No place for ID in today’s thinking
Tuesday 12th October 2010, 2:30PM BST.
AS A practising lawyer and former conseiller, Advocate John Langlois is no stranger to controversy or to putting his head above the parapet. Yet his trusteeship and support for the Guernsey-based Centre of Intelligent Design will have raised many eyebrows.
For while today’s ID may be a reworked and rebranded offering, it is still creationism at heart and has no place in today’s understanding of the universe or – as Advocate Langlois is demanding – the education of local children.
Despite ID’s attempts to distance itself from the evolution-denying zealots among America’s bible-belt, its doctrine seeks fundamentally to redefine science to include supernatural explanations, that some unidentified ‘master designer’ is behind the development of life.
Yet for all that ID is junk science, its message spreads, as do the demands for it to be taken seriously. That is one reason for the centre being set up here because its supporters want to expand into Europe.
Of itself, that isn’t a problem. Guernsey hosts many operations and is happy to do so.
However, creationism is such a damagingly backward-looking concept that it fits uneasily in a knowledge-based economy such as the island’s.
Again, that may not be much of an issue if the Centre of Intelligent Design – which actually sounds more like an offshoot of Habitat – is a low-profile organisation.
However, if the centre starts a campaign trying to persuade European countries that creationism is actually scientifically based while Darwinism is not, there are consequences from that.
Guernsey has enough difficulty persuading its neighbours that it is a reputable low tax jurisdiction as it is and does not need to be associated with fringe beliefs pretending that ID is science rather than religion.
The island’s name tends to be associated with all manner of things – some good, some bad – simply because an individual or operation has had some dealings or is headquartered here.
While creationism used to be seen rather like line dancing, something the Americans do, its reach is spreading.
Guernsey becoming regarded as ID’s spiritual home would not be helpful.
Island Life
All about Guernsey
Ambassador of the Year 2011
History & Heritage
Visitor Information
Guernsey's government
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Useful Links
The Centre for (not ‘of’) Intelligent Design is actually based in Glasgow: Guernsey is being used as a base for the trust which funnels the funding.
Presumably Guernsey was chosen because our trust law enables them to hide the source of the money.
So, our connection with this organisation is hidden in the small print – apart from the noise that advocate John Langlois is making. I am glad that my children have finished their primary, secondary, and tertiary education.
There is hardly syllabus time for matters of real educational value without introducing meaningless propaganda items like intelligent design. Doubtless pressure for its inclusion will increase from a noisy minority but this is one occasion on which the majority will be right!
There is nothing new about intelligent design. In the 1950′s I was loaned a copy of the Catholic Apologetics with its proofs for the existence of god: “Just like you probably thought that the clock was made by a designer, there must have been a Designer of the universe.” It was unconvincing then, and it still is.
Report abuse
nailed his colours to the mast with this one, creationism wrapped up as non-science. This cobblers is taught about in RE classes not science classes and rightly so. Religion has no place in school outside of RE classes.The wonderful irony of a religiously led group using a tax haven to funnel the money for their hocus pocus, very christian of them. I thought lawyers were supposed to be smart.
Report abuse
What utter nonsense GP! Perhaps my bank account should be closed because I believe God created the world?
Do organisations stop trading with America, despite a large proportion of its population still widely believing in the 6 day creation account? What about Islamic nations? Of course not – people go where the money is. So what if a fringe group decides it wants to fund its operations from here? They’re not terrorists and besides, I doubt they’re any danger to the status quo – they failed to get ID taught in science classes in America so not much chance of success over here.
Irrespective of personal beliefs there is something disturbing about an editorial that appears to suggest that Guernsey should think twice before allowing organisations that promote religious belief (or anything contrary to the accepted norm) from operating from our shores. What about the freedom of speech and religious expression that is enshrined in our culture and law? Perhaps we should shut down the bank accounts of churches where people teach religious beliefs? Sorry, that’s not allowed in Guernsey any more, it’s not “helpful” to the economy.
As for the theory of ID, in my opinion (which I am free to express!) it strikes me as little more than a cop out for those who don’t have the courage to declare their belief in the 6 day creation so try to explain things “scientifically” and fail miserably. Why not just come out with it and say “I believe that God created the universe as written in the Bible”? It might not win you many admirers in the academic community but hey, it’s honest.
