Sitting on the fence

All are welcome to this forum, which is for debating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. This forum can be boisterous, and you should not participate if easily offended.

Moderator: Moderators

Re: Sitting on the fence

Postby cathy » Mon Apr 30, 2012 1:41 pm

And your claims that a YEC has to reject science is falsified by the fact that many creationists are scientists.

NO creationist is a genuine scientist. They have closed minds and can only accept one conclusion whatever the evidecne suggests to the contrary. That is not science.

You have once again confused the issue. It is not about accepting or rejecting science,
No he has confused nothing - you have. Creationism is ALL about rejecting science. That is all it is. I can find nothing else to creationism but science rejection. What else is there. It has no other purpose.

No-one is asking people to reject science
They are asked to reject it on a daily basis by creationists. Look at your own website - faith in science has replaced faith in God, atheistic science. What is that but a call to reject science or not believe. Look at any creationist website going throught sciences findings and rejecting it. Radioactive decay for example - can't just reject the bits that give an old Earth. Or astronomy or chemistry or biology.
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Sitting on the fence

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:02 pm

marcsurtees wrote:
Peter Henderson wrote:Why do I not share Dr. Batton's conviction ? Is it because I've never confessed my unbelief ? Is accepting science now considered a sin by certain speakers at CMI ? Should Christians ask forgiveness if they, heaven forbid, happen to accept science i.e. the science that is taught in all schools, colleges, and universities everywhere ?


You have once again confused the issue. It is not about accepting or rejecting science, most people (creationist and evolutionist) accept most of science. Creationists also accept a lot of evolution (eg natural selection speciation and changes in allele frequency) but reject the theory of universal common descent. No-one is asking people to reject science. And your claims that a YEC has to reject science is falsified by the fact that many creationists are scientists.


Batten was rejecting areas of science because they contradicted the 'Word of God', was he not?
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8537
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Sitting on the fence

Postby a_haworthroberts » Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:06 pm

"I can find nothing else to creationism but science rejection. What else is there. It has no other purpose."

For some people it is EASIER to believe in Bible infallibility (including Genesis chapter 1-11) if they have started to doubt 'secular science'. Hence the role of the YEC as evangelist (as well as defender of the faith*).


* I imagine YECs think the Queen should be a YEC, but she's a little too shrewd for that kind of defence of Christianity I think.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8537
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Sitting on the fence

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue May 01, 2012 6:26 pm

The reply I have received from the Evangelical Alliance:




Thank you very much for your email regarding the Explore Evolution
advert in the latest edition of idea.

As we know this is a fiercely contested area in which the Evangelical
Alliance does not take a position and therefore any legitimate
evangelical group with views on creation and evolution is free to
advertise.

Our advertising policy also makes clear that advertising in idea does
not imply editorial endorsement.

But we do represent a diverse range of views and opinions from
evangelical Christians on various topics, including on scientific
theories. In the same edition, and throughout 2012, we are running a
series with Christians in Science looking at a range of these topics
from current scientists.

Thanks again for contacting us.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8537
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Sitting on the fence

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue May 01, 2012 6:27 pm

My response:



Many thanks for your comments.

I suspect that the advert was submitted, somewhat cynically, by the UK
Centre for Intelligent Design based in Glasgow. They will without doubt
be aware of Government guidelines that creationism and intelligent
design should not be taught as having scientific validity in any UK
maintained schools. There is no indication at all in the advert that it
is only teachers at independent schools, including private Christian
schools, who are being encouraged to "get it for your students'. The
Centre for Intelligent Design are also on record as claiming that they
don't 'target schools' - but actions speak louder than words.

