evolution now to be taught in primary schools

[kaz7]

They dont teach it already?!

im quite sure we were taught it in the 70s, the evolution chart doing the rounds seems to ring a bell from school, but there is a lot of water under the bridge since then, i have forgot more than i know

I was taught it at school in the 70's as well

 

[mad4city]

I do sometimes envy the Scientific Findamentalists (if I may call them that) around here their absolute, profound certainty in their denial of the existence of a higher being.Personally, I'm not nearly as clever as they are. So, they might stoop to affording me the lattitude of doubt.
Educated in a Catholic education system that stll found room to teach Evolution as absolute fact, I'm also slightly mystyfied by their anti-religious zealotry. Is it all really bad? Undoubtedly, some of its effects have been catastrophic but surely they don't deny its civilising influence on the human story, too. Surely, they don't wish to ridicule an inate human longing (frailty, perhaps they might say) for their own self satisfaction?
No matter, each to their own, I say. Even if they don't seem to agree with that sentiment either.

 

[tonea2003]

I appreciate that faith is experiential, and should be conveyed as such (i.e. framing things in "I believe', 'in my experience', or 'the Bible says'). This needs to be true on the other side too, however. Being dead set on convincing someone of the 'fact' something doesn't exist is indoctrination as well.

The things that have been mentioned by previous posters (the theory of evolution, Harry Potter) are by and large opposed by Fundamentalist Christians.

These two words seem to be inseparable in the eyes of this forum, but the fundamentalist viewpoint (or the viewpoint that causes this controversy, the inerrancy of scripture) is not one held by the majority of Christians I've encountered in the UK.

This viewpoint would say that the earth was created in six literal 24 hour days not very long ago, which science tells us is clearly not the case, and I agree. Evolution is currently the theory that best fits the understanding we have of where we came from, and so that is rightly taught - though I get the impression that is perceived as fact by many teachers, which kind of undermines the whole principle of science (to find truth by observation). At the present time, people who believe in evolution as fact are doing so by faith.

As a Christian, recently moved from Stalybridge via Buckinghamshire to Texas (where there are a few more fundamentalists!), I find meaning in the poetry of the creation story (in that I believe we are created, but that doesn't have to mean in 6 days), but not at the expense of science.

I believe that scripture is inspired, not inerrant, which requires it being read through the lens of the culture at the time of writing and appreciation of scribe's bias.

And Harry Potter is brilliant!

I just thought I'd give an alternative viewpoint so that other people don't have to continue to speculate about one.

This has always interested me. If you know the creation story as told in the bible is a fallacy, how do you put faith in the rest of the book? Surely you can't pick and choose which chapters and verses to believe in, because this would mean an entire lack of faith.

Good question. I guess I would say that I believe the meaning for us in the creation story isn't found in how we were created, but that - regardless of how and when - we were created, and there is a reason for our being here.

It's not so much a case of dismissing certain parts of the Bible while valuing others; it's more about seeing and testing the parts in the context of the wider narrative and who God says He is, which is most explicitly detailed in the person of Jesus (which is why I believe the gospels are the exception to valuing parts of the Bible over others).

In addition to this, there is experience that I have had of encountering God through the Holy Spirit, the legitimacy of which I appreciate I cannot convince you of.

how do you what the holy spirit is? what was it that convinced you that it was?
what makes the gospels more believable than any other chapters?
which has the coup de grace of the immaculate conception as its starting point.

 

[SWP's back]

I do sometimes envy the Scientific Findamentalists (if I may call them that) around here their absolute, profound certainty in their denial of the existence of a higher being.Personally, I'm not nearly as clever as they are. So, they might stoop to affording me the lattitude of doubt.
Educated in a Catholic education system that stll found room to teach Evolution as absolute fact, I'm also slightly mystyfied by their anti-religious zealotry. Is it all really bad? Undoubtedly, some of its effects have been catastrophic but surely they don't deny its civilising influence on the human story, too. Surely, they don't wish to ridicule an inate human longing (frailty, perhaps they might say) for their own self satisfaction?
No matter, each to their own, I say. Even if they don't seem to agree with that sentiment either.

