Greatest Show vs Greatest Hoax

[a_haworthroberts]

On Bell's visit to a Leicester school on 8 June, it would be good if someone somewhere could uncover which school it is.

Given that the DFE has said that creationism should not be taught in science classes, and that CMI describe the planned visit as 'ministry', one assumes that he will NOT be addressing science students and that there is no strong reason to try and STOP his visit happening.

Presumably he will either be addressing Religious Studies students or taking a school assembly? In which case it would be good if parents and students alike could be forewarned about CMI's agenda, particularly as he was apparently introduced as a 'scientist' at the Exeter CE school.

Is it worth eg the BCSE contacting the local education authority to inform them that this is happening in one of its schools (well I ASSUME so unless the school in question is an independent school)?

[marcsurtees]

Creationism will kill Christianity more surely than than anything penned by Dawkins.

I think that you will find that the situation is not that simple.
Creationism casues problem for certain types (represented by the pro-evolution Christians on this forum) but your average church goer often responds well to the creationist argument when it is linked to the inerrancy of the Bible. Notice too that Pentacostal and Charismatic churches which are experiencing the most growth in Britian are largely creationist.

I haven't got all the facts and figures but I think that you will find that church growth in the USA is positive and there are a lot of creationist organisations active there.
Also Church growth is good in Asia, Africa and Latin America were I think you will also find that there will be a significant number of creationists there as well.

In Europe the creationists are few and far between and the church is in decline.

So I think your analysis is incorrect because it is based on a small sample of Christianity that rejects creationism and believes that it will harm the church.

[cathy]

Creationism casues problem for certain types (represented by the pro-evolution Christians on this forum) but your average church goer often responds well to the creationist argument when it is linked to the inerrancy of the Bible. Notice too that Pentacostal and Charismatic churches which are experiencing the most growth in Britian are largely creationist.

I haven't got all the facts and figures but I think that you will find that church growth in the USA is positive and there are a lot of creationist organisations active there.
Also Church growth is good in Asia, Africa and Latin America were I think you will also find that there will be a significant number of creationists there as well.

In Europe the creationists are few and far between and the church is in decline.

I think you'll find the sorts of people that accept creationism in Europe are not typical of the population as a whole. The problem is that you are appealing only to a specific group that are fairly homogenous in their acceptance of authority and are often amazingly gullible (just listen to some of their testimonies-cured after weeks of chemo by a magic pastor).

I've found the ones that don't fit into that group yet still attend those sorts of churches are EXTREMELY uncomfortable with creationism-so much so that even the local Elims have backed off in their promotion of it (AiG visit caused problems and a divisive church= less money in the collecting plate and all that).

As that argument goes by the way, there has also been a growth in new age hippy trippy stuff like Reiki (lots of new pracitioners), clairvoyance, tarot readings etc. And the number of folk I know swigging rescue remedy (water). It seems there will always be some people who need to believe in cheap magic. Which, lets face it, creationism is.

The situation in the USA is a odd and divided, with unintellectual creationists in the middle and intellectual atheists round the perimeter (grossly oversimplified). They seem to be importing a hell of lot of their scientists from Europe, who are most definitely not creationists, if the experiences of friends who've gone over there is anything to go by (another one going as soon as his daughter finishes her A levels). Their scientists are largely atheist, and their atheists are incredibly fierce in response to the creationist nonsense. All it has done is encourage new/gnu atheism and the popularity of Dawkins and make a divided sort of society where atheists and creationists loathe each other. At the moment here most atheists and christians are quite happy to accept the beliefs of the others because neither are extreme nor bonkers, and happy to discuss their diffs.

In addition it would appear that being clever over there is linked to atheism and being a simple fool who believes in creationism is their idea of faith. Basically in the states creationism=thick but devout and evolution=too clever by half. That situation, thankfully does not exist here. Religion and brains can go together-for the moment anyway. Once Michael, Jon and Peters generation disappears who knows what will be left.

