Just hours before the European Council sat for its week long meetings, the document “The Dangers of Creationism in the School” was removed from the agenda. In it, the French EU politician, Guy Lengagne describes creationism as an “attack against democracy.” It is a problem that needs to be dealt with “before it is too late.” And further:
If we do not remain watchful, values which form the core of the European Council are in danger of being threatened by creationist fundamentalists. pro (in German, the quotes are my translation)
Exactly what those values are, I’m not sure. I’m interested in reading all 100 points he presents in this paper. If I can track it down, I’ll let you know!
Here it is. Happy reading!
Principled Discovery is a place to stop and discuss news and information related to faith, family and particularly education. Pour yourself a cup of tea and join the conversation! 
While I admit I didn’t read it all (so feel free to point out to me if he said something different elsewhere in the paper), he’s not arguing against creationism in general, just against teaching creationism as science.
I have to agree with him there. I’m not sure where he gets the “attack against democracy” but it’s certainly an attack on science, and that’s very dangerous. When we allow ourselves to define “poof, there it was” as science we are essentially ending science altogether. Science is about figuring out how things work. If drug researchers said “well people are getting sick and we don’t know how so let’s just assume god is making them sick” and stopped there calling it science, where would we be?
From my point of view, there is nothing inherently wrong with creationism at all. It only becomes a problem when one attempts to redefine science (in doing so making science meaningless) that is becomes a problem. Without science, human advancement will practically cease, and that is something to be very afraid of.
Before I go anywhere on this, I have to say that I have not read all of the document, either. I only skimmed over it before providing the link because I found it well after posting the summary.
There are two problems I have with the general idea he seems to be promoting. First, the government should not be determining what is or is not truth. What goes on in the public schools is one thing, but in a private school? In the home? The state shouldn’t have that kind of power over people’s minds.
Second, I agree with a good deal of what he is talking about when referring to evolution in regards to antibiotics and such. I don’t know specifically what groups he is talking about, and I am not at all familiar with what Islam teaches in regards to these species changes, so I can only speak from my experiences here in the US and my personal beliefs, but I do not know anyone supporting creation who sees that as an issue. Creationists call it microevolution.
But if we are talking about the origins of life, we have the same problem on both sides. Creation is not science, per se. Nor is abiogenesis or whatever the prevailing “scientific” view is. We cannot observe, measure or test. We can only look at what we see around us and hypothesize.
So if we aren’t to teach creation outside of religion, then it is fair to state that abiogenesis shouldn’t be taught outside philosophy. That is more rightly where it belongs.
I also found it ironic that he mentions that creation is a reaction to evolution. Where does he get that information? The church taught creation long before evolution was a developed theory. And many of the scientists responsible for the great discoveries were not only Christian, but creationsist. Even after Darwin’s theory.
Just look at the incredibly advanced state of mathematics in the Middle East in comparison with other nations in medieval times.
“Because God did it” is an incredible oversimplification of creationist beliefs, and the beliefs of how the world began, in absence of anyway to test any theory hardly constitutes a mind incapable of the rigors of scientific discipline.
I must say that I am one who feels both perspectives need to be presented in the schools and then free choice allowed to decide what an individual personally believes and follows. I could see how insisting only one perspective be taught could be a threat in many eyes, either perspective…..now off to read some of those 100 points LOL
Thanks for the link. I will read it more thoroughly when I get back from Haiti. The attack against democracy is argued with this point:
“The fact of the matter, and this has been exposed on several occasions, is that the advocates of strict creationism are out to replace democracy by theocracy.”
Personally, I would be happy to replace democracy with a representative republic, but that has already been covered in your post on Freedom, Rights and Responsibility. I have already been accused of shooting the saints when I pointed out the strong tie that exists between Christian Reconstructionism and hyperpatriarchy (and on the more extreme, bizarre end neo-confederacy and polygamy)… so I feel comfortable in stating my belief that the Reconstructionist rhetoric is antithetical and even dangerous. However, I know very few people either virtually or IRL who would embrace the idea that our society is to become a theocracy. But, the people who do believe this are loud, make outrageous statements and entertain the public. They are quoted in “news” stories and parodied by mainstream media.
I hate to agree with Dolphin and it probably won’t ever happen again. :o) Creationism/Intelligent Design is not science. I don’t believe there is a biblical foundation for insisting that it is:
“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”
In order to use science to prove something it has to have a physical property that is observable, measurable and testable. The tests have to possess the quality of being repeatable… if you do the same thing; you get the same results over-and-over.
Our agreement ends here, because I don’t believe that the theory of evolution can be proven by science either. I have said this before and I have been accused by Dolphin of not understanding the scientific process. In order for a thing to be true, all of it has to be true. While it is true that speciation, adaptation and natural selection occur and has been observed over-and-over in nature that is not the whole of the theory of evolution. The theory insists that life came from non-life and that the series of changes that occur in nature can account for every species, genus, family, order, and class… essentially all life on earth. Part of the theory is accepted on speculation. And, while I believe that breeding habits of frogs in the Amazon have resulted in a new species of frogs that cannot mate with the original species, I do not believe that a frog will ever turn into a prince. Actually, I am not even willing to assert that all men are capable of turning into princes.
Science and Christianity need not be at war. Believing that God was a God of order and not disorder, early Christian scientists assumed that everything in the world would react predictably to certain stimuli and that the reaction could be repeatedly observed and measured.
Frankly, my faith is not rocked by anything that happens in the arena of science. Because the truth of Genesis is that God spoke everything into being out of nothing. I cannot imagine a time a scientist will stand in a lab with no raw material and say, “Let there be…”
Last, I disagree that both perspectives should be taught in science class. Science should talk about speciation, adaptation and natural selection, but should not speculate on origins at all… leave that to a philosophy class (and please don’t ever allow it to be taught in a government school).
Thanks for the bon voyage! I am so excited I can hardly sleep ~
Dana,
There are two problems I have with the general idea he seems to be promoting. First, the government should not be determining what is or is not truth. What goes on in the public schools is one thing, but in a private school? In the home? The state shouldn’t have that kind of power over people’s minds.
We agree completely on this point. Yay!
But if we are talking about the origins of life, we have the same problem on both sides. Creation is not science, per se. Nor is abiogenesis or whatever the prevailing “scientific” view is. We cannot observe, measure or test. We can only look at what we see around us and hypothesize.
And here is where we disagree. Science is not limited explicitly to that which we can observe, measure or test exactly, otherwise it would be practically useless. Science is about using observation, measurement and testing to establish general laws and principles with which we can draw conclusions and make predictions. That’s the basis of using a sample population in a drug test. We CAN’T observe, measure or test the entire human race so we test on a sample and expand our conclusions to cover MORE than what we actually observed, measured or tested.
In the theory of evolution, we have observed evolution. Nowadays, we can measure the effects of evolution (through genetic differences) with startling specificity. And we have tested and continue to test evolution extensively in efforts ranging from genetic experimentation to the creation of the building blocks of life from inert chemicals. The results of all these observations, measurements and tests indicate the existence of a general principle of evolution.
Science says if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and has identical DNA structure to a suck it must be a duck.
Shawna,
I must say that I am one who feels both perspectives need to be presented in the schools and then free choice allowed to decide what an individual personally believes and follows.
