At Odds With Scientific Fact

[Martin]

Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, has confirmed that creationism will not be taught in free schools because it is "at odds with scientific fact".

Article

[AndyHB]

Never really understood the point of creationism; after all, the Creation story isn't meant to be a scientific treatise; its a literary work that seeks to explain the purpose, rather than merely the physical nature, of our existence.

[Boudi]

I agree, and the consensus seems to agree that historically people never saw it as a scientific treatise...so why do we have this modern split between people who believe the bible is science, and the scientist who think that the bible is wrong...when both these positions are wrong...in my frequently wrong opinion

[AndrewF]

The simple answer is that there are some (IMO!) nutters out there who insist that every single thing in the bible is literal truth... - on the basis that if you accept that any of it may not be absolutely true, then how do you decide what it and what is not true, and also that this means that any specific part may not be true so the veracity of the entire 'book' is brought into question.

[Boudi]

Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, has confirmed that creationism will not be taught in free schools because it is "at odds with scientific fact".

Article

I do wonder what a scientific fact is.....and how they proved that creationism isn't a fact.  I might not believe in it, but I can't prove that it is wrong.

[Martin]

The simple answer is that there are some (IMO!) nutters out there who insist that every single thing in the bible is literal truth... - on the basis that if you accept that any of it may not be absolutely true, then how do you decide what it and what is not true, and also that this means that any specific part may not be true so the veracity of the entire 'book' is brought into question.

Do you not think though, that the creationists have a point? I mean aren't whole swathes of the Bible in need of reinterpretation because of the fact of evolution. What about Paul's ideas about Jesus being a second Adam, that because sin came into the world through one man, so sin could be iradicated by one man, and that goes on to underpin Paul's ideas about original sin.  If we are an evolved species, there never was a utopia in which once humankind was not sinful. Is it reasonable to see children as inherently sinful when we can see that they need their evolved behaviour which tests and pushes boundaries, for normal development as human beings?  In what way should that sort of understanding about so-called 'wrong-doing' change our view of what Jesus' own childhood must have been like - can you be a human and not inherit the natural human condition?

[Martin]

I do wonder what a scientific fact is.....and how they proved that creationism isn't a fact.  I might not believe in it, but I can't prove that it is wrong.

Oh creationism is provably wrong by any normal use of the word proof. I mean, if you are the sort of person who says that you can't prove that there was a Tsunami in Japan the other week, you'd be right by some ridiculous standards of proof (we might all be having some mass hallucination), but by any reasonable standard of proof Creationism is disproved. Itelligent Design is also so bereft of factual evidence to support it, and so outweighed by evidence which contradicts it, that it is disproven to the standard required by any court.

[AndyHB]

Do you not think though, that the creationists have a point? I mean aren't whole swathes of the Bible in need of reinterpretation because of the fact of evolution.

Martin, evolution isn't able to, nor does it pretend to explain the purpose of life.  At the same time, there remains a gap in the scientists' knowledge and understanding of evolution (well, several, to be truthful) especially when it comes to the nature of humanity.  As such, some of what evolutionary scientists try to tell us seems to be at odds with known evolutionary fact.

Is it reasonable to see children as inherently sinful when we can see that they need their evolved behaviour which tests and pushes boundaries, for normal development as human beings?  In what way should that sort of understanding about so-called 'wrong-doing' change our view of what Jesus' own childhood must have been like - can you be a human and not inherit the natural human condition?

  Not sure that testing and pushing boundaries is necessarily regarded as sinful by many Christians, let alone by the Biblical authors, Martin.  However, I'm not sure that any parent sets out to purposely teach a child how to do wrong things (though I have come across one or two whose actions in this area I would have to question  ) - so where does the ability to do wrong come from?  It must somehow be ingrained within our nature as humans.

[tranchiebabe]

I think these so called 'free schools' are a total nonsense. especially as the staff don't have to be qualified teachers! In theory all sorts of kooks could try to set up one of these schools.

[JJ]

Do you not think though, that the creationists have a point? I mean aren't whole swathes of the Bible in need of reinterpretation because of the fact of evolution.