I was not questioning an advertisement for 'Explore Evolution' per se.
But the advert in question encourages teachers to flout Government
guidelines regarding the 'theory' of intelligent design and (seemingly)
recommends that they use this book as a textbook in SCIENCE education.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8537
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Sitting on the fence

Postby GrumpyBob » Wed May 02, 2012 5:24 am

a_haworthroberts wrote:The reply I have received from the Evangelical Alliance:
<snip>
As we know this is a fiercely contested area in which the Evangelical
Alliance does not take a position and therefore any legitimate
evangelical group with views on creation and evolution is free to
advertise
.
<snip>
But we do represent a diverse range of views and opinions from
evangelical Christians on various topics, including on scientific
theories. In the same edition, and throughout 2012, we are running a
series with Christians in Science looking at a range of these topics
from current scientists.

Thanks again for contacting us.


Well, they clearly regard the Discotute wannabees at C4ID to be an evangelical group, which is quite observant. Are C4ID members of the Evangelical Alliance?

Robert
GrumpyBob
 
Posts: 192
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 3:37 pm
Location: The back of beyond

Re: Sitting on the fence

Postby cathy » Wed May 02, 2012 7:21 am

But we do represent a diverse range of views and opinions from
evangelical Christians on various topics, including on scientific
theories. In the same edition, and throughout 2012, we are running a
series with Christians in Science looking at a range of these topics
from current scientists.

There is a world of difference between representing a diverse range of views and opinions and lying! Creationism leading to honest science rejection because of it are stupid by fine by me. The evangelical alliance can print as many articles as it likes saying so and remain an honest institution.

But creation 'science' and any claims that there are problems with evolution and any claims of evidence at all for Genesis as science are simply lies. Plain and simple, there is no debate there, it is a rare simple black and white issue of right and wrong. As are any comments about atheistic science, paradigms and worldviews and same evidence different interpretations. And if they claim creation 'scientists' are scientists or give them billing as such in their series they will be lying on a grand scale. Why should the Christians in Science have to share a platform with charlatans and con artists?

The Evangelical Alliance is in breach of the ninth commandment every time it publishes anything about creation 'science' without a disclaimer. Such as uncritical review of Garners set in poo?

As for Explore Evolution - aren't there advertising standards saying stuff should be honest and true and not designed to mislead. EE is anything but honest and is written solely to mislead so breaches those standards. So does Evangelical Alliance not abide by those standards
cathy
 
Posts: 3665
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 6:51 pm
Location: Redditch

Re: Sitting on the fence

Postby a_haworthroberts » Wed May 02, 2012 6:39 pm

GrumpyBob wrote:
a_haworthroberts wrote:The reply I have received from the Evangelical Alliance:
<snip>
As we know this is a fiercely contested area in which the Evangelical
Alliance does not take a position and therefore any legitimate
evangelical group with views on creation and evolution is free to
advertise
.
<snip>
But we do represent a diverse range of views and opinions from
evangelical Christians on various topics, including on scientific
theories. In the same edition, and throughout 2012, we are running a
series with Christians in Science looking at a range of these topics
from current scientists.

Thanks again for contacting us.


Well, they clearly regard the Discotute wannabees at C4ID to be an evangelical group, which is quite observant. Are C4ID members of the Evangelical Alliance?

Robert


To be honest I forgot to ask the EA that question. My guess would be 'yes' but I'm not sure whether that can be verified online and I don't feel motivated to email the EA again (or email the C4ID).
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8537
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Sitting on the fence

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:03 am

The same advert has appeared AGAIN in the same place.

I've just emailed the C4ID as follows, attaching the exchange of emails I had with the EA.


"CENTRE FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN

Please see the emails below, concerning the advert shown in the
attachment which has twice appeared in the EA's IDEA magazine this
year, including in the current edition.

I would welcome any explanation of what you hope to achieve by
advertising 'Explore Evolution' to evangelical Christians, especially
teachers, and claiming that it provides 'facts' by which I assume you
mean facts which are missing from other science textbooks and
curricula."

PS Have sent a quick PS enquiring about the C4ID's presumed membership of the EA.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8537
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Sitting on the fence

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue Jul 10, 2012 3:29 am

The other day I reminded the C4ID about my email (again copied to Truth in Science).

