Take care,

Anthony

I asked a few specific questions a couple of times already.

All the best,

Psi

All the best,

Anthony

I will struggle to find the time to listen to all that.

Can you give us a few lines (like I did above for you)?

I have asked you a couple of times to elaborate on some issues and pressing you (again) would feel a bit rude.

This is your blog and if you don’t want to answer that’s up to you and fair enough.

Cheers,

Psi

Do press me on specific issues if you like…

All the best,

Anthony

Nothing original from me, just the usual;

By avoiding “inerancy” (which BTW can still vary lots even though it is the “only literal reading”) you can take genesis as poetically telling you about your place in the world.

You don’t claim to be following the original and true faith, when anyone can read the history books and see creationism in its modern form was invented in the southern US in the early 20th century.

You have an intensified PoE with God that can and does regularly interfere to twiddle with beetle designs etc etc and you must make god responsible for every single bad thing that happens.

You don’t have to follow the far right wing politics it is used to “justify”. In particular creationism’s views on the submission of women send most moderate folk running.

You further have to dance and bend your interpretation to explain the literal phrases which are simply and clearly wrong – the moon being a source of light. The two ways Judas died etc.

You don’t undermine many people’s faith when they spot the fibs being put around about fossils, geology, physics, chemistry and even Astronomy (As I am sure you must be aware).

That’s just a starter.

But Denis Alexander covers most of these and more in the book you mention in your post I think.

Was this a test? Did I pass?

I repeat that I am genuinely interested in your views on the issues I raised.

Thanks,

Psi

I first heard/saw him at Biologos (http://biologos.org/blog/author/louis-ard/) and this is a nice talk called “Can Science Explain Everything” given at Stanford University in the US (http://www.veritas.org/Media.aspx#/v/904).

Your summary…
“But, in summary, the debate for me exemplified the kind of serious but respectful dialogue that is utterly vital if the church at large is to make progress towards unity and maturity in this area.”

…IMO, is spot on. I’m glad to hear your report.

Interested to know what you think are the theological arguments against creationism.

All the best,

Anthony

The BHA has been campaiging for better RE for years now;

http://www.humanism.org.uk/campaigns/religion-and-schools/religious-education

The discussion of creationism as non-science nonsense is oft debated.

BCSE is religiously neutral – we have many religious members. BCSE is against creationism being taught as science not against it being debunked as pretend science.

My own view is that this would work best if coordinated with RE lessons in some way.

I have also thought for some time that it is the theological arguments that creationism is nonsense that are more powerful for countering creationist claims with their own followers.

I have also thought that moderate religious folks i.e. non literalists, would be (frankly) embarrassed at the creationist antics and it also struck me as odd that they seem to do so very little about it.

What do you think?

Psi

The current doctrines of Creationism either deny scientific reality, or deny the literal truth of scripture, compromising with secular science. Young Earth creationism makes Genesis seem like a myth, saying the dinosaurs and mammoths died in the flood of Noah. But Noah’s Flood was in 2611 BC. The dinosaurs all died 65 million years ago, and the mammoths died out during the Ice Age of 10,000 years ago. When our children are taught such foolishness in church, and they find out differently in school, no wonder we lose youth attendance. They are not being taught biblical realty.

In an attempt to compensate, many of the clergy try to compromise and say that God used evolution, or the text in Genesis is just allegorical, and is not to be taken literally. Do you want to tell God that His Word is not to be taken literally, and can’t be trusted? That is being a hypocrite at best, or an infidel at worst. Old Earth creationism teaches that there was either theistic evolution, age long days, or gaps between the days in Genesis chapter one. This is because the truth of Genesis has been stranded outside the church and seminaries, knocking at the door, but not allowed to come in. Why? Because the world of theology doesn’t understand the text, is too stubborn to admit it, and fails to learn the correct rendition of scripture. All this confusion is unnecessary.

The correct opposing view to evolution is the “Observations of Moses”, not creationism. It explains the first chapter of Genesis, conveying its proper interpretation, which aligns with the discoveries of science. Questions are answered such as “where did the water come from”, “why does the evening come before the morning”, “was mankind first or the animals”, “where are the dinosaurs in Genesis”, and also “why do new species suddenly appear in the fossil record at different ages in geologic history”? These and other questions are answered in the presentation, using correct literal interpretation of scripture, without compromise. Even the Sanhedrin in Israel was stunned. They had considered Genesis to be allegorical, and didn’t know “how to act” when the truth was revealed to them. The first reaction to it was the use of the word “WOW”. But unfortunately, after they calmed down, they felt it was more important to protect the false teachings of earlier patriarchic rabbis, than to now embrace the literal truth. However they at least acknowledged that they couldn’t find any scriptural error, and that literal interpretation of scripture was presented, but just not as they taught possible.

