A new organisation has emerged in the UK - Centre for Intelligent Design . Its objectives are stated to be as follows:
•promote the professional investigation and public debate of Intelligent Design
•challenge, on the scientific evidence, the neo-Darwinian claim that the development of life is purely the result of undirected forces
•encourage consideration of the wider implications of Intelligent Design.
Showing posts with label Intelligent Design. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Intelligent Design. Show all posts
Friday, 1 October 2010
Michael Behe tour of the UK
Michael Behe will be touring the UK this Autumn 10th-27th November. Check out the website at http://www.darwinordesign.org.uk/
Darwin or Design? - evening meeting 22nd Nov at Westminster Chapel - supported by Premier Radio
And a day Conference in Oxford Brookes University 27th Nov.
Darwin or Design? - evening meeting 22nd Nov at Westminster Chapel - supported by Premier Radio
And a day Conference in Oxford Brookes University 27th Nov.
Thursday, 11 June 2009
Intelligent Design in the Telegraph
An interesting article has recently appeared in the Daily Telegraph about 'biomimicry' - 8th June 2009 by Sanjida O'Connell.
The Gecko for instance has specially adapted feet for climbing, technology that has been put to good use by the Pentagon.
Tuesday, 3 March 2009
Theos / Comres report - intelligent design supporters 'highest educated'
The Theos funded report on attitudes to evolution and creation in society has now been published. It gives a confusing picture, although that didn't stop the Guardian taking one figure out of context to give the spin required by the paper. Guardian news item Theos news item
The report, Faith and Darwin written by Comres not Theos to avoid bias, commented on page 102.
"Despite the decrease of religious practice in the UK and the recent media coverage of issues of science and faith, there is still a core of people who hold to Young Earth Creationism. However, interestingly, the youngest generations and highest educated people show inclinations towards believing in Intelligent Design. Could this be a pointer towards the dominant trend of tomorrow?"
Elsewhere, on pages 18-19, it gave a profile of a typical intelligent design supporter.
"[He is typically] 25 has just completed a master’s degree, believes that the complexity of life on earth can only be explained by Intelligent Design. He believes there is a God or higher power of some sort, though is unwilling to be drawn on whether that is the God his grandmother believes in or some other force. Evolution, he says, is still just a theory that is waiting to be proved or disproved by the evidence. It doesn’t offer a serious challenge to the question of ultimate purpose in life, and does not contradict his view that humans have unique value and significance. He thinks science challenges religious faith, but is happy to live with this tension and remains open-minded about how evolutionary theory and Christianity relate to each other. Unlike his father, he thinks children should be introduced to Intelligent Design in school, but while his grandmother would like to see it taught in science lessons as an alternative to evolution, he agrees with his mother that it is a more appropriate subject for discussion in subjects such as RE."
However, Paul Wolley of Theos continues to promote his belief in theistic evolution, calling on people to carefully weigh the evidence for evolution. It would seem though that many of the best educated have concluded that Darwinian explanations cannot explain all of life.
Furthermore, Theos continue to assert that Darwin's ides have little consequence for theistic belief despite the fact that Darwin's writing, correspondence and acquaintances are complicated and Darwin seemed to have had feet in a number of camps. Darwin for instance seemed to give tacit approval to the activity of T.H. Huxley who was develop a sense of conflict between science and faith while promoting Darwin's work; at least there is little evidence that Darwin did anything to question Huxley.
The report, Faith and Darwin written by Comres not Theos to avoid bias, commented on page 102.
"Despite the decrease of religious practice in the UK and the recent media coverage of issues of science and faith, there is still a core of people who hold to Young Earth Creationism. However, interestingly, the youngest generations and highest educated people show inclinations towards believing in Intelligent Design. Could this be a pointer towards the dominant trend of tomorrow?"
Elsewhere, on pages 18-19, it gave a profile of a typical intelligent design supporter.
