UK bans teaching of creationism in all public schools.

[Tintin]

If public schools are really religion free, why are they so insistent on teaching evolution?

 

[dcontroversal]

If public schools are really religion free, why are they so insistent on teaching evolution?

Because deep down they want to (religionize) <--new word....the youth!

 

[Elin]

If you walk into your house and your fridge is open and empty, yet when you left that morning for work it was full, you can deduce that some process led to your fridge being emptied and left open during the time you were gone. Most likely that process was a person coming into your house and taking things from your fridge.

The same way, if we observe a yearly layering of ice in the longest frozen regions of the two poles, we can deduce that each year ice is layered there. If we dig that ice out in cylinders we can examine how many layers of ice there are. A logical conclusion to make is that one layer of ice equates to one year, since we have observed yearly layering. Thus if there are hundreds of thousands of layers of ice, we can safely conclude that the Earth is at least hundreds of thousands of years old, since this ice is hundreds of thousands of years old.

If we study trees and see that every year, a ridge is created inside the tree due to the shrinking and expanding caused by the change of season, we can conclude that a ridge is equal to one year. Thus if there are seven, eight, nine, ten thousand rings we can safely assume this tree is how ever many thousand years old.

If we study our whole world this way, finding out how the world works then projecting backwards, we can come to understand how the Earth's existence progressed in a physical sense. All the evidenced suggests that the world formed just as other planets form, that the Earth is billions of years old. Evidence also suggests that life evolved gradually over long periods of time.

Suggestion is not certainty.

The evidence of adaptation within a species is not evidence of evolution of one species into another.
That's sloppy nomenclature because biologically they are not the same.
There is no conclusive proof of evolution of one species into another.

The study of physics and mathematics lead us to establishing unbreakable laws of the universe. For instance, no energy can be created nor destroyed, but all energy can only be changed in form. That in itself is
an immutable universal law. We have many laws like this.

And many see such immutable laws as conclusive evidence of an Intelligent Designer/Creator.

Using these laws and studying our Earth leads us to our conclusions.

Now, the issue with the creation story is not that the universe was 'created' - in fact there is no scientific consensus that says the energy of the universe was or was not created by some unknown mechanic - however the issue
is that the creation story asserts all of this Earth's progression, right up until
the birth of human life,
happened in seven days, which is a statement contrary to scientific evidence.

First of all, scientific evidence cannot conclusively prove the evolution of human life.
It is a theory only.

Secondly, a six-day creation is not contrary to scientific evidence,
because science has no evidence of the origin of the earth, et al.
Its conclusions are based on the assumption that the process of origin is the same as
the process today, that all of the past has been like the present.

Actually, the only record we have of the origin of creation was given by its Creator to Moses 3600+ years ago.
And that record states that the process of origin is not the same as the process we observe today,
that the earth and plant, animal and human life were created/originated in their mature forms.
And science has no way to conclusively prove this is not correct.
It oversteps its purview in postulating to the contrary.

And with nothing to absolutely unseat this ancient record, there are many who chose
to believe it based on the authority of its writer.

Of course, if a day is like an age to God, then there is technically not a contradiction between current science and the bible's creation timeframe.

You need to revisit that verse in its context for its real meaning.

There is in fact room for a person to say; 'if a day is as an age, then the creation of everything took many ages.

Your use of "age" denotes eons of days and nights.

However, the creation account limits a day to one revolution of the earth on its axis,
and it reports creation in six of those revolutions of the earth on its axis, not eons of them.

Your interpretive theory of creation does not fit the Biblical account.

If animals were made first, then it is possible that man evolved from animal. It is also possible to say that this slow process of growth, evolution and change was God's design. It is also possible to say that since the laws of physics are as they are, that God deliberately created them to be that way'.

So there was an Intelligent Designer?

Then why would the ancient written record of the six-day creation given by the Creator be questioned?
Would the Designer Creator be unable to do that?

You are the one who creates a disparity between science and faith when the reality is there need not be one.

No. .it is science, with its assumptions and absence of observation of the process of creation,
it is not crossnote, which creates the disparity between science and the Bible.

If we teach science classes and tell kids about theories formulated from evidence,

However, the theories are not formulated from observable evidence of creation,
but from assumption that what is observed today is the same process as its creation.

But it seems to me you deny evolution, deny the Earth's old age and deny that the scientific method should be taught in science classes and so all of this is just going to fall on deaf ears.

Pretty much like the deaf ears that use lack of observation and assumption
to try to overturn the ancient written record of creation given by the Creator to Moses.

 

[Elin]

If you would explain to me in your own words why the decreasing entropy of some facets within a closed system while the overall entropy increases is against the 2nd law of thermodynamics that would be great.

I prefer the words of Jesus who affirmed the creation account given by Moses.

 

[Nautilus]

If public schools are really religion free, why are they so insistent on teaching evolution?

Probably becaus ethey teach science in public schools and agree or not the scientific community tends to place a bit more trust in evolution hence including it in textbooks. Or we could go the way I expect this conversation to go and say that the schools are indoctrinating our children with satanic beliefs, but Im real tired of all the fearmongering that goes on here.

