Just One Problem
As regular readers of this blog
know, evolutionists use the label “creationist” not just for those with a particular interpretation of Genesis. That is their term for anyone who doesn’t accept the fact of evolution. It doesn’t matter what your particular position is, you’re a creationist, period. So it was no surprise that Britain’s
new ban on “creationism” is actually a ban on “any doctrine or theory which holds that natural biological processes cannot account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth.”
This is all a bit awkward though because it means that the ideas of one Alfred Russell Wallace, the, err, co-founder of evolution—whose memory is preserved with a statue at the Natural History Museum in London—are now officially banned because Wallace was, according to the evolutionist’s own terminology,
a creationist.
Are you saying that Russel doubted that evolution occurred?
ReplyDeleteYes, he backed away from the kook-aid and it grieved Darwin.
DeleteWould you expand on that a bit? I know that Wallace thought that God had to inject a soul into humans, since we are so special. Is that what you mean?
DeleteI'm not surprised that Darwin was disappointed.
Yes indeed, kook-aid is in no way any aid at all.
DeleteAs I understand it, Wallace did not back away from evolution but, at about the same time as he became a spiritualist, he came to believe that natural selection was insufficient to account for human intellectual capacities such as artistic genius or metaphysical thought. Not that it matters. Wallace had done more than sufficient good research to qualify for inclusion in the school science curriculum.
DeleteIt's an interesting question, though, is "creationist" really the antonym for "evolutionist"? Shouldn't i be "creationist" vs "abiogenesist", "anevolutionist" vs "evolutionist" and "Darwinist" vs "neo-Paleyist"?
Let's not forget Mendel > "Mendel's Opposition to Evolution and to Darwin" > http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/87/3/205.abstract
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNo, it's only awkward if one thinks ideas should be judged based on their source, rather than their contents.
ReplyDeleteWell, I would guess that >95% of those who don't "believe" in evolutionary process as explanation for life also self-describe as creationist. Just a guess, I'm unaware of any polls...
ReplyDelete"No, it's only awkward if one thinks ideas should be judged based on their source, rather than their contents. "
Exactly. I really HOPE Cornelius doesn't want ideas judged on their source alone.
British or any other government can decree a law easily- piece of cake. Why officially ban alternative view? Because what they really want is people's minds, especially the young people. That's the best time for brainwashing. Government also needs a powerful propaganda partner: the mass media!
ReplyDeleteEdu-kate yourself.
mind-control-theories-and-techniques
Eugen, I suspect within 20 years or so this ban will be reversed as Muslims become the majority in England. They have a particularly effective way of dealing with non-conformists. Most professors in the ivy towers are the least courageous in society. I bet before we die, we will be reading headlines from the Guardian, "Allah is the Creator and evolution proves it."
DeleteEugen Why officially ban alternative view? Because what they really want is people's minds, especially the young people. That's the best time for brainwashing.
DeleteExactly. Which is why we see Christian fundamentalists in the US and Muslim fundamentalists in the UK scheming to get their religious dogmas taught in the science class as if they were well-founded scientific theories.
What rubbish! The government has not banned any religious belief. It has banned the teaching of creationism as science in science classes. The reason is not that it want to promote a "doctrine" which opposes it, but because creationism is not science and therefore has no place in science classes.
ReplyDeleteOf course, the main reason to exclude creationism from schools is that when creationists make the claim that their particular religious dogma is supported by science, they are utterly dishonest in how they promote their agenda.
http://testiculation.blogspot.co.uk/
What rubbish! The government has not banned any religious belief.
DeleteWell that's a relief. So the government is merely taking money from people who actually work for living, and using it to indoctrinate their kids with religiously-driven junk science, against their will? Wonderful.
Cornelius Hunter: So the government is merely taking money from people who actually work for living, and using it to indoctrinate their kids with religiously-driven junk science, against their will?
DeleteNo. That's what the law prohibits. Creationism has no place in the science classroom. However, it can still be taught in religious studies.
This is a historic decision in Britain.
ReplyDeleteThey have officially made illegal certain conclusions in common human thought.
They have banned god, genesis, creationism(s) of any species and done so as a desperately needed thing.
If this then they can ban any conclusions they do not want taught as options .
its a state church concept again.
The state truth has been declared on rather obscure things in the education system.
NAY> its not obscure. its about attacking christiantity.
This is more then a outrage. its a declaration of war against Christiandom by a wickedly run Britain.
either what they did will be done in north america or they will have to change their policy.
I mean its about freedom or slavery.
Its not of their business to determine FINALLY what is true about the bible or origin matters.
Crhristian bRitain arise and attack.
Robert Byers: They have officially made illegal certain conclusions in common human thought.
DeleteNo, just prevented claims that creationism has a scientific basis from being taught to children in free schools and academies. You can still believe what you want, go to the church of your choice, preach what you want.
Z: No, just prevented claims that creationism has a scientific basis from being taught to children in free schools and academies.