Martin, evolution isn't able to, nor does it pretend to explain the purpose of life.  At the same time, there remains a gap in the scientists' knowledge and understanding of evolution (well, several, to be truthful) especially when it comes to the nature of humanity.  As such, some of what evolutionary scientists try to tell us seems to be at odds with known evolutionary fact.

I think finding a sense of human purpose, understanding meaning, Biblical interpretation and evolutionary science are different disciplines and cannot be mixed up in any interpretation of understanding of our human condition.  It seems to me a bit like using applied maths to interpret a novel ..... hardly possible in a normal mathematical way - and just about useful in getting a sense of basic novelistic form and structure.  But it says nothing about meaning and characterisation etc.

[tranchiebabe]

I agree JJ

[JJ]

Is it reasonable to see children as inherently sinful when we can see that they need their evolved behaviour which tests and pushes boundaries, for normal development as human beings?  In what way should that sort of understanding about so-called 'wrong-doing' change our view of what Jesus' own childhood must have been like - can you be a human and not inherit the natural human condition?

  Not sure that testing and pushing boundaries is necessarily regarded as sinful by many Christians, let alone by the Biblical authors, Martin.  However, I'm not sure that any parent sets out to purposely teach a child how to do wrong things (though I have come across one or two whose actions in this area I would have to question  ) - so where does the ability to do wrong come from?  It must somehow be ingrained within our nature as humans.

I don't think it necessarily follows that doing wrong is ingrained in anyone.  It's not an ability - it's a failure of the organism to develop benignly.  That failure is caused by imperfect conditions of nurturing and personal circumstances - even unwitting accidents of birth can cause problems for a developing child leaving them dysfunctional.  Remember those poor, poor children in Romanian nurseries lying in cots with no love or stimulation who were severely depressed even at 9 months old.   The damage to them could well be irredeemable.  Brain development is hampered by poor nurturing and early physiological brain connections that flourish in a loved child die off in a child that is neglected.

[AndyHB]

I don't think it necessarily follows that doing wrong is ingrained in anyone.  It's not an ability - it's a failure of the organism to develop benignly.

Since we all do things that are wrong, your argument implies that we all fail to 'develop benignly'.  If this is the case, ie its the norm, isn't this an indicator that it is something built into the system?

[JJ]

No I don't agree, as I think doing wrong is mostly cultural isn't it? The rules are set by society and in one culture wrongdoing could be punished whereas in another it's hardly noticed.

And secondly, and more importantly, I think it's a fallacy to think that doing wrong is built into the system.  Wrongness is what happens when conditions aren't optimal.   I don't think any of us grow up 'benignly' as most parents or carers treat a child imperfectly because the caring is too complex and long drawn out to get it right every time.

When things go wrong is when a person reacts to an injury (whether psychical or physical) with a response that is based on fear or inability or mistake etc. 

Think of a plant growing in natural conditions and they will all have little scars or twists from the weather or too much or too little food in the soil - so they have faults compared to the generic plant - it doesn't mean that wrongness is built in to the plant's growth does it?  it's just the result of minute changes of conditions for each one affecting the growth depending on its position or amount of sunshine and so on.

[AndyHB]

No I don't agree, as I think doing wrong is mostly cultural isn't it? The rules are set by society and in one culture wrongdoing could be punished whereas in another it's hardly noticed.

If you look at intercultural material, there are a large number of behaviours/actions that are regarded as 'wrong' across the piece.  These can range from 'major' things like murder and theft to 'smaller' ones like lying.  Obviously, there are also cultural-specific 'wrongs' (I was told off when working at the Nursing College in Nepal for whistling in the open - only acceptable in private there!!), but there are a surprising number that are culture-crossing, as it were.

When things go wrong is when a person reacts to an injury (whether psychical or physical) with a response that is based on fear or inability or mistake etc. 

So what about the common incident of a child telling their teacher some tall-tale as to why they haven't done their homework?  Where's the 'injury' in this?  Isn't the punishment ('injury') a reaction to the failure to produce the homework, rather than vice versa.?

Think of a plant growing in natural conditions ...

I think that there is quite a sizeable difference in the nature of a plant and a human being.  For one, the latter can choose to do certain things (or not); not aware that a plant can.