A Born Again Christian criticises the UK Government's ban on the teaching of Creationism in UK Schools. The basis of the criticism seems to be that evolution cannot be taught as science because science can't explain the origin of the universe. She then recommends home schooling, whilst simultaneously revealing a range of misunderstandings about science that sound like they came from a home schooling text book.
Commentary
|
|
Re: UK Government bans Creationism from free schools and academies
|
|
Posted by A Born Again Christian on 25 Jun 2014 at 5:24PM
|
|
When the "science" group cannot begin to explain how the first tiny speck of space dust came to be, but chooses to ignore the problem and claim they are superiorly enlightened, scientifically minded, and further claim the right to suppress and censor contrary opinion in the name of science, then the "science" is nothing but human arrogance.
The "explosion" of home schooling in the U.S. is sure to burn even brighter. ("Explosion" is my word based upon statistics I've seen within the last year or two.)
|
The topic is the banning of the teaching of Creationism in UK School science classes where it is presented as an alternative to evolution.
A Born Again Christian appears to be trying to change the subject to cosmology and the origin of the universe. Using that as a way to refute the theory of evolution by natural selection is a fallacious argument.
Also, the “claim they are superiorly enlightened” is a straw man. No one made any such claim.
The “explosion of home schooling” argument also seems totally irrelevant to the theory of evolution. It could be argued that home schooling is a sign of desperation by evangelical parents to suppress the truth from their children.
|
Christianity is not inconsistent with science until speculation about the first particles popping into existence from an absolute void is taught as science.
There are Christian biologists who apply their scientific minds and search for scientific answers in the finest laboratories in all fields of science.
There are other scientists who are not Christians, but who openly express scientific knowledge that applying Darwin's random chance principles don't work in real biology.
In the 1800s Darwin studied animals, not amino acids or proteins or cells, not even slimy bonds--unless a lizard crawled into one maybe.
Darwin observed animals with his old fashioned eyes. Sure, man can by selective breeding eventually make a little dog become a big dog. That is different!
Adding billions, zillions, kajillians of years to allow even a cell to happen by random chance is nothing but wishful speculation. It is not science.
If we are going to be honest scientists, we still need to answer from where the materials to form the first cell came.
|
And now a series of uninformed statements about science.
1) “first particles popping into existence” demonstrates a lack of knowledge of cosmology.
2) “Darwin’s random chance principles”? What the heck are they? This just demonstrates a lack of knowledge of evolution and Darwin's theory of natural selection.
3) Selective breeding is of course different to evolution. That’s just a straw man argument – no one suggested otherwise.
4) “A cell to happen by random chance” is another straw man. No one ever suggested cells happen by random chance.
5) The materials for the first cell could have come from protein chains. Or perhaps the first cells were nothing like the cells we see today, which evolved from them.
And again, all of this is a distraction from the argument about evolution.
|
Re: UK Government bans Creationism from free schools and academies
|
|
Posted by JimC on 25 Jun 2014 at 5:37PM
|
|
The "science group" does provide explanations of how the first tiny speck of whatever came to be. I can provide you with that information if you really need it.
|
|
Your comment appeared off topic at first because we are discussing Creationism and the teaching of evolution. But on second thoughts you've neatly illustrates the topic - we need to avoid children being taught what you've just asserted to be fact when it is really a lack of your awareness of existing information that any teacher could provide, including how particles "pop into existence". If the "explosion" of home schooling in the USA is a means for evangelical parents to prevent their children learning the facts of science, then I do worry for those children, not just academically but socially.
|
|
Christianity and Islam need not be inconsistent with science. But Creationism is.
|
|
Re: UK Government bans Creationism from free schools and academies
|
|
Posted by A Born Again Christian on 25 Jun 2014 at 6:03PM
|
|
Sorry, JimC. I believe you are intentionally telling us a falshood. Where is your link this time?
If you're going talk about atoms and protons popping into existence, we've covered that here months or years ago. Last I heard, the scientists cannot catalogue or predict when the atoms "pops" up, but the idea that new atoms and protons are "created" was found amusing to a Los Alamos scientist I asked. |
Calling me a liar - ad hominem.