As for Africa, Asia, Latin America etc. All countries where magic is more accepted (eg belief in witches) and religion is extreme (eg catholic church at its worst). Exporting creationism and mistrust of science to countries like that, in the most desparate need of science and most at risk from issues like global warming (which creationists deny) is just so morally wrong I'm disgusted. And I would say it is linked to lower levels of education and poverty. That is what we should be sending over not half baked lies and nonsense.

So it depends what you mean. Yes it has appeal to the less educated and desperate. Which are being mercilessly exploited. Here it is genuinely turning most educated sane folk away from religion. I'm seeing it happen, people are now starting to associate christianity with creationism and are turning it into a joke. So what seems to be happening is the bulk of the population seem to be being turned off as creationism raises its very ugly head with a gullible but sizeable minority filling the creationist churches. The same minority that would turn equally happily to Reiki or something else if it were marketed as well and they weren't being kept firmly in check by their pastors. Quite a few of our creationist church goers have come to it from via new age stuff. Though now they are being told it is evil (by creationists-oh the irony).

It depends what you mean by religion Marc. In my opinion a faith based on ridiculous lies and utter nonsense is pretty worthless compared to what it should be and could be? What you are selling is a huge lie that just lets down the people that need it.

[Roger Stanyard]

Creationism will kill Christianity more surely than than anything penned by Dawkins.

I think that you will find that the situation is not that simple.
Creationism casues problem for certain types (represented by the pro-evolution Christians on this forum) but your average church goer often responds well to the creationist argument when it is linked to the inerrancy of the Bible. Notice too that Pentacostal and Charismatic churches which are experiencing the most growth in Britian are largely creationist.

I haven't got all the facts and figures but I think that you will find that church growth in the USA is positive and there are a lot of creationist organisations active there.
Also Church growth is good in Asia, Africa and Latin America were I think you will also find that there will be a significant number of creationists there as well.

In Europe the creationists are few and far between and the church is in decline.

So I think your analysis is incorrect because it is based on a small sample of Christianity that rejects creationism and believes that it will harm the church.

Wishful thinking. We've looked at the research on church attedance and they don't stack up with your claims. In the UK, the more fundamentalist evangelical sects/denominations are just about holding their own but only because of the growth in black African churches. The big denominations still reject creationism - the Anglicans, Catholics and Methodists as ell, it appears as the vast majority of Baptist Union churches. As we have identified, creationism appears to be dominated by four groups - independent evangelical churches, the Pentecostals, the Brethren and Baptist churches outside of the Baptist Union.

Moreover, the evidence continues to suggest a precipitous decline in religious beliefs in the UK with apostate rates amongst offsprings of those practising religion running at 50%. That includes Muslims, btw. The average size of a non-Catholic congregation in the UK is 59. The churches are basically empty.

Worse still, it appears that American denominations/sects grossly and notoriously over-exaggerate their members - notably the Southern Baptist Convention churches and the Mormons.

I strongly suspect that creationism is a major force in people rejecting religion altogether, especially amongst the young and the well educated. Add that to the mysogeny, homophobia (see latest news from Uganda), politicisation and conservatism of many fundamentalists, they are left isolated and deeply unrepresentative of the society in which we live today. Learn nothing and forget nothing.

Even if I am wrong, it still doesn't make creationism sound science.

[jon_12091]

Creationism casues problem for certain types (represented by the pro-evolution Christians on this forum) but your average church goer often responds well to the creationist argument when it is linked to the inerrancy of the Bible.

Though I'm betting that the fact an inherent reading of Scripture is perfectly compatable with a non-literal reading of Genesis dosen't get much of a mention from those pushing the creationist agenda.

So I think your analysis is incorrect because it is based on a small sample of Christianity that rejects creationism and believes that it will harm the church.