 

[Esanta]

Suggestion is not certainty.

The evidence of adaptation within a species is not evidence of evolution of one species into another.
That's sloppy nomenclature because biologically they are not the same.
There is no conclusive proof of evolution of one species into another.


And many see such immutable laws as conclusive evidence of an Intelligent Designer/Creator.


First of all, scientific evidence cannot conclusively prove the evolution of human life.
It is a theory only.

Secondly, a six-day creation is not contrary to scientific evidence,
because science has no evidence of the origin of the earth, et al.
Its conclusions are based on the assumption that the process of origin is the same as
the process today, that all of the past has been like the present.

Actually, the only record we have of the origin of creation was given by its Creator to Moses 3600+ years ago.
And that record states that the process of origin is not the same as the process we observe today,
that the earth and plant, animal and human life were created/originated in their mature forms.
And science has no way to conclusively prove this is not correct.
It oversteps its purview in postulating to the contrary.

And with nothing to absolutely unseat this ancient record, there are many who chose
to believe it based on the authority of its writer.


You need to revisit that verse in its context for its real meaning.


Your use of "age" denotes eons of days and nights.

However, the creation account limits a day to one revolution of the earth on its axis,
and it reports creation in six of those revolutions of the earth on its axis, not eons of them.

Your interpretive theory of creation does not fit the Biblical account.


So there was an Intelligent Designer?

Then why would the ancient written record of the six-day creation given by the Creator be questioned?
Would the Designer Creator be unable to do that?


No. .it is science, with its assumptions and absence of observation of the process of creation,
it is not crossnote, which creates the disparity between science and the Bible.


However, the theories are not formulated from observable evidence of creation,
but from assumption that what is observed today is the same process as its creation.


Pretty much like the deaf ears that use lack of observation and assumption
to try to overturn the ancient written record of creation given by the Creator to Moses.

There being an intelligent designer or not; the Earth is most definitely older than 6000 years old, and the Earth was not formed from dust to human life in seven 24-hour periods. Most Christians would even agree with that.

Either your interpretation of the bible's creation account is too literal, you fail to recognize some allegory in it, or 'a day is like an age' in the biblical account and thus the theory of an old Earth progressing as scientific consensus says it has is not in contradiction to the biblical account.

It's one of the three.

If you'd like to argue against this, please provide me with some scientific theory from any reputable scientist that makes his or her conclusions on the basis of complete evidence without deliberate omissions to fit their scenario.

Since you seem to know so much about this, I'd really appreciate it if you also imparted your understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics on me. Your understanding of the first one might also be helpful.

There is proof of evolution, since evolution is nothing more than organisms mutating and adapting to the point that they eventually become different from the original organism from which they adapted. The main proofs are:

The universal genetic code of all living things made up of only four chemicals. All living things share a code made of these four chemicals, and the patterns of the code themselves can be seen to be shared to a specific percentage between certain life forms. Humans share roughly 50% of their code with a banana. Humans share about 96% of their code with certain chimpanzee species. It's therefore safe to assume that we are more closely related to chimps and on the scale of the progression of life, bananas came before chimps.

The second proof is the fossil record. Contrary to assumption, there are thousands of examples of bridge species fossils.

The next is the sharing of embryonic form in chordates. It shows that embryos develop genetic traits from specific species only at a certain point in the embryonic development. Before that period, many embryos are practically indistinguishable from one another. For instance, human embryos have at one point gill slits (like fish) which then change to form the bones of the inner ear. We see this in embryonic formation but we also see species of fish that have half-way formed ear bones behind the jaw. These are transitional species.

The next proof is bacterial resistance to antibiotics, which is evidence of adaptation, mutation or what some people call 'macro-evolution'. Essentially, it is cold hard proof that species' bodies adapt to their environments. There are also the genes formed in certain humans in the last few hundred years, like the sickle cell gene in malaria infested regions, which if passed on to a child is likely to give them practically immunity to malaria. This is not only evidence of adaptation but also of the processes of natural selection; the kid with the immunity will survive over a kid who doesn't have it.

Be aware, too, that none of these processes give 'evidence' of intelligently designed material. Evolution explains the progression of life, not its origins. That process is different from evolution and is called abiogenesis.

And it is absolutely certain that life must have formed from inert chemicals, because all life is made up of chemicals, thus to assert that at any point in history that there was not life, but only chemicals, means that the only logical explanation is that life formed from those chemicals - they are what life-forms are physically made of. Scientists look for the actual mechanical process whereby that happened - and call it abiogenesis. Theologians ask 'why'?

 

[Esanta]

If public schools are really religion free, why are they so insistent on teaching evolution?

Public schools in the UK aren't religion free. There are compulsory religious education classes in the UK, where creationism is taught.

 

[Elin]

There being an intelligent designer or not; the Earth is most definitely older than 6000 years old, and the Earth was not formed from dust to human life in seven 24-hour periods. Most Christians would even agree with that.

1) Right, it was six, not seven.

2) That's how the Bible understands itself.

3) I'm going with Jesus on this one, who confirmed the creation account.

NB: A day and a night are not an age, they are one revolution of the earth on its axis.