I could have provided a link which explains M-Theory. But this is a religion discussion board, not a science discussion board. And cosmology is not the topic in this thread.
And now we get more uninformed comments about science.
6) We were not talking about “atoms and protons popping into existence” and we never have done. It is true however that subatomic particles are observed to pop into existence.
If A Born Again Christian has access to a “Los Alamos scientist” then she should really ask that person to answer her questions!
|
Re: UK Government bans Creationism from free schools and academies
|
|
Posted by JimC on 25 Jun 2014 at 6:14PM
|
|
You're just proving the point again. No one has ever seriously suggested that atoms pop into existence. The reasons for the existence of atoms and elements and how they were formed is well known. No wonder the scientist you spoke to thought it was funny! Next time you chat to him or her, ask them to explain M-Theory if you are interested in an explanation of how the Big Bang came about.
|
|
It also seems that you're saying we can't believe the theory of evolution (which is the main argument of Creationists) unless we have theories to explain everything including the existence of the universe. Maybe I've misunderstood you but if that is your argument, it is a fallacious argument.
|
|
I'm curious - do you consider yourself to be a young earth creationist, if you don't mind me asking?
|
|
Re: UK Government bans Creationism from free schools and academies
Posted by A Born Again Christian on 25 Jun 2014 at 9:04PM
|
|
No, I showed the scientist your posting of that time about it the issue. I can accept the Big Bang theory, but that doesn't explain how the material forming the universe became so compressed it exploded. How did the materials and even the dark hole that had to exist before the Big Bang come to exist. M-Theory doesn't answer the "science" questions. M "theory" or M "speculation"--call it whatever suits you (except M-Science 'cause it isn't); it still smells the same.
|
This can't possibly be true because I've never said that atoms pop into existence!
Now - where on earth is all this stuff about compressed material exploding and dark holes coming from? |
Once animals, or even cells to clone, exist, the living "animal" may evolve. I don't believe evolution explains the basic materials of a cell could evolve and suddenly carry all the DNA needed to reproduce itself. I have read that the DNA formed within a single simple cell is "computerish". That all happened at once??? I know that amino acids are of two types. I think it is about a l00 of them that must "join together" in sequence. The other type would mess things up as it would if the proper types got out of sequence. "Join together"--that involves a 'folding' together in a complicated process that needs a video animation to adequately describe it. Scientist have a name for that process; it's called Peptide Bonding. My point is, no one of reasonable intelligence could ever believe random chance could result in even forming a protein. One 'scientist' in recent history proposed that the odds of the amino acids joining could be enhanced by laboratory action, perhaps made understandable by the analogy of water spining round and round down a drain--in a pattern depending on the hemisphere. The 'scientist' could not make his theory work despite all his fancy equipment.
|
More misunderstandings.
DNA is computerish? It all happened at once? Random chance? Is this stuff coming from Creationist web sites? |
Logic is that there was a Creator. There had to be a power to create something out of absolute nothing to begin any process. "Science" does not have a reasonable alternative unless they really have no concern for truth and logic. Hey, don't let me discourage anyone from speculating; just don't try to say speculations are scientific and the rest of us are drinking Kool Aid.
Put evolution in it's proper place and I as one of the Christians have no problem with it, just don't exalt Darwin's work into more than it is.
"...unless we have theories to explain everything including the existence of the universe [we can't believe evolution?]. Maybe I've misunderstood you but if that is your argument, it is a fallacious argument."
"[F]allacious argument" is in your statement, but it isn't mine. To use your words as mine: "You're just proving the point again." We know the universe in all its majesty is out there. You don't have an explanation of how it came to be, so it's fallacious argument, very unscientific for me to be concerned about the scientific impossibility of it existing without a creator? Well...you don't have a scientific explanation for the formation of the first simple cell. So why is it scientific for you to claim you're being scientific about it when many biologists know Darwin's speculative application of random chance is impossible?
|
That's not logic!
