Sunday, September 21, 2008

London Times: Leading Scientist Urges Creationism

This will give advocates - and opponents - of Creationism something to talk about: The Royal Society of Britain said Creationism should be taught in schools. Of course, the Denialists went ballistic, and it cost the scientist his job with the academy, as explained in a later article.

But take time to find out about his courage in the face of ranting Denialists.

When the Denialists can explain how you can create a universe from Absolute Nothing- no mass, no energy, no time, no space, no light, no imaginary "black void," and no force acting purely within the natural world, and no force acting outside the natural world, they might actually have something worth listening to.

Until then, they are fools who can't explain how the elements of the Big Bang were created.

But as it stands, all they can do is roll the clock back to the instant of The Big Bang - allowing that only Spontaneous Generation, a concept that does not exist in the natural world, is the only way to explain how the components of the Bang got there. It is "An Inconvenient Truth" they avoid like the plague.

In short, the universe cannot exist through a purely "Natural Laws" explanation. It requires a force outside the Natural Laws - it requires a "Super" natural intervention.

Oh, how the Denialists hate that reality. It takes them down from their self-anointed god status and brings them back to being less than the supreme intellect of the universe. Their inflated egos really can't handle that.

They demean Believers for thinking there exists - in their condescending words, "an imaginary friend" - but they can't tell you how you start with Absolute Nothing, and end up with a universe.

The Denialists are the ones living with an imaginary explanation - at the instant of The Big Bang, they have nothing but their imaginations to believe it all just popped into existence on its own.

Here is the initial report from the London Times:


Leading scientist urges teaching of creationism in schools

By Lewis Smith, Science Reporter and Alexandra Frean, Education Editor
Published Sept. 12, 2008


Creationism should be taught in science classes as a legitimate point of view, according to the Royal Society, putting the august science body on a collision course with the Government.

The Rev. Michael Reiss, a biologist and its director of education, said it was self-defeating to dismiss as wrong or misguided the 10 per cent of pupils who believed in the literal account of God creating the Universe and all living things as related in the Bible or Koran. It would be better, he said, to treat creationism as a world view.

His comments put him at odds with fellow scientists as well as the Government. Former Fellows of the Royal Society include Charles Darwin, who first proposed the theory of evolution.

National curriculum guidelines state that creationism has no place in science lessons. The Government says that if it is raised by students, teachers should discuss how creationism differs from evolution, say that it is not scientific theory and that further discussion should be saved for religious classes.

Professor Reiss, a biologist, was speaking at the British Association’s Festival of Science in Liverpool. Other scientists were vociferous in their response, saying that creationism should remain entirely within the sphere of religious education.

Professor Lewis Wolpert, of University College Medical School, said: “Creationism is based on faith and has nothing to do with science, and it should not be taught in science classes. It is based on religious beliefs and any discussion should be in religious studies.”

Dr John Fry, a physicist at the University of Liverpool, said: “Science lessons are not the appropriate place to discuss creationism, which is a world view in total denial of any form of scientific evidence. Creationism doesn’t challenge science: it denies it!”

However, Professor John Bryant, a biologist at the University of Exeter, agreed that creationism should be discussed as an alternative position of the origins of man and earth.

“If the class is mature enough and time permits, one might have a discussion on the alternative viewpoints,” he said. “However, I think we should not present creationism as having the same status as evolution.”

The Royal Society’s support for the presence of creationism within the classroom points to a remarkable turn-around. Last year the society issued an open letter stating that creationism had no place in schools and that pupils should understand that science supported the theory of evolution.

A spokesman for the organisation, which counts 21 Nobel Prize winners among its Fellows, confirmed yesterday that Professor Reiss’s views did represent that of its president, Lord Rees of Ludlow, and the society.

He said: “Teachers need to be in a position to be able to discuss science theories and explain why evolution is a sound scientific theory and why creationism isn’t.”

The Rev Tim Hastie-Smith, the new chairman of the Headmasters and Headmistresses’ Conference, which represents 250 leading independent schools, said that creationism was taught in science classes at his school, Dean Close in Cheltenham, as a theory that some people believe in, not as a fact.“If we get creationist books sent to us then we give them to the science department to be discussed. We want children to be aware of it.”

Teachers would try to be sensitive if a pupil believed in creationism.

Professor Reiss, a Church of England clergyman, said: “Just because something lacks scientific support doesn’t seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson.”

Many children who go to school believing in creationism come from Muslim or fundamental Christian families, he said. While making clear to them that it is widely rejected by scientists, teachers should ensure they avoid denigrating creationist beliefs.

The theories

Creationism

The Universe and living organisms originated from acts of divine creation. This belief embraces the Biblical account and rejects theories in which natural processes are central, such as evolution. Some creationists have accepted geological findings and other methods of dating the Earth, insisting that such accounts do not necessarily contradict Biblical teachings

Evolution

Different kinds of living organisms have developed and diversified from earlier forms. Darwin’s theory of gradual evolution holds that this development took place by natural selection of varieties of organism better adapted to the environment and more likely to produce descendants
Intelligent Design

Certain features of the Universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and not by an undirected process such as natural selection. Proponents insist that it is not based on the Bible, claiming that its roots include the teachings of Plato and Aristotle, who, they say, articulated early versions of the theory

Sources: New Oxford Dictionary of English, Times Database

Copyright, 2008 The London Times; Used with permission
-30-

5 comments:

bobxxxx said...