A supreme higher being cannot be discounted.

A omnipotent, omniscient abrahamic god can certainly be discounted though.

Also evolution being an undeniable fact does not disprove a god in any way. But it annoys me people refuse to educate themselves and refer to evolution as a theory without actually understanding what a scientific theory means.

Damocles explains well here:

Fact in common language and fact in scientific language are two very different things. For example, it is a fact that the Earth moves around the Sun. In physics, that's called the Copernican Heliocentrism Theory. Copernicus came up with it, and it had additions from Newton, Kepler and Einstein.

There is no such thing as a fact in science, just what we call observations. Example, in common language, if I drop a ball, it is a fact that it will fall to the ground. In scientific language, if I drop a ball, I observe that it will fall to the ground.

Theory is also a misunderstood word. In common language, theory means "guess". In scientific standards, theory is something that has been undeniably proven; after hundreds or thousands of attempts to both replicate and disprove the data, the theory still stands as true to life. Theories are composed of several observations, laws, inferences and hypothesis.

 

[No6]

I do sometimes envy the Scientific Findamentalists (if I may call them that) around here their absolute, profound certainty in their denial of the existence of a higher being.Personally, I'm not nearly as clever as they are. So, they might stoop to affording me the lattitude of doubt.
Educated in a Catholic education system that stll found room to teach Evolution as absolute fact, I'm also slightly mystyfied by their anti-religious zealotry. Is it all really bad? Undoubtedly, some of its effects have been catastrophic but surely they don't deny its civilising influence on the human story, too. Surely, they don't wish to ridicule an inate human longing (frailty, perhaps they might say) for their own self satisfaction?
No matter, each to their own, I say. Even if they don't seem to agree with that sentiment either.

Can you show me an IOTA of evidence for a higher being, in over 20,000 years of human existence? (other than in stories that were written by men)

Is it all really bad? Yes pretty much, because it encourages belief in an untruth. It's also divisive and has existed throughout history to maintain established power structures within society, where the ones who suffer are the ones at the bottom of the pile. Yes, it may have had its uses in ancient times as a way of expressing the age-old human desire to explain our existence. However, since then we've had the enlightenment and a few centuries of scientific endeavour to explain our place in the world.

Am I a scientific fundamentalist? I fucking hope so.

 

[tonea2003]

I do sometimes envy the Scientific Findamentalists (if I may call them that) around here their absolute, profound certainty in their denial of the existence of a higher being.Personally, I'm not nearly as clever as they are. So, they might stoop to affording me the lattitude of doubt.
Educated in a Catholic education system that stll found room to teach Evolution as absolute fact, I'm also slightly mystyfied by their anti-religious zealotry. Is it all really bad? Undoubtedly, some of its effects have been catastrophic but surely they don't deny its civilising influence on the human story, too. Surely, they don't wish to ridicule an inate human longing (frailty, perhaps they might say) for their own self satisfaction?
No matter, each to their own, I say. Even if they don't seem to agree with that sentiment either.

this thread was about the removal of a religious viewpoint that was taught in primary schools that is patently inaccurate and false and replaced with a theory now widely accepted version of how life develops
correct me if i'm wrong but chestervegasblue widened the debate with his response and not as you put it the scientific fundamentalists

 

[chestervegasblue]

This has always interested me. If you know the creation story as told in the bible is a fallacy, how do you put faith in the rest of the book? Surely you can't pick and choose which chapters and verses to believe in, because this would mean an entire lack of faith.

Good question. I guess I would say that I believe the meaning for us in the creation story isn't found in how we were created, but that - regardless of how and when - we were created, and there is a reason for our being here.

It's not so much a case of dismissing certain parts of the Bible while valuing others; it's more about seeing and testing the parts in the context of the wider narrative and who God says He is, which is most explicitly detailed in the person of Jesus (which is why I believe the gospels are the exception to valuing parts of the Bible over others).

In addition to this, there is experience that I have had of encountering God through the Holy Spirit, the legitimacy of which I appreciate I cannot convince you of.

