Creationalism

[Englishbird]

I am getting increasingly annoyed and frustrated at all the reporting on creationalism. I concede that I may just be a bi-product of an over enthusiastic press, but how can any intelligent human being look me in the eye and tell me they genuinely believe that 'god' created the world in 7 days and created Adam and Eve (which, btw, makes us all inbreds). I not only find it incredulous, it's basically just p*ssing me off !!! Is this still a ridiculous minority or is it a growing concern?

[joko]

hear, hear EB

[Oneeyedvic]

I subscribe to a weekly newsletter called "this is true" - the first story today is about a school in Bennett, Colorado which sacked a teacher - the reason: she tried to introduce her class to Opera - she showed them an excerpt from a Children's video "who's afraid of Opera". It showed scenes (using glove puppets) of Faust .

Since she was condoning 'Devil Worshipping' and she was 'Glorifying devil worship' she was initially suspended and then sacked by the school board!

Source: www.thisistrue.com and The Rocky Mountain News and Denver Post.

Hopefully this is a story like the Baa Baa Rainbow Sheep, but sadly I doubt it

[Dom Tuk]

Our PM is a living example of it.

[Drusilla1S]

I'm not against creationism or its modern equivalent, intelligent design, being taught in classes about religion and faith, but I do have problems when it intrudes into science lessons.

I cannot understand why intelligent people ignore or refuse to answer the fundamental question, 'where did the intelligent designer come from?' and accept it as a given fact.

Sadly, with the expansion of divisive, faith schools in this country (Another lesson from N.Ireland ignored.), I expect to see this fairy tale to spread like bindweed in our schools.

[Clanad]

I think I've debated this issue with all who have signed on to this thread, so there's no gain in rehashing all that... I would simply ask, why is an idea threatning to anyone? One can either debate a given side or ignore it, but it's quite amazing the fear or rancor this simple idea raises...

[Clanad]

... Plus, it seems a closer reading of the incident focused as much on the violent aspects of certain scenes within the opera and their suitability for 6 to 8 year old children as it did to any religious controversey... as usual, there's more to story...

Check here: http://www.denverpost.com/entertainment/ci_3540512

[geo0939]

Clanad, with reference to ideas being threatening, you may have heard of the idea of UBERMENCHEN. The trouble is not everyone debates.

[Ward-Minter]

God created the world in 6 day EB. The sabbath (7th day)was put aside for rest and faith, you heathen!

[noxlumos]

clanad Come on it's Faust, a guy gets plugged with a sillouette sword and all these people are squealing about kids being traumatised?This is the same country where some parents think it's acceptable to buy an 8 year old a semi automatic gun for Christmas... Peace and goodwill and all that.

It's an Opera, and the Devil is a cultural figure, violence is in context and for a group of people to complain about that is absurd and anal.

Teach your creationalism if you want I have no objection to that, as long as whilst you're at it you teach evolution and also inform about other religions and ideas,but for God's sakes get a grip on what constitutes violence or inappropriate viewing content for kids as what they are complaining about in your link will rule out most great literature, opera, plays even history lessons and you'll end up with a nation of Kretins.

[Clanad]

You'd have a valid point, noxloumas, if it weren't for the ages of the children. On one hand you decry the ability of parents to choose to buy a firearm for their child (I can assure you, knowing U.S law in this respect, this is an impossibility) a parental action with which you obviously disagree, and on the other hand take to task parents that believe content of entertainment (yes even Opera) can be inappropriate for their young child. Hmmmm... appears to be a dichotomy, no? Point being, this is a small rural town and the parents feel it's their perogative to determine what's appropriate for their children, regardless of your, may I say, rather superior determination otherwise..

[WaldoMcFroog]

The point is not that some people believe in creationism. People have the right to believe in whatever fairy tales make them feel warm at night, and good luck to 'em. Whether or not they're deluded, a bit sad and pathetic for doing so, it's their right.

The problem is when there are attempts to force students in science classes to examine those religious motiviated beliefs as serious scientific proposals. Since their relgious beliefs clearly cannot be measured using the scientific methodology, they are not science. It's no more appropriate (and indeed probably less so) than asking French Students to attempt to study Klingon.

[Ward-Minter]

Well waldo I would advocate that religion can be measured "scientifically".

For example somebody's elation at finding faith or state of mind whilst praying could easily be measured by such "scientific" methodology as galvonic skin responses or cognitive brainwaves etc.

Granted creation is pushing the boundaries a bit regarding religious proof, but my understanding of the scientific method (positivism???) merely means objective measurment. Surely to a Christian, there is an objective truth out there and to say it is mere subjective supposition or they are "deluded, a bit sad or pathetic" for believing so is little more than having a thought police in place.

You don't see many houses or Darwin or Rutherford do you? No. Remember, Darwin himself had much self loathing and indeed self disbelief at his findings. It is fair to say that he died reverting back to Adam and Eve philosophy.

But then again he is not dead as he lives on in the Kingdom of Heaven. Gods gift to him and you and me and Mrs Miggins is eternal life.

Where there is no vision, the people will perish.

[WaldoMcFroog]

I meant the specific beliefs of ID and Creationalism can't be tested scientifically, since they fail the falsification test.