I agree in one sense. I think all kinds of ideas ought to be presented in schools but that doesn’t mean I think the Civil War needs to be taught in an Algebra class (unless you’re saying something like “Gen. Lee’s regiment began traveling north at 15 mph at 4:00pm…”
). It’s not the teaching of creationism (even in public schools) that I object to. It’s the teaching of it as science.
Julie,
The attack against democracy is argued with this point
Well, he is certainly wrong on that point. While it maybe true that the vast majority of strict creationism advocates are proponents of theocracy, that DOESN’T mean creationism itself is an attack on democracy.
Because the truth of Genesis is that God spoke everything into being out of nothing.
I hate to get into a theological debate here but that’s not true. Genesis says that god created the heavens and the earth, but it makes no mention of “out of nothing.” In fact, nothing is the absence of everything, which would include god. At a minimum, god created out of god (which happens to be my belief), but there’s nothing in the Christian Bible to indicate that god wasn’t simply out there floating among all kinds of materials which which to make its creations.
Oh I thought it important to add:
Science and Christianity need not be at war.
This I couldn’t agree with more. It’s as silly as my shirt and my socks fighting. They are intended for different purposes. It’s only if my shirt tries to cover my feet or my socks try to cover my torso that any dispute exist.
[Genesis says that god created the heavens and the earth, but it makes no mention of "out of nothing."] Perhaps not in English, but the Old Testament was written in Hebrew. The word translated created in this verse was originally ARB (transliterated bara and translated creation). The pictogram that would have communicated this concept is that the strength of the house (Father) moved in power to create something new that had not existed before. It implies a miracle.
This word is only used 8 times in Genesis. It is used once to describe the creation of heaven and earth. It is used once to describe the creation of “great whales.” This is probably a poor translation. Francis Schaeffer generally describes this as creating conscious life. The rest of the times it is used to specifically discuss the creation of man.
In the entire rest of the creation story, the word “made” is used. This word does imply the idea of fashioning something out of what is already available. And, while I don’t agree, many, many Christian apologist (including CS Lewis) believe that this hints at evolution.
[on the more extreme, bizarre end] Someone just got to my blog by querying “Should Christian men spank disobedient wives?”… Uh, no!But, I had to follow the trail and apparently this is being taught as a legitimate thing to do to a wife who is not submitting…
[Actually, I am not even willing to assert that all men are capable of turning into princes.] I did not mean this in the spiritual, Calvinist sense. I meant some men just don’t act right. See above!
Well, my hair dye is sufficiently soaked in to the resistant grays that I can wash it out and continue my packing. Great topic!
Julie, I agree. I don’t think that creation is science. It is an interpretation and based on faith.
And while I do understand where you are coming from, dolphin, I cannot accept any theory for the basis of life as hard science. Just to take an example: both creationists and evolutionists agree that Ayer’s Rock was formed by the forces of wind, water and tectonic forces. One side claims that it happened over millions of years and one side claims that it happened in a single cataclysmic event. Even many scientists hypothesize a great, cataclysmic event in our Earth’s history. If I remember correctly, one theory for the demise of the dinosaur is a giant meteor which is also responsible for Hudson Bay. Many of the theories intersect and parallel each other. The major difference is that I will tend to see an act of God and a shorter timetable whereas naturalist scientists or whatever you want to call them will tend to see chance and longer time scales.
The actual point of difference I have is so small and so insignificant, it is hard for me to really believe that people would advocate that it must be stamped out.
I’m with Julie on certain segments of the debate getting all the attention. I don’t know anyone personally who believes as they do. And that is why I can’t speak directly to whatever groups this politician is speaking of. I have no experience, and Islam is a much bigger issue there than here.
A lot of the discussions I have had regarding homeschooling in Germany come down to, “It might be ok for Christians, but then we will have to let the Muslims do it.” One politician even made a public statement about the result of homeschooling would be a woman with her head covered teaching a room full of girls.
I can seriously empathize with those who have concern for what is happening with Islam in Europe, but, as a passive observer, I think they are going about it all wrong. When you exclude a segment of society and challenge their beliefs and make them feel persecuted, you drive them to fundamentalism. They feel like their identity is at stake. Assimilation generally occurs on its own, in time, if it isn’t forced.
I think some of the fundamentalism that has sprung up in Christianity is due to perceived threats to the faith. Some real, some not. I don’t want to get into terms, here. I generally consider myself a “fundamentalist” because I believe in the fundamentals of the Christian faith. But it has picked up so much cultural baggage, it is difficult to use the term in a reasonable discussion.
I’m a fundamentalist, but you will never see me marching at funerals because of the US’ acceptance of homosexuality. And while I donate to the Crisis Pregnancy Center, you will never find me marching in front of Planned Parenthood. I just think those protests are not the way to change the hearts of people, and the heart is really the issue.
Oy, I just finished reading your second comment, Julie.
“Should Christian men spank disobedient wives?”.
This is why I get more angry with the “church” then with the world. The world doesn’t know any better and does as it says it will do. Why isn’t it ever, “Should Christian women dump the *** who don’t love them as Christ loves the church?”
I’m telling you…if my husband always acted as if my needs were tantamount and willing to go through that kind of sacrifice for my best interest…well, I guess show me one instance of Christ “spanking” the church.
The side of it I have read more on asserts that if the woman would only submit, would only do everything like scripture, then the man would turn around and be this perfect guy. Uh, ok. I’m responsible for my own behavior. And his?
Now I’m off topic and feeling like a rant about the perverse things some groups have done in the name of Christianity. I think I’ll save it though.
Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation
* Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
* Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
* Dr. James Allan, Geneticist
* Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
* Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
* Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
* Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
* Dr. Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
* Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
* Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
* Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
* Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
* Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
* Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
* Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
* Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
* Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
* Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
* Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
* Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
* Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
* Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
* Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist (interview)
* Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
* Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
* Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
* Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
* Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
* Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
* Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
* Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
* Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
* Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
* Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
* Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
* Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
* Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
* Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
* Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
* Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
* Dr. David Down, Field Archaeologist
* Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
* Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
* Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
* Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
* Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
* Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
* Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
* Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
* Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
* Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
* Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
* Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
* Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
* Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
* Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
* Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
* Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
* Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History
* Dr. Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
* Dr. Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
* Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
* Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
* Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
* Dr. John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
* Dr. Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
* Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
* Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
* Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
* Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
* Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
* Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
* Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
* Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
* Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
* Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
* Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
* Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
* Dr. Russell Humphreys, Physicist
* Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
* Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
* George T. Javor, Biochemistry
* Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
* Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
* Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
* Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
* Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
* Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
* Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
* Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
* Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
* Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
* Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
* Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
* Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
* Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
* Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
* Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
* Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
* Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
* Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
* Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
* Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
* Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
* Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
* Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
* Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
* Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
* Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
* Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
* Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
* Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
* Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
* Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
* Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
* Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Physician
* Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
* Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
* Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918–2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research.
* Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
* Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
* Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
* Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
* Dr. Terry Mortenson, History of Geology
* Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
* Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
* Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
* Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
* Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
* Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
* Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
* Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
* Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
* Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
* Prof. Richard Porter
* Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
* Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
* Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
* Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
* Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
* Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
* Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
* Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
* Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
* Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
* Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
* Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
* Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
* Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
* Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
* Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
* Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
* Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
* Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
* Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
* Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
* Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
* Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
* Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
* Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
* Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
* Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
* Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
* Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
* Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
* Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
* Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
* Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
* Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
* Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
* Dr. Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
* Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
* Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
* Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
* Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
* Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
* Dr. Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
* Dr. Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
* Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
* Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
* Dr. Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
* Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
* Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
* Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
* Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
* Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
* Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
* Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
* Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology
Which scientists of the past believed in a Creator?
Note: These scientists are sorted by birth year.