"[He is typically] 25 has just completed a master’s degree, believes that the complexity of life on earth can only be explained by Intelligent Design. He believes there is a God or higher power of some sort, though is unwilling to be drawn on whether that is the God his grandmother believes in or some other force. Evolution, he says, is still just a theory that is waiting to be proved or disproved by the evidence. It doesn’t offer a serious challenge to the question of ultimate purpose in life, and does not contradict his view that humans have unique value and significance. He thinks science challenges religious faith, but is happy to live with this tension and remains open-minded about how evolutionary theory and Christianity relate to each other. Unlike his father, he thinks children should be introduced to Intelligent Design in school, but while his grandmother would like to see it taught in science lessons as an alternative to evolution, he agrees with his mother that it is a more appropriate subject for discussion in subjects such as RE."
However, Paul Wolley of Theos continues to promote his belief in theistic evolution, calling on people to carefully weigh the evidence for evolution. It would seem though that many of the best educated have concluded that Darwinian explanations cannot explain all of life.
Furthermore, Theos continue to assert that Darwin's ides have little consequence for theistic belief despite the fact that Darwin's writing, correspondence and acquaintances are complicated and Darwin seemed to have had feet in a number of camps. Darwin for instance seemed to give tacit approval to the activity of T.H. Huxley who was develop a sense of conflict between science and faith while promoting Darwin's work; at least there is little evidence that Darwin did anything to question Huxley.
Sunday, 8 February 2009
Observing the Darwin Zealots - Booker in the Telegraph.
Christopher Booker offers his observations on the enthusiasm shown by adherents to Darwin’s theory in the run up to the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth. Booker too has noticed the analogy between devotion to Darwin and organised religion. Charles Darwin zealots have made science a substitute religion
Booker firstly points out some unresolved problems with Darwin’s theory that are generally ignored or supressed today. He then compares global warming adherents with the Darwinists and comments that “It becomes increasingly obvious that…the Darwinians…are so convinced by the simplicity of their theory that they are unable to recognise how much they do not know - and …their response has been to become ever more fanatically intolerant of anyone who dares question their dogma.”
Furthermore he comments that seeing Richard Owen (the intelligent design proponent who established the Natural History Museum in celebration of God’s handiwork) replaced by Darwin in centre stage in the British Natural History Museum ‘is a warning of what happens when science ceases to be scientific and becomes a substitute religion. The symbolism of the change is more perfect than its perpetrators know.’
Booker firstly points out some unresolved problems with Darwin’s theory that are generally ignored or supressed today. He then compares global warming adherents with the Darwinists and comments that “It becomes increasingly obvious that…the Darwinians…are so convinced by the simplicity of their theory that they are unable to recognise how much they do not know - and …their response has been to become ever more fanatically intolerant of anyone who dares question their dogma.”
Furthermore he comments that seeing Richard Owen (the intelligent design proponent who established the Natural History Museum in celebration of God’s handiwork) replaced by Darwin in centre stage in the British Natural History Museum ‘is a warning of what happens when science ceases to be scientific and becomes a substitute religion. The symbolism of the change is more perfect than its perpetrators know.’
Andrew Sibley
Tuesday, 27 January 2009
David Attenborough in the News
David Attenborough has a new series coming out for the Darwin celebrations, and has been giving some interviews to the press. Today he claims that creationists have been sending hate mail to him for deny God. "They tell me to burn in hell and good riddance" he complains. Attenborough reveals creationist hate mail for not crediting God
There is no excuse for Christians to send hate mail to anyone, not least because Attenborough can milk it for all its worth and avoid drawing attention to the real hate campaign against those who reject the orthodox Darwin dogma - such as has been exposed in the Expelled film. Even those who suggest that children’s beliefs should be respected in the classroom find themselves on the sharp end of the Darwinists’ Doctor Martins, such as Michael Reiss who was booted out of his position from the Royal Society for this reason.
