'Big bang' in Britain over creationism

The problem is one of perception - Prof. Reiss did not say creationism should be taught, merely that it should be addressed rather than dismissed should a pupil raise the issue. Creationism quite simply has no actual scientific basis - if looked at within a scientific context the Christian view of creationism soon falls down into a pardox, and has no more validity than any other creation myth. 'Intelligent Design' has yet to be expressed as a formal scientific hypothesis, and hence it has no place either. But perhaps what needs to be taught and seems to be missing in science classes is a real appreciation of scientific methodology: the value of theory and experimentation, and the concept that rather than being dogma, science is dynamic and can change as new evidence and better theories emerge.

The fact that Reiss (or Palin) supports exposure in schools to creationism doesn't necessarily mean they believe it. It is important to inform students about the existence of alternative views. For example, the physicist Gerald Schroeder in "Genesis and the Big Bang" argues that if the theory of relativity is taken into account, and its effect on time warps, "six days" of creation could be an accurate description. In any case, the Fathers of the Church have pointed out the the "days" of Genesis could not be days in the sense of solar time, since the sun wasn't created until the fourth day.

What are the scientists afraid of? If their science theories are valid then truth will out. We have to have a "faith" in science's circumstantial evidence just as faith in Creationism. While the religious are accused of being book burners, so science wants to burn the Bible. What are they afraid of? By definition science is to consider all possibilities not to be intolerant of any evidence that may prove them wrong. They should be looking to prove the truth, whether it is to their liking or not. What does it hurt to teach both theories in school? After all, science does not have all the answers, and much is explained by "just add another billion years" and presumably their case is proven. Can you tell me how scientists know what the skin pigments were when they show us dinosaurs that only bone fragments have been found in fossils. All the hoaxes that have been found have been given to us by scientists. They are men who make money by being right or at least popular. What does it hurt to teach creationism as it exists? If science is so overpowering in evidence then it will be obvious. Closed minds can not be entered.

I can see the BIAS in this article before finishing the first paragraph! When information is presented as truth, then accuracy is demanded. To say proponents of Creationism believe in six literal days, then an obvious distortion of truth is present. The resource from Encarta reads: ...broad range of beliefs involving an appeal to God's miraculous intervention to explain the origin of the universe, of life, and of the different kinds of plants and animals on earth. Adherents, called creationists, all invoke divine intervention to explain at least some of these phenomena, although they do not necessarily agree on the length of time involved in creation.

No one has adequately explained the Creation of the Universe. No scientist can explain life. In the absence of that we need to consider all possible explanations. To do otherwise is to keep human knowledge in the dark. To adhere to Darwin like Dogma is to close the mind. Remember, scientists once told us that the earth was flat and medical doctors once said you could heal someone by bleeding them. It was by revealing things that were at one time invisible that we as a species moved forward.

I KNOW that there are physical laws that govern the operation of our universe...perhaps all matter did come out of a little super-dense ball and explode outward and things combined and recombined until matter stabilized and then everything else proceeded like science tells us...only one problem: where did the ball of proto-matter come from? What was there BEFORE the universe? And how did this ball of proto-matter just suddenly get its chain reaction started? I'm sure the folks at CERN think they are going to answer these questions, but I'm betting NOT...they may get more insight into the HOW of the event, but not the WHY...science can NEVER answer the WHY...I, for one, do not know how long God's day is...how long IS your day when you are forever? So scientists should worry about HOW and let religion worry about WHY!

Wonderful reasoned responses from kmooneyham, Pendamon, roger.dee, dittoman, and kainzh. Dabbler, however, appears to really be a dabbler. Dabbler needs to get out of his/her intellectually closed box of material scientism and consider the probality of an intelligent Creator beyond the material five-sensations. Material sciences can only describe that which can be observed with the five senses. Dabbler claims a Creationist worldview "soon falls down into a paradox" but fails to note the paradox. Do note, however, the bias of Dabbler. Dabbler assumes that only Christians acknowledge a Creator. Dabbler's problem appears to be a dislike of Christians. Someone tell Dabbler that other belief systems also acknowledge an intelligent original creative force. The true paradox lies in a faith belief, such as to which Dabbler seems to adhere, that there is no Something before there is something (the tiny "ball of proto-matter" as kmooneyham expressed it). Darwinian evolution itself falls into a paradox. The paradox is that it rationally leads to elite racist conclusions. If evolution is true, then mankind is still evolving. If mankind is still evolving, then there must be a superior race currently in develop today. Which race is that, Dabbler? Hitler thought he knew. You know where that led the world. Observe closely those who advocate a Creator and see that they also advocate equality of all mankind. I suppose that is the paradox to which Dabbler is refering.