The Bible makes no effort to “explain” God’s existence or his infinite power and ability to create. It simply declares of God, “I AM” and leaves it at that.
Efforts to “prove” God scientifically will always fail, so why try? Belief in God requires faith – you either have it, or you don’t. Without that faith, the Biblical accounts appear nonsensical, which I can totally understand. With faith however, all the Biblical accounts become plausible.
Report abuse
It does raise the question about a lawyer’s judgement. Do they all think like this?
Like the anti-homosexual doctor, it needs serious questioning.
Care to argue against this one Phil?
Report abuse
Advocates of Intelligent Design insist that their concern is with science, not religion.
yet, by a remarkable coincidence, the President of the newly opened Centre believes that Genesis 1 – 11 (separate creation, talking snake, Noah’s flood, the lot)is actual historical truth, while the Vice-President has quite correctly described the arguments put forward as being the traditional arguments for the existence of God.
We are all free to make up our own minds on these matters, but what is morally inexcusable is advancing these arguments under false pretences.
Report abuse
Interesting article relating to this in The Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2010/oct/01/centre-intelligent-design-science-religion
Report abuse
For me, man made religious beliefs diminish the awesome, mind popping scale of the universe out there. While we can’t be certain that there wasn’t some sort of creative spark to start it all, we can now be certain that life on this planet has evolved and is still evolving through natural selection. Teaching ‘intelligent design’ is like teaching the Ptolemaic model of the universe. On Monday evening this week there was a fantastic documentary on the latest scientific thinking on the origin of the universe – or universes! Check it out on: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00vdkmj/Horizon_20102011_What_Happened_Before_the_Big_Bang/
Report abuse
Arnald
I’ve just had to take a deep breath and have a sip of water, we appear to wholeheartedly agree on something!!
Report abuse
ID is not a theory on a par with Darwinian evolution, so should not be treated equally.
unless there is a version which explains the origin of the intelligent designer …..
it is just “all things bright and beautiful” wrapped up in pseudo scientific nonesense ….. and so can be riposted with a pseudo scientific version of Monty Pythons ” all things dull and ugly ” ………
Report abuse
Paul, you make some valid points.
Nevertheless there is something scary about ID being promoted from here.
It may be a question of scale: people know that, however bonkers middle America may be, it is sandwiched between the east and west coasts which have strong contingents of the fairly sane and sensible.
If you want an example of how it can go wrong, cast your mind back a few years to when the Isle of Man had to be coerced to adopt a human rights-compliant policy towards gays.
The island as a whole was made a laughing stock and, indeed, still is.
Report abuse
Is there really any danger that this pseudo-scientific group will actually infest the island with it’s ‘undesirable’ brand of thinking?
With religion getting less and less popular – probably in inverse proportion to the popularity of (real) science – surely few people will be interested if this group opens a branch here?
This article seems very tabloid-hysterical. I know many people take this aggressive stance against religion, but for all that many wars are religiously motivated, it’s always zealots behind it who would be rabid about Something, not the religion itself.
ID sounds on a par with homeopathy – something scientifically disproven that also requires ‘faith’ – and if it works for you, go for it. Having the Homeopathic Society open a branch here (or just a bank account) would not have our doctors all atwitter.
Report abuse
Thanks David Cranch – in hindsight I actually thought I had gone off on a bit of a rant, so I’m glad some of my points filtered through! Perhaps I should lay my cards on the table and say that I am one of the “bonkers” creationists (I actually prefer Bible believing Christian but let’s not get too hung up on labels eh?) – I presume you already had worked that out but I thought I’d just point that out for the record.
Although not a great fan of ID (funny how it doesn’t sit well with many “creationists” or Darwinists alike!) I don’t agree that there’s anything “scary about ID being promoted from here.” On the contrary, far more scary is when freedom of speech and religious expression begins to be stifled – whatever that may be. As an opponent of ID pointed out in the Guardian article I posted above, “in a free society it is important that organisations that do not accept the scientific theory of evolution are allowed to exist and to proclaim their message.”
As someone who both appreciates science and faith – a position without its dilemmas I accept – I do agree that there is a difference when it comes to education about where such ideas should be taught. Clearly teaching about creation is a matter of faith and should be taught as such in a religious education context whilst the various theories that abound about the origins of life are better suited to the science lab.