Bible creationism and intelligent design creationism are not scientific theories. They are idiotic childish beliefs in magic. There is nothing scientific about magic.

Should creation myths be taught in schools? Only if the class is called "The History of Human Stupidity".

Kenneth E. Lamb said...

Dear Bob:

Actually, it is the Denialists who believe in "magic;" the entire universe came into being from Absolute Nothing . . . how, Bob?

How did it just "magically" pop into existence?

This is the problem you failed to address. In fact, it is the problem the Denialists never address.

The reason? Denialists have no answer to the question of how the universe was created, operating only within the natural laws.

That is why you are called "Denialists." You deny the rational in favor of your own brand of magic - that from Absolute Nothing comes a universe.

As I noted in my preface to the story, when the Denialists can explain how you make that leap - from Absolute Nothing to a universe - with no "super" natural intervention, then the Denialists will have something to say.

Now all they can do is insult and demean. Let us know when the Denialists have an explanation within the bounds of the natural world.

Until then, the super-natural explanation is the only rational choice.

Thanks for taking time to participate!

Kenneth
-30-

Simon said...

We will never know why there is anything.

Logically I agree with you, 'God' is the simplest explanation for the universe.

But both belief in God or the Big Bangs require faith in that which cannot be tested, and so cannot be trusted.

I am very cross with the treatment of Dr. Reiss, he talked sense.

Anonymous said...

Hm, I sure can't figure out how my transmission works -- can't quite get my head around it -- so it MUST be a creation of a higher power!

Good lord .....

"How did it just "magically" pop into existence?

Wow, go read some physics books. How about some quantum physics, string theory, basic concepts as to the nature of time and matter ...

Aw, what am I saying. You're a "lamb" intellectually.

The Editor said...

Anonymous:

You demonstrate how a little knowledge is very dangerous, particularly in the mind of someone who doesn't know how little he or she knows.

Coincidently, the points you crudely referenced I should study turned up as the central theme of a 3-hour examination of Hawking's' "The Theory of Everything" on the Science channel.

Here's what you don't know about the little that you think you know:

1) There is no evidence whatsoever - not a single shred - to prove that Super String Theory, Multi-Dimensional existence, Parallel Universes, the Universe of Unlimited "Brains," or a multitude of other such fantasies are true. Zero. Nada. Zip.Nothing

This came straight from the lips of the physicists professing these fantasies. If they themselves admit there is no evidence to substantiate their own theories, why do you insult me by asking why I don't lamely accept them the way that you do? You're the one in Fantasy Land, not me.

2) All of the ideas you throw out are great if you're big on science fiction. But that is all they are - the mental gymnastics of physicists unable to reconcile the weakness of gravity with the reality of the universe.

You, my sophomoric poster, believe in fairy tales masquerading as "science."

3) The latest is that we are to believe that the universe just "spontaneously" came into existence.

Sure, exactly one time in all of time, spontaneous generation occurred. You are a total wacko believing that.

4) The other whacked out idea is that the universe has "always existed."

Same thing, slightly different tune; we are expected to buy the lie that creation was never created - which makes all those sentences uttered by the gods of physics you worship manifestly insane: "At the time of creation - which never occurred because the universe was never created - the Big Bang created the universe - that was not created by the Big Bang because the universe was always created and so the Big Bang didn't create the universe that we tell you was created by the Big Bang . . ."

You are truly a simple minded individual to buy into those lies.

But I know why you do it: You do it for the same reason they do it; they, and you, can't handle the idea that you are created by an existence you can't understand, can't control, and may very well end up being accountable to.

I don't know if you suffer from self-hate - telling yourself how insignificant and unimportant humanity is, or the classic "we are just smart apes, just animals who possess nothing spiritual within our being."

Or maybe you are obnoxiously arrogant: You see yourself as so wise and moral within yourself that you have become a god in your own eyes - and the idea that you are a creature of a real God means that you would have to conform to the Will of that God - and the rebellious nature inside you can't humble itself to believe it should humble itself to anything.

Whatever. The bottom line for my reply to you is that you are calling mental fantasies uttered by self-aggrandizing physicists "facts" when even they admit there is no substance of evidence whatsoever to their many contradicting theories.

At least those of us who open up our mind to the possibility that our universe is a created universe have a logically consistent theory. We say that you cannot explain Creation within the "natural" laws of the universe. You must concede the possibility that an event outside those natural laws occurred - a "super" natural event.

What it was, and what are is characteristics is the stuff of open-minded scientists who asked "How can we come to understand this supernatural event?'

We have infinitely more evidence for the supernatural event than you have for the many foolish fantasies you quote. Our existence proves the existence of the supernatural - because there is no natural law in the universe that could cause the universe to be created in a state of Absolute Nothing: no space, no time, no mass, no energy . . . nothing; Absolute Nothing.

The universe did not generate itself from Absolute Nothing. We know as a matter of established scientific fact that there is no Spontaneous Generation in the natural universe. Therefore, the universe could not just "pop" into existence, as you so derided in your silliness.

Ultimately, you have to believe that Spontaneous Generation - an occurrence that we know as fact cannot occur - occurred in defiance of all the natural laws of the universe. You must believe the ultimate of all self-contradictory thinking, you must believe that that which cannot possibly happen, did happen, and it only happened once, and will never happen again.

To believe so is truly insane. It is the desperate insanity of humans trying to explain away that which cannot be explained away.

Too bad you are incapable of thinking that through for yourself, and instead it is you who are the lamb being sheared of all intellectual dignity.

Thanks for your comments!
-30-