Well the Biased Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has taken another side-swipe in its war on non liberal Christianity and creation science while promoting Evolution as proven science.In last nights episode of the TV series Waterloo Road the group providing the money for the new academy being built in the series turns out to be coming from an American group who are 'nutty fundamentalist creationists'. Who are anti-abortion and stem cell research. Who want to push their beliefs upon the children to promote their fundamental standpoint.
I knew where the story was going when this big, brash American character turns up and introduces himself and then promptly prays over the land where the academy foundations were being dug. Of course this sets off alarm bells. Then the American gives a pupil creationist books when she mentions she is interested in fossils and dinosaurs. What they essentially presented were largely correct creationist views. In that belief in age of the earth being 6000 odd years, Noah's flood, dinosaurs are thought to be what medieval mythology calls dragons. However the way it was presented of course made it sound utterly ludicrous to believe in, to logical minds because Darwinian, molecules to man evolution is fact. These are just nutty fundamentalist, religious views that have no merit at all and are secretly trying to push some religious faith view.
It was inevitable that a program about secondary English schools would sooner or later bring up the Evolution/Creation debate. It was also inevitable that any belief other than molecules to man evolution would be presented as dangerous fundamentalism designed to push a faith view that has no merit in 'real' scientific endeavor or place in teaching.
Now I agree that creationism should not be taught in school. Since teachers are invariably not going to support that view or have any real understanding of it. However what should be taught in school is that macro-evolution is not proven, observable fact. Children should not be just told this is fact, they should be taught critical analysis. Be presented with the evidence and allowed to make up their own minds.
A good example of the supposed 'evidence' for evolution is the so called T-Rex link to chickens around in the news at the moment. Now presented the way it is you could be fooled into going, uh ok! but look even a fraction below the surface and the story is very different. Click here and here for a more in depth analysis of this 'evidence'. So the protein is 58% similar to chickens
therefore proving the evolutionary link between dinosaurs and birds. Well, hello, human protein is 81% similar to frogs and no one thinks we 'evolved' from frogs so it is just nonsense to make those assumptions. Also the amount of living creatures that this protein was compared to was limited. This is just a good example of presenting so called evidence when given a little critical thinking turns out to be nothing of the sort. In fact it presents a good case for creationist ages since it is implausible to have tissue survive for 68 million years. Beyond 2.7 million years at 0 degrees C was considered absolute maximum. That is a big margin of error me thinks!Oh well what can one expect from that 'Great' British Institution that is the BBC. Certainly not balanced news reporting or program making it would seem!
5 comments:
I've always argued the idea of percentages of shared DNA being overly significant, is a stupid one... because there is simply so much of the stuff.
DNA is best understood in terms of a language system... and each organism is a library. Now in that library everything might be the same except for one or two books.... but those books are unique to each library and they would contain soooo much information, that despite the common ground there would be significant uniqueness.
One thing I'm always careful about is sticking to the English rendition of the Creation account. Although it is faithful, the English loses some thing s that are important in Hebrew like the tense of certain words and the length of time described.
I have heard several accounts of Genesis by Christians who are scientists... and they do not contradict scripture but tally with hard science.
Recommended reading: Evidence for Truth series by Victor Pierce.
I like the idea that we are descended from a single genetic female source... being proven through Mitochondrial descent in the X chromosome. What I find bizarre is secular science assuming that this Mitochondrial Eve was in turn descended from anothe mitochondrial Eve. To me this is lunacy. There is no evidence, no basis in hard fact for such a claim... you can believe it as a theory... but you would never be able to prove it because the evidence if it ever existed... simply doesn't now. When people talk about this idea, it seems very much to me to be what we call in comics and science fiction a "retcon" (retroactive continuity). Basically, the facts don't fit the theories they have come up with... so they invent a new mythoological theory that backs up their argument.
To me it is quite literally science fiction.
'the English loses some thing s that are important in Hebrew like the tense of certain words and the length of time described.
I have heard several accounts of Genesis by Christians who are scientists... and they do not contradict scripture but tally with hard science.'
I am not quite sure what point you are making here? Are you saying that the bible indicates long periods of time and that therefore tallies with hard science?
Evolutionary Biology often just changes course or invents another theory each time a new piece of evidence is unearthed that contradicts a previously held theory/belief.
Unfortunately this is one of those debates that will never be concluded on either side but we will ultimately get the answer in Heaven!
That is precisely the point I was making. You see many atheists simply use their answers for the question "How?" as an excuse to avoid the much more relevant question of "Why?"
I was simply pointing out that the there are several ways of looking at the creation account in Genesis.
You can take it as a literal 6 day if you wish...
You can assume it to be a divine revelation via vision to Moses over a period of 6 days (how would you explain all the science to a bronze age pensioner?)...
You can use the Hebrew words that we translate as morning, evening and day... to back a longer Creation process...
The important thing is to move people beyond going back to that one question... and getting them on to the importance of the Gospel message. Personally I feel that if a man or woman has a personal relationship with God... then the Lord is able to convict them of anything majorly wrong about their creation... because he has a living dialogue with them.
I just feel it is helpful to take away obstacles people have against coming to faith... by removing the ground that they stand on in order to avoid having to face the real question... and if having different points of view that cover the same truth without being biblically unsound, helps that process... then it is a good thing.
One example is that people often attack the bible for saying that the Sun was made after the Earth. However in the Hebrew, the past tense is used to describe that event. From an eye witness account, the Sun would first be visible from Earth... just as the firmament (steam from creative process) was divided between sea and sky. so there is no clash.
Furthermore, the animal groups that appear... are apparently in the correct scientific order. It's all in the books I mentioned.
Anyway, Ihope you don't feel I'm attacking your viewpoint, I am just sharing other ways of looking at the Creation that are easier to swallow for the scientifically minded... but don't clash with biblical teaching.
Keep up the good work though.
God bless
N
Evolution IS proven science.
And it is not at all 'inevitable' that a series set in a secondary school should use the creationism debate as a storyline: this is the first time it's ever happened.
To my knowledge it's the first time creationism has ever been portrayed in any British tv fiction.
And it's certainly the first time I've ever seen atheist characters portrayed sympathetically and actually prepared to stand up for what they believe in.
To anonymous!
Thank you for your comment, all views are always welcome.
I stated it was inevitable from the point of view that it had not happened yet but was bound to sooner or later considering the hot potato that the issue is currently in the education world.
I also feel that it was inevitable that a balanced view would not be presented and that creationists would be portrayed as nutty, sinister and dangerous types.
I would not argue with your point about an Atheistic character standing up for what they believe. As anyone with a strong opinion should be allowed to do in a democratic society and quite rightly so. However my gripe is that the creationist view is never allowed to be presented fairly and is ALWAYS distorted to the benefit of the opposing view. That is hardly fair or democratic regardless of your viewpoint on the subject.
Finally would you like to qualify your statement: 'Evolution IS proven science.'
What is proven exactly? You cannot simply make such a boundless statement and not provide some supporting evidence based on the scientific method and a definition of what exactly you mean first.
Anyway, I appreciate your comments, thank you.
Post a Comment