I homeschooled my daughter up until this year (she's in 6th grade). I echo what a previous poster said. God is eternal. Time is an earthly thing, not a heavenly one. 700 million years to Him is like the blink of an eye. I can also tell you this, after teaching science and helping her with her schoolwork, I am amazed at how scientists are proving Biblical teachings of the Creation. Go ahead, ask a scientist to tell you what made life start. They can't, because they don't know.

To CM Park: Objectively, there is a massive preponderance of evidence assembled in peer-reviewed theories for the universe being over fourteen billion years old, for the earth being four and a half billion years old, and for evolution being the driving force that has created the vast variety of life on earth. There are questions yet to be answered, but the objective answer to them is currently "we don't know for sure". Subjectively, we feel differently. Subjectively, I may prefer to believe in a guiding life force, in a power of love that shapes our lives toward a goal that I cannot yet know or comprehend. But I can offer no proof of this, not one shred of solid evidence exists to back up the 'theory of God' or even 'Intelligent Design'. It's not what we want to hear, but it's the facts. We have a duty to face facts as such, and base our practical decisions upon them. This does not mean that such decisions should be immoral, either. Many insane things have been done in the name of belief in things that could not be proven but were 'obvious' to the holders of those beliefs, from the Nazi gas-chambers to the tortures of the Inquisition. We must define our morality both upon a grounds that tolerates rather than persecutes, and that works with the facts and not superstitions. As for the Paradox, if you take a literalistic view of Genesis, and try to reconcile it with the facts you must conclude that either the scientists are so way wrong that half of our modern technology shouldn't work at all, or else the creator is having a laugh at our expense by putting fake fossils in 'created old' rock strata and watching us struggle to work it out ... and if he plays tricks like that, all bets are off as how could you trust his 'word' anyway? If on the other hand you simply say: Well, the 'days' are a metaphor for how time passes for God, and the tale of the Garden of Eden one for how when we grow know the difference between good and evil we must take responsibility for our actions, then you are in a position where your personal belief does not clash with the scientific facts. That said, there is need still to understand what those facts are, and also to understand that while you believe in your divine truth, your belief is subjective and you have no basis for insisting that it be treated as anything but, even if it is shared by a billion or more other people. Others may disagree with you, but hold you or your beliefs no animosity (you see, I don't have a problem with Christians or Christianity), and they are as entitled to their beliefs as you are. In other words, science belongs in the science classes, and religion in the humanities classes. That does not mean that we should not discuss and understand the difference between the two, however, nor place undue importance upon one over the other.

From Dabbler: "We must define our morality both upon a grounds that tolerates rather than persecutes, and that works with the facts and not superstitions." MUST we? Why on earth is that? If there is no moral code that fits all, no absolute right and wrong, then we are free to define morality for ourselves. If I'm the strongest, of course I should persecute rather than tolerate the weaker. To do otherwise would not be in my best interest. To do otherwise would be tacit admission that I am not the fittest. That is the world without God. Survival of the fittest. Not very pretty, is it? Every community of Man throughout history has come up with essentially the same "rules" or morals. Don't steal. Don't cheat. Don't murder. Respect the eldest among you. And so on. And yet, in every one of these communities, NOBODY is able to keep the laws perfectly. If Man is the pinnacle (from our perspective, of course, I'm sure sponges would disagree if they could), if there is no higher being, then we would not set the bar so high that none of us could jump over it. Yet we have, over and over again, all over the world, throughout history, without the necessity of communication between cultures. The only explanation that makes any sense is that they AREN'T OUR RULES. They are rules that have been placed in our hearts by a higher force.

Just because a goal is hard to achieve does not make it unattainable, nor does it make it foolish to try. Compare modern societies to those of just a few hundred years ago, and you will find longer life expectancy, greater social justice, more accurate criminal justice, all these things that would make our society a utopia to them. Is it perfect? Not by a long way - but it is a BIG improvement. Why should we NOT carry on trying to improve it? "If I'm the strongest, of course I should persecute rather than tolerate the weaker. To do otherwise would not be in my best interest. To do otherwise would be tacit admission that I am not the fittest. That is the world without God. Survival of the fittest. Not very pretty, is it?" And when you are weaker with illness or age, what then? Compassion is an investment in the future: at the most basic level you look after others so that they in turn will look after you. Compassion, fair play and justice are positive traits in behavioural evolution and they exist in us because it is beneficial for us to have them. The bully-boy selfish mindset you declare as 'natural' is in fact only a response to life-threatening circumstances - in fact it's largely counter-productive save in the most extreme circumstances in our modern world and often leads only to self-destruction outside of those circumstances. Altruism is as natural to us as selfishness, and both, it can be argued, are evolved behaviour. Your case appears to be that 'God' provides us with a moral conscience that we otherwise cannot possess. I think this is balderdash; if you need 'god' to give you sense of morality, it's because you don't have morals of your own. People of other religions than Christianity (and no religion at all) can tell right from wrong, perform deeds of compassion and altruism worthy of a saint and live exemplary lives, so clearly religion is not required to have morals and ethics. It's clear that you don't understand what 'fittest' means in evolutionary terms. It does not mean smartest, fastest, strongest or healthiest: it means those with the combination of traits most conducive to expand their gene-pool in the next generation. Mutual cooperation and self-organisation are two such traits that clearly pay dividends for humans and many other living creatures.