But the silence remains deafening.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8537
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Sitting on the fence

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Jul 21, 2012 8:22 pm

I have today received the following reply from Dr Alastair Noble:


"Dear Mr Haworth-Roberts,
I have been on holiday and am only now catching up with emails.
May I ask if you have read 'Explore Evolution'? If not, I would be
happy to send you a copy - I would need a postal address of course. The
reason I ask is that we often find the critics of the book have not
read it.
The reason we promote the book is that it deals extensively with the
science of evolution and shows where more than one explanation of the
data is possible. It highlights the strengths and possible weaknesses
of evolutionary theory. This, it seems to me, is the essence of proper
scientific enquiry and good science education. We commend the book to
individuals and expect them to make up their mind about what it is
appropriate to do with it. Of course teachers have to work within
Government Guidelines, but, from memory, these Guidelines also
recognise the need to explore different points of view and handle
students' enquiries sensitively. I am also of the view that,
ultimately, scientific conclusions are not to be determined by
Government decree or courts - a position I'm sure you would share.
The 'facts' you refer to are simply that this book looks at angles of
the scientific debate around evolution that are not generally included
in other books on the subject.
I'm also a little alarmed at the implication that a book like this
should not be promoted. I think people should make up their own minds
about books like this. Societies that ban books do not generally have a
good track record in how they treat dissenters! And the history of
science indicates that dissenting from the scientific consensus can
sometimes be a catalyst for discovery and progress.
I hope this clarifies our position and if you have not read the book,
please do.
Best wishes,

Alastair Noble
Director C4ID"
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8537
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Sitting on the fence

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat Jul 21, 2012 8:25 pm

I replied as follows, copied to the Evangelical Alliance and Truth in Science:


"Dr Noble
Many thanks for your reply. Yes, I most certainly have read Explore
Evolution (some time ago).
http://www.amazon.com/review/RPYCWCT85B ... cm_aya_cmt?
ie=UTF8&ASIN=0947352481#wasThisHelpful
My copy was purchased from 'Truth in Science'.
For those who may have forgotten my original email to the UK Centre
for Intelligent Design read as follows:
"I would welcome any explanation of what you hope to achieve by
advertising 'Explore Evolution' to evangelical Christians, especially
teachers, and claiming that it provides 'facts' by which I assume you
mean facts which are missing from other science textbooks and
curricula."
Attached below my message was a previous one, to the Evangelical
Alliance, where I wrote:
"The book Explore Evolution is MISLEADING. It has been critiqued, for
instance, at the British Centre for Science Education website.
And are the EA unaware of Government guidelines on NOT teaching
creationism or intelligent design in UK state schools? The advert
recommends that teachers obtain the book to provide students with
'facts' but I think the main purpose of the book is to stimulate a
debate about an area of science that is not controversial in the
scientific community (including some scientists who are Christians
but also pro-science).
Please also see here:
http://www.bcseweb.blogspot.co.uk/p/ope ... librarians.
html#!/p/open-letter-to-school-librarians.html
This Open Letter from the BCSE to school librarians, dated January
2010, reads as follows:
"You recently received a glossy, well produced volume, Explore
Evolution, from a group calling itself 'Truth in Science' (TiS). TiS
claim to be interested in furthering science education, state that
the book promotes enquiry based learning, accords with examination
board
specifications, and have offered additional copies and training.
We are therefore writing to alert you to the facts that TiS is a
Christian fundamentalist organisation, and that the book is in fact a
Creationist text that promotes non-scientific notions as alternatives
to the fundamentals of scientific biology, in direct contravention of
the National Curriculum and relevant OCR guidelines.
Prof A. C. McIntosh, over whose signature the TiS materials were sent
to you, is a Young Earth Creationist who regularly gives public
lectures attacking evolution. In its own manifesto in Evangelical
Times, TiS states that by being taught modern evolution science,
"Young people are encouraged into a way of thinking that leads to
atheism,
hedonism, despair and moral bankruptcy" and that 'Our aim is to
compliment [sic] the work of existing Creation groups by targeting
education in particular.'
Explore Evolution (EE) was developed by the Discovery Institute,
Seattle, proponents of 'Intelligent Design' (ID), and its authors
accept ID and, in one case, Young Earth Creationism. Throughout, it
offers an appeal to a guiding intelligence as an alternative to
present-day scientific biology, in direct violation of the National
Guidelines and OCR recommendations.
Whereas enquiry based learning encourages students to make
independent inferences from their own data, EE manipulates a mixture
of half-
truths and outright errors to point towards one preselected (and
unscientific) conclusion. EE incorrectly states that transitional
fossils are rare,
makes use of the discredited concept of 'irreducible complexity',
misdescribes the status of classical experiments, and repeats a long
list of other errors characteristic of the Creationist literature.
(For more details see our leaflet)
We would therefore advise you to show the book, together with this
letter and our leaflet, to your senior biology teacher or your head
of science, before deciding whether this book has any place at all in
your library. It seems likely that OFSTED would object to the book
being
classified as 'science', and, if you place it in another section
(such as religion or history of ideas), we would respectfully urge you
to
include a copy of our leaflet, in order to alert users to its many
gross scientific errors.
If we can help you further regarding this or in any other way, please
let us know."
I also tentatively enquired whether the UK Centre for Intelligent
Design are members of the Evangelical Alliance.
I note from Dr Noble's reply that the book does not contain additional
facts, presumably missing from standard textbooks, but rather it "looks
at angles of the scientific debate around evolution that are not
generally included in other books on the subject".