But Attenborough wants us to believe that evolution is a fact not a theory. “Evolution is not a theory; it is a fact, every bit as much as the historical fact that William the Conqueror landed in 1066." I will save the detailed lecture on why this is false, but suffice it to say that scientific findings should always be held tentatively as often fresh data contradicts what has been found before. When considering our unobserved origins we might wish to proceed with extreme caution if one is really a scientist. But Attenborough is promoting Darwinism with devotion that reveals his religious fervour as an evangelist for atheism. For Attenborough, Darwinism just has to be true, or otherwise he might need to think about his responsibility towards a higher power. He freely admits that he had no religious instruction in his upbringing "It never really occurred to me to believe in God - and I had nothing to rebel against, my parents told me nothing whatsoever.’ It shows!
David Attenborough is also in The Times. David Attenborough on Charles Darwin Attenborough finds himself outraged by creationism and intelligent design. He apparently has ‘beef’ with those who want to teach creationism or intelligent design. Noting a recent survey that found that around a quarter of science teachers in state schools want creationism taught alongside evolution in science lessons he comments. “That is terrible. That is really terrible … I don't know about national [disgrace]; it's a human disgrace that you don't recognise the difference between these things,” he adds. A disgrace to whom I wonder?
He is a charming enough fellow and an excellent presenter, in fact many people have commented that they find him to be one of the greatest story tellers on the television. With lots of brilliant photography his programmes are very watchable. But that is all we have from him, charming stories and iconography with little attempt to show in detail every step of the claimed evolutionary pathway.
It is the work of intelligent design supporters that exposes the falsity of evolutionary pathways that Attenborough and his friends want to keep off our screens and out of the classroom. There is some irony that Attenborough’s new programme is called “Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life” (BBC One, 9pm, Sunday, February 1) when the New Scientists has boldly proclaimed 'Darwin is Wrong' on the question of the tree of life. I guess the New Scientist could have timed its front cover a little better, but perhaps Attenborough can tell us which one to believe and include in textbooks? His version or the New Scientist version?
If the Darwinists have their way then science can Rest in Peace for another 150 years with the sacred Darwin religion held sacred in its place.
Andrew Sibley
There is no excuse for Christians to send hate mail to anyone, not least because Attenborough can milk it for all its worth and avoid drawing attention to the real hate campaign against those who reject the orthodox Darwin dogma - such as has been exposed in the Expelled film. Even those who suggest that children’s beliefs should be respected in the classroom find themselves on the sharp end of the Darwinists’ Doctor Martins, such as Michael Reiss who was booted out of his position from the Royal Society for this reason.
But Attenborough wants us to believe that evolution is a fact not a theory. “Evolution is not a theory; it is a fact, every bit as much as the historical fact that William the Conqueror landed in 1066." I will save the detailed lecture on why this is false, but suffice it to say that scientific findings should always be held tentatively as often fresh data contradicts what has been found before. When considering our unobserved origins we might wish to proceed with extreme caution if one is really a scientist. But Attenborough is promoting Darwinism with devotion that reveals his religious fervour as an evangelist for atheism. For Attenborough, Darwinism just has to be true, or otherwise he might need to think about his responsibility towards a higher power. He freely admits that he had no religious instruction in his upbringing "It never really occurred to me to believe in God - and I had nothing to rebel against, my parents told me nothing whatsoever.’ It shows!
David Attenborough is also in The Times. David Attenborough on Charles Darwin Attenborough finds himself outraged by creationism and intelligent design. He apparently has ‘beef’ with those who want to teach creationism or intelligent design. Noting a recent survey that found that around a quarter of science teachers in state schools want creationism taught alongside evolution in science lessons he comments. “That is terrible. That is really terrible … I don't know about national [disgrace]; it's a human disgrace that you don't recognise the difference between these things,” he adds. A disgrace to whom I wonder?
He is a charming enough fellow and an excellent presenter, in fact many people have commented that they find him to be one of the greatest story tellers on the television. With lots of brilliant photography his programmes are very watchable. But that is all we have from him, charming stories and iconography with little attempt to show in detail every step of the claimed evolutionary pathway.
It is the work of intelligent design supporters that exposes the falsity of evolutionary pathways that Attenborough and his friends want to keep off our screens and out of the classroom. There is some irony that Attenborough’s new programme is called “Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life” (BBC One, 9pm, Sunday, February 1) when the New Scientists has boldly proclaimed 'Darwin is Wrong' on the question of the tree of life. I guess the New Scientist could have timed its front cover a little better, but perhaps Attenborough can tell us which one to believe and include in textbooks? His version or the New Scientist version?
If the Darwinists have their way then science can Rest in Peace for another 150 years with the sacred Darwin religion held sacred in its place.
Andrew Sibley
Saturday, 15 November 2008
Support for Michael Reiss from unlikely sources
It is noticeable that many creationists and intelligent design supporters have written in support of Michael Reiss, despite the fact that Reiss claims to be a theistic evolutionist. The latest is a piece in the November issue of Evangelical Times by David Tyler, in which he welcomes Reiss’s call for respectful dialogue in the classroom so that the views of those who hold to different worldviews can be recognised, respected and treated fairly. Reiss has argued that disrespecting those who have different worldviews only turns children away from science and is therefore counter-productive to providing good science education. Many ID supporters and creationists broadly agree with this assertion and therefore welcome calls for respect in the science classroom.
What is also noticeable about the events surrounding Michael Reiss is the lack of comment and support for him from organisations such as the Faraday Institute (FI) and Christians in Science (CiS). A word search on the CiS website for ‘Reiss’ reveals only one entry in an article [1] merely as a mention of Reiss’s book under ‘Further Reading.’ On the FI website no results for Reiss were found.
One may wonder why there is such silence from CiS and FI when Reiss (who is a theistic evolutionist who held an important position) was recently treated so unjustly at the hands of some Fellows of the Royal Society. The article by Michael Poole and comments in the postscript of Denis Alexander’s book Creation or Evolution give some clues. Both quote Augustine, and use it to infer that creationists and intelligent design supporters are ‘disgraceful’, ‘dangerous’ and therefore an embarrassment to the gospel. This gives the appearance that some leaders in CiS and FI do not share Reiss’s calls for respectful dialogue, but instead wish to isolate IDers and creationists by misrepresenting their arguments and disrespecting their worldview. Poole's article has a prominent place on the CiS Home page and he seems to be the spokesman on education policy within the CiS.
I would love to be proved wrong on this, so perhaps if I have misunderstood the silence on Michael Reiss by CiS and FI then I offer my apologies in advance, but they need to demonstrate their support for Reiss and his call for respectful dialogue in the classroom through written articles on their websites to remove doubt.
[1] Michael Poole, 'Creationism, Intelligent Design and Science Education,' School Science Review, (90) 330, p. 123-130, September 2008 (and CiS Website)
http://www.cis.org.uk/assets/files/articles/SSR_Sept_2008_Poole.pdf
Andrew Sibley
What is also noticeable about the events surrounding Michael Reiss is the lack of comment and support for him from organisations such as the Faraday Institute (FI) and Christians in Science (CiS). A word search on the CiS website for ‘Reiss’ reveals only one entry in an article [1] merely as a mention of Reiss’s book under ‘Further Reading.’ On the FI website no results for Reiss were found.
One may wonder why there is such silence from CiS and FI when Reiss (who is a theistic evolutionist who held an important position) was recently treated so unjustly at the hands of some Fellows of the Royal Society. The article by Michael Poole and comments in the postscript of Denis Alexander’s book Creation or Evolution give some clues. Both quote Augustine, and use it to infer that creationists and intelligent design supporters are ‘disgraceful’, ‘dangerous’ and therefore an embarrassment to the gospel. This gives the appearance that some leaders in CiS and FI do not share Reiss’s calls for respectful dialogue, but instead wish to isolate IDers and creationists by misrepresenting their arguments and disrespecting their worldview. Poole's article has a prominent place on the CiS Home page and he seems to be the spokesman on education policy within the CiS.
I would love to be proved wrong on this, so perhaps if I have misunderstood the silence on Michael Reiss by CiS and FI then I offer my apologies in advance, but they need to demonstrate their support for Reiss and his call for respectful dialogue in the classroom through written articles on their websites to remove doubt.
[1] Michael Poole, 'Creationism, Intelligent Design and Science Education,' School Science Review, (90) 330, p. 123-130, September 2008 (and CiS Website)
http://www.cis.org.uk/assets/files/articles/SSR_Sept_2008_Poole.pdf
Andrew Sibley
Saturday, 8 November 2008
Creationism and Intelligent Design in science classes
According to the Guardian twenty-nine per cent of teachers believe that creationism and intelligent design should be taught as science. This figure comes from an online survey of attitudes to teaching evolution in the UK conducted by Teachers TV. Nearly half of the respondents said they believed that excluding alternatives to evolution was counter-productive and would alienate pupils from science.
Read the Guardian article - Creationism should be taught as science, say 29% of teachers
Read the Guardian article - Creationism should be taught as science, say 29% of teachers
Thursday, 11 September 2008
Professor Reiss and teaching creationism in schools
Professor Reiss, director of education at the Royal Society, has again argued that science teachers should allow discussions about creationism and intelligent design in schools. Banning such teaching he argued is counterproductive and alienates children from science.
"My experience after having tried to teach biology for 20 years is if one simply gives the impression that such children are wrong, then they are not likely to learn much about the science…"
Reiss is also an ordained Church of England minister. Speaking at the British Association, Festival of Science in Liverpool he commented that science teachers should consider creationism as an alternative world view, and not see it as a "misconception." He commented that good teaching is about respecting the students' views. "I do believe in taking seriously and respectfully the concerns of students who do not accept the theory of evolution while still introducing them to it."
Prof John Bryant, who is a retired professor of cell and molecular biology at the University of Exeter, agreed that alternatives could be admissible for discussion in science classes. "If the class is mature enough and time permits, one might have a discussion on the alternative viewpoints [to evolution]." (Although he doesn't think intelligent design or creationism should be placed on an equal footing).
Reiss was also critical of Prof Richard Dawkins for saying that teaching creationism is akin to child abuse. "This is an inappropriate and insulting use of the phrase child abuse as anybody who has ever worked [in this area] knows."
Professor Reiss is not a creationist, but a one-time 'evangelist' for Darwinism who now recognises that respectful dialogue is the way forward with the present impasse between evolution and creation. I think this is a welcome development that can only increase understanding of the complexity of biological life for both sides.
Read the articles in the press
Daily Telegraph article
Times online article
Reiss - Guardian science blog
Guardian article
Andrew S
"My experience after having tried to teach biology for 20 years is if one simply gives the impression that such children are wrong, then they are not likely to learn much about the science…"
Reiss is also an ordained Church of England minister. Speaking at the British Association, Festival of Science in Liverpool he commented that science teachers should consider creationism as an alternative world view, and not see it as a "misconception." He commented that good teaching is about respecting the students' views. "I do believe in taking seriously and respectfully the concerns of students who do not accept the theory of evolution while still introducing them to it."
Prof John Bryant, who is a retired professor of cell and molecular biology at the University of Exeter, agreed that alternatives could be admissible for discussion in science classes. "If the class is mature enough and time permits, one might have a discussion on the alternative viewpoints [to evolution]." (Although he doesn't think intelligent design or creationism should be placed on an equal footing).
Reiss was also critical of Prof Richard Dawkins for saying that teaching creationism is akin to child abuse. "This is an inappropriate and insulting use of the phrase child abuse as anybody who has ever worked [in this area] knows."
Professor Reiss is not a creationist, but a one-time 'evangelist' for Darwinism who now recognises that respectful dialogue is the way forward with the present impasse between evolution and creation. I think this is a welcome development that can only increase understanding of the complexity of biological life for both sides.
Read the articles in the press
Daily Telegraph article
Times online article
Reiss - Guardian science blog
Guardian article
Andrew S
Monday, 7 July 2008
Ekklesia, Education and Intelligent Design
Trying to understand Ekklesia is not easy. One minute they are advocating inclusion and dialogue across faith boundaries, the next they are engaged in a political campaign to close down debate in faith education. Ekklesia formed out of ‘Workshop’ in 2002; they claim it is an independent theological training programme of the Anvil Trust. The Anvil Trust wants ‘inclusive Christian learning in today’s diverse world.’ Ekklesia state they want ‘freedom of expression,’ ‘non-compulsion in religion and belief’ the ‘engagement of theology with science and culture’ and ‘respectful engagement with those of other faiths.’
Why then are they so antagonistic to those who believe in divine creation or intelligent design, and are thus campaigning to restrict religious freedom in the classroom? Why are they seeking to deny human rights to those of traditional faith communities, I wonder? By campaigning along side the British Humanist Association, Ekklesia seem to be advocating a specifically secular humanist agenda in education by engaging in political activity against Christians, Jews and Muslims. And they accuse others of being ideologically driven. What of Ekklesia’s ideological motivation? I would suggest it is really metaphysical naturalism. Ekklesia comment that.
“Ekklesia has argued for some time…that ‘intelligent design’ is a serious category mistake and a corrosive force in both theological and scientific discourses. It brings the proper engagement of religion and science into disrepute, and it benefits those who wish to pursue dubious ideological agendas at the expense of a more complex common search for truth and wisdom.”[1]
I have previously commented why this is wrong, not least because it seeks to limit what God can and cannot do. It also limits what science can study and assumes a priori the truth of metaphysical naturalism. But I think part of the problem with Ekklesia can be seen from the following statement.
Why then are they so antagonistic to those who believe in divine creation or intelligent design, and are thus campaigning to restrict religious freedom in the classroom? Why are they seeking to deny human rights to those of traditional faith communities, I wonder? By campaigning along side the British Humanist Association, Ekklesia seem to be advocating a specifically secular humanist agenda in education by engaging in political activity against Christians, Jews and Muslims. And they accuse others of being ideologically driven. What of Ekklesia’s ideological motivation? I would suggest it is really metaphysical naturalism. Ekklesia comment that.
“Ekklesia has argued for some time…that ‘intelligent design’ is a serious category mistake and a corrosive force in both theological and scientific discourses. It brings the proper engagement of religion and science into disrepute, and it benefits those who wish to pursue dubious ideological agendas at the expense of a more complex common search for truth and wisdom.”[1]
I have previously commented why this is wrong, not least because it seeks to limit what God can and cannot do. It also limits what science can study and assumes a priori the truth of metaphysical naturalism. But I think part of the problem with Ekklesia can be seen from the following statement.
'… biblical literalists' Simon Barrow comments 'turn God into some sort of super-being, rather than the wholly unconditioned source, flow and destiny of all being and becoming – a very different notion, and central to the developed monotheistic traditions.' [1]
There seems to be a move away from a personal God who is revealed to mankind in Jesus Christ, in favour of some sort of vague theism at best, pantheism at worst. The Bible infact invites comparison between God and man through his creation in the image of God, and this is integral to the theology of the incarnation. Barrow calls for churches to engage in science and religion education to 'discern' the problems with creationism and ID commenting that.
