Creationism Education Intelligent Design News

Fighting “creationism” in Britain: Beaching one mind at a time

Spread the love

File:A small cup of coffee.JPG

Here at The Guardian, Richie Thompson advises us:

Before we go any further, to be completely clear, what is objectionable is the teaching of creationism or intelligent design as scientifically valid. The very simple reason for this is that they are not: the huge weight of evidence and consensus that follows it overwhelmingly supports evolution as being the best explanation we have, and strongly rejects alternative explanations. Ellip[sis2

The main focus in recent years has been to stop Free Schools teaching pseudoscience and to get evolution in the primary curriculum. Other issues have more recently come to light, such as funding for creationist nurseries.

Consider such comments in the light of the item we just linked to about weird, exquisite spiders that look like other life forms or the detritus thereof. Spiders who must have got through thousands of millennia of only looking a few percentage points like the target life form or detritus—if current evolution dogma is to be believed—without being detected. And the only place in the U.K. that rational objections can be discussed is black market “creationist nurseries”?

Aw, bring ‘em on! Some PhD. scientists need a refresher course they won;t get from their admirers in the pop science media.

15 Replies to “Fighting “creationism” in Britain: Beaching one mind at a time

  1. 1
    kairosfocus says:

    As in, we are The New Orthodoxy’s Magisterium, and WE have RULED! BAM, goes the gavel? Is that where we want to go?

  2. 2
    News says:

    For many, it is an alternative to actually confronting some very real issues.

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: News you might like this:

    A Billboard that produces water from the air – video
    http://www.upworthy.com/omg-be.....-ever-seen

  4. 4
    cantor says:

    A Billboard that produces water from the air

    It seems that whoever made the video didn’t anticipate that their audience might possibly include people who would want more information about how it operates and how expensive it is to operate and maintain.

    Wouldn’t it be far more cost effective to filter the water of the existing well, or drill a deeper well with a submersible pump?

  5. 5
    Robert Byers says:

    This attack on Christianity and free thought/speech was done long ago in Britain when they imposed the common prayer book and banned puritan etc preachers from any opposition. Led to a war.
    The control of truth by a state is always in the the English world a hint of a disaster to come.
    They will fail in their censorship and already their hysteria has given publicity to what are obscure circles in modern Britain.

    Its up to free men to decide if the evidence has settled anything.
    Is Britain no longer socialist?
    Is that settled by the weight of evidence and the weight of those who weigh the evidence?
    Catch up old england. Don’t be like europe.

  6. 6
    Mark Frank says:

    Just to be clear – there is nothing in the legislation that forbids discussing objections to evolution in a science class.

  7. 7

    The legislation is right. Pseudo science should not be taught as science.

    When ID produces something other than pseudoscience, it should be taught.

    I wish ID proponents would stop assuming that resistance to ID is ideological, and consider the possibility that the reason its conclusions are reject is that the reasoning is invalid.

    And often self-contradictory.

    As well as the fact that YEC is massively, scientifically falsified, and Universal Common Descent massively supported.

    The only potentially valid ID arguments are those that start with acceptance of the evidence of a multibillion year ancestry for modern life (Behe and Dembski accept this, I think, and probably Meyer).

    The question was evolution guided by an intelligent agent? is worth asking. The question is the earth young? has been answered. It isn’t. The question does the evidence support Universal Common Descent has also been answered. It does.

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    I’ve been told for what seems like the millionth time that Intelligent Design is not science but a pseudo-science. Many seemingly intelligent people disagree with this assessment. So to clear the matter up perhaps a neo-Darwinist can be so kind as to show us ‘IDiots’ the exact mathematical demarcation criteria of neo-Darwinism so that we may finally learn how to properly designate real Darwinian science from the pseudo-scientific tripe that is Intelligent Design?

    “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific”
    – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture

    Oxford University Seeks Mathemagician — May 5th, 2011 by Douglas Axe
    Excerpt: Grand theories in physics are usually expressed in mathematics. Newton’s mechanics and Einstein’s theory of special relativity are essentially equations. Words are needed only to interpret the terms. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has obstinately remained in words since 1859. …
    http://biologicinstitute.org/2.....emagician/

    “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”
    (Berlinski, D., “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003)

    Macroevolution, microevolution and chemistry: the devil is in the details – Dr. V. J. Torley – February 27, 2013
    Excerpt: After all, mathematics, scientific laws and observed processes are supposed to form the basis of all scientific explanation. If none of these provides support for Darwinian macroevolution, then why on earth should we accept it? Indeed, why does macroevolution belong in the province of science at all, if its scientific basis cannot be demonstrated?
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....e-details/

    Whereas nobody can seem to come up with a rigid demarcation criteria for Darwinism, Intelligent Design (ID) does not suffer from such a lack of mathematical rigor:

    Evolutionary Informatics Lab – Main Publications
    http://evoinfo.org/publications/

    ,, the empirical falsification criteria of ID is much easier to understand than the math is, and is as such:

    “Orr maintains that the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable. He’s wrong. To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection. If that happened I would conclude that neither flagella nor any system of similar or lesser complexity had to have been designed. In short, biochemical design would be neatly disproved.”
    – Dr Behe in 1997

    Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A (Preview)
    Well, do neo-Darwinists have evidence of even one molecular machine arising by Darwinian processes?,,, I have yet to see a single novel protein arise by neo-Darwinian processes much less a entire molecular machine! Without such a demonstration and still their dogmatic insistence that Darwinism is true, then as far as I can tell, the actual demarcation threshold for believing neo-Darwinism is true is this:

    Darwinism Not Proved Impossible Therefore Its True – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/10285716/

    How Darwinists React to Improbability Arguments – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9IgLueodZA

    ,, I hope neo-Darwinists can help us to designate a more rigid threshold for neo-Darwinism, since as far as I can tell, without a rigid demarcation criteria, neo-Darwinism is in actuality the pseudo-science they accuse Intelligent Design of being!

