claims that Creationism is a “legitimate” alternative scientific hypothesis.
BTW I’m neither a Creationist or an Evoluntionist, but …
The only fundamentalists I encounter on this blog are you lot slating Stewart. namely,’exponents of ‘reason and science’ with, of course, your sadly predictable regurgitations. I’m willing to believe in any conspiracy theory if it posits a mad scientist making increasing numbers of you fellows out of a mould. Concede you chaps often do tend to have sharp enough wits – but same old moral-high-ground-of-science Dawkinsesque line. On that score, RD: 3rd rate scientist even by conventional standards, not to mention knowledge of history that would (in my day anyway) shame a schoolboy – but then again even that’s better than you lot thus why you eagerly swallow his truth traducing fallacies. Oh deat I’m becoming nasty – usually your provenance.
Little Mo,
By what authority do you claim that Professor Richard Dawkins of Oxford University is a third rate scientist? Really you need to provide some reasoning before you can get away with this. By the way any schoolboy of my day would know it is neither/nor and not neither/or. So what exactly do you believe in if neither creation nor evolution? I wasn’t even aware that there was another explanation of our origins.
Stewart,
Still waiting for a reply