Saturday, May 21, 2011

Creationism, Islamism and the myopia of the National Secular Society

The Department for Education has deemed both Creationism and Islamism to be beyond the pale as far running a ‘free school’ is concerned.

Creationism: the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being; associated with Intelligent Design: the claim that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection (Wikipedia).

Islamism: a set of ideologies holding that Islam is not only a religion but also a political system; the enforcement of sharia (Islamic law) on Muslims; of pan-Islamic political unity; and of the elimination of non-Muslim, particularly western military, economic, political, social, or cultural influences in the Muslim world (Wikipedia).

His Grace does not usually quote from Wikipedia, for obvious reasons. But for the purposes of this post, these definitions will suffice. Essentially, applications to establish an academy which proposes to teach Creationism as scientific theory will be rejected, as will applications which intend to undermine the principles of liberal democracy.

A moment of jubilation from the National Secular Society caught His Grace’s eye, when they were publicly referring to lobbying meetings they had held with the Department for Education during which they appear to have been assured that no new free schools would be permitted to teach either Creationism as science or Islamism as citizenship. These restrictions seemed eminently sensible, but His Grace wondered at the correlation of the two prohibitions, and so entered into a little dialogue with the NSS. He asked if these two beliefs had somehow been equated, to which the following response was received:

They denied that they were ‘equated’, but confirmed that these were the only two prohibitions stipulated by the DfE. His Grace responded that the juxtaposition implies correlation: the intention to teach either automatically bars one from opening a free school. The NSS replied:

To which His Grace responded:

And there was silence.

One can perhaps understand why the NSS is obsessively prioritising its lobbying efforts on the eradication of Creationism from the science lab and Islamism from Citizenship classes, but it is awfully narrow and shortsighted of them to do so, not least because it is not at all clear how a school’s teaching of either can be monitored effectively. Ofsted visit every 4-5 years, during which an entire cohort of children will have passed through their compulsory secondary education. And it doesn’t take long at all to instill a particular belief perspective or inculcate a political worldview. As the Jesuits are wont to say: “Give me the child until he is seven and I will show you the man.”

There is a curious and irreconcilable tension between the DfE’s desire to devolve and liberalise (indeed, abolish) the National Curriculum – encouraging free schools to forge their own – and the simultaneous desire to impose a National Curriculum on the vast majority of schools.

If Creationism and Islamism are to be banned, by what rationale is the DfE permitting the establishment of new academies founded upon ‘breathing philosophy’, the principles of sharia or extremist (ie intolerant) atheism?

But let us set aside Religious Studies for a moment and consider the History syllabus. Is it not something of a contradiction that an autonomous free school should simultaneously have imposed upon it a standardised national history syllabus which is to be written by someone vetted and approved by the Secretary of State?

And what is applicable for History must a fortiori be applicable to Religious Studies. Mr Gove cannot have it both ways. Either one trusts parents and teachers or one does not. Either one is prescriptively imposing a centralised national curriculum or one is not.

And if this Secretary of State is permitted by Act of Parliament to demand that academies teach a ‘Right-wing’ or an ‘Empire’ view of history, or prioritise the Christian traditions and foundations of the nation, or propagate a sceptical view of man-made global warming, then his successors will be endowed with that very same authority to ensure the teaching of whatever leftist, globalist, multi-faith, multi-cultural or ‘environmentalist’ creed he or she deems appropriate for the next generation of children.

When the NSS rejoice in their apparent success at the eradication of Creationists and Islamists from the classroom, one has to wonder at their level of comprehension of the complexities and their awareness of the reality: Creationism does not need to be taught in the laboratory for it to be inculcated as truth; Islamism does not need to be taught as Citizenship for it to be instilled in the mind of the child as fact. Students may be inducted into either of these ‘philosophies’ through the school’s ethos – a Greek word meaning custom, nature or disposition, referring to the characteristic spirit or attitudes of community.

What if a Christian school agrees with the DfE that Creationism does indeed not belong on the Biology syllabus, but then inducts children into believing that Religious Studies and the daily act of collective worship are of far greater significance than any other aspect of the curriculum? What if a Muslim school eschews Islamism, yet inculcates in every taught subject the supremacy of Mohammed and the infallibility Qur’an?

In what sense have either Creationism or Islamism been ‘defeated’?

If state education is to be handed to autonomous groups of parents and teachers, the state must retain the power to propagate its history, traditions and culture. If it abdicates that responsibility, we risk producing entire generations of children who will grow up ignorant of the origins of our language, literature and the art and science of our civilisation. Islamism is indeed a threat to our way of life. But Creationism?


Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have yet to hear a credible scientific theory ... by which I mean a realistic biochemical mechanism in all its necessary details ... as to how evolution actually happened. The idea of a supernatural creation, which while not strictly "science" in the modern understanding of the word, is still more believable than the massive assumptions of evolution.

21 May 2011 at 12:39  
Anonymous Melissa Brown said...

Youre dead right to point out that RE, collective worship and the teaching of the supremacy of Mohammed and the infallibility Qur’an are all ways in which children can be indoctinated, not only faith schools, but also in community schools.

But I don't think the NSS think either creationism or Islamism have been defeated. But I'm not suprised they're pleased to see the Department for Education deciding that groups advocating such crap are going to be prevented from opening free schools. As a christian, so am I.

21 May 2011 at 12:47  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well done NSS keeping Darwinian evolution in the class room. Darwinian evolution is the biggest single cause of racism in this country.