It is pure assertion and I would like to see some real data, though equally you can't assert that it dosen't do harm*, but when creationism is so keen to rub 'liberal' Christians faces in the argument that they are undermining the authority of Scripture you can expect to get the argument tossed back at them. Nor indeed can you refute the base logic of the argument?
*Though annecdotally there seems to more than a few ex-creationist atheists littering the internet.

Christian's are supposedly 'saved' from a profoundly legalistic faith and yet so many Christians seem to wish to legislate what it requires to be Christian.

[a_haworthroberts]

Unfortunately there are quite a lot of people out there whose attitude to science is ignorance or fear or suspicion or scepticism or apathy.

Such people will often rejoice if they hear a message from a theological 'expert' with a PhD that assures them that the whole Bible is 'scientifically accurate and trustworthy'. Such people usually do not make further enquiries about the content of the message and if someone else points out a 'problem' they are likely to become defensive, or assume the objector is an atheist and start using design/complexity arguments for God and the Bible being entirely real and accurate, and view it as a test of their faith and a challenge to avoid embracing 'false teaching' and 'lies of the devil'. They probably will also have been 'persuaded' that evolutionists and 'old agers' have been swept along by a faulty paradigm and godless presuppositions.

[a_haworthroberts]

Back to Philip Bell.

I sent an email yesterday from within their website (so I don't have the exact wording to hand) to CMI in Leicester enquiring whether he will be addressing religious studies students or taking a school assembly (or something else), and whether the visit is to an LEA maintained or to an independent school.

I've received THIS response today: "Thank you for your enquiry concerning our schools ministry. If you would like to call Philip Bell on 0845 6800 264 he would be more than willing to speak with you."

I'm a bit stumped about what if anything to do next, and haven't replied to the email. I certainly would not ring him under false pretences ie pretending to want to pray for his schools ministry and therefore seeking more details of the 8 June visit for that reason.

If I did phone him, I would say why I am really enquiring and see if he would answer my two questions (I would not seek to get him to name the actual school). But at present I'm not sure whether to pursue it further.

It could be that someone else here or known to the BCSE - without making any pretences or carrying out any sort of deception - might wish to make a call. For instance to verify that he is not giving his 'ministry' as part of the school's science education.

[a_haworthroberts]

Any creationist reading this - my view is that the visit should only be stopped (if possible) if he is going to address science students. But if he is visiting a maintained school to speak to religious studies students, or take an assembly, I think that parents and students at the school concerned have a right to know beforehand about the theological standpoint and the agenda of the speaker - being a key UK figure with Creation Ministries International.

[Brian Jordan]

Any creationist reading this - my view is that the visit should only be stopped (if possible) if he is going to address science students. But if he is visiting a maintained school to speak to religious studies students, or take an assembly, I think that parents and students at the school concerned have a right to know beforehand about the theological standpoint and the agenda of the speaker - being a key UK figure with Creation Ministries International.

It's not as easy as that. Firstly, RE is compulsory and even if he only preaches to RE exam candidates they may well also be taking science subjects. Secondly, RE isn't RI so any hint of preaching should be out (I imagine Cathy will confirm this). Finally, and most important of all, in Exeter Philip Bell was described as a scientist and his anti-science was treated as being on a par with real science. Have a look at the furore his visit there has stirred up - and please sign the petition, if you haven't already. http://bcseweb.blogspot.com/

[a_haworthroberts]

Brian
Thanks.

I must admit I didn't think that Religious Studies had to be pursued, but it seems that you are correct: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/EducationAn ... G_10013568

I have already signed the Go petition.

[cathy]

The current take on it at gcse as far as I can ascertain is that creationism is mentioned as a religious belief. I photocopied the relevant page of one of our RE textbooks today (the same one my oldest child used last year in year 11), It seems to be under the topic religion and life How one religion responds to scientific explanations of the world.

REsponse one is that many christians believe that the scientific explanations are true but that needn't make you an atheist or agnostic because of big bang and the fact there have to be scientific laws like gravity. Basically it's god as first cause. That also ties in with what mine were told at a catholic primary and what child 2 has been told at an RC secondary.

