Evolution? How?

Schools minister says creationism has no place in classroom science
(Ekklesia, April 28, 2006)

UK schools minister, Jacqui Smith, has declared categorically that the government is against the teaching of creationism and so-called ?'intelligent design' in science lessons in British schools.

The statement has come as the result of the British Humanist Association (BHA) calling on the minister to justify a parliamentary answer she gave on 17 February 2006, which stated that creationism and ?'intelligent design' could be taught in school Religious Education lessons.

Teaching unions, scientists, educationalists, the Archbishop of Canterbury, secularists, bishops and the UK Christian think tank Ekklesia are among those who have expressed concern that creationist dogma - which opposes evolutionary biology through a literalist interpretation of the Bible rejected by mainstream Christian scholars - could creep into Britain's classrooms.

Ms Smith responded to the BHA by saying that she "would like to take this opportunity make clear our position on Creationism and Intelligent Design in the National Curriculum".

Declared Ms Smith: "'Creationism and Intelligent Design are not included in either the present science programme of study or the revised science programme of study to be implemented in September 2006."

She goes on to say that the only ?'controvers[ies]' that could be taught in science lessons are scientific ones, and that "Creationism cannot be used as an example of a scientific controversy, as it has no empirical evidence to support it and no underpinning scientific principles or explanations."

In her new statement, Ms Smith is equally scathing of ?'intelligent design' (ID). She says: "Intelligent Design is sometimes erroneously advanced as a scientific theory but it has no underpinning scientific principles or explanations supporting it and is not accepted by the international scientific community."

ID proponents claim that that life on earth may have been produced by an unidentifiable intelligent cause because supposed ?'irreducible' and ?'specified' complexities in the world allegedly undermine evolutionary theory.

But critics say that ?'intelligent design' is junk science based on poor maths. It cannot be tested by experiment, does not generate any meaningful predictions and proposes no new scientific hypotheses.

This view was rigorously backed in the Dover School Board decision in the USA last year, when US District Judge John E. Jones III ruled, on expert advice, that ID had no scientific basis. He also accused its advocates of falsification and dishonesty in presenting themselves and their views.

Instrumental in the case against ID in Dover were two leading scientific educators who are theists, a senior biologist who is a Catholic, and John F. Haught, Professor of Theology at Georgetown University - demonstrating the strength of religious scholarship's opposition to ID and creationism, too.

Both humanist and Christian commentators have welcomed the statement from the schools minister.

Andrew Copson, British Humanist Association education officer, said: "It has always seemed ludicrous that a debate should even exist as to whether creation myths should be taught in school science, even in their pseudoscientific sheepskin of ''intelligent design'. Now we can hopefully draw a line under this pretend ?'controversy. Pupils in science lessons should be taught science."

Simon Barrow, director of the Christian think tank Ekklesia also backed the government's position. "Creationism and ID undermine good science and good theology," he declared. "They should no more be taught in science classrooms than astrology and numerology."

"The question about how creationism arises through what Dr Rowan Williams has rightly called a ?'category mistake' in Christian thinking is certainly something which might be considered in Religious Education - where pupils should critically examine different life stances," added Barrow.

He continued: "However, when Jacqui Smith says that ?'the biblical view of creation can be taught in RE lessons', this betrays continuing confusion. There are two different ?'creation stories' in Genesis, not one. And in developed Christian and Jewish thought ?'creation' is not a theory of origins which competes with scientific explanation, but a way of understanding the natural world as gift."

Concern about creationist ideology infiltrating science lessons has come about partly because of the government's controversial academy programme - which critics say gives factional religious groups influence for cash.

John Mackay, a US figure associated with creationism, has also been speaking in British schools and colleges this month.

The schools minister's latest statement will be welcomed by those critical of Tony Blair's equivocal response to leading scientists and Anglican Bishops who lobbied the Prime Minister to outlaw creationism in schools back in 2002.

Earlier this month the Royal Society, Britain's oldest learned association for the natural sciences, declared: "Some may wish to explore the compatibility, or otherwise, of science with various beliefs, and they should be encouraged to do so. However, young people are poorly served by deliberate attempts to withhold, distort or misrepresent scientific knowledge and understanding in order to promote particular religious beliefs."

Once again, RexRed has shown us that in his ignorance of Evolution, he is gathering all sorts of scientific information from non-related disciplines in an attempt to prove something wrong or right.

Is it any wonder we need so many people to counter the ID-supporter or Creationist, if they insist on using so many various disciplines that the one person couldn't possibly argue against them all due to lack of knowledge?

