UK Gov boots intelligent design back into 'religious' margins

[cybercoma]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/25/id_not_science/

...[T]he [uK] government said: "The Government is aware that a number of concerns have been raised in the media and elsewhere as to whether creationism and intelligent design have a place in science lessons. The Government is clear that creationism and intelligent design are not part of the science National Curriculum programmes of study and should not be taught as science. "

The United Kingdom is putting creationism in its place, that is to say, nowhere near a science classroom. It's about time a government stood up and defended reason against religious zealots who are trying to indoctrinate children with untested mythological ideas presented as tried and tested scientific knowledge.

[geoffrey]

Whoop-de-do. No school in Canada and very few in the US teach it. It's largely a mountain out of a molehill, the anti-religious zealots just love to make a big deal out of it.

It's a non-issue, always was a non-issue.

[bush_cheney2004]

Whoop-de-do. No school in Canada and very few in the US teach it. It's largely a mountain out of a molehill, the anti-religious zealots just love to make a big deal out of it.

It's a non-issue, always was a non-issue.

Really?...coming to Canada real soon:

Cochrane's Mitford Middle School will launch a Christian program this fall. Christian beliefs, including instruction on creationism in science class, will be taught to 50 or so elementary aged students as part of a two-year pilot project.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/20...tianschool.html

Always a non-issue? Guess again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial

[ScottSA]

Whoop-de-do. No school in Canada and very few in the US teach it. It's largely a mountain out of a molehill, the anti-religious zealots just love to make a big deal out of it.

It's a non-issue, always was a non-issue.

Really?...coming to Canada real soon:

Cochrane's Mitford Middle School will launch a Christian program this fall. Christian beliefs, including instruction on creationism in science class, will be taught to 50 or so elementary aged students as part of a two-year pilot project.

A lot better than having the little dears chanting about martyrdom and lopping off the heads of pigs and apes.

[Slavik44]

Whoop-de-do. No school in Canada and very few in the US teach it. It's largely a mountain out of a molehill, the anti-religious zealots just love to make a big deal out of it.

It's a non-issue, always was a non-issue.

Really?...coming to Canada real soon:

Cochrane's Mitford Middle School will launch a Christian program this fall. Christian beliefs, including instruction on creationism in science class, will be taught to 50 or so elementary aged students as part of a two-year pilot project.

A lot better than having the little dears chanting about martyrdom and lopping off the heads of pigs and apes.

Way to set your standards high....

[gc1765]

Intelligent design belongs in science class as much as evolution belongs in church.

[Drea]

I wonder if churches would allow a guest speaker talking about evolution? To hand out textbooks and tests and all.

LOL

[Mad_Michael]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/25/id_not_science/

...[T]he [uK] government said: "The Government is aware that a number of concerns have been raised in the media and elsewhere as to whether creationism and intelligent design have a place in science lessons. The Government is clear that creationism and intelligent design are not part of the science National Curriculum programmes of study and should not be taught as science. "

The United Kingdom is putting creationism in its place, that is to say, nowhere near a science classroom. It's about time a government stood up and defended reason against religious zealots who are trying to indoctrinate children with untested mythological ideas presented as tried and tested scientific knowledge.

Interestingly enough, given that there is no constitutional mandate or legal requirement for any separation of Church and State in Britian.

[cybercoma]

The thing is, they didn't even use the "seperation of Church and State" angle. They simply stated that creationism and intelligent design are not scientific ideas. Finally, a government has taken a stand to say that ID is NOT science.

[kimmy]

But scientists are turning to "Intelligent Design" in droves! Just ask Betsy, she'll tell you!

-k

[cybercoma]

But scientists are turning to "Intelligent Design" in droves! Just ask Betsy, she'll tell you!

-k

The remarkably sad thing is, she's not the only one on this forum who will tell you that. She's not the only one that thinks people can pick and choose whether they "believe" in evolution, as if one picks and chooses whether they believe in the theory of gravity. It's truly incredible that people think creationism and intelligent design are credible ideas.

[Drea]

I wonder if one does not believe in the "theory" of gravity.... do they have to have weights holding them down so they don't float off into space!?

LOL

[gc1765]

I wonder if one does not believe in the "theory" of gravity.... do they have to have weights holding them down so they don't float off into space!?

LOL

No silly, God pushes them back down to earth. Duh!

Intelligent falling (IF) is a parody of the "intelligent design" (ID) movement. IF is a pseudo-scientific supernatural explanation of the effects of gravity that has become a minor Internet phenomenon. It says free fall is being caused by "the hand of god", as depicted in Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel Ceiling painting.[1] While the current incarnation of IF has its roots in a satirical 2002 Usenet posting, religious explanations of gravity invoking the direct intervention of God span several hundred years, including some of Isaac Newton's own writings and recent depictions by fundamentalist Christians.