And yes there is a scientific alternative. Again, just a series of misunderstandings and false assumptions. And yes there are plenty of explanations. |
Young earth? I believe God made it all and a God with such power beyond what our finite human minds can imagine. God could do it anyway He wants. Many of the Bible teaching examples for mankind are figurative so we can understand--still it is Truth that is important. Were the "days" of Genesis figurative? Do the days represent ages instead of 24 hours. That's okay with me, but I know God created all of it. The creation of perfect man, the Fall, the promise of eventual crushing of Satan, God's promised redemption for man and His disclosing to us what kind of Creator/God He is, is all in Genesis, too. And God 'confirmed' the reality of His promises throughout the Bible. We have redemption available to us.
The 24 hour day--I greatly respect that belief. It may be correct...or not. I simply say it is a waste of my time to argue about how God did it. It makes no difference to me, but God could do something in the time of one breath or blink of an eye (to use human expressions) and confound the most intelligent and scientific of humans.
|
This is true - God could do anything. That's how God is defined. And now we have a misunderstanding of Young Earh Creationism - the age of the earth is not determined from the 6 days of Creation. |
Re: UK Government bans Creationism from free schools and academies
Posted by JimC on 25 Jun 2014 at 10:20PM
|
|
You can't possibly have shown a scientist a post from me about atoms popping into existence because I've never said it. I have explained here in the past that sub-atomic particles are observed to pop into existence. But not atoms. Atoms were formed when the unvierse was a few minutes old. before then the universe was too hot for atoms to exist. And M-Theory does answer the science questions.
|
|
You've then provided more misudnerstandings about science than I've ever seen in one place. For example...
Where did you get the idea that the material forming the universe was so compressed that it exploded? Where did you get the idea that there was a "dark hole" before the Big Bang? Evolution does not explain where the first cells came from. That is explained by chemistry. DNA came before cells existed, and evolved from RNA. DNA did not appear at once. Your continued references to "random chance" are another misunderstanding. Natural Selecion is nothing like random chance. Similarly the formation of proteins which no one suggests appeared by "random chance". If all of that stuff is how you were taught science, then I don't blame you for being cynical about science! The idea of a creator is one explanation for the existence of this universe we find ourselves in. And indeed ouruniverse could have been created. But you don't need to be a God to create a universe. You can do it with advanced technology, which we will have within a few hundred years. Our universe could also have appeared naturally. The net energy of our universe is zero - iit appears to be a special arrangement of nothing at all. Your assumption that there had to be power to create something out of nothing is not necessarily true. You say we don't have an explanation of how the universe came to be - but we do. You don't like the explanation, but there is an explanation. The fallacious argument I was referring to was your suggestion that the theory of evolution is wrong if we can't explain the origin of the universe. That is a false argument. The veracity of the theory of evolution is not affected by our knowledge of how the universe was created. |
|
Young Earth Creationism has nothing to do with the 6 days of Creation or the length of those days. Young Earth Creationism is based on the geneaology in the Bible from Adam to Abraham which can be interpreted to show the earth is less than 10,000 years old, and is therefore used as an argument that there was no time for life to evolve. If God ceated the universe then the 6 days of creation could have occurred millions of years ago or last week. Anything is possible (and unfalsifiable) with God.
|
|
You did seem to doubt that the universe was billions of years old earlier in the thread, but maybe I misunderstood you. hence my question as to whether you are a YEC. I'm still curious - how old do you think the universe is?
|
|
Re: UK Government bans Creationism from free schools and academies
Posted by A Born Again Christian on 26 Jun 2014 at 6:48AM |
|
I will acknowledge my memory may have caused me to say atoms when you may have said sub-atomic particles pop into existence. That was several year ago. The principle of popping is the same. Your old posts would speak for themselves. Importantly, the scientist laughed at the idea the particles (if that is what the posts say) could create themselves from nothing. He said their popping defied a scientific answer as to when and why, but that is because science is still a bit slow in knowing everything--perhaps a few hundred years and we'll know (I joke).