You see, I see that argument as a cop out. 200 years ago, the word of the bible was preached as being the word of god and thus infallible. As society has evolved and science has advanced, a lot of the assertions in the bible were shown to be pure fallacy. The reframing of the bible into the context you put forward was just a way of christianity trying to redefine itself in the face of such empirical evidence. It went from being the word of god to be part of a "wider narrative" as you put it. It's either the word of god or it is a fallible piece of work written by man. Religion can't keep moving the goalposts to suit the prevailing social attitudes and scientific advancements

This would be a fair point if the Bible was the only way God communicates, which in my experience it is not. Even the Bible itself, by the events and stories it tells of, describes interactions with God beyond reading words from a book. Just because the Bible stopped 1800 years ago doesn't mean that revelation did, too. I believe that God has always worked through people, who don't always get it right, even when inspired, which is my position on the Bible.

 

[SWP's back]

Yep. That's a cop out.

God changed his mind when working through people over the last 500 years hasn't he.

Used to have a word in the churches ear to burn heretics at the stake. Now he is more tea and cake hippy deity.

 

[BWTAC]

Good question. I guess I would say that I believe the meaning for us in the creation story isn't found in how we were created, but that - regardless of how and when - we were created, and there is a reason for our being here.

It's not so much a case of dismissing certain parts of the Bible while valuing others; it's more about seeing and testing the parts in the context of the wider narrative and who God says He is, which is most explicitly detailed in the person of Jesus (which is why I believe the gospels are the exception to valuing parts of the Bible over others).

In addition to this, there is experience that I have had of encountering God through the Holy Spirit, the legitimacy of which I appreciate I cannot convince you of.

You see, I see that argument as a cop out. 200 years ago, the word of the bible was preached as being the word of god and thus infallible. As society has evolved and science has advanced, a lot of the assertions in the bible were shown to be pure fallacy. The reframing of the bible into the context you put forward was just a way of christianity trying to redefine itself in the face of such empirical evidence. It went from being the word of god to be part of a "wider narrative" as you put it. It's either the word of god or it is a fallible piece of work written by man. Religion can't keep moving the goalposts to suit the prevailing social attitudes and scientific advancements

This would be a fair point if the Bible was the only way God communicates, which in my experience it is not. Even the Bible itself, by the events and stories it tells of, describes interactions with God beyond reading words from a book. Just because the Bible stopped 1800 years ago doesn't mean that revelation did, too. I believe that God has always worked through people, who don't always get it right, even when inspired, which is my position on the Bible.

You're right, I got a text off him last week, mithering **** he is.

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

how can someone claim that Evolution is not fact, and is a matter of faith?

 

[SWP's back]

how can someone claim that Evolution is not fact, and is a matter of faith?

Because they don't understand the term theory.

I don't think I know anything that gets quoted as often that bugs me more.

We have more empirical evidence for evolution than anything else save heliocentricity. It is fact in normal English.

 

[chestervegasblue]

This has always interested me. If you know the creation story as told in the bible is a fallacy, how do you put faith in the rest of the book? Surely you can't pick and choose which chapters and verses to believe in, because this would mean an entire lack of faith.

Good question. I guess I would say that I believe the meaning for us in the creation story isn't found in how we were created, but that - regardless of how and when - we were created, and there is a reason for our being here.

It's not so much a case of dismissing certain parts of the Bible while valuing others; it's more about seeing and testing the parts in the context of the wider narrative and who God says He is, which is most explicitly detailed in the person of Jesus (which is why I believe the gospels are the exception to valuing parts of the Bible over others).

In addition to this, there is experience that I have had of encountering God through the Holy Spirit, the legitimacy of which I appreciate I cannot convince you of.

how do you what the holy spirit is? what was it that convinced you that it was?
what makes the gospels more believable than any other chapters?
which has the coup de grace of the immaculate conception as its starting point.

Interestingly, the word 'virgin' can be translated in a couple of different ways from the Hebrew and Greek texts, to mean 'young woman of marriable age', or something to that affect, and not necessarily 'someone who hasn't had sex'. Another reason not to build faith like a wall that can have bricks poked ou of it.

But I digress.