What matters most is that those promoting ID are paying through the nose in big bucks by losing all the legal cases.

Once again, RexRed has shown us that in his ignorance of Evolution, he is gathering all sorts of scientific information from non-related disciplines in an attempt to prove something wrong or right.

Is it any wonder we need so many people to counter the ID-supporter or Creationist, if they insist on using so many various disciplines that the one person couldn't possibly argue against them all due to lack of knowledge?

I didn't understand the statement except insofar that it was naive. It demonstrated a lack of understanding of the money-go-round.

Quote:

Schools minister says creationism has no place in classroom science
(Ekklesia, April 28, 2006)

UK schools minister, Jacqui Smith, has declared categorically that the government is against the teaching of creationism and so-called ?'intelligent design' in science lessons in British schools.

So from a US point of view this is confusing... is she UK school minister as in education minister or school minister as in clergy? Either way I have argument with her rash and cumbersome conclusions. Is she saying she is a scientists? She is not "quoting" scientists or government documents written by scientists. She is paraphrasing and giving her own religion on the subject. This only shows that there needs to be a fair unveiling of the issue when it comes to children deciding what they want. Children should not be indoctrinated either way on this issue they should be allowed to let their own reasoning minds make up their decisions. Since when do we dictate ideas to children? That is blind faith and an insult to human intelligence.

The statement has come as the result of the British Humanist Association (BHA) calling on the minister to justify a parliamentary answer she gave on 17 February 2006, which stated that creationism and ?'intelligent design' could be taught in school Religious Education lessons.

Teaching unions, scientists, educationalists, the Archbishop of Canterbury, secularists, bishops and the UK Christian think tank Ekklesia are among those who have expressed concern that creationist dogma - which opposes evolutionary biology through a literalist interpretation of the Bible rejected by mainstream Christian scholars - could creep into Britain's classrooms.

Who cares... It is not like creationism is completely unpopular. What some idiots (scientists) don't understand is just because evolution did really happen it still does not rule out CREATION from the God of the Bible... Maybe the seven day literal interpretation needs work but that does not mean that God did not create the heavens and the earth! Although I believe evolution is a fact it cannot be considered fact until we can create evolution in a laboratory. Scientists say well evolution took millions of years well so did creation and evolution does not explain "the beginning" any more than closing your IDIOT eyes to creation. Is evolution saying intelligence came from idiocy? I hope not because this is where I take issue...

Does she mean by a literalist "dogma" that of "In the beginning that God created the heavnens and the earth"? Which mainstream Christian scholars reject this? Here is another example of people overthinking a problem.

Ms Smith responded to the BHA by saying that she "would like to take this opportunity make clear our position on Creationism and Intelligent Design in the National Curriculum".

Declared Ms Smith: "'Creationism and Intelligent Design are not included in either the present science programme of study or the revised science programme of study to be implemented in September 2006."

She goes on to say that the only ?'controvers[ies]' that could be taught in science lessons are scientific ones, and that "Creationism cannot be used as an example of a scientific controversy, as it has no empirical evidence to support it and no underpinning scientific principles or explanations."

And where is the newly evolved species in the lab? A bunch of bones are supposed to prove God does not exist? I see, use the dead to disprove the creator of the living (energy and matter)? This woman needs to go back to logic class 101

Lu 24:5
And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?

In her new statement, Ms Smith is equally scathing of ?'intelligent design' (ID). She says: "Intelligent Design is sometimes erroneously advanced as a scientific theory but it has no underpinning scientific principles or explanations supporting it and is not accepted by the international scientific community."

And this is the opinion of what renound scientist? We are intellignet because of a proven (sarcastic) scientiffic principle that we can from an unintelligent source. Unintelligent assumptions like these that make me wonder if creation of the big bang did come from an idiot! I do believe in evolution but I also believe in creation. What did we all evolve from sommethihng so small that it is impreceptable? What put that here miss UK minister? Did those small imperceptable particles pop put of a balloon? (Show me this "underpinning scientiffic principles and explainations" that disprove God!)

ID proponents claim that that life on earth may have been produced by an unidentifiable intelligent cause because supposed ?'irreducible' and ?'specified' complexities in the world allegedly undermine evolutionary theory.

It is our own vain human arrogance (devoid of God) to assume there is no intelligence in rocks, water, DNA, bacteria, viruses, plants. etc... (Quote from a scientist "The water molecules 'talk' to the ions.") Do they use mouths when they talk?