I do think however that there is scope within the education system to debate such conflicts – and I actually think such debates would be of benefit in sharpening the minds of young people and teaching them to assess the different belief systems and worldviews out there and make informed judgements for themselves.
@Martino – I knew we couldn’t keep on agreeing for ever! :) Ironically, my faith in God does exactly the opposite to its effect on you, my friend. I find that the more I discover about the wonders of the universe and the more my mind boggles at its sheer scale, the more I appreciate the magnificence of God.
Report abuse
PS David – I don’t think your comparison with the Isle of Man is a valid one. If anything, it is the ID campaigners who are having their human rights threatened. The recent local debate and vote on the gay age of consent proved that, on the whole, Guernsey is a tolerant society where both gays and the devoutly religious can express their beliefs and opinions in freedom. That is something we should robustly defend.
Quite honestly, the more I think on this the more I fail to see what all the fuss is about. Let’s get down to basics: a religious group are financing their operations out of Guernsey. What’s the big deal? As I pointed out already a number of religious organisations (mainly churches but also some charities) have been doing that for years.
If the GP Editor really thinks that this small group of ID devotees using Guernsey to stash their donations will have an adverse effect on our reputation as a finance centre, I humbly suggest it is he that is deluded.
Report abuse
This week I have mostly been designing Immunodeficiency Viruses.
Report abuse
Actually Paul I agree with you in one respect on this issue in that the ID lot should be as free as anyone else (providing they’re operating legally) to operate from our shores?
What is totally unacceptable in my mind is the proposal for the fiction of ID/creationism to be ‘taught’ in our schools. As Mike Hadley points out in his letter to the press this week, biological evolution is no longer theory it has been established as a fact. In the same way that our forbears established the now undoubted fact that the earth orbits the sun and not the other way round.
Report abuse
Who ‘designed’ the Designer? For surely some entity so incredibly powerful and intelligent could not have ‘evolved’ by accident?
Report abuse
Sorry – is this piece an editorial, a reader letter, or an article? There is a lot of judgement, opinion and bias in it…I can’t see an author!
While I’m pro-Darwin’s theory don’t think such a biased report is acceptable in the GP, it begs the question “says who?”
In science lessons, Darwin’s theory (as with all theories) is taught with reference to the scientific tests a they are put through to be sucessful. With this in mind I’m happy for ID to be taught, because it would demonstrate that ID fails these tests – and therefore is not a sucessful scientific theory. (Not to say it isn’t an acceptable “belief” – it’s just not satisfying the criteria to be “scientific”. If those questions can be answered scientifically it would be revised.) It would even help kids understand how science is “made”.
Report abuse
Paul,
actually it had not clicked that you were a creationist. I had detected an angle, but thought it was rhetorical.
It does not appear to me that the human rights of ID supporters are in any danger. They are free to believe and promulgate their nonsense.
There is no inalienable right to mislead, distort, and subvert the education of children. Yet they are free to do so and they do. That is exactly what happens in the Emmanuel schools in England. And parents are free to send their children to these schools, or not.
I do not share your opinion about the tolerance of Guernsey society. It may be that recently the States appear to have become able to adopt more tolerant policies, but it was not very long ago at all that we lived in a dark, religion-infested island. And that was relatively main-stream religion, not that of the cults and sects that are springing up even now.
It is a fact, however unfortunate, that human beings are defective, with tendencies towards violence, dishonesty and, of course, strange beliefs about their origin and fate. In a civilised society these have to be restrained within acceptable limits.
The real debate is about the position of those limits, not their removal.
Report abuse
Sorry Prev, but the development of life on earth through natural selection (and without the need for the helping hand of a ‘creator’) is fact. In Darwin’s day it was still a theory but what we have learned since has proved that he was right beyond any reasonable doubt. Now the big bang, that’s still theory, as is the inflation model for the origin of the universe (or multiverse) but that’s another story.
Report abuse
So what about the Giant Turtle? Is that bit not true either? How do we float in space without him?
Report abuse
Martino
Evolution, which i also believe in is one thing but how life started is just a mystery as it ever was, so it could well have been created to do just what its doing now?
I bet your a fan of Dawkins eh.
If you rule out creation your just left with another faith.