The Holy Spirit is the spiritual form of God, promised by Jesus. People will claim that the spiritual realm is very unclear, but encounter with Holy Spirit is identified by the fruit of it (i.e. the product), which are all qualities humans can understand as Paul says in Galatians 5.

For example, I had a situation a four years ago where I wanted to marry my then girlfriend. I asked her dad for permission to marry her, and he said no, in no uncertain terms. The dilemma I had was that my love for my girlfriend was strong and good and I didn't think the reasons her dad gave for us not to marry were valid. But at the same time, I'm called to honour my father and mother, and so was my girlfriend.

There was no clear-cut path for me to take, so I prayed about it, and felt a sense of peace (one of the aforementioned fruits) about respecting her father's wishes, though I still didn't agree with it. Long story short, he saw that I respected his decision, soon changed his mind about me and we had a fantastic relationship until cancer took him very quickly just before Christmas last year. I shudder to think of the repercussions for our very small family if I'd have just gone ahead with it.

I am convinced that was the Holy Spirit guiding me, because of the fruit both instantly and four years down the line.

I wouldn't say the gospels are more or less believable, just more important and relevant as (if Jesus is the son of God), it is God speaking from a human perspective to humans in a way that the rest of the Bible doesn't.

 

[tonea2003]

Good question. I guess I would say that I believe the meaning for us in the creation story isn't found in how we were created, but that - regardless of how and when - we were created, and there is a reason for our being here.

It's not so much a case of dismissing certain parts of the Bible while valuing others; it's more about seeing and testing the parts in the context of the wider narrative and who God says He is, which is most explicitly detailed in the person of Jesus (which is why I believe the gospels are the exception to valuing parts of the Bible over others).

In addition to this, there is experience that I have had of encountering God through the Holy Spirit, the legitimacy of which I appreciate I cannot convince you of.

how do you what the holy spirit is? what was it that convinced you that it was?
what makes the gospels more believable than any other chapters?
which has the coup de grace of the immaculate conception as its starting point.

Interestingly, the word 'virgin' can be translated in a couple of different ways from the Hebrew and Greek texts, to mean 'young woman of marriable age', or something to that affect, and not necessarily 'someone who hasn't had sex'. Another reason not to build faith like a wall that can have bricks poked ou of it.

But I digress.

The Holy Spirit is the spiritual form of God, promised by Jesus. People will claim that the spiritual realm is very unclear, but encounter with Holy Spirit is identified by the fruit of it (i.e. the product), which are all qualities humans can understand as Paul says in Galatians 5.

For example, I had a situation a four years ago where I wanted to marry my then girlfriend. I asked her dad for permission to marry her, and he said no, in no uncertain terms. The dilemma I had was that my love for my girlfriend was strong and good and I didn't think the reasons her dad gave for us not to marry were valid. But at the same time, I'm called to honour my father and mother, and so was my girlfriend.

There was no clear-cut path for me to take, so I prayed about it, and felt a sense of peace (one of the aforementioned fruits) about respecting her father's wishes, though I still didn't agree with it. Long story short, he saw that I respected his decision, soon changed his mind about me and we had a fantastic relationship until cancer took him very quickly just before Christmas last year. I shudder to think of the repercussions for our very small family if I'd have just gone ahead with it.

I am convinced that was the Holy Spirit guiding me, because of the fruit both instantly and four years down the line.

I wouldn't say the gospels are more or less believable, just more important and relevant as (if Jesus is the son of God), it is God speaking from a human perspective to humans in a way that the rest of the Bible doesn't.

first things first sorry about your father in law.
i must be missing a trick as i don't see how from you praying to your father in law changing his mind means the holy spirit intervened?
what was he/she/it doing when you got your initial knock back? dealing with someone else?
can't it be more likely that he just had a change of mind as many people do that he was being a bit rash and after a bit of thinking about it he changed his mind all of his own volition.
not sure how more relevant the gospels are when you have immaculate conceptions and resurrection/ascension at the start and finish of them.

 

[roman totale]

You mean you took a moment to step back and reflect on things and think them through. Perfectly good thing to do. Nowt to do with religion though.

 

[Why Always Ste]

How accurate/inaccurate is this video?