But critics say that ?'intelligent design' is junk science based on poor maths. It cannot be tested by experiment, does not generate any meaningful predictions and proposes no new scientific hypotheses.

If intelligent design could not be tested there would be no science because everything would be dumb... Like her conclusions, hehe

This view was rigorously backed in the Dover School Board decision in the USA last year, when US District Judge John E. Jones III ruled, on expert advice, that ID had no scientific basis. He also accused its advocates of falsification and dishonesty in presenting themselves and their views.

He ruled on expert "intelligent" advice that "there is no intelligence"!

Instrumental in the case against ID in Dover were two leading scientific educators who are theists, a senior biologist who is a Catholic, and John F. Haught, Professor of Theology at Georgetown University - demonstrating the strength of religious scholarship's opposition to ID and creationism, too.

Yes, even clergy can sell God down the river...

Both humanist and Christian commentators have welcomed the statement from the schools minister.

Loyal followers... servants...

Andrew Copson, British Humanist Association education officer, said: "It has always seemed ludicrous that a debate should even exist as to whether creation myths should be taught in school science, even in their pseudoscientific sheepskin of ''intelligent design'. Now we can hopefully draw a line under this pretend ?'controversy. Pupils in science lessons should be taught science."

How about objective science? This is not teaching but dictating. The students will be railing on these teachers who try to obscure their fundamental right to choice. I will be with them on this one...

Simon Barrow, director of the Christian think tank Ekklesia also backed the government's position. "Creationism and ID undermine good science and good theology," he declared. "They should no more be taught in science classrooms than astrology and numerology."

If someone is going to speak authoritatively as to how the heavens and earth came into existence and cut God out of the equation are they teaching truth/science? If science is going to purposefully dumb down the universe, what "proof/evidence" do they have for doing the contrary of what many millions of spiritual individuals oppose? Dumbing down the universe is not science, it is pure politics and it is going to backfire. I think God needs to take a back seat to science "creating" controversy...

"The question about how creationism arises through what Dr Rowan Williams has rightly called a ?'category mistake' in Christian thinking is certainly something which might be considered in Religious Education - where pupils should critically examine different life stances," added Barrow.

What might this "category mistake" be? That God did NOT create the heavens and the earth? Great clergy you are. If you can doubt the first lines of the Bible you can doubt any line anywhere you want and the whole book is worthless. (most Catholics don't read the Bible anyway.. should figure.)

He continued: "However, when Jacqui Smith says that ?'the biblical view of creation can be taught in RE lessons', this betrays continuing confusion. There are two different ?'creation stories' in Genesis, not one. And in developed Christian and Jewish thought ?'creation' is not a theory of origins which competes with scientific explanation, but a way of understanding the natural world as gift."

So let me get this straight, "in the beginning God (who is completely unintelligent) gifted the heavens and the earth to the world"?

Concern about creationist ideology infiltrating science lessons has come about partly because of the government's controversial academy programme - which critics say gives factional religious groups influence for cash.

I am concerned about creation not being an alternative to objectively minded SCIENCE students... Creation does not need to contradict evolution but science should not be dumbing down matter or energy because we are on the verge of unleashing the intelligence within this nano tehno "logical" creation. Where light is "talking" to ions and and cells can feel "pain"... It is science that will be looked back on as the one limiting the possibilities this time and not religion. Yet science has even convinced serious clergy to climb aboard their dead universe...

John Mackay, a US figure associated with creationism, has also been speaking in British schools and colleges this month.

The schools minister's latest statement will be welcomed by those critical of Tony Blair's equivocal response to leading scientists and Anglican Bishops who lobbied the Prime Minister to outlaw creationism in schools back in 2002.

Earlier this month the Royal Society, Britain's oldest learned association for the natural sciences, declared: "Some may wish to explore the compatibility, or otherwise, of science with various beliefs, and they should be encouraged to do so. However, young people are poorly served by deliberate attempts to withhold, distort or misrepresent scientific knowledge and understanding in order to promote particular religious beliefs."

And God is poorly served by distorting or misrepresenting creative knowledge and understanding AND INTELLIGENCE in order to promote dead lifeless scientific dogma. These people think they are smart because they know the Greek word for "mob" -- Ekklesia

It's the sermon on the mount of Creationist/ID crap again.

(most Catholics don't read the Bible anyway.. should figure.)[/color]

Rex:

Do you believe all things come from god?
Do you believe science came from god?
What is this "dead lifeless scientific dogma" you speak of?

OK. Do you love god with all your heart? All your entire being?

Reads more like the dumbing down of religion -- a "universe" cannot be smart or dumb.