Report abuse
David
I’m interested in your last point, and I agree with it in principle. Naturally a civilised society should place certain restraints on people who are, as you say, by nature defective. I’m interested to know what you consider “acceptable limits” though?
State control over the school curriculum and preventing religious extremists from teaching others to kill in the name of God is one thing, but where would you draw the line?
Do you think, for example, that religious parents shouldn’t be allowed by law to take their children to their place of worship, be that the church, mosque, synagogue or wherever?
Or would you suggest, perhaps, that parents who teach their children at home about their religious beliefs (such as creation) are unfit parents and should therefore have their children taken into care?
I’m not suggesting you think any of these things, I’m just demonstrating that there is a difference between justifiable restraints to protect the public and state interference in people’s right to religious belief and expression – which includes the raising of children.
Report abuse
PS David – point taken on the “human rights being threatened” bit of my previous post. It was meant to be hyperbole but I can see how it could have been misinterpreted.
Report abuse
@Martino
I’m not sure you understand the difference between a “scientific theory”, a plain old “theory” and a “fact”.
Don’t get me wrong – I feel that the Theory of Evolution is the most compelling explaination for the orgin of species there is – and is based on fact upon fact, and supported by an ever-growing body of other facts – however a “scientific theory” is how we join those facts and make predictions about what we will continue to observe.
We all know that the concept of Evolution is based on the idea that a random mutation causes differenciation within a population, and sometimes that difference is advantageous and means the mutant is more likely to live/breed/escape predators, and their offspring are more likely to show those traits, yadda yadda. The concept of it being a “random” mutation I’m sure you know is central to the theory.
Let’s board Sagan’s “Ship of the Imagination”. Imagine scientists observe a phenomenon that frequently, before the emergence of winning mutations, there is a period of stress among populations, the introduction of a new predator or pathogen, for example. These scientists run a number of experiments and discover that in a stressed population there is a greater tendancy to mutate.
Suddenly the currently theory of evolution would be questioned. It would be asked whether stress in a population CAUSED mutations, perhaps in all species, perhaps in just some. In this event the theory of evolution would alter.
That’s the wonderful thing about science. If evidence comes to light that contradicts the current theory, we improve upon and modify the theory. Science is not fixed and unchanging! That’s the realm of Religion!
Okay, facts, actual facts – they’re unchanging – and I’ll agree that the theory of evolution has had so few scientific challenges or contradictions that it is often treated as a fact, however it COULD be changed IF new evidence came to light, which is why it is NOT a fact.
Report abuse
Can any religious person tell me if god has eyes??
Report abuse
Well said bcb. It seems to me that there are far too many people voicing an opinion here (editor included it would sadly seem if that was his initial article!) who clearly do not understand the argument, with much of the remainder being devotees of the blinded belief system sold by Dawkins et al.
I am a biological science graduate, I teach biology through to A level, have read widely on both sides of this topic and I’m not in any way religious. I don’t believe in intelligent design but I don’t dismiss it out of hand either and anyone with a genuine understanding of biochemistry and cell biology who does dismiss it, is as closed minded as the creationists that they seek to judge.
Let me be clear, despite the unfortunate fact that it has been pounced upon by some religious groups, ID (from a biological perspective at least) is not the same as creationism. It does not dismiss evolution by natural selection, which is quite clearly evident in so many aspects of biology, what it does do is to define situations where our current knowledge does not adequately provide an evolutionary mechanism for their development. If this is accepted (as it should be), then the choice is belief one way or the other, or accepting the possibility of both and sitting on the fence until we have a greater understanding. Fervent believers in ID go one way, fervent believers in Dawkins etc go the other. Both as bad/mad as each other to my mind.
Whether or not religion is at the core of this Centre for Intelligent Design is of no consequence as noted by a number of previous posts. To me the most concerning thing is that there are so many people prepared to vigorously oppose an idea without truly understanding it. Scary.
Report abuse
I agree bcb, how life started is indeed ‘just a mystery as it ever was’ but the question we are talking about in this thread is how life developed from its earliest forms and continues to develop? The answer is through biological evolution/natural selection, case proven.
The creationists/ID types, if they’re being as honest as Paul is and not many of them are, believe that man was created all of a sudden in god’s image by a single wave of some sort of cosmic magic wand.
For the latest scientific theory as to how it all started check out
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100202101245.htm
Report abuse
I won’t argue with you any further on that one Prev. We still don’t know all there is to know about the science evolution but we can be pretty sure that it has knocked creationism into a cocked hat!
Report abuse
All things bright and beautiful….all creatures great and small….all things wise and wonderful…the Lord God made them all. FACT.
Report abuse
Hi Paul,
it’s only my opinion, but I should think people should be free, in their own circles, to teach the existence of fairies, Father Christmas, and gods if they so wish.
The line needs to be drawn somewhere around level of acceptance of such things in public rather than private circles.
The line is definitely fuzzy, not least because for historical reasons religion has a public acceptance that really should not be accorded to it.
I can see why John Langlois, for example, should feel aggrieved that the views he is promoting are not accepted into the school curriculum, when children are expected even compelled to worship in schools maintained at the taxpayers’ expense.
So you see I think John Langlois is making the problem worse and the solution is in pruning not in allowing unfettered growth.
Report abuse
Hi David
I think what you say is reasonable.
Although a devout evangelical Christian, I too am a little uneasy with the practice of ‘forced worship’ – not because I am against worship but because it should always be a matter of personal conviction, not state enforced religion. What makes it all the more tenuous is the fact that many teachers who lead such sessions have no faith themselves!
My personal view is that once children reach secondary school age, groups such as churches, humanists and yes, even atheists, should be allowed to visit schools and address students in turn. I think such a practice would expose youth to the many different viewpoints out there in a safe environment and spark some good, robust debate – such as that which occurs here.
State education should always endeavour to be as objective as possible. Rather than indoctrinating children in what they should(n’t) believe, it should simply provide them with the tools necessary to make that decision for themselves.
What better way to prepare young people for the real world?
Report abuse
Regarding facts and Theories
I would agree with Benjamin Franklin that ‘nothing in this world is certain except death and taxes’.
Pliny the Elder went even further saying ‘The only certainty is that nothing is certain.’
While people with strong convictions do tend to get things done, for good or ill, those who are ready to admit they might be wrong are less dangerous.
Report abuse
“However, creationism is such a damagingly backward-looking concept that it fits uneasily in a knowledge-based economy such as the island’s.”
Good to see GP taking another neuteral stand on another issue.
Interesting how quick people are to forget that evolution is still a theory and much of what was deemed proof has now been quietly brushed under the carpet.
Why not teach the theory along side other viewpoints, including creationism. In Religious Studies (RS), pupils have to study the major world religions, all of which may be against their own belief (agnostic or athiesm) but is good to know to make this world a bit more tolerant.
Surely the evolutionists out there don’t feel Creationism a threat??!?
Report abuse
All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat,
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot.
Each little snake that poisons,
Each little wasp that stings,
He made their brutish venom.
He made their horrid wings.
All things sick and cancerous,
All evil great and small,
All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all.
Each nasty little hornet,
Each beastly little squid–
Who made the spikey urchin?
Who made the sharks? He did!
All things scabbed and ulcerous,
All pox both great and small,
Putrid, foul and gangrenous,
The Lord God made them all.
Amen.
Report abuse
Oi Toby, some of my best friends are squids!
Kiss the big ugly shark!
Report abuse
What place has religion got in our schools in the first place?
Report abuse
Hi Paul,
our different positions notwithstanding, we seem largely in agreement.
There is of course no harm in equipping children to handle the big wide world.
Interestingly you can see the dangers exemplified in Jeff’s posting a couple below your last.
In a couple of sentences he dismisses evolution as a theory and jumps to suggesting teaching creationism.
It is well known in mathematics that if you could prove 1=2 then you can prove any and every nonsense. That is the nature of the threat, the thin end of the wedge.
Report abuse
Jeff
I dont think there is an evolutionist alive that considers creationism a threat, largely because there is scientific evidence behind evolution, and nothing behind creationism.
I do find your question quite ironic though, because Christianity has tried to keep scientific research under the thumb for over 1,000 years. And now sciences voice is finally and rightly louder, all of sudden zealots start claiming that science is afraid of religious “fact”
If they were scared its only because historically the all loving religious people have a track record for burning the houses down of people who’s theories contract their book.