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2nQl7A9gGY[/video]

I thought the Mr. Garrison video was very informative btw :-D

 

[chestervegasblue]

how do you what the holy spirit is? what was it that convinced you that it was?
what makes the gospels more believable than any other chapters?
which has the coup de grace of the immaculate conception as its starting point.

Interestingly, the word 'virgin' can be translated in a couple of different ways from the Hebrew and Greek texts, to mean 'young woman of marriable age', or something to that affect, and not necessarily 'someone who hasn't had sex'. Another reason not to build faith like a wall that can have bricks poked ou of it.

But I digress.

The Holy Spirit is the spiritual form of God, promised by Jesus. People will claim that the spiritual realm is very unclear, but encounter with Holy Spirit is identified by the fruit of it (i.e. the product), which are all qualities humans can understand as Paul says in Galatians 5.

For example, I had a situation a four years ago where I wanted to marry my then girlfriend. I asked her dad for permission to marry her, and he said no, in no uncertain terms. The dilemma I had was that my love for my girlfriend was strong and good and I didn't think the reasons her dad gave for us not to marry were valid. But at the same time, I'm called to honour my father and mother, and so was my girlfriend.

There was no clear-cut path for me to take, so I prayed about it, and felt a sense of peace (one of the aforementioned fruits) about respecting her father's wishes, though I still didn't agree with it. Long story short, he saw that I respected his decision, soon changed his mind about me and we had a fantastic relationship until cancer took him very quickly just before Christmas last year. I shudder to think of the repercussions for our very small family if I'd have just gone ahead with it.

I am convinced that was the Holy Spirit guiding me, because of the fruit both instantly and four years down the line.

I wouldn't say the gospels are more or less believable, just more important and relevant as (if Jesus is the son of God), it is God speaking from a human perspective to humans in a way that the rest of the Bible doesn't.

first things first sorry about your father in law.
i must be missing a trick as i don't see how from you praying to your father in law changing his mind means the holy spirit intervened?
what was he/she/it doing when you got your initial knock back? dealing with someone else?
can't it be more likely that he just had a change of mind as many people do that he was being a bit rash and after a bit of thinking about it he changed his mind all of his own volition.
not sure how more relevant the gospels are when you have immaculate conceptions and resurrection/ascension at the start and finish of them.

I don't mean the Holy Spirit intervened to change his mind. My mind was changed. I wanted to marry her, and I didn't care what anyone else thought. What I believe is that the Holy Spirit knew what was to come (him dying very young) and so led me to honour his decision when I didn't want to or have to, which meant that my wife stayed close to her dad, which if she hadn't been would have haunted her for the rest of her life.

If it's true, the resurrection is the most relevant thing ever, which by implication makes Jesus' life before it more relevant, too.

But only if. I appreciate the sincerity and civility that you're showing me, Tonea. I'll be honest with you, there are days when I doubt and question. You only have to look at the world to wonder where God is in all of this. But the peace I experience and the hope I have for the world when I encounter God draws me back to the belief that this isn't all there is.

 

[chestervegasblue]

how can someone claim that Evolution is not fact, and is a matter of faith?

Because they don't understand the term theory.

I don't think I know anything that gets quoted as often that bugs me more.

We have more empirical evidence for evolution than anything else save heliocentricity. It is fact in normal English.

Ok, thanks for the education SWP. I shall clarify what I was trying to say, as looking back on it I was not clear - for which I apologise.

Science cannot yet prove the complete extent of the evolutionary theory to be fact, because it has not measured by observation the evolution of species during the time period that it is commonly held to have occurred in.

Therefore, to hold that the evolutionary theory in its entirety is infallible fact requires, at this point in time, a degree of faith.

That does not mean that we shouldn't teach it, as I have previously expressed.

 

[RP2]

Bollocks thread.

Evolution is real. That doesn't mean religion is not.

 

[Why Always Ste]

The only time I've ever felt God was when I've been off my head and thrown into a mental health unit.

**** could of given me the lottery numbers :(

 

[Demosthenes]

Religion is fucking stupid. Anyone who believes it is suffering a delusion.

How is Allah any more real than Ra?