Early
*
Francis Bacon (1561–1626) Scientific method. However, see also
Culture Wars:
1. Part 1: Bacon vs Ham
2. Part 2: Ham vs Bacon
* Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) (WOH) Physics, Astronomy (see also The Galileo ‘twist’ and The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography?
* Johann Kepler (1571–1630) (WOH) Scientific astronomy
* Athanasius Kircher (1601–1680) Inventor
* John Wilkins (1614–1672)
* Walter Charleton (1619–1707) President of the Royal College of Physicians
* Blaise Pascal (biography page) and article from Creation magazine (1623–1662) Hydrostatics; Barometer
* Sir William Petty (1623 –1687) Statistics; Scientific economics
* Robert Boyle (1627–1691) (WOH) Chemistry; Gas dynamics
* John Ray (1627–1705) Natural history
* Isaac Barrow (1630–1677) Professor of Mathematics
* Nicolas Steno (1631–1686) Stratigraphy
* Thomas Burnet (1635–1715) Geology
* Increase Mather (1639–1723) Astronomy
* Nehemiah Grew (1641–1712) Medical Doctor, Botany
The Age of Newton
* Isaac Newton (1642–1727) (WOH) Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light (wrote more about the Bible than science, and emphatically affirmed a Creator. Some have accused him of Arianism, but it’s likely he held to a heterodox form of the Trinity—See Pfizenmaier, T.C., Was Isaac Newton an Arian? Journal of the History of Ideas 68(1):57–80, 1997)
* Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646–1716) Mathematician
* John Flamsteed (1646–1719) Greenwich Observatory Founder; Astronomy
* William Derham (1657–1735) Ecology
* Cotton Mather (1662–1727) Physician
* John Harris (1666–1719) Mathematician
* John Woodward (1665–1728) Paleontology
* William Whiston (1667–1752) Physics, Geology
* John Hutchinson (1674–1737) Paleontology
* Johathan Edwards (1703–1758) Physics, Meteorology
* Carolus Linneaus (1707–1778) Taxonomy; Biological classification system
* Jean Deluc (1727–1817) Geology
* Richard Kirwan (1733–1812) Mineralogy
* William Herschel (1738–1822) Galactic astronomy; Uranus (probably believed in an old-earth)
* James Parkinson (1755–1824) Physician (old-earth compromiser*)
* John Dalton (1766–1844) Atomic theory; Gas law
* John Kidd, M.D. (1775–1851) Chemical synthetics (old-earth compromiser*)
Just Before Darwin
* The 19th Century Scriptural Geologists, by Dr. Terry Mortenson
* Timothy Dwight (1752–1817) Educator
* William Kirby (1759–1850) Entomologist
* Jedidiah Morse (1761–1826) Geographer
* Benjamin Barton (1766–1815) Botanist; Zoologist
* John Dalton (1766–1844) Father of the Modern Atomic Theory; Chemistry
* Georges Cuvier (1769–1832) Comparative anatomy, paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
* Samuel Miller (1770–1840) Clergy
* Charles Bell (1774–1842) Anatomist
* John Kidd (1775–1851) Chemistry
* Humphrey Davy (1778–1829) Thermokinetics; Safety lamp
* Benjamin Silliman (1779–1864) Mineralogist (old-earth compromiser*)
* Peter Mark Roget (1779–1869) Physician; Physiologist
* Thomas Chalmers (1780–1847) Professor (old-earth compromiser*)
* David Brewster (1781–1868) Optical mineralogy, Kaleidoscope (probably believed in an old-earth)
* William Buckland (1784–1856) Geologist (old-earth compromiser*)
* William Prout (1785–1850) Food chemistry (probably believed in an old-earth)
* Adam Sedgwick (1785–1873) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
* Michael Faraday (1791–1867) (WOH) Electro magnetics; Field theory, Generator
* Samuel F.B. Morse (1791–1872) Telegraph
* John Herschel (1792–1871) Astronomy (old-earth compromiser*)
* Edward Hitchcock (1793–1864) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
* William Whewell (1794–1866) Anemometer (old-earth compromiser*)
* Joseph Henry (1797–1878) Electric motor; Galvanometer
Just After Darwin
* Richard Owen (1804–1892) Zoology; Paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
* Matthew Maury (1806–1873) Oceanography, Hydrography (probably believed in an old-earth*)
* Louis Agassiz (1807–1873) Glaciology, Ichthyology (old-earth compromiser, polygenist*)
* Henry Rogers (1808–1866) Geology
* James Glaisher (1809–1903) Meteorology
* Philip H. Gosse (1810–1888) Ornithologist; Zoology
* Sir Henry Rawlinson (1810–1895) Archeologist
* James Simpson (1811–1870) Gynecology, Anesthesiology
* James Dana (1813–1895) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
* Sir Joseph Henry Gilbert (1817–1901) Agricultural Chemist
* James Joule (1818–1889) Thermodynamics
* Thomas Anderson (1819–1874) Chemist
* Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819–1900) Astronomy
* George Stokes (1819–1903) Fluid Mechanics
* John William Dawson (1820–1899) Geology (probably believed in an old-earth*)
* Rudolph Virchow (1821–1902) Pathology
* Gregor Mendel (1822–1884) (WOH) Genetics
* Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) (WOH) Bacteriology, Biochemistry; Sterilization; Immunization
* Henri Fabre (1823–1915) Entomology of living insects
* William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824–1907) Energetics; Absolute temperatures; Atlantic cable (believed in an older earth than the Bible indicates, but far younger than the evolutionists wanted*)
* William Huggins (1824–1910) Astral spectrometry
* Bernhard Riemann (1826–1866) Non-Euclidean geometries
* Joseph Lister (1827–1912) Antiseptic surgery
* Balfour Stewart (1828–1887) Ionospheric electricity
* James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879) (WOH) Electrodynamics; Statistical thermodynamics
* P.G. Tait (1831–1901) Vector analysis
* John Bell Pettigrew (1834–1908) Anatomist; Physiologist
* John Strutt, Lord Rayleigh (1842–1919) Similitude; Model Analysis; Inert Gases
* Sir William Abney (1843–1920) Astronomy
* Alexander MacAlister (1844–1919) Anatomy
* A.H. Sayce (1845–1933) Archeologist
* John Ambrose Fleming (1849–1945) Electronics; Electron tube; Thermionic valve
Early Modern Period
* Dr. Clifford Burdick, Geologist
* George Washington Carver (1864–1943) Inventor
* L. Merson Davies (1890–1960) Geology; Paleontology
* Douglas Dewar (1875–1957) Ornithologist
* Howard A. Kelly (1858–1943) Gynecology
* Paul Lemoine (1878–1940) Geology
* Dr. Frank Marsh, Biology
* Dr. John Mann, Agriculturist, biological control pioneer
* Edward H. Maunder (1851–1928) Astronomy
* William Mitchell Ramsay (1851–1939) Archeologist
* William Ramsay (1852–1916) Isotopic chemistry, Element transmutation
* Charles Stine (1882–1954) Organic Chemist
* Dr. Arthur Rendle-Short (1885–1955) Surgeon
* Dr. Larry Butler, Biochemist
A Who’s Who of evolutionists
Some protest that ‘you can believe in God and evolution’, and that evolution does not necessarily exclude God. However, many of these people also believe that evolution explains everything. If ‘god’ had a role at all it was in ‘creating’ the early universe, or causing a big bang in such a way that evolution would operate. In other words, ‘god’s’ part is invisible, not obvious. This clearly contradicts many Bible passages which teach that creation proclaims God’s handiwork and clearly reveals his attributes (for example, Psalm 19:1–4; Romans 1:20).