Yes, the controversy will end, when stubborn creationists wake up the truth of Genesis, and stop trying to propagate false and foolish doctrines. It will end when pastors, priests, and rabbis will allow it to be shown to their congregations and communities, and stop hiding the truth from the public.

Herman Cummings
Ephraim7@aol.com

I tend to think of “teaching” as passing on facts and “discussing” as inviting people to consider arguments and counter-arguments. So I wouldn’t expect creationism (or homeopathy etc.) to be “taught” as though it was true, but I would hope it would be “discussed” (presented, evaluated, critiqued).

You’re welcome to email me (use the “Contact” box) but I don’t know how much I’d be able to contribute. Also, I’m surprised to hear that the BHA (and presumably the BCSE?) are keen to have creationism and ID presented and discussed in science lessons – or have I misunderstood??

Anthony

Well I presume any discussion would have some kind of structure and hopefully that will be based upon the appropriate subject matter. In this case a discussion about creationism in science class that didn’t include this as a simple statement would seem to be veering away from science.

“Teaching” it IMHO would involve more than a simple statement but would involve exploring the various nuances and getting the kids to work out what is wrong with some of the claims.

Somewhere in the back of my mind is the thought that someone ought to be coming up with some detailed ideas about this including referenced teachers notes, suggested discussion topics, Q&A’s, lesson plans etc for both RE and science.

I know folks from the BHA and also Anglicans who would be interested in contributing to such.

We might get the “debate” about creationism in schools beyond the knee-jerk reaction stage.

I would value hearing your opinion on this.

Perhaps we should continue this by email?

Psi

I’m very much against a sharp separation of different subject areas. Religious beliefs about the Bible lead to claims about history that can be investigated using the scientific method. So if science suggests that certain religious claims are false I have no problem with that being discussed in a science class.

I haven’t been following Truth in Science much, but will have a look. For me, the reason for discussing these subjects in school is that probably a lot of the children in the school already believe this stuff. And the reason for discussing it in science classes (as well as in RE classes) is that much of the justification for those beliefs is framed in scientific language, and there’s no reason to expect an RE teacher to be able to explain how the bacterial flagellum might have evolved (for example).

Do you think a discussion should include the fact there is no science behind most creationist claims?

Can you explain how “discussion” is different from “teaching” in that sentence?

Anthony

Well you have hot on two good points there straight away.

The sneaky bit;

I mean claiming that the theory of evolution is scientifically controversial, claiming that the age of the earth and the universe is scientifically controversial and requesting that such controversies should be given equal weight with kids being left to make up their own minds – in a science class mind you.

Perhaps you are unaware of the activities of Truth in Science last year? Here are some details;

http://bcseweb.blogspot.com/p/evolution-exposed.html

The discussion versus teaching bit;

Kind of a bit of an overlap with the sneaky bit, but I think there is a lot of difference between discussion and teaching.

Do you think a discussion should include the fact there is no science behind most creationist claims?

How can that be done without telling someone their religion is false (which clearly is not the point of science classes)?

BTW have you come across much creationist material in your own area of science?

Thanks

Psi

PS I am genuinely interested in your views and I am keen to try to deepen my understanding of these issues as seen from a person with faith.

Thanks for the comment/question. Sneaking sounds a bit underhand, so I guess that’s not a good thing. But if a sizable fraction of the population believes in something that goes against the scientific consensus (creationism, homeopathy, astrology, etc.) then the science classroom seems the ideal place to discuss these beliefs and why most/all scientists reject them.

Anthony

An interesting glimpse inside this religious debate.

How do you feel about creationists attempts to sneak their beliefs into science classes in the UK?

Thanks,

Psi

If the “unique” event would be expected to leave some evidence, then it might be possible to look for that evidence; if found, that would support the hypothesis that the “unique” event had taken place. Does that help? Brand discusses that a bit on p. 32, also on p. 12.

In my mind the three categories you mentioned are always blurred – I think of theology primarily as the human enterprise of seeking religious knowledge through studying the Bible. This process leads to various factual claims about the “natural” world, which is where the interaction takes place with science. That’s what I understood him to mean at least…

Anthony

More generally, I feel there’s a blurring of at least three categories going on here: (1) faith/religious knowledge, (2) biblical interpretation and (3) theology. To say that theology should be in dialogue with science seems very different from saying that people should submit their religious knowledge to dialogue with science, and ditto for biblical interpretation.

Could you say a bit more about these categories?