Report abuse
Sadly Dave Haslam you are right, although I would argue that your statement that “Christianity has tried to keep scientific research under the thumb for over 1,000 years” is a rather sweeping generalisation that shows a lack of appreciation of the finer points of European History.
That’s not to say that broadly speaking that wasn’t the case – there’s no arguing that the church has a truly horrendous track record of dealing with opponents. It really does make one wonder whether some of them actually read the New Testament teachings to “love your enemy” and explain their faith with “gentleness and respect.”
As you say, the tables have largely turned now (at least in Europe) and it is the faithful that find themselves in a minority. Time will tell whether that is a position we should fear for the same reasons you have mentioned. Personally I hope not as, not only will I find myself on the receiving end (!) but I genuinely believe that there is room for both in a civilised society.
Report abuse
Well said Dave Haslam in response to the nonsense from Jeff the creationist with a big C (you can always spot ‘em because they do insist on capping the first letters of words like god and creation that never should be capped). I do feel, though, that creationism is most definitely a threat to scientific advancement even though, as you say Dave, there really is nothing behind it.
In fact what the creationists/ID lot are doing to try to get their anti-science baloney ‘taught’ in schools is resorting to dishonest rebranding and marketing. In this way they seek to be able to present their mumbo jumbo as having the same weight as systems based on observable and measurable scientific inquiry and assessment.
As David Cranch says, nobody is objecting to them promulgating their pretend science outside of the school gates (even though this is most regrettable). However, what we cannot allow them to do is to get a foothold in our classrooms and take us back to those dark days when pupils were indoctrinated with religious propaganda masquerading as science and fact.
Report abuse
I pen this response in the hope that it be received in good humour and not taken seriously!
I couldn’t help but have a little giggle at your “spot a creationist” comment, Martino: “you can always spot ‘em because they do insist on capping the first letters of words like god and creation that never should be capped”
This process of identification certainly adds some interesting names to the creationist club. I never realised Richard Dawkins was one for starters – check out his website: http://richarddawkins.net/quotes?page=2
Capitalising God is not a secret sign of belief like the fish in Roman times. It’s actually nothing more than correct English grammar. Proper names are always preceded with a capital, so when talking about “God” they are simply using the given name of the Christian deity, in the same way that I capitalise my name.
I think you owe Professor Dawkins an apology for labelling him as a “C”reationist old chap!! :-D
Report abuse
Well, you’ve got me there Paul I must admit. All I can say is that Prof Dawkins is a brilliant biologist but evidently not so hot on some of the finer points of English grammar – even though he explains his science wonderfully with the written word for lay people like you and I.
I maintain that the word god is not a proper noun or a name, whether it is a direct reference to the Christian god or not, so should not be given a cap g. But please notice how I cap up Christian. It is correct grammar to do so.
As for ‘creationism’ with the c in upper case, did the good professor write this? I hope not because never in a million years is this the correct thing to do.
You and I agree on so many other things Paul but even if we didn’t I would take your post in the good humour intended!
Report abuse
WOW!
A science versus religion conversation that has descended into the finer points of english grammar.
I have to say, thats a first for me hahaha!
Paul, yes sorry I was using very broad strokes with my “under the thumb” comment but as you admit, broadly it is correct, but we could be here days debating about how Eurpoean History has influenced the oppression of science, so thank you for conceding the point.
It is a sad point that there are still parts of the world that as Martino alludes to, where Religion has a 2 Mile restraining order on Science! It would be nice to think “that we can all just get along”, but until people like Jeff the “C”reationist learn to back off a little and accept the validity of an oppsiing viewpoint, there will always be a natural distrust and distance between the 2.
Personally, I love a good old science vs religion debate, but as Martino alludes to, and Jeff proves, unless people both sides of the argument, listen, appreciate the opposing point of view, find the potential for middle ground (I personally beleive there is a lot of middle ground, which sadly barely gets trodden on) then we will always end up with these closed debates.
Hence I will blame religion for that, sorry Paul, but fundamentally the scientific position demands an enlightened position, you cannot beleive in Evolution unless you understand it in my opinion, however all you need with creationism is a firm beleif and a closed mind (sorry that is not intended to come accross as arrogant, but by this I am pigeon holing the Sarah Palins of the world, not people such as yourself).