In effect these protesters are atheistic in their way of thinking. They have evolution, plus ‘god’, but evolution does not need ‘god’, so ‘god’ is totally superfluous in their way of thinking about the world.
If we consider a Who’s Who of those who are most visible in their public promotion and defence of evolution—since World War II, for example—a clear pattern emerges: they are virtually all avowed atheists! Note the names:
*Ernst Mayr, zoologist.
*J.B.S. Haldane, geneticist, who was also a Stalinist.
*Carl Sagan, a promoter of the Search for Extra-terrestrial Intelligence (SETI), and author of the anti-Christian book and movie Contact.
*Isaac Asimov, science fiction writer, signatory to the Humanist Manifesto II, and past president of the American Humanist Association.
*Sir Julian Huxley, first Director-General of UNESCO and signatory to the Humanist Manifesto II.
*Jacques Monod, Nobel Prize-winning biologist, and signatory to the Humanist Manifesto II.1
The more recent crop of evolutionary proselytisers include:
*Stephen Jay Gould, a Marxist, author of many popular works promoting the evolutionary view.
*Richard Dawkins, author of The Blind Watchmaker and other anti-creationist books, now employed by Oxford University (U.K.) to promote the ‘public understanding of science’ (i.e. evolutionary naturalism).
*Daniel Dennett, author of Darwin’s Dangerous Idea who argues gleefully that evolution eats away all foundations of religion and morality.
*Eugenie Scott, head of the so-called National Center for Science Education which grew out of efforts by secular humanists to oppose creationists.
*Ian Plimer, anti-creationist Australian professor of geology, and Australian Humanist of the Year in 1995.
Many in the above list of overt atheists are strident in their opposition to everything ‘creationist’ and have contributed to publications and court cases opposing creationist ideas. Many promote censorship of creationist views, even exploiting legal loopholes (such as the U.S. Supreme Court’s misapplication of the First Amendment) in attempts to silence creationists.
Even though 39% of scientists in the United States believe in a ‘personal god’,2 theistic scientists are conspicuous by their absence from the above lists of public promoters of evolution. Why are atheists at the forefront in promoting evolution?
Atheist Frank Zindler said,
‘The most devastating thing though that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a saviour. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity.’3
We see, therefore, that evolution is foundational/necessary for their faith that there is no Creator and that everything made itself (i.e. evolution). So, that is why atheists are at the forefront in promoting the public acceptance of evolution—it promotes their atheistic faith. They recognise that if they can persuade the general population to accept evolution as ‘fact’, it will be the death of (real) Christianity.
Perhaps not in English, but the Old Testament was written in Hebrew. The word translated created in this verse was originally ARB (transliterated bara and translated creation). The pictogram that would have communicated this concept is that the strength of the house (Father) moved in power to create something new that had not existed before. It implies a miracle.
We have a disagreement in interpretation. Not being very fluent in Paleo-Hebrew, I willingly acknowledge that I’ve never read Genesis in it’s original laguage, but from what I can research, ARB is more properly translated as “to fill” than it is “to create” which for me STRONGLY reinforces my own belief that god created from god (and interestingly enough seems to reject your view, I think, though because you’re view presents an impossible paradox in and of itself, I can’t be sure). Let’s be clear that I consider my viewpoint to imply a miracle as well.
I don’t usually respond to copy-pasted “comments,” but in skimming over anonymous’s, it was so ridiculous as for it to be fun to make a few observations about. First of all, I had to note that what ever source he copy-pasted his list of “scientists” who accept “the biblical account of creation” or “believed in a Creator” feel that statisticians, mathematicians, plastic surgeons, linguists, philosophers, dentists, and CLERGYMEN all count as “scientists.” Even among the scientists listed, their fields of expertise ranges from aerospace engineering to veterinary medicine. I wonder why the need to pad the list with irrelevant fluff? Second of all, I find it interesting to note that anonymous’s source assumes their audience is so ignorant as to believe that anyone who accepts “the biblical account of creation” or “believed in a Creator” therefore rejects evolution and accepts creationism as science (not to mention is second assertion that folks who acknowledge the overwhelming evidence of evolution are all atheists). I got new for him and his source, I accept “the biblical account of creation” and “believe in a Creator” yet I reject creationism as science. No atheist would consider me to be among their ranks yet I believe evolution to be a very real phenomenon that I witness around me every day.
His post, apart from being a lazy copy-paste, is irrelevant to the discussion.
The fluff is rather scientific, isn’t it?
SCIENCE:
–noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.
_________________________________
n.
1.
1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I’ve got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
5. Science Christian Science.
_________________________________
science
c.1300, “knowledge (of something) acquired by study,” also “a particular branch of knowledge,” from O.Fr. science, from L. scientia “knowledge,” from sciens (gen. scientis), prp. of scire “to know,” probably originally “to separate one thing from another, to distinguish,” related to scindere “to cut, divide,” from PIE base *skei- (cf. Gk. skhizein “to split, rend, cleave,” Goth. skaidan, O.E. sceadan “to divide, separate;” see shed (v.)). Modern sense of “non-arts studies” is attested from 1678. The distinction is commonly understood as between theoretical truth (Gk. episteme) and methods for effecting practical results (tekhne), but science sometimes is used for practical applications and art for applications of skill. Main modern (restricted) sense of “body of regular or methodical observations or propositions … concerning any subject or speculation” is attested from 1725; in 17c.-18c. this concept commonly was called philosophy. To blind (someone) with science “confuse by the use of big words or complex explanations” is attested from 1937, originally noted as a phrase from Australia and New Zealand.
___________________________________
noun
1. a particular branch of scientific knowledge; “the science of genetics”
2. ability to produce solutions in some problem domain; “the skill of a well-trained boxer”; “the sweet science of pugilism” [syn: skill]
_________________________________
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
__________________________________
———————————-
But I guess such study is too broad.
As I was saying, the thing I love about blogging is hearing other people’s points of view. That’s why I tire so quickly of “discussions” that simply involve copying and pasting information from other sources. It’s a sad state of affairs when people are so incapable of thinking for themselves that the only thing they know how to do is press Ctrl+C and then Ctrl+V over and over again.
The real shame of it is presented nicely in anonymous’s comments too. When someone relies on copy and pasting as a replacement for thought, that which they copy and paste all to often makes no sense in relation to the discussion.
I don’t really understand anonymous comments, either. I prefer at least a pseudonym.
I promise I won’t come after you, or flame you on your site!
And pseudonyms are helpful in the event of multiple anonymouses…
In contrast to the list of 195 current people (?) who hold some kind of degree in science, there is the Steve Project which is counting only scientists named Steve who support evolution.
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/5945_the_faqs_2_16_2003.asp
The Steve-o-meter can be found at:
http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/articles/meter.html
But that’s not why I’m replying here. What caught my eye was Dana’s comment:
“First, the government should not be determining what is or is not truth. What goes on in the public schools is one thing, but in a private school? In the home? The state shouldn’t have that kind of power over people’s minds.”
I’m assuming you’ve seen the paper by Kimberly Yuracko on “Illiberal Education” (Googleable). Since I read it, I’ve been educating myself about that point of view, and have come up with some names
that advocate exactly that kind of control for the state.
