About That Law Banning Creationism

_{Cornelius Hunter
June 22, 2014

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

As regular readers of this blog know, evolutionists use the label “creationist” not just for those with a particular interpretation of Genesis. That is their term for anyone who doesn’t accept the fact of evolution. It doesn’t matter what you particular position is, you’re a creationist, period. So it was no surprise that Britain’s new ban on “creationism” is actually a ban on “any doctrine or theory which holds that natural biological processes cannot account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on earth.” Read more

Comments

Salvador:
Wow, no wonder you’re so smart. Did you ever see Stephen Meyer there?
It never ceases to amaze me how you suck up to people completely opposed to your ideas and yet also manage to "justify" your constant deletions of my posts in threads you author.Mung_{June 27, 2014
June
06
Jun
27
27
2014
07:20 PM
7
07
20
PM
PST}

These comments are all very well, but does anyone have any advice as to what the public can actually do to challenge this governments' unfair and unscientific censorship? Are there any petitions being raised, or campaign groups taking shape? I am not necessarily arguing that creationism should be taught in schools (who exactly would be qualified to teach it?), yet the scientific counter-evidence currently being generated by world-class creationist, and Intelligent Design scientists, does need to be given a fair hearing. I am not proposing that God, Adam, or the Ark should be taught in science lessons, but students do need to be made aware of the fact, for example, that the presence of soft tissue, collagen, blood cells, DNA, and significant amounts of carbon 14 (etc) in dinosaur bones, is inconsistent with the idea of millions of years of supposed earth 'history'. Ideas, advice, and any useful links, would be welcome.JohnnyO_{June 25, 2014
June
06
Jun
25
25
2014
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PST}

speaking as another Cambridge grad
Wow, no wonder you're so smart. Did you ever see Stephen Meyer there?scordova_{June 23, 2014
June
06
Jun
23
23
2014
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PST}

#8 timaeus Under other circumstances I might do this but I have only dropped in on the world of ID to pass the time for a few hours while unwell and plan to return to the real world as soon as I recover. Meanwhile I am not up to anything demanding.Mark Frank_{June 23, 2014
June
06
Jun
23
23
2014
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PST}

Mark Frank:
All it does is forbid the teaching of some types of theory as scientific fact.
Then hopefully evolutionism will no longer be taught as scientific fact and both baraminology and Intelligent Design will be explored in the UK biology classrooms- or whichever UK classrooms discuss evolution.Joe_{June 23, 2014
June
06
Jun
23
23
2014
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PST}

Mark Frank: I think Jon would be glad to have your input under his column. Why not make your point there? If the two of you have a different view, readers would benefit from seeing you work it out.Timaeus_{June 23, 2014
June
06
Jun
23
23
2014
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PST}

Joe - because the "law" does not ban any kind of theory or school of thought. All it does is forbid the teaching of some types of theory as scientific fact.Mark Frank_{June 23, 2014
June
06
Jun
23
23
2014
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PST}

Wait, how can the new law not ban Creationism seeing that Creationism has a supernatural origin for living organisms? According to Creation many organisms were Created and the diversity of life we observe today arose from that.Joe_{June 23, 2014
June
06
Jun
23
23
2014
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PST}

Timaeus Thanks I had already read Jon's post. Speaking as another Cambridge grad (apparently of similar age to Jon) it is interesting and well-informed but not relevant to my point that there is no law banning creationism.Mark Frank_{June 23, 2014
June
06
Jun
23
23
2014
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PST}

Mung, Mark Frank, Joe, etc.: There is a danger in getting deeply into argument about this development in the UK without a clear grasp of the legislation. I came across a very good piece written by Jon Garvey (who sometimes posts comments here), a British MD (and Cambridge grad!) with intimate knowledge of both Christianity and the education system in Britain. It explains the situation in more detail, and there are comments following his column. Anyone who would like further clarification might do well to read what he says, and ask him further questions. The link is: http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2014/06/21/science-in-schools-uk/ Garvey's site is one of the best religion/science sites on the planet, because the columns (usually by Jon, but sometimes by others) are well-written and the discussions are often quite good, and quite high-level.Timaeus_{June 23, 2014
June
06
Jun
23
23
2014
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PST}

Mark Frank:
There is a regulation forbidding teaching theories that do not accept natural biological processes can account for life as a scientific fact.
What does that mean? Natural biological processes are what occurs AFTER living organisms have arrived. And neither ID nor Creation require anything after living organisms have arrived.Joe_{June 23, 2014
June
06
Jun
23
23
2014
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PST}

There is no law banning creationism. What would that mean anyway? There is a regulation forbidding teaching theories that do not accept natural biological processes can account for life as scientific fact. There is nothing to prevent a teacher discussing the arguments for such theories or against various evolutionary theories.Mark Frank_{June 23, 2014
June
06
Jun
23
23
2014
12:26 AM
12
12
26
AM
PST}

So apparently this does not apply to the origin of the cosmos, the origins of the conditions that make it fit for life, or the origin of life itself. Do they define what constitutes "natural biological processes"? I am betting on no.Mung_{June 22, 2014
June
06
Jun
22
22
2014
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PST}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply