/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Russian Student Sues for Teaching Creationism in Schools



sonz
03-02-2006, 08:21 PM
SAINT PETERSBURG, March 2, 2006 (IslamOnline.net and News Agencies) – A Russian student and her father are suing the government to teach creationism in state schools alongside Darwin's theory of evolution, a case supported by the country's Orthodox, Muslim and Jewish communities, the daily Izvestia reported on Thursday, March 2.

"I have come to the conclusion that the theory of creationism is the most logical" explanation of the origins of humankind, said Kiril, the father of 15-year-old Masha Shraiber, reported Agence France-Presse (AFP).

The case maintains that teaching only the theory of evolution violates basic freedom of conscience and religion rights enshrined in the Russian constitution.

It asks the education ministry to rewrite textbooks to include the alternative view of creationism.

"The majority of great religions share this point of view," Kiril said.

The Russian father and his daughter are being assisted in their lawsuit by three lawyers representing the Russian Orthodox, Muslim and Jewish communities, according to the newspaper.

The theory of evolution, first articulated by British naturalist Darwin in 1859, is based on the idea that life organisms developed over time through random mutations and factors in nature that favored certain traits that helped species survive.

In Abrahamic religions, creationism or creation theology is the origin belief that humans, life, the Earth, and the universe were created by a supreme divine being.

Father Dies

Henry Morris, the man seen by both allies and foes as the father of creation science, died Saturday at a convalescent hospital, reported the Washington Post on Thursday.

He was 87 and had had a series of strokes in recent weeks.

Morris, who coined the term "creation science," founded the California-based Institute for Creation Research in 1970 and built it into an organization of far-reaching influence as the intellectual center of the creationist movement.

He wrote more than 60 books, most of which took aim at evolutionary theory and offered justifications for creationism.

His 1961 book, The Genesis Flood, written with John Whitcomb, was the first significant attempt in the 20th century to offer a systematic scientific explanation for creationism and remains in print.

"He literally set the terms of the debate for the second half of the 20th century," Edward Larson, author of Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory told the Post in a telephone interview.

Morris' ideas have been roundly rejected by mainstream scientists.

His books have been the basis for many attempts to introduce creationism or similar theories in the public schools.

In 1987, the US Supreme Court ruled that creationism was a form of religion, not science, and could not be taught in the nation's public schools.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
czgibson
03-02-2006, 08:29 PM
Greetings,

I think this article is clearly biased. For instance, it's surely not true to say this:

In 1987, the US Supreme Court ruled that creationism was a form of religion, not science, and could not be taught in the nation's public schools.
Creationism can be taught in schools, just not in science classes. It's fine in religious studies. The reason it shouldn't be taught in science classes is very simple - it's not science.

Peace
Reply

sonz
03-02-2006, 08:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,

I think this article is clearly biased. For instance, it's surely not true to say this:



Creationism can be taught in schools, just not in science classes. It's fine in religious studies. The reason it shouldn't be taught in science classes is very simple - it's not science.

Peace
evolution is niet science and yet it is taught in science classess
Reply

czgibson
03-02-2006, 08:36 PM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by sonz
evolution is niet science and yet it is taught in science classess
Eh?

What gives you the idea it isn't science?

Have you asked any scientists about that?

Peace
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
sonz
03-02-2006, 08:59 PM
Evolution Is Religion--Not Science

Abstract

The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. The writer has documented in two recent Impact articles1, 2 from admissions by evolutionists that the idea of particles-to-people evolution does not meet the criteria of a scientific theory. There are no evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed, either during human history or in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale.
Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.
Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.3
The question is, just why do they need to counter the creationist message? Why are they so adamantly committed to anti-creationism?
The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and New Age evolutionists may place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man.
The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism—the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and inseparable.4
Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proven to be true.
Of course we can't prove that there isn't a God.5
Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion. The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon, by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that:
Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.6
A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says:
Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.7
It is well known in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!
Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. 8
Another way of saying "religion" is "worldview," the whole of reality. The evolutionary worldview applies not only to the evolution of life, but even to that of the entire universe. In the realm of cosmic evolution, our naturalistic scientists depart even further from experimental science than life scientists do, manufacturing a variety of evolutionary cosmologies from esoteric mathematics and metaphysical speculation. Socialist Jeremy Rifkin has commented on this remarkable game.
Cosmologies are made up of small snippets of physical reality that have been remodeled by society into vast cosmic deceptions.9
They must believe in evolution, therefore, in spite of all the evidence, not because of it. And speaking of deceptions, note the following remarkable statement.
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.10
The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of justso stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn't make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says:
We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.11
A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment of establishment scientists to naturalism. Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says:
And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal—without demonstration—to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.12
Creationist students in scientific courses taught by evolutionist professors can testify to the frustrating reality of that statement. Evolution is, indeed, the pseudoscientific basis of religious atheism, as Ruse pointed out. Will Provine at Cornell University is another scientist who frankly acknowledges this.
As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.13
Once again we emphasize that evolution is not science, evolutionists' tirades notwithstanding. It is a philosophical worldview, nothing more. Another prominent evolutionist comments as follows:
(Evolution) must, they feel, explain everything. . . . A theory that explains everything might just as well be discarded since it has no real explanatory value. Of course, the other thing about evolution is that anything can be said because very little can be disproved. Experimental evidence is minimal.14
Even that statement is too generous. Actual experimental evidence demonstrating true evolution (that is, macroevolution) is not "minimal." It is nonexistent!
The concept of evolution as a form of religion is not new. In my book, The Long War Against God,15 I documented the fact that some form of evolution has been the pseudo-rationale behind every anti-creationist religion since the very beginning of history. This includes all the ancient ethnic religions, as well as such modern world religions as Buddhism, Hinduism, and others, as well as the "liberal" movements in even the creationist religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam).
As far as the twentieth century is concerned, the leading evolutionist is generally considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a "religion without revelation" and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book, he said:
Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth.16
Later in the book he argued passionately that we must change "our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern."17 Then he went on to say that: "the God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought." Therefore, he concluded that "we must construct something to take its place."18
That something, of course, is the religion of evolutionary humanism, and that is what the leaders of evolutionary humanism are trying to do today.
In closing this summary of the scientific case against evolution (and, therefore, for creation), the reader is reminded again that all quotations in the article are from doctrinaire evolutionists. No Bible references are included, and no statements by creationists. The evolutionists themselves, to all intents and purposes, have shown that evolutionism is not science, but religious faith in atheism.
References
  1. Morris, Henry M., "The Scientific Case Against Evolution—Part I," (Impact No. 330, December 2000), pp. i-iv.
  2. Morris, Henry M., "The Scientific Case Against Evolution—Part II," (Impact No. 331, January 2001), pp. i-iv.
  3. Scott, Eugenie, "Fighting Talk," New Scientist (vol. 166, April 22, 2000), p.47. Dr. Scott is director of the anti-creationist organization euphemistically named The National Center for Science Education.
  4. Ericson, Edward L., "Reclaiming the Higher Ground," The Humanist (vol. 60, September/October 2000), p. 30.
  5. Dawkins, Richard, replying to a critique of his faith in the liberal journal, Science and Christian Belief (vol. 7, 1994), p. 47.
  6. Mayr, Ernst, "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought," Scientific American (vol. 283, July 2000), p. 83.
  7. Todd, Scott C., "A View from Kansas on the Evolution Debates," Nature (vol. 401. September 30, 1999), p. 423.
  8. Ruse, Michael, "Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians," National Post (May 13, 2000), p. B-3.
  9. Rifkin, Jeremy, "Reinventing Nature," The Humanist (vol. 58, March/April 1998), p. 24.
  10. Lewontin, Richard, Review of The Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.
  11. Bowler, Peter J., Review of In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169.
  12. Singham, Mark, "Teaching and Propaganda," Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54.
  13. Provine, Will, "No Free Will," in Catching Up with the Vision, Ed. by Margaret W. Rossiter (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), p. S123.
  14. Appleyard, Bryan, "You Asked for It," New Scientist (vol. 166, April 22, 2000), p. 45.
  15. Morris, Henry M., The Long War Against God (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1989), 344 pp.
  16. Huxley, Julian, Essays of a Humanist (New York: Harper and `Row, 1964),
    p. 125.
  17. Ibid., p. 222.
  18. Ibid.
Reply

czgibson
03-02-2006, 09:19 PM
Greetings,

That article is patently absurd and is based on many misunderstandings of evolution, the history of ideas and the scientific method in general. Perhaps educating yourself about what evolution actually is might help you to realise that you've been taken in by creationists who wouldn't know science if it belted them round the head.

Misconceptions about evolutionary biology

Peace
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-17-2013, 11:45 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-10-2010, 12:39 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-22-2010, 11:31 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-10-2006, 04:08 AM
  5. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-20-2006, 07:11 PM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!