The Baha’i's prove there is place for progression in religion, as do people such as yourself. But until some of the dogma is removed in places such as the deep saaaaf, people such as yourself will always be in a minority against the “capital C”‘s and as such there will always be a line in the sand.
Report abuse
@Dave – it is a first, I always think a bit of light hearted humour is worthwhile though – stops me taking myself too seriously.
I wouldn’t put myself in the same category as the Baha’i though as I am a staunch evangelical who believes in the historicity of the book of Genesis! I think you probably already knew that when you posted so what I think you’re getting at is that I am prepared to accept that others have a different point of view and I do not see any reason to impose my beliefs on others by force – declare them yes, impose them, no.
One of the reasons why I don’t have a problem with opposing viewpoints is that I don’t see any threat to Christianity from science. If God really is God then Christianity will endure and overcome any threat. We have no reason to prevent other people from searching for knowledge and meaning in the fear that it will take them further from God.
Actually that’s not progressive when it comes to Christianity, it’s technically regressive as it goes back to the time of the first Apostles in the book of Acts who spread Christianity simply by preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
What I do appreciate though is that in the absence of faith the reasoning behind such things as evolution as an explanation for the origins of life is generally quite sound. Actually I do accept the theory of evolution to an extent – most Christians do, even staunch evangelicals like myself as to a degree it does not contradict the Bible.
The process of different species adapting (evolving) to their environment through breeding and genetic mutations can be clearly observed today. It’s the starting point that we disagree on – scientists theorise that we all originated from one primeval mass; I believe God started it when he created the universe and distinct forms of animal life (including human beings in his own image) as stated in Genesis.
Foolish though this must sound to people such as yourself and Martino, when push comes to shove (and sorry if I’m repeating myself here!) Christians choose to believe the Genesis creation account because we have a belief in the Christian triune God. As I’ve explained, belief in an omnipotent deity makes things such as creation perfectly reasonable.
I also appreciate science, although as a man of faith who believes in the supernatural I consider it inadequate to fully explain life, the universe and everything (with apologies to the late atheist Douglas Adams for using material from his book to defend my faith position!). That’s why it surprises me so much that the ID supporters try to hide their belief behind science – there really is no need!
Report abuse
On the sixth day god created man, and on the seventh day man returned the favour.
Report abuse
Paul
Nice post!
From your previous posting and great debates with Martino I know your stance on things and I will applaud any religious person bold enough to state their belief but even bolder to accept another viewpoint into their faith.
My issue will always be the people who refuse to listen, on both sides.
I think I have stated on here before, that I do beleive in (a version of) God (maybe God is not the best term to describe my belief). However as a scientific man who was originally raised devout Roman Catholic, my point of view is probably not surprising, I think there is something pulling the strings as it were, but I dont beleive 90% of any religious texts.
Maybe mine is a copout position, I have embraced science but phychologically have refused to give up faith completely, one thing for sure is that I am happy with my beleifs, as you do, I look at things with a questioning mind, that way I can fully justify what I ultimately beleive.
If everyone did that, we wouldnt have these issues crop up.
Report abuse
Thanks Dave – my view is that those who are not prepared to listen should not expect to be heard.
I think your perspective is quite common, an embrace of science with a reluctance to abandon faith. Not surprising I have my views on why this is but irrespective of that as I’ve said before I am convinced there is room for both and one need not fear the other.
Report abuse
If you read the Genesis account of Creation I think you’ll find that that science confirms what is written in there,bearing in mind that Gods time is not the same as ours,in fact time does not exist for God so for him billions of years is like a day.Genesis was written thousands of years ago before we knew that the earth was a desolate place that became a planet with sea but no land,then God formed the land and the birds and fishes were created before the land animals,and man came last.
Report abuse
Hello I. Le Page who writes the word creation with a cap c. I think you’ll find that science contradicts practically everything that is written in the book of Genesis. File under F for fiction.
Report abuse
I Le Page
Oh dear.
Science confirms Genesis? God’s time is not the same as ours? Billions of years are like a day to him?
What a load of cobblers, you’re entitled to believe what you like but let’s not include rubbish like this in the school curriculum, if parents want their children to be taught this type of thing they should take them to church (let’s face it they could do with some new blood). School education should be based on facts, not beliefs that are impossible to prove.
Report abuse