IF proposes that the scientific explanation of gravitational force cannot explain all aspects of the phenomenon, so credence should be given to the idea that things fall because a higher intelligence is moving them. Furthermore, IF asserts that theories explaining gravity are not internally consistent nor mathematically reconcilable with quantum mechanics, making gravity a "theory in crisis". Pretended IF apologists advocate that IF should be taught in school along with the theory of gravity so that students can make "an informed decision" on the subject in accordance with demands to "teach the controversy".

Link

[Mad_Michael]

The thing is, they didn't even use the "seperation of Church and State" angle.

As I noted above, that is because "separation of Church and State" has no legal or constitutional standing in the UK.

You can't cite something that doesn't have legal standing.

[cybercoma]

As I noted above, that is because "separation of Church and State" has no legal or constitutional standing in the UK.

You can't cite something that doesn't have legal standing.

Regardless, it's completely unnecessary to the argument.

[geoffrey]

Intelligent design belongs in science class as much as evolution belongs in church.

The Catholic Church accepted evolution. What's that saying?

[gc1765]

The Catholic Church accepted evolution. What's that saying?

The Catholic Church accepts that humans evolved over billions of years, rather than being created by God? That's what I meant when I said evolution. I guess I should have said "human evolution". My mistake.

[geoffrey]

The Catholic Church accepted evolution. What's that saying?

The Catholic Church accepts that humans evolved over billions of years, rather than being created by God? That's what I meant when I said evolution. I guess I should have said "human evolution". My mistake.

"...the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter— the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36).

--

Souls are created by God, humans evolved (I'm sure the Church insists under God's guidance, but that would have zero effect on the science) from pre-existing creatures.

Policy of the Church for quite some time.

Just goes to show the pure creationism, Earth is 8000 years old time stuff is limited to a bunch of backwoods hicks... mostly in the Southern US. It's blown way out of proportion. Very very few outside of the uneducated will ever believe in that idea, so no worries, this is a non-issue like I said.

[gc1765]

"...the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter— the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36).

--

Souls are created by God, humans evolved (I'm sure the Church insists under God's guidance, but that would have zero effect on the science) from pre-existing creatures.

Interesting. Even the Catholic Church seems to agree with evolution to some extent.

Interesting, because evolution as we know it contradicts the bible, where humans were created on the 6th day (I believe). Then again, the bible contradicts itself when it comes to creation

[geoffrey]

I don't think the Catholic Church has endorsed a literal interpretation of the Old Testament in at least the last few centuries. The 8000 year old Earth has been rejected for some time.

[cybercoma]

If the Bible is not the literal word of God, are we as humans in possession of knowledge profound enough to determine what God "really meant" when he inspired the Bible to be written?

[gc1765]

I agree with cybercoma. Once you acknowledge that the bible is not 100% true, where do you draw the line? How do you know what is true in the bible and what isn't? How do you know any of it is true?

[geoffrey]

I agree with cybercoma. Once you acknowledge that the bible is not 100% true, where do you draw the line? How do you know what is true in the bible and what isn't? How do you know any of it is true?

Not the thread for it. I try not to get drawn into many theological discussions with non-Christians, just not a good idea.

Very quick answer from the Catholic theological viewpoint, the coming of Christ setup a 'new deal' between believers and God, so the New Testament is definitely supposed to be taken as very literally, but the Old is regarded just as a basic moral guideline (ie. the Ten Commandments).

[cybercoma]

Very quick answer from the Catholic theological viewpoint, the coming of Christ setup a 'new deal' between believers and God, so the New Testament is definitely supposed to be taken as very literally, but the Old is regarded just as a basic moral guideline (ie. the Ten Commandments).

There's far too many disagreements between the gospels for the New Testament to be taken literally, not to mention that they don't at all coincide with the epistles of Paul.

I know you don't want to debate the issue, so I'm fine with you not replying if you want.

[Mad_Michael]

Very quick answer from the Catholic theological viewpoint, the coming of Christ setup a 'new deal' between believers and God, so the New Testament is definitely supposed to be taken as very literally, but the Old is regarded just as a basic moral guideline (ie. the Ten Commandments).

Excuse me?

I believe you are mixing up Catholic and Protestant theology here. What you say is NOT accepted Catholic doctrine. However, it is commonly accepted by some/most protestant sects as such.

It is official Catholic doctrine that the Bible is to be understood allegorically.