Religious Schools v. Children’s Rights
Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Religious-Schools-V-Childrens-Rights/dp/0801487315
The snip of a review at TCRecord wasn’t a cheering section, so the
edocracy isn’t 100% behind his ideas:
http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=10944
===================================Unfortunately, Religious Schools v. Children’s Rights by law professor James G. Dwyer fails to accomplish this much-needed task. Instead he produces lawyerly sound and fury, bashing religious education as a violation of children’s rights, never once considering how much better off some children would be–mainly those trapped in failing inner-city schools–were they to have greater access to religious schools. (Though, oddly enough, Dwyer says he’s not opposed to school choice.)
===================================
And this one’s opinion supports the impression I’ve formed so far:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0014-1704(199910)110%3A1%3C192%3ARSVCR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I
===================================
Dwyer’s book is an important addition to this debate, and he comes down squarely on the side of those who propose that parents should have no right to control the lives of their children.
===================================
And this site seems to distill what the “progressives?” — the
progressive fringe??? — seem to believe and want:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/humphrey/amnesty.html
===================================
Let’s suppose that the privilege of parenting will mean for example that, provided parents agree to act within an agreed framework, they shall indeed be allowed—without interference from the law—to do all the things that parents everywhere usually do: feeding, clothing, educating, disciplining their own children—and enjoying the love and creative involvement that follow from it. But it will explicitly not be part of this deal that parents should be allowed to offend against the child’s more fundamental rights to self-determination. If parents do abuse their privileges in this regard, the contract lapses—and it is then the duty of those who granted the privilege to intervene.
…
My suggestion at the start of this talk was: science—universal scientific education. That’s to say, education in learning from observation, experiment, hypothesis testing, constructive doubt, critical thinking—and the truths that flow from it.
…
Let’s go help the Muslim boy who’s being schooled by the mullahs into believing that the Earth is flat, and let’s explore some of the ideas of scientific geography with him. Better still, let’s take him up high in a balloon, show him the horizon, and invite him to use his own senses and powers of reasoning to reach his own conclusions. Now, offer him the choice: the picture presented in the book of the Koran, or the one that flows from his new-found scientific understanding. Which will he prefer?
Or let’s take pity on the Baptist teacher who has become wedded to creationism, and let’s give her a vacation. Let’s walk her round the Natural History museum in the company of Richard Dawkins or Dan Dennett—or, if they’re too scary, David Attenborough—and let’s have them explain the possibilities of evolution to her. Now, offer her the choice: the story of Genesis with all its paradoxes and special pleading, or the startlingly simple idea of natural selection. Which will she choose?
…
By contrast conversions from science back to superstition are virtually unknown. It just does not happen that someone who has learnt and understood science and its methods and who is then offered a non-scientific alternative chooses to abandon science. I doubt there has ever been a case, for example, of someone who has been brought up to believe the geological theory of volcanoes moving over to believing in divine anger instead, or of someone who has seen and appreciated the evidence that the world is round reverting to the idea that the world is flat, or even of someone who has once understood the power of Darwinian theory going back to preferring the story of Genesis.
===================================
I think he’s wrong about the monks he mentioned earlier in the piece as relying on volunteers — and he’s a London School of Economic prof.
I understand that this interpreter of Dwyer (”I am indebted for several of the ideas here to James Dwyer, …”) wants children to be raised without superstition and cant, but further interposing the State between parents and kids seems to me to be naive.
Parts of other articles by Dwyer are:
http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/dwyer/
THE CHILDREN WE ABANDON: RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION TO CHILD WELFARE AND
EDUCATION LAWS AS DENIALS OF EQUAL PROTECTION TO
CHILDREN OF RELIGIOUS OBJECTORS
(abstract & conclusion)
http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/dwyer2/
Parents’ Religion and Children’s Welfare: Debunking the Doctrine of
Parents’ Rights
(introduction & conclusion)
Just fyi on academic thoughts about who should be forming the minds of children.
Thanks, Valerie!
Yes, we’ve looked at Illiberal Homeschooling here, as well. It is here, for anyone curious.
I haven’t looked at the others, but it doesn’t surprise me.
You can find anyone with a degree who will say about anything. But these people seem to be gaining some validity…speaking before Amnesty International, at the UN, before the EU, etc. I don’t want to be overly dramatic, but it reminds me of Viktor Frankl’s words in The Doctor and the Soul:
“I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers.”
To teach Creationism as truth is dangerous for our democracy. Therefore it shouldn’t be teached in science class. Letting the people decide wich one (evolution or creationism) is the truth is also dangerous.
If you belief that god created the world, then u also must belief that the world is flat. Then you also belief that the universe is prety small, about 6000 lightyears in radius (and not billion of lightyears).
The bible doesn’t talk about a round earth, only about above and below us…
It dangerous to let people decide if they belief the world is flat or not. It simply isn’t.
I feel the same about creationism. Adam and Eve (whoever they were) did NOT live togheter with dinosaurs. It is dangerous to teach people nonsence becouse it can be used against other people or against them to favour others (like the church did somany times trhoug history)
No, what is dangerous is government determining what truth is, people like you claiming that a belief is dangerous and then acting on those two together. That ideology has resulted in some of the bloodiest massacres in history. Just look at the Cambodian genocide for one example. Their belief in God was dangerous. They had to be eliminated.
Where you get the nonsense about a flat earth, I don’t know, and the namrs of the first people and how old the earth is hardly effects your daily life any. In fact, most Americans believe some form of the creation story over naturalistic theories and it is yet to cause violence, or even prevent our nation from rising to the top of the world in science and technology.
“Flat earth” is a myth long ago discredited by Christianity. Columbus knew the Earth was round…so did his contemporaries. Aristotle said, “Of the position of the earth and of the manner of its rest or movement, our discussion may here end. Its shape must necessarily be spherical.”
Augustine wrote, “… although it be supposed or scientifically demonstrated that the world is of a round and spherical form, yet it does not follow that the other side of the earth is bare of water; nor even, though it be bare, does it immediately follow that it is peopled.”
The bible talks about the circle of the earth in Isaiah which is a word that also means sphere. And in Luke 17, we have the Lord coming while some are asleep at night and others are engaged in daytime activities.
Kind of evidence for a round earth.
‘it is dangerous,’ sounds like a 30 second commercial; then followed by statements that are void of any factual basis, leave a bit to be desired.
Well here’s some facts, direct historical quotes and if you research your history you’ll find that Darwin and evolution is the one who’s dangerous.
Let’s begin with the full title of Darwin’s little book:
“On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”
Favoured Races? Yes, Darwin is essentially a white supremicist, linking racism and it’s ugly, bloody path directly to this evolutionry theory.
Here’s a broad cross section of evolutionary theory with its’ natural outworking and consequences thereof.
—————————————-
Charles Darwin visited the rugged land of Tierra del Fuego at the tip of South America. The natives there, then numbering about 7,000, have since died out, but because of their very simple way of life, Darwin and others believed they were far less evolved than European man. He is quoted as writing: ‘the difference between a Tierra del Fuegian and a European is greater than between a Tierra del Fuegian and a beast.’1
Darwin actually spent some time trying to talk with three such natives, and concluded that their language was so ‘primitive’ that it had only about a hundred sounds.