“This is necessary not just to ensure that people are equipped to discern the real problems with movements like ID and creationism, but in order to negotiate the ethical, pastoral, political, economic, spiritual and theological challenges of new technologies, the bio-sciences, genomics and many other disciplines reshaping our world and our condition. The real task ahead of us is not defensive, it is profoundly creative.”[1]
Firstly, there is also some irony that Simon Barrow sees human endeavour in science in bio-sciences and genomics as ‘creative’ while denying the direct creativity of God in nature.
But there is also a subtle, but important distinction between a belief in human centred progress and belief in divine grace or providence that is at work in the world. All that we do as Christians, who are involved in science, must be done within God’s grace. Doing science as human centred progress is arrogant and in effect Faustian science. Such ‘progress’ has resulted in many mistakes through history and led to post modernism with its great distrust of science. There is some irony that Ekklesia, who say they are seeking to develop faith in a ‘post-Christendom’ world are engaged in propping up the failure of modernism in science.
There is also irony in that Ekklesia seek to deny human rights in education while claiming to be for education and human rights. Ekkeslia have no understanding that metaphysical naturalism is in effect ‘dumbing down’ science, because it seeks to teach one narrow philosophy as ‘fact’ and prevent children from thinking for themselves. This is a Platonic conception of education (from Plato’s Republic) based on a rigid class structure where only a small group should be allowed to think for themselves, the majority should be taught to accept facts sufficient to enable them to become competent warriors or productive workers. Karl Popper in Open Society and its Enemies noted that Platonism and Marxism were essentially tyranical and opposed to open societies. Is Ekklesia also opposed to an open society through its political activity against one section of Christianity? I wonder?
[1] Simon Barrow, Theology, science and the problem of ID, Ekklesia.
http://ekklesia.co.uk/node/6707
“This is necessary not just to ensure that people are equipped to discern the real problems with movements like ID and creationism, but in order to negotiate the ethical, pastoral, political, economic, spiritual and theological challenges of new technologies, the bio-sciences, genomics and many other disciplines reshaping our world and our condition. The real task ahead of us is not defensive, it is profoundly creative.”[1]
Firstly, there is also some irony that Simon Barrow sees human endeavour in science in bio-sciences and genomics as ‘creative’ while denying the direct creativity of God in nature.
But there is also a subtle, but important distinction between a belief in human centred progress and belief in divine grace or providence that is at work in the world. All that we do as Christians, who are involved in science, must be done within God’s grace. Doing science as human centred progress is arrogant and in effect Faustian science. Such ‘progress’ has resulted in many mistakes through history and led to post modernism with its great distrust of science. There is some irony that Ekklesia, who say they are seeking to develop faith in a ‘post-Christendom’ world are engaged in propping up the failure of modernism in science.
There is also irony in that Ekklesia seek to deny human rights in education while claiming to be for education and human rights. Ekkeslia have no understanding that metaphysical naturalism is in effect ‘dumbing down’ science, because it seeks to teach one narrow philosophy as ‘fact’ and prevent children from thinking for themselves. This is a Platonic conception of education (from Plato’s Republic) based on a rigid class structure where only a small group should be allowed to think for themselves, the majority should be taught to accept facts sufficient to enable them to become competent warriors or productive workers. Karl Popper in Open Society and its Enemies noted that Platonism and Marxism were essentially tyranical and opposed to open societies. Is Ekklesia also opposed to an open society through its political activity against one section of Christianity? I wonder?
[1] Simon Barrow, Theology, science and the problem of ID, Ekklesia.
http://ekklesia.co.uk/node/6707
See also:
ISSR Statement falls back on Old Dogmas
http://www.csm.org.uk/news.php?viewmessage=99
Ekklesia tries to undermine Intelligent Design Initiative
http://www.csm.org.uk/news.php?viewmessage=70
http://www.csm.org.uk/news.php?viewmessage=99
Ekklesia tries to undermine Intelligent Design Initiative
http://www.csm.org.uk/news.php?viewmessage=70
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)