|
I'm not surprised the "scientist" laughed when he or she was asked to consider the idea that something can "create itself" ! But I am surprised this scientist has never heard of virtual particles, and couldn't be bothered to at least ask one of his or her colleagues. |
Your M-Theory "does answer the science questions", you say? I suppose that depends on what questions are asked. No theory is scientific proof of anything. It's only a human's idea until it's proven true. |
It's not my M-Theory! And who ever said a theory is scientific proof? |
I have read Hawkins' work carefully about the Big Bang and the black hole explosion. I should send you a particular Hawkins book to read and then you would know as much as I do.
|
Really? Stephen Hawking said the universe came from a "black hole explosion"? I wonder which book this is?
|
"But you don't need to be a God to create a universe. You can do it with advanced technology, which we will have within a few hundred years." --You actually said that! Do you really believe that? I wish I could live to tell you, "I told you that was crazy." You also said, "I don't blame you for being cynical about science!" I am not cynical about science. They are learning lots about God's world. I'm cynical of wannabe scientists who can't tell the difference between wild speculation, theory and proof and expect me to believe them.
|
Yeah it sounds like a crazy idea to some people. But it's true. There's only one person here who can't tell the difference between speculation, theory and proof, and it's not me! |
Okay, if DNA existed and if chemistry existed before cells existed, then the question obviously becomes, where did DNA, RNA and the chemistry come from? Don't bother telling me they just popped into existence. A true scientist knows better. Ah, did they create themselves when themselves didn't even exist?
|
There is an explanation and it's to do with chemistry, but even if we don't know, or even if God created DNA, that doesn't invalidate the theory of evolution by natural selection.
|
I don't know anyone who believes the earth is a certain age based upon geneaology and I haven't thought it worth looking into. I have read that the Hebrew people set out geneaology by including the noteworthy, well known "father" and important offspring of the line. E.G., If A is a great person, they name him and may leave out generations b, c, and d and then say E is the son of A. It isn't wrong, it just isn't the way we'd do it. Btw, did you hear that Jesus is called the Son of David? Yes, He is. Jesus is a king in the line of King David. All this is to say I tend to doubt the accuracy of the age of earth depending on a count of Biblically recorded generations. Even with errors in counting, mankind hasn't been on earth too long. But to quote some current famous/infamous person, "What difference does it make?"
|
Well, that's what Young Earth Creationists have been saying for hundreds of years.
I'm very pleased to hear about the doubts of this way of calculating the age of the earth. It's obviously ridiculous. |
Make no mistake about what I believe. In eternity past, God, including Jesus and the Holy Spirit, created all things. Jesus came that I may have life. God taught the way of salvation. Jesus says, "Believe and repent." His was the once and forever sacrifice for our sins, the reality of the Old Testament perfect lamb sacrifice pattern. He freed me of my sins by paying my sin debt to God. God warned us that the wages of sin is death. Jesus died (God's justice was satisfied) and was buried, yet He arose and lives. He is the forerunner or pioneer of our salvation. He prepared the way for us. I believe the Bible is accurate in matters pertaining to faith and is "God breathed" and suitable in every way to teach and correct and guide us into eternity with Him. I love Him because He first loved me.
|
This is all very interesting stuff, but what does it have to do with evolution?