However, after the 1920s, missionaries began to live among them. They found them to have a high standard of morality, believed in (and prayed to) a Supreme Creator Being and were generally kind and sociable, with respect for family life. Eventually a partial list of words in their language was compiled which ran to more than 32,000 words. They had a rich and complex grammar and vocabulary.
Concerning all this, the author of a 1984 book, from which this item has been taken, concluded:
‘They were true men as much as he [Darwin] was, with full intellectual faculties and spiritual qualities that they did not show to casual passers-by. If Darwin could misjudge a living ‘specimen’ with whom he could communicate, what trammels are there to restrain the speculation of an ardent evolutionist (and his artist associate) over a few broken bones?’2
References
1. Quoted in: V. Barclay, Darwin is not for Children, Herbert Jenkins, 1950.
2. Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, Hutchinson, 1984, p. 241.
________________________________________
The historical background to the almost unimaginably brutal massacres in Rwanda is, not surprisingly, considerably complex. However, at least one of the factors involved was identified by an authoritative documentary on the subject as evolutionary racism—in this case, promulgated by theistic evolutionism.
Rwanda was officially taken over by Belgium in 1917. There followed a program of intense missionary activity by Belgian Roman Catholics, which established a number of worthwhile social projects. However, one of the legacies of this Belgian state/church alliance was a declaration that one of the tribal groups involved was superior to the others, which were ‘less evolved.’ This social Darwinist concept became ‘official colonial ideology.’1 Not surprisingly, such ideas generated bitter resentment of one group by another.
As in so many other parts of the world, if people had adhered to the true biblical history of mankind, which indicates that we are all closely related descendants of Noah (see also Acts 17:26), such barbaric ideas as some ‘races’ being more (or less) evolved than others would never have gained ground.
Reference
1. Rwanda: A nation gone mad. Documentary shown on SBS television in Australia on 16 January 1997.
_______________________________________
Genocide and ‘race branding’
There are powerful links between the Herero genocide, the Holocaust 40 years later, and the Rwandan genocide of the 1990s.16
1.
Francis Galton, the anti-Christian cousin of Charles Darwin, visited South-West Africa in the early 1850s. He went on to develop his theory of eugenics, a term he coined in 1883. This pseudo-science helped promote the racial superiority views which played such a major role in the fate of the Herero people years later.
2.
Making his rounds of the Herero concentration camps was Herr Doktor Eugen Fischer. It was here that Fischer did his first ‘medical’ experiments on race, genetics and eugenics, using as his guinea pigs both Herero full-bloods and the mulatto offspring of Herero women and German men. Under his supervision, the preserved bodies and severed heads of Herero who had been hanged were sent to Germany for dissection.4
Fischer went on to become the head of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity and Eugenics. He co-authored the book The Principles of Human Heredity and Race Hygiene,17 which became the standard textbook in Germany on this subject. Hitler cited it in his Mein Kampf [My Struggle], which became the basis for the destruction of millions of people in his own pursuit of ‘racial purity’.
Hitler appointed Fischer as rector of the University of Berlin in 1933, where he taught medicine to Nazi doctors. Fischer is sometimes referred to as the father of modern genetics. One of his prominent pupils was Josef Mengele, the so-called ‘Angel of Death’, who went on to repeat his teacher’s cruel experiments on Jewish children, and directed the operation of the gas chambers at Auschwitz.
3.
In his book When Victims Become Killers: Colonialism, Nativism, and the Genocide in Rwanda, Professor Mahmood Mamdani writes: ‘[T]here is a link that connects the genocide of the Herero and the Nazi Holocaust to the Rwandan genocide. That link is race branding, whereby it became possible not only to set a group apart as an enemy, but also to exterminate it with an easy conscience.’18
(An article in Creation magazine called ‘The evolution of the Hutu-Tutsi slayings’19 referred to the Rwanda massacres. It documented how Belgian theistic evolutionary occupiers had persuaded one of the tribes that they were superior, being ‘more highly evolved’.)
Clearly such ‘race branding’ as Mamdani refers to is based on belief in evolution and the idea that different races are at different stages of development in the ‘survival of the fittest’.
This belief has produced, as its logical offspring, the murder of tens of millions of innocent mothers, fathers, sons and daughters in the 20th century, beginning with the Herero genocide.
When the creation/gospel message that we are all closely-related descendants of Adam in need of a Saviour is rejected, there is, it seems, no limit to the evil that results. The remedy seems obvious.
________________________________________
A timeline of evolution-inspired terror
1860: Karl Marx
The ‘spiritual father’ of the communist system, Marx was an avid adherent of Darwin. He combined his social and economic idea with evolutionary principles. Marx wrote that Darwin’s book ‘contains the basis in natural history for our views.’ His disciple Lenin applied utter ruthlessness and terror in Russia—the term ‘rivers of blood’ has commonly been applied in describing his reign.
1918: Leon Trotsky
Fanatically committed to Darwinism and Marxism, communist leader Trotsky was brutal against the Christian church. He said that Darwin’s ideas ‘intoxicated’ him, and ‘Darwin stood for me like a mighty doorkeeper at the entrance to the temple of the universe.’ With no Creator’s laws to restrain him and the justification of evolution, he felt free to use any means to attain power and political ends.
1930: Joseph Stalin
The world’s worst mass-murderer studied at Tiflis (Tbilisi) Georgia, theological college. A friend later said Stalin became an atheist after reading Darwin. He was expelled from the college at 19 because of his revolutionary connections. After understanding that evolution provided no basis for conscience or morals, he felt free to torture and murder to whatever extent he chose to achieve his communist goals.
1940: Adolf Hitler
Formed his racial and social policies on the evolutionary ideas of survival of the fittest and the superiority of certain ‘favoured races’ (as in the subtitle of Darwin’s book). Hitler’s reign resulted in the murder of six million Jews as well as many blacks, gypsies, the retarded, and other groups deemed unfit to live. The evolutionary ‘science’ of eugenics provided him with justification for his decrees.
1975: Pol Pot
The death in 1998 of Cambodia’s Pol Pot marked the end of one of the world’s worst mass murderers. From 1975 he led the Khmer Rouge to genocide against his own people in a bloodthirsty regime which was inspired by the communism of Stalin and China’s notorious Mao Zedong. Chairman Mao is known to have regarded Darwin and his disciple Huxley as his two favourite authors.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i2/darwin.asp
___________________________________
Hi, my name is constantijn, and I am the anonymous one who stated it is ‘dangerous’.
What I can’t understand is that people simply belief what is stated in the bible. It is just a book.
What I also don’t understand is that people simply deny science. ‘If there is something we don’t understand, then God must have done it.’
Could you imagine medical science in the way fundamentalists would see it? ‘If we dont understand why someone gets sick, then it must have been the will of God.’
In the past there were people who didn’t belief these nonsens about this will and started to look for anwers why people got sick, we call these men scientists. And thanks to their work we now understand a lot more about getting sick and how to cure it.
For me it is the same with creationism. Scientist have enoughf proof that the bible is wrong. Religious people dont have any proof.
Is there someone here that really belief that the earth is maximum 10.000 years old? That Adam & Eve really existed (with the friendly vegtables eating lions and tiranosaurus rex)? That the fossisls that are found are not millions of years old? That only Christians are going to heaven?
If u dont belief this, u dont belief the bible and therefore u dont belief in creationism.
By the way, isn’t it cruel to state that only Christians are going to heaven? What about the people who did not got the chance to learn about Christ? Why are they going to hell?