Response two is some christians believe the science is wrong and the bible is right. They claim that all the evidence (eg big bang, rock formations) can be explained by Noahs flood and apparent age theory (something like god created the earth to look old, eg old trees so tree rings and grand canyon that looks ancient). Therefore they believe god created the universe in way described in bible "this response is called creationism".

Response three is a new one on me and a bit weird (this is a newer edition of the textbook) both scientific explanations and the bible are correct. Main points of the bible ift with the accepted science. Gods days could be billions of years. Let there be light could be ref to big bang. The order life created in genesis is same as described by theory of evolution etc.

However the pertinent point for Philip Bell is that in response two it clearly and correctly states some christians BELIEVE THE SCIENCE IS WRONG and the bible right. I'm happy with that explanation and so are most people. The problem with Philip Bells talk in Exeter is that he was introduced as a scientist and presented the creationist view as a valid scientific one. That directly undermines what children are taught in science!!! It is also factually incorrect, like telling them that 2+2=5 or you can't get pregnant the first time you have sex or Hitler was a martian.

So even if Philip Bell is doing RE or an assembly there is still the problem of lying and misleading youngsters without the specific skill to judge. Unless it is made very clear that creationism is not valid science and there is no valid alternative to evolution than the school is failing in it's duty of care to its pupils. it would be akin to inviting mystic meg in to undermine physics in RE. However I think it is a loophole they will exploit.

[cathy]

Brian wrote: It's not as easy as that. Firstly, RE is compulsory and even if he only preaches to RE exam candidates they may well also be taking science subjects. Secondly, RE isn't RI so any hint of preaching should be out (I imagine Cathy will confirm this).

Every exam candidate will be taking science as it is compulsory up to gcse. Whether it is single, double or three separate sciences or one of the soft option gcse equivalents they will have to take it. Secondly as well as being compulsory in KS3 nearly every school I know also makes RE a compulsory gcse subject, even if it is just the half course. It is compulsory in all the schools around here (faith and non faith). I'm not sure why-community cohesion, respect and tolerance of others or an easy one to get to bump up the league tables?

And yes in most schools it is RE or RS (religious studies), that is learning about religion and what various people believe. For a lot of the gcse syllabuses it is usually christianity and one or two other world religions. For child 1 it was Islam and Hinduism. Faith schools can gear it more to their own religion though child 2 has just been doing the five pillars of Islam. It also tends to involve lots of discussing how the various religions approach various moral and ethical issues like poverty or marriage. As far as I can see it is mainly discussions and opinions rather than hard facts.

I used to think it a waste of a gcse but now I've actually come to see it as a safety valve for the children of creationists and fundies. The only chance they might get to see that their narrow view of the world may not be the only one.

[a_haworthroberts]

My email as just sent to CMI:

"I received an email reply from CMI in Leicester today (sorry I don't have the message to hand) which stated:

"Thank you for your enquiry concerning our schools ministry. If you would like to call Philip Bell on 0845 6800 264 he would be more than willing to speak with you."

I have just tried the number - it turns out that it is a work number (9.30-17.30 Mon-Fri) and a recorded message suggests emailing the addresses above.

Basically, I believe in free speech but do not consider that Young Earth Creationism is scientific. My enquiry is simply whether Philip Bell is speaking to Religious Studies students on 8 June or whether he is taking a school assembly. And whether the school in question is LEA maintained or independent.

That's all - unless he wishes to pass on any additional information about this ministry engagement. As previously mentioned, I have no connection with any Leicester schools (I did once work at the Department for Education, but no longer)."

[a_haworthroberts]

Hoping to try and speak to Bell on Wednesday.

The letter to Gove and associated petition is something that I will not mention unless asked about them (as I am in no way responsible for them)!

[a_haworthroberts]

As mentioned at the 'backlash' thread, Philip Bell says he is speaking at a non-maintained Christian school on 8 June.