  9. 9

    BA77:

    I’ve been told for what seems like the millionth time that Intelligent Design is not science but a pseudo-science.

    There’s no reason in principle why ID hypotheses should not be tested scientifically.

    It’s just that to date, the studies produced to support it have blatant methodological flaws and their findings do not support the conclusion. This what makes it pseudoscience.

    Not the project itself, but the methodology.

  10. 10
    Joe says:

    Elizabeth:

    There’s no reason in principle why ID hypotheses should not be tested scientifically.

    It is, everyday.

    It’s just that to date, the studies produced to support it have blatant methodological flaws and their findings do not support the conclusion.

    Actually tyou have been shown to have many flaws, Lizzie. It ain’t ID- it’s you.

  11. 11
    Joe says:

    Elizabeth:

    The legislation is right. Pseudo science should not be taught as science.

    Then evolutionism should be out!

    I wish ID proponents would stop assuming that resistance to ID is ideological,…

    All evidence says that it is.

    and consider the possibility that the reason its conclusions are reject is that the reasoning is invalid.

    YOUR reasioning is invalid, Lizzie, not ID’s.

    As well as the fact that YEC is massively, scientifically falsified, and Universal Common Descent massively supported.

    Universal Common Descent can’t even be tested.

    So Lizzie is deluded and she thinks that means something.

  12. 12
    Joe says:

    OK if you accept universal common descent how do you test it to the exclusion of all alternatives?

    How many mutations does it take to get a eukaryote starting with populations of prokaryotes- you can use each alleged symbiotic event as one genetic change/ mutation?

    How many mutations does it take to get a chordate starting with populations of invertabrates?

    How many mutations does it take to get a fish-a-pod starting with populations of fish? What genes are involved? Are any new genes required? If “yes” how many?

    Science says that genes control traits- traits being eye color, hair color, ear-lobe style, etc. What is your evidence that being human is just a collection of traits?

    And the killer question:

    What makes an organism what it is? Without knowing that no one can say one type can evolve into another.

    In his book (English title) “Why is a Fly not a Horse?”, the prominent Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, tells us the following:

    Chapter VI “Why is a Fly not a horse?” (same as the book’s title)

    ”The scientist enjoys a privilege denied the theologian. To any question, even one central to his theories, he may reply “I’m sorry but I do not know.” This is the only honest answer to the question posed by the title of this chapter. We are fully aware of what makes a flower red rather than white, what it is that prevents a dwarf from growing taller, or what goes wrong in a paraplegic or a thalassemic. But the mystery of species eludes us, and we have made no progress beyond what we already have long known, namely, that a kitty is born because its mother was a she-cat that mated with a tom, and that a fly emerges as a fly larva from a fly egg.”

    The bottom line is people accept universal common descent for personal, not scientific, reasons. And the comments will bear that out.

  13. 13
    Axel says:

    The Creator’s different flights of fancy/imagination, engineering know-how and general, creative capacity, is why a fly is not a horse.

    Unfortunately, that imagination so prized by Einstein is proper to metaphysics, the grown-ups’ dimension of science, on which empirical science is based, and to which it returns. So, you sentient scientists have to limp along so that scientism’s numpties can keep up.

    Oh. Unless the flight of fancy is really crazy stuff, like the multiverse. One would imagine that simply as a lobotomizing, nihilistic concept, it was astonishing enough from the minds of people with an IQ above room temperature (centigrade), but when one considers the truly facile, nay, infantile rationale behind it, you realise that you are waging a surreal war. No, Mr Luwontin. Do not come back. You are not forgiven.

    (Still want me to struggle with sums, eh, moderator? It’ll be TENS and units next.)

  14. 14
    Robert Byers says:

    Pseudoscience is not a actual thing. it takes two words that fail , together, to identify a thing.
    Either something is science or it is not.
    The Pseudo word is a admittance that their is a belief one is doing science and even a sincere attempt to follow the rules for what scientific methodology is.
    Then a accusation they have failed and failed to stop.
    So BANG you get the slogan.

    Science is not a mystery in what it is.
    Its just people thinking hard about things.
    ID/YEC think hard about origin stuff and take on the others. We use the same methods of investigation/lack of investigation also the same.
    Thats our belief and we make our case to the public.
    Accusing creationism of not knowing/doing scientific methodology puts the onus on the accuser.

    Case in point is the late book about the cambrian explosion.
    Either the author is using the same methodology as evolutionists or show why he is not.
    its not about right or wrong but about methodology.
    Itemize where the scientific method has not been understood or done by Dembski.
    He thinks fair and square he has done it.
    His case is made on the merits of any conclusions in these issues.
    Case in point or cease and desist the pseudo jive.
    If you make a good case then we must accept being corrected.

  15. 15
    Johnnyfarmer says:

    If science is defined as assumed materialism (and it is )

    Then ID is a pseudo science

    But to bias science by assuming materialism is limit a real possibility.

    ….The possibility that there is an intelligent designer.

    Until materialism is proven ID is not falsified.

    Until materialism is proven it remains only an assumption

    ….And the validity of science is equal to the validity of the assumption.

Leave a Reply