|
Re: UK Government bans Creationism from free schools and academies
Posted by JimC on 26 Jun 2014 at 8:17AM |
|
I'm not surprised your scientist friend at Los Alamos laughed at the idea that particles can create themselves! Imagine particles having a self! I'm sure he or she explained to you that sub atomic particles are observed to pop into existence (and disappear too). Are they coming and going to and from nowhere or are they coming and going to and from another universe, or is God creating them? We don't know. But the observations are a fact. Nothing can ever really be proven. A theory is the best explanation of a phenomenon and M- theory is one of the best explanations for the natural creation of a universe. A theory is not a fact. (I would agree that technically, M-theory is a hypothesis). Is a black hole different to the "dark hole" you referred to previously? Regarding black holes, we know they result in a singularity at their centre and we know our universe began as a singularity so there is a hypothesis that our universe sprang from a black hole. Where did that black hole come from? It was in a different universe. Our universe could be one of many, trillions of trillions of universes, a multiverse that has always existed, where universes are popping in and out of existence all the time. Sounds far fetched? Scientists at Los Alamos don't think so. Perhaps your friend there could introduce you to Wojciech Zurek and other Los Alamos scientists who can explain it better than I can. As for black hole explosions, Hawking's discoveries of the properties of black holes are what first made him famous. You don't have to send me the book you refer to - just give me the title so I can refer to what you're saying. I don't recall Hawking saying our universe came from a black hole explosion. The use that the Big Bang was an explosion in space is a common misconception that I don't think he would make. In the meantime, have you read Hawking's book "The Grand Design" where he describes M-theory as the best explanation for the creation of our universe? And yes it is possible to create a universe using technology, and it's possible our universe was created artificially. There have already been experiments to demonstrate this which your friend at Los Alamos will know more about than I do. DNA came from RNA and RNA came from proteins. And so on all the way back to basic chemistry and the Big Bang from which the chemistry came. Young Earth Creationism is based on the idea that the genealogy described in the bible from Adam to Abraham is a few thousand years, plus another 4000 from Abraham to today. Therefore they conclude the earth is between 6000 and 10000 years old. Therefore any scientific explanation that requires billions of years of existence (such as geology, cosmology and evolution) must be wrong. https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/adam-and-eve/creation-date-of-adam-from-young-earth-creationism-perspective/ You ask "what difference does it make?" and it's a good point because these beliefs make no difference until children are taught these beliefs as being factual. I can't tell from your answer whether you believe the universe is a few thousand years old or billions of years old. Perhaps you do accept the universe is billions of years old but you don't care, which is fair enough. I was just curious. I'm also curious as to where the ideas of science you've shared here come from. Your Christian beliefs and the mutual love between yourself and Jesus is not being contested. The subject here was not cosmology or chemistry or Christianity, but the teaching of Creationism as if it was a fact or as if it is scientific, and in particular the government guidelines preventing the teaching of Creationism in school biology lessons. |
|
Re: UK Government bans Creationism from free schools and academies
Posted by A Christian Apologist on 27 Jun 2014 at 12:22AM |
|
We are left wanting for a definition of "existence" itself. For most of us, something “exists” if there is a potential chain of causal links between it and our sense data. If that sense data is missing, then something doesn't "exist." What we observe in quantum mechanics are processes whereby sub-atomic particles APPEAR to blink in and out of existence, but whether or not there are other forces in "existence" involved in the process beyond our current ability to detect such remains an open question. |
If "sense data" is missing then something doesn't exist? Really? And I've already explained that we don't know if subatomic particles and going to and from nowhere or coming and going to and from another universe, or maybe God is creating them. We don't know. |
Actually the "zero sum universe" remains a theory, not a proven fact. Some scientists speculate on the existence of all sorts of "matter" and "anti matter" and even perhaps other more exotic dynamic factors, stating that thus-and-such SHOULD exist in order for something else to act in a certain way, in order to fit in with their assumptions, but such remains pure speculation.
|
Anti-matter is speculation?
|
For the sake of argument let's assume that the universe is (or was at the time of its creation) zero sum--a "special arrangement of nothing" as you put it. The question remains why everything came together as it did, as in who/what was behind the creation of such. When a "special arrangement of nothing" results in the complexity and balance of our universe, and gives rise to intelligent species who are capable of speculating on it all, etc, we are still left with the question of how mindless forces could be responsible for such.
|
Indeed, the question of "why" the universe came into existence is a good question. But it has nothign to do with the theory of evolution by natural selection.
|
Re: UK Government bans Creationism from free schools and academies
Posted by JimC on 27 Jun 2014 at 6:07AM |
|
I don't understand your statement that something doesn't exist if our "sense data is missing". Are you saying sub atomic particles don't exist? Anti matter is not speculation, it exists. The most logical reason (supported by evidence from quantum fluctuations) why nothing became a universe is that nothing is an unstable state which cannot exist. Therefore there has to be something. It's wrong to assume that a "who" or a "what" was "behind it" but obviously it's human nature to make that assumption. If I was religious I'd say it was God who was behind it and I think it's impossible to prove otherwise. The existence of intelligent species billions of years after the Big Bang is no more mysterious than the existence of hydrogen atoms, planets, bacteria or anything else. |
|