Stating that ‘evolution’ was responsible for genocides is simply wrong. It is human nature to be so cruel (sometimes). But for someone that beliefs that we were craeted by god, it is difficult to accept that. We still have a lot of animal instinkts.
Dont get me started about how many people died in name of religion.
argh. My comment got eaten. I’ll return to this later, when I have time, but your comment is incredibly problematic. You have responded with nothing but stereotypes which have no basis in anything.
And how is it the fault of religion when individuals pervert it to their own gains? The bible says to love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.
It says we are all of one blood and created in the image of God.
It doesn’t seek a missing link between man and beast. It doesn’t encourage the slaughter of native peoples in order to return their parts to British museums. It doesn’t have papers discussing how to cover bullet wounds in “specimens” so that their skins can be stuffed and put on display. Yet “scientists” have done this. They were dubbed “Darwin’s body snatchers” by some.
Hi, my name is Constantijn.
The problem with teaching creationism as science or as the truth is that you are ceeping people dum.
You are telling them that things happen because of the will of God. You are telling them that women have pain of birth bacause Eve sinned about 6000 years ago, for example. You are telling them that there is no evolution. You are telling them that you do not have to listen to most of the scientists . You are telling them that if most of the people belief something is true, that therefore it must be true. (You’ll find that in this way a lot of strange things might end as truth)
When u have a nation with under educated people, then there is a very big chance that this democracy can make wrong desissions. Under educated people are very easy to manipulate, and there will always be a leader that wants to manipulate people for his own good. Just like the church did in medevil times.
It is easy to persuade under educated people to go to war for religious reasons. Look at most of the terrorists. Most of these people are undereducated and forced to do the strangest things in name of a religion.
I think that religions is a good thing. It gives people hope and much more. But it should be practised in that way, not as science.
There are people that will always search for tools to manipulate people. Some used science as a tool to manipulate people. That does not mean that sience is bad. The same for religion, I do not say religion is bad because it is used in the past as a tool.
The only thing I try to tell is that we need to educate people so that we can make right descissions in our democracy by following the right leadres.
I think that teaching creationism as science will bring us back a few hundred years in history.
Constantijn
I respect your thoughts and implore you to read and honestly seek answers, for there is absolute truth.
Consider the three major mono-theistic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. What are their views on Jesus Christ?
Judaism - Christ is a heretic.
Christianity - Christ is the Son of God.
Islam - Christ is a good teacher.
It is illogical to consider that at the same time Christ can be a heretic, the Son of God and a good teacher. So we are lead to seek the truth and it can be found.
G.K. Chesteron said,”The danger of disbelieving in God is not that man will believe in nothing: alas it is much worse, the danger of disbeliving in God is that man will believe anything.”
So if one disbelieves in God/Creation then he is likely to believe in evolution, more importantly, humanistic evolution.
You CANNOT seperate any person from their religion, each of us carry religioiosity to use that term.
We can debate that wars have been fought by the Christian religion, ie the inquistion, but remember more people have died in the name of godlessness than the former.
i. The un-natural outworking of Christinity is clearly shown in the Catholic Church and and the inquistion. Since the Catholic Church no longer adheres to the teachings of historical biblical Christianity, such works of the devil will result therefore in their own sick pleasures and perversions. It is not only in the guise of Christianity that this occurs.
ii. the natural outworking of true Christianity is:
43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
Matthew 5:43-45 (KJV)
So now let’s compare your so called un-educated ‘bring us back a few hundered years’ Christian scientists alongside your educated democratic leaders of humanistic evolution.
Un-educated: John Ray
John received some basic education in his home village. It appears that the local vicar recognized that he had academic potential and arranged for him to attend grammar school in nearby Braintree.
In 1670, Ray published a catalogue of plants of the British Isles. ‘It contained a long section on the medicinal use of plants, which denounces astrology, alchemy, and witchcraft, and is ruthless in its demands for evidence.’
Ray published a book on birds in 1676 and a book on fish in 1685. The book on birds ‘laid the foundations of scientific ornithology.
Ray then undertook the documentation and classification of the plants of Europe and beyond into a generalized catalogue of the plant kingdom. He classified flowering plants according to whether they had two seed leaves or only one. ‘This is the division into dicotyledons and monocotyledons which all subsequent botanists have adopted.’
In his 1693 book on reptiles and mammals, Ray classified animals with respect to teeth, hooves and toes. This logical classification of animals was a vast improvement over the previous system.
Ray’s insights were ahead of his time in other areas as well. As Asimov states:
‘He declared fossils were the petrified remains of extinct creatures. This was not accepted by biologists generally until a century later.
Educated: Joseph Stalin
The world’s worst mass-murderer studied at Tiflis (Tbilisi) Georgia, theological college. A friend later said Stalin became an atheist after reading Darwin. After understanding that evolution provided no basis for conscience or morals, he felt free to torture and murder to whatever extent he chose to achieve his communist goals.
Un-educated: Friedrich W. Herschel
Wilhelm’s formal education was only very basic. As Herschel read Newton’s work on optics and telescopes, he would later make accurate astronomical observations by telescope, and interpret them mathematically, using techniques such as calculus. This was the beginning of modern astronomy.
Educated: Leon Trotsky
Fanatically committed to Darwinism and Marxism, communist leader Trotsky was brutal against the Christian church. He said that Darwin’s ideas ‘intoxicated’ him, and ‘Darwin stood for me like a mighty doorkeeper at the entrance to the temple of the universe.’ With no Creator’s laws to restrain him and the justification of evolution, he felt free to use any means to attain power and political ends.
Un-educated: Francis Bacon
Francis Bacon, Lord Chancellor of England, is usually considered to be the man primarily responsible for the formulation and establishment of the so-called “scientific method” in science, stressing experimentation and induction from data rather than philosophical deduction in the tradition of Aristotle.
Bacon’s writings are also credited with leading to the founding of the Royal Society of London.
Sir Francis was a devout believer in the Bible. He wrote: “There are two books laid before us to study, to prevent our falling into error; first, the volume of the Scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the Creatures, which express His power.”
Educated: Karl Marx
The ‘spiritual father’ of the communist system, Marx was an avid adherent of Darwin. He combined his social and economic idea with evolutionary principles. Marx wrote that Darwin’s book ‘contains the basis in natural history for our views.’ His disciple Lenin applied utter ruthlessness and terror in Russia—the term ‘rivers of blood’ has commonly been applied in describing his reign
As one can clearly see a belief in a Creator brings for fruitful study of the universe to benefit mankind, while belief in a godless evoulutionistic world brings mass murder and destruction.
But isn’t that what Satan wanted in the Garden of Eden? The destruction of mankind is why he tempted Eve, Eve choose on her own free will to accept his temptation and disobey God. At that moment is when sin entered the world. Death, disease, deterioration all began. The further away from creation the worse this becomes. We personally make the same decisions everyday to disobey. The perversions have increased so great that the only way we could be saved from our choices to do evil was for God to send Jesus Christ to earth to live a perfect life and die upon the cross for the forgiveness of sins.
As Eve had the free will choice in the Garden of Eden and she choose death, you have the free will choice today to choose life in Christ Jesus and yet you still rile against God?
Remember, you also have the free will choice to follow Satan’s design for your life and so continue to believe in randomness, with no explaination why you suffer, your family suffers, the world suffers and what the heck is this life for since you’re just going back to nothing anyway.