Ashley Haworth-Roberts"
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8537
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Sitting on the fence?

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Jul 26, 2012 2:34 pm

Those who are theistic evolutionists - including some who are individual members of the Evangelical Alliance - often get labelled as 'compromisers' or 'accommodationists'. They believe what are, arguably, two conflicting truths. Bible-based Christianity and the findings of science regarding origins. However, the likes of Sarfati, Ham, Dawkins and Coyne need to remember that for many if not all of the individuals in question they SINCERELY believe in both. They embrace science whilst being able to continue as believing Christians. Or, as fans of science, they are able to convert to Christianity. They may be ridiculed by some atheists. Alternatively, the YEC contingent are out to persuade them that they are fans of 'wrong' science and should 'convert' to true 'creation science'. Which of course totally ignores scientific context and starts with the BIBLE and NOT the evidence. And asks THEOLOGICAL questions about scientific evidence eg "how can fossils, supervolcano eruptions, asteroid impacts and ice age glaciations be made to fit with the opening chapters of the book of Genesis?"
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8537
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Article in Idea magazine

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun Sep 02, 2012 6:14 pm

http://www.eauk.org/idea/christians-and-the-cosmos.cfm
Billions of years! Bible compromise. An admission that new stars are appearing even 'today'.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8537
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

C4ID

Postby a_haworthroberts » Thu Dec 13, 2012 12:17 am

This is 'new': http://www.c4id.org.uk/index.php?option ... &Itemid=28 (Note the words from Dawkins: "I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the um detail, details, of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer". Which are transmuted by Dr Noble - who pleads for 'honesty' - into: "The evidence is fairly clear – clear enough for Richard Dawkins – that there is evidence of design in the universe from which we may infer the activity of a higher, perhaps a supreme intelligence".)
And so is this (really new): http://www.c4id.org.uk/index.php?option ... e&Itemid=1 (I've not heard of Nagel before.)
I've sent the following to C4ID re the Stein-Dawkins interview:
"
http://www.c4id.org.uk/index.php?option ... &Itemid=28
The words from Dawkins: "I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the um detail, details, of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer" have been transmuted by Dr Noble - who pleads for 'honesty' - into: "The evidence is fairly clear – clear enough for Richard Dawkins – that there is evidence of design in the universe from which we may infer the activity of a higher, perhaps a supreme intelligence".
Why are you twisting what Dawkins actually said?"

Meanwhile: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-20691092
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8537
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

PreviousNext

Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 11 guests

cron