You're supporting my basic premise without understanding it. Of course people would still have morals if there were no God, but they would not be the SAME morals. They would be much more self-serving and less other-serving. Can I prove that? Of course not; but then, neither can you prove the converse. It's all a matter of perspective. I believe there is a common moral code because we are all created by one God. You believe there is a common moral code just because we are all people. But why would mere evolution "favor" a moral code that is unattainable? Compassion for the weak does not strengthen the gene pool. Care for the old and sick, most of whom have already reproduced if they're going to, does nothing to enhance our collective fitness. It is because these codes are counter-evolutionary, and yet so pervasive, that they point to God as the author of the codes.

You are correct in that the same morals are not supported by different codes, but I object strongly to the idea that these morals would be self-serving. I believe we have a commonality of ethics because we are all human, no matter how we may believe we were created. To use your own logic, you say an unattainable moral code would not be favoured by evolution, and I must ask: Why not? Why does compassion for those who are unable to prosper in the current environment assist us? Simple answer: The environment may change, making them the fittest and us the unfit ones. Breadth of a gene-pool is always an advantage, and while there may be 'fit' and 'unfit' genes in a particular set of circumstances, there are no such things as weak genes. For example, Africans from the sub-Saharran regions are much more prone to sickle-cell anaemia, making them 'weak'. But this same aberration makes them resistant to malaria, making them strong. By your logic, we should let them fall by the wayside - but if we did, and there was a worldwide pandemic of malaria, they would be the survivors, not us. Compassion is not counter-evolutionary, nor is it evidence of 'god'. The idea that religion leads to 'better' moral codes is a fallacy. The most developed religious nation is the one that provides among the least care for it's poor and sick, while the more secular nations in the developed world take pains to provide comprehensive health and welfare services. How do you explain this if religious codes are better, more compassionate?

To Dabbler: The morality argument is interesting, but let's return to science for a moment. You state as scientific "fact" (i.e., conclusion from theory) that the universe is some 14 billion years and the earth four and a half billion. However, we observe that the tidal forces caused by the rotation of the earth and the revolution of the moon cause an exchange of energy between earth and moon. The moon is forced into a higher-energy orbit (about one inch per year) with a resultant slowing of earth's rotation. If we assume that the laws of physics remain constant and begin calculating backward, then we find that the earth-moon system becomes unstable for periods much over one billion years. Thus any science class or text that asserts an age of the earth-moon system much in excess of one billion years is ignoring scientific evidence. To do so merely to support the gradualist theory of evolution, therefore, is to perpetrate a hoax on the students. Newton's Laws of Motion were a helpful first cut for science, but they must be modified for further insight. Geological and biological evolution may help explain certain current observations, but they must not be pushed back in time beyond what science allows.

I'm sorry skorrent, but that's rather erroneous to say the least. At closest approach the Moon is 363,300 kilometres away. That's 363,300,000 metres. The recession distance is 3.82 cm a year (more than an inch, actually), which is .0382m so 363,300,000 divided by .0382 = 9,510,471,204 years (roughly). Still wrong? Well no, actually it's not. The force that propels the moon steadily outwards is caused by tidal forces because the earth rotates faster than the moon. As such it depends on the speed of the Earth's rotation and the distance of the moon's orbit. Now we know the size of this force, and how it would have reduced over time (you can get all the details here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html ) and hence get an approximation of how old the moon should be (around 4.5 billion years old), assuming it formed (condensed from material blasted off the Earth by collision with another forming planet) outside the roche distance for an object its size (the distance great enough that tidal forces wouldn't tear it apart again). Funnily enough, this number agrees with the radioactive dating moon rocks (latest estimate here http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1625174.html?menu=news.scienceanddiscovery.space ) and it looks like the scientists have it right after all ... So whoever bandies about that the moon 'has' to be younger than a billion years either doesn't know what they are talking about, has a revolutionary scientific theory which will change the way we see the world (unlikely, as scientists are trying to find these all the time), or is trying to deceive you.