DeleteJ: When you define science such that it's actually demarcatable from other belief sets, UCA isn't a scientific hypothesis. If it means the majority vote of a very small subset of humans based on their own sense of personal credulity, then depending on which small subset of humans you're talking about, all kinds of contradictory beliefs are "scientific."
Robert Byers They have banned god, genesis, creationism(s) of any species...
Delete... from being taught in the science classroom where they have no business being in the first place.
Robert Byers Crhristian bRitain arise and attack.
Be careful what you wish for, Robert. If you look at British history, there is an unbroken thread of bitter , sectarian conflict between Protestant and Catholic running back from the Troubles in Northern Ireland back to the Reformation. If that's what Christianity means then perhaps we're better off without it.
I: If you look at British history, there is an unbroken thread of bitter , sectarian conflict between Protestant and Catholic running back from the Troubles in Northern Ireland back to the Reformation. If that's what Christianity means then perhaps we're better off without it.
DeleteJ: But that proves too much. Look at what atheist states do. Turns out, only inductive evidence amounts to much. But there is no inductive evidence for UCA, naturalistic or teleological. No one can articulate or write the number of hypothetico-deductive axioms to imply the relevant CAUSED history. And this is the case for all SA scenarios as well, when limited to the same data set.
Zack
Deletethey bANNED conclusions about origins and banned questioning other conclusions. they bannewd God and gEnesis as the truth and banned questioning evolution as the truth.
This is as radical as can be. Its historic censorship since the dark ages.
Robert Byers : they bANNED conclusions about origins and banned questioning other conclusions. they bannewd God and gEnesis as the truth and banned questioning evolution as the truth.
DeleteOnly in the science classroom of public schools. They can still teach creation in religious studies or philosophy. If you want your children to have religious instruction, take them to Bible Study or Catechism.
Quick comment about governments, no need to over-explain
ReplyDeletenot yet banned view of governments
Ian.
ReplyDeleteYour wrong in downplaying this historic state decision on scholarship.
They made a state decision that one position is true and other positions are not true.
If you retreat to ITS JUST a ban on saying creationism is a science and a ban on saying evolutionism is not accurate science THEN its still a historic decision for a state to say and order this for schools.
its a official rejection of creationists RIGHT to say we do science just as much as anyone and to present our stuff as science.
This forum would be illegal in Brit schools!!! Illegal I say.
Its a official rejection of the right of anyone to say evolution is wrong or not scientifically accurate.
this is a state enforced final conclusion just like the old religious conclusions britain had.
its a state opinion and illegal to say its wrong or say a alternative is just as right based on science.
Its absurd, its evil, its european and not english.
Its fantastic state dictarship in not just science conclusions but in religious conclusions.
In classes teaching origin things they are banning God and genesis as options because they are officially not true.
Squirming around the word science to avoid this intellectual dictatorship on such great matters in mankinds history is simply a old attack upon religion.
they are not just banning creationism.
they are banning a intellectual opinion/saying it that creationism is science and evolution is not accurate science.
They had to do this wicked thing and threw out centuries of british freedom of faith, conscience, speech, and inquiry into nature.
this is the modern attack upon modern Galileo's
surely this will fail.
Robert Byers: its a official rejection of creationists RIGHT to say we do science just as much as anyone and to present our stuff as science.
DeleteYou can say it. You can even publish it in your own magazines. You just can't teach it to children in public schools. That doesn't prevent parents from teaching their religious beliefs to their children at home or in church or temple.
Robert Byers They made a state decision that one position is true and other positions are not true.
DeleteNo, they simply decided that creationism and intelligent design were religious views not science and, as such, should not be taught as if they were science.
Robert Byers In classes teaching origin things they are banning God and genesis as options because they are officially not true.
No, they are officially not science, that's all.
Robert Byers this is the modern attack upon modern Galileo's surely this will fail.
Creationists were never Galileo. They were Galileo's oppressors. The modern-day equivalents would do the same to evolution if they got half a chance.
Zack
ReplyDeleteyour wrong. its not just this. its this way now in north america.
this is a official state decision that its illegal to teach creationsism is a science AND its illegal to teach evolution is a failed science or plain wrong.
its a official state decision that evolution is rIGHT. One can NOT say its wrong.
Its not mere school teachings.
Its a clampdown, nazi like, on dissent on these matters.
Its trie historic tyranny because it says God/Genesis is so wrong its illegal to say its right and illegal to question ideas that say God/Genesis is wrong.
This is a attack on christianity, freedom of brits, and free intellectual enquiry and free conscience.
its truly a wicked rejection of the great british invention of freedom to tell the truth or get it wrong.
Robert Byers: this is a official state decision that its illegal to teach creationsism is a science AND its illegal to teach evolution is a failed science or plain wrong.
DeleteThat is incorrect. You can teach creationism if you want. It's only public schools for children that can't teach creationism. You can start a Bible class. You can borrow a soapbox. You can teach your children whatever you want.
It would be silly to claim a scientific basis for creationism though.