Darwin most certainly did not denounce his findings and go back to some sort of Christian belief though. Are you perhaps referring to the oft-quoted 'Lady Hope' story that says he recanted his views on his deathbed?

Even the pro-Creationist website Answers in Genesis says that's a load of bunk. Darwin died believing in his theory and his athiesm. He did however object to some of the Social Darwinism.

[Englishbird]

lol, WM, I stand corrected, although I did know that, strange though that the headmaster of one of Reg Vardy's schools did not correct his interviewer when asked the same question.

Clanad, can you understand that to me, the fact that so many people put so much time, effort and money into something I believe to be absolute rubbish, is terrifying. Religion is an issue I struggle with in the first place, but I am open minded and secure enough to be comfortable with adults following a faith. It fills me with fear that children are being 'taught' creationalism (creationism?) as fact. Throughout history, and indeed in today's world children are being taught beliefs by fundamentalist that are detrimental to humanity.

Give a child the facts, inform them of different beliefs and interpretations, and then allow them to grow into adults and formulate their own opinions. My mother, who is a Christian, would not allow me to go to a certain church in our area as she thought they were 'brain washing' children. I went to the local Cof E church and I actually began formulating my current opinions at the age of 12, and they were my opinions, no-one else's.

It is inherently wrong to teach children Creationalism as fact.

One other thing clanad, if you're asking me to accept that Creationism could be true, are you willing to accept that it could be a load of tosh?

[JustSia]

Ummm, I haven't actualy read the Bible properly but am sure that when Adam and Eve were created there were other people already living outside of the Garden of Eden.

But hey, who cares.

Try and find Devil's Apocrypha by John A. DeVito, you will never look at the Bible the same way.

S.

[SarCaustic]

Evolution, given its timescale can't be falsified either - it all comes down to "logic", which varies from person to person and ultimately faith - some place their faith in science and evolution, others in religion and others in their sense of self or maybe even nothing at all. Even evolution doesn't explain everything e.g. what catalysed life in the first place?

[Clanad]

Hmmm... I would ask what, exactly, is it about Darwinism can that be proven scientifically? Can the actual origin of life be proven by his theory? By the way have you read his treatsie? If so, which edition?Creationism has at least as good an explanation as Darwin. Speaking of that, are you referencing current Darwinian theory or the one he originally proposed? Either way, if that's the basis for your understanding of origins, I posit that it's you, collectively, that have a problem. Look... I've said before and it's still true that there are many,many thousands of scientists worldwide of all disciplines... all credentialed, peer reviewed, published in scientific journals that believe an Entity (some have a name for this Entity, others do not) totally outside of Creation was the causal factor. They come to this conclusion based on study, not just faith. Are they all deluded, chin dribbling, crotch scratching Neanderthals?... I think not.
The major problem, as I see it, is that most that have a derisional attitude towards Creationism neither understand it nor the "scientific" beliefs to which they adhere... they've formed an opinion based on a world view with no real facts at hand.
You might like to read about your own Professor Antony Flew as a example of what can happen when a trained mind considers all the alternatives...
http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/

I understand full well that no one is going to change minds or hearts here, but I'm always amazed that, on this site at least, those who become rabid or at least smugly and chauvinistically dismissive are those against the idea of Creationsim even being considered...

[El D]

Hmm, well a very brief scan of the first couple of pages posits the following question;

If the god which Flew has decided to believe exists, and as he categorically states there is no interaction between mankind and this being, and this being is not verifiably good, then why should anyone worship it?

On an additional note, I doubt very much this is the rational though flawed logical creationism taught in faith schools. I do not believe that the parents have the right to have their children taught what they want at school, maybe at home, but school should teach children to think for themselves.

[JustSia]

Clanad, I absolutely love your posts. Great sourse for thought.

May I add something, which I think applies brilliantly to this topic.

"In an audience before the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on 31 October 1992 John Paul II officially closed the work of the commission, after having received in that same audience a report from Cardinal Paul Poupard on the work of the commission, with the words: "From the Galileo case we can draw a lesson which is applicable today in analogous cases which arise in our times and which may arise in the future. ... It often happens that, beyond two partial points of view which are in contrast, there exists a wider view of things which embraces both and integrates them."

I have to admit I personally stand on the scientific side of the scales. But I am fairly open-minded to consider all possibilities. Most of the scientist believe in theories, until they are proven I really can't see them advertising any of it as fact. They are even prepared to re-evaluate Newtonian laws to understand these theories better.

What puts me off organised religion and specifically Creationism and Intelligent Design is their incessant persistence to show it as a God given fact and inability to open their horizons. Don't get me wrong there are some who believe in the marriage of science and religion, but for every one of those people there is one who is narrow minded enough to see Bible literally. Creationism when looked upon broadly supports most of the scientific evolution theories, when you consider that 7 days was not actually days but 'ages' translated correctly.

S.

[Dom Tuk]

One possible way to sort this issue out would be to engineer a destruction of this planet. If a creator was involved in some way in its conception and (as the creationist believe and proclaim) in its current state and development then, perhaps a total annihilation of his/her work would stir him/her into intervening and preventing this annihilation. If the creator could not be bothered into intervening then well there is no one left to worry about the consequences. Or it may just prove that there was no one who could have intervened. Either way the problem would be solved.