You tell me the difference between Creation/Science and evolution/satan’s lie. You tell me which is the straight and narrow path.
Actually, before I even get into anything, Constantjn, do you mind me asking if you are a native speaker of English? I’m having a difficult time getting past the first statement:
The problem with teaching creationism as science or as the truth is that you are ceeping people dum.
But if you were not educated here, then I can understand. I’ll address what you actually said later, probably tonight. I do have youngsters who need me!
I have not read the document yet. I have only read your blog and a few comments here and there (just a quick look for the moment). One thing that struck me in the comments was the term micro-evolution. I truly do not consider drug resistant bacteria evolution or micro-evolution.
Think of this way - there are lots and lots of people who got the chicken pox. However, there are lots of people who have been exposed repeatedly and have never, ever had chicken pox. Does that mean they evolved? I don’t think so. It just means that something within them simply has made them immune to chicken pox for whatever reason (same reason many of us never catch the flu each year). Anyway, when you look at the whole bacteria resistance issue, is it that the bacteria “evolved” to be come resistant to the antibiotics OR is it that we have killed so many of the “normal” bacteria over the years that the only ones left alive are the ones that had that same “natural” immunity to the antibiotics are the ones left thriving. Does that make sense?
Thinking of the book The Stand, the only people left remaining after a “super-flu” epidemic were people who had some sort of natural resistance. Had they evolved - I personally do not think so (and yes, I realize it was fiction, LOL!). Anyway, just my thoughts on evolution - so no, I do not believe in evolution and yes, I believe that science and creationism can be mixed together quite nicely. After all - was anyone there to see how it happened?? (Dana - know that there is nothing personal intended in what I wrote above -just my thoughts that were previously running around in my head).
I understand what you are saying, Melisa. Species adapt over time, and that adaptation is due to variation within the species which allow some to survive (like anti-biotic resistant strains of bacteria). I think that is more or less the definition of “micro-evolution.”
We can see that a wide diversity of information exists…after all, God did NOT create poodles. They are a long shot from the wolf. But even with however many thousand years of human directed “evolution,” we still have a dog.
Whatever you want to call that change over time is fine…it cannot really be contested because it is observable. But I don’t really believe it results in a new genus of animal or plant. A dog is a dog. A sunflower is a sunflower.
We can see that a wide diversity of information exists…after all, God did NOT create poodles. They are a long shot from the wolf. But even with however many thousand years of human directed “evolution,” we still have a dog.
However, compare this to a horse and a donkey - are they one species or two different ones?
They can mate and produce offspring, however the offspring (the mule) is sterile, which indicates that they are in the process of becoming two species.
I must say I find the attacks of anonymous above akin to the attacks of the German authorities on home educators in this country - stating that because some families may (and have) abused their children that they kept at home, this is the logical result of home education.
Hi, my name is Constantijn and my native tongue is not english…
Dana, what I try to tell is the following: If you teach creationism as science in schools. Then you are making your following generation dumb. You can’t deny that the world is older then 10.000 years. How are you going to explain that to your students if you also teach creationism?
Evolution:
- It does not give an explenation how things strated, but it states the following: Animals/humans evolved from less complex life to the complex beeings that we are now.
One proof can be based on the following three pillars:
1) A living thing can only be produced by an other living thing. Every living creature has a parent.
2) There are complex creatures and there are less complex creatures. There are the less complex invertebrates like insects and the complex vertebrates like we are.
3) There were simple animals and plants on earth long before complex ones. The first fossil remains are of very simple living things. As the strata get more recent, the variety and complexity of life increase. And no human fossils have ever been found except in the most superficial layers of the earth (e.g., battlefields, graveyards, flood deposits, and so on). In all the countless geological excavations and inspections (for example, of the Grand Canyon), no one has ever come up with a genuine fossil remnant which goes against this general principle (and it would only take one genuine find to overturn this principle).
Well, if we put these three points together, the rational case for evolution is air tight. If all living creatures must have a living parent, if living creatures are different, and if simpler forms were around before the more complex forms, then the more complex forms must have come from the simpler forms (e.g., vertebrates from invertebrates). There is simply no other way of dealing reasonably with the evidence we have. Of course, one might deny (as some do) that the layers of the earth represent a succession of very lengthy epochs and claim, for example, that the Grand Canyon was created in a matter of days, but this surely violates scientific observation and all known scientific processes as much as does the claim that, say, vertebrates just, well, appeared one day out of a spontaneous combination of chemicals.
In a modern liberal democracy, of course, one is perfectly free to reject that conclusion, but one is not legitimately able to claim that such a rejection is a reasonable scientific stance.
Scatty, I don’t have a problem with speciation so much. It is the development of higher order animals form lower order animals that does not make sense to me.
Think about the evolution of the lizard to the bird. What steps would have been necessary? A good leg would have been a useless leg long before it ever would have been a serviceable wing. Not to mention the change of scales into the feather, the hollow bones, etc.
But that really isn’t the point of the post. I know you and I agree on how much power the state should have to mandate what parents teach their children. : )
Constantjn, your argument is weak, based on what? You’ve given me nothing, and I suspect you know that.
I’ll be happy with the first part of your last sentence:
“In a modern liberal democracy, of course, one is perfectly free to reject that conclusion…”
That is the main point of my post and I’m happy to agree with you. When you start looking at disagreement as “dangerous” then you tread into some pretty murky territory. As you yourself said, is not religion or science themselves which are evil, but men who pervert them to their own gains.
But as soon as you say that no one may disagree with you, you have given the state the right to control the mind. Dangerous precedent.
Now, just for general amusement, your bizarre case for evolution.
1) Yes. Creationists generally will refer to this pesky law about life giving rise to its own kind to indicate that it is not likely that birds arose from lizards.
2) Of course. You are still stuck on where we are today…and probably have been since the creation of the world, but I digress.
3) We don’t know that.
Have you heard of the scientific method.? It basically lays out the foundation of science and a method for reasoning about the world. It states that the scientist first comes up with an hypothesis, a sort of guess about how something works.
Like a theory on the origins of life. Creation on the one side, random chance resulting in evolution on the other.
He then observes and gathers data. He looks at the evidence present.
Both sides have done that and we have the same evidence available to us: a bunch of bones in rock, pits of fur, some tissue, prints, etc.
So far so good. But next comes the part where it gets tricky. Next, the scientist is supposed to design an experiment to test the hypothesis. He measures, tests, experiments and records the data. Other scientists repeat the experiment. You have control groups to make sure the changes you are making are the cause of whatever process you are measuring.
Then you publish the results.
Neither side can test their hypotheses.
There is nothing air tight about the deduction you have made…it is more porous than most arguments I have read. Here is an interesting fact that actually directly relates to what you have written: What we see in the fossil layer is microscopic and extremely simple creatures throughout a pretty thick layer of rock. Buying your timetable, millions of years. Then, suddenly, we find a great diversity of highly complex life with no transitional species. Then essentially nothing.
Did the dinosaurs appear overnight? Or was there a single catastrophic event? I wasn’t there, but I have a hard time believing that life evolved quite that quickly.
And don’t forget that it was a monk in a monastery that gave us Mendelian genetics…the basis for a lot of what we know about genetics today. Don’t be so quick to believe that belief in a creator necessitates the ridiculous stereotypes you began your discussion with.