Why do you think that soccer fans do monkey chants at football matches?

21 May 2011 at 12:52  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Hmmm... Surely by teaching about Islamism, it is easier to tear it down? Surely teaching that creationism isn't necessarily Biblical and that most Christian denominations accept evolution as a valid scientific theory would eliminate a great portion of anti-Christian prejudice?

When I agree with my enemies is when I am most likely to question my beliefs.

21 May 2011 at 13:02  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Denying the ability to undermine the principles of liberal democracy is more about enshrining their principles above all else.

This is what makes our sham democracy a dictatorship of same choice party politics.

21 May 2011 at 13:07  
Blogger MrTinkles said...

Another good one, Your Grace...
As both a Biologist and a Christian (and therefore someone who cannot exist, according to Sam Harris!) I am more than comfortable with Creationism not being taught as scientific theory and as a human being I'm comfortable with Islamism not being taught as anything at all!
The NSS (bless 'em) see things along the lines of "Religion=Bad" and therefore the reason they supplied you with just silence is that in their minds the two are in fact equated; Creationism and Islamism are both "religious" and therefore by definition bad!
The merits of a particular position or philosophy are not what concerns them; just whether that philosophy emanates (or claims to) from God.
As for the effectiveness of the "ban", I think you're correct to ask but I don't think the NSS know or care.

21 May 2011 at 13:17  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

Darwinian evolution is the biggest single cause of racism in this country.

I don't know about Darwinian evolution being the biggest cause of racism, but it has certainly been used as a mighty convincing excuse for it.

The problem the truth has, is that when literally taken religious ideas about creationism, are taken as the counter-argument to Darwinian Evolution, all ignorantly blinkered hell breaks loose.

I think we can take as fact, that the world and virtually everything on it was not made in 6 days, and that Darwin's Theory of Evolution by natural selection, has so many scientifically proven holes in it, that it effectively no longer exists as science at all.

DTofE has become no more, and no better then a religion, based on absolutely no tangible scientific evidence, or proof whatsoever.

Indeed creationism of some kind would seem to have more scientific credibility then DTofE, if for no other reason then that DTofE has NONE AT ALL.

Scientists will tell you that things do not get more complicated or organized over time, they become more simple, unless intelligent design is some how at play.


Evolutionists have never yet been able to show that a new species is formed, or derived from another never mind as some kind of independent natural, or wholly terrestrial process.

Also many very well respected geologists are throwing much doubt on the idea that this planet is some 4.5 billion years old. Many are now stating that an age of only 1-2 billion years is far more likely. This type of age means that evolution simply does not have enough time on its hands to go from green sludge to green slug, never mind to a fully conscious human being.

IMO, it is infinitely more likely that mankind still has no real idea how he came into being, still less why he seems to be the only creature on earth that has thought to ask this question.

It is perfectly possible, indeed likely that mankind came here from somewhere else, or interbreed with something from somewhere else, or was brought into being, along with all other species of animal and plant, by something from somewhere else. God if you like.

Whether this entity, or group of entities also created everything else is a different matter. However in a sense if this/these so called God/Gods created us it must have also created everything else, simply because if we were not here to see and sense the universe it would not actually exist at all anyway.

Anyway if some form of much higher intelligence never existed then who do you think assigned myself to this thankless task, as well as drew up my contract of employment?

Quite frankly I can't remember who he or she was either, it was after all a very long time ago. However something must have done so, otherwise I would not be here, and you lot would be aimlessly, and rather dangerously drifting all over the unknowable cosmos.

21 May 2011 at 13:39  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

Creationism is the product of ignorance. It's nothing more nourishing to an enquiring mind than a diet of Big Macs and Chicken nuggets is to a healthy human body.

The NSS correlation of Islamic 'teaching' and the teaching of creationism as 'science' is there simply because Jews and Christians are less likely to engage in murderous rampage for saying that their books are wrong for believing that their god is the master creator.

Unlike the other two, there is no desire within Islam to re-interpret the contents of a 6th century Koran. There is no room for peaceful discussion or debate on the role of Allah in the creation of everything. Yet creationist belief is the same whether Christian, Jew or Muslim - So it appears after all, that there is no difference between any of the religions. They are as illogical as each other.

Christians, Muslims and Jews intent on peddling within the state education system, the crazy and delusional lies of creationism as scientific truths, are guilty of a crime against humanity. As far as I am concerned, they should all be regarded with deep suspicion and tolerated only as foolishness ever should be.

If adults in later life wish to experiment with the science versus creation arguments that's one thing - imposing the concept intelligent design without foundation on the young is criminally insane.

21 May 2011 at 14:12  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Perhaps the prevailing ethos is a problem in the way it tends to make an idol of "Darwinism" or any other part of the great field of information acquired by observation and experiment and connected by the current but passing (and sometimes obsolescent and contradictory) set of theories and conjectures; and which tends to neglect the guiding truths about evolution, the universe, this world and the place in it of the human being which can be found in the opening chapters of the Book of Genesis and later canonical books of the Bible.

In the early days of the development of scientific method, Francis Bacon had interesting things to say about such idols.

21 May 2011 at 14:16  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

When confronted with the extremes of Islamism it is no surprise that the Western mind, struggling to come to terms with an alien ideology, should grasp at the idea that Islamism is a wicked misinterpretation of Islam, and that true Islam must be a benign religion similar to Christianity. But, Islam and Islamism are one and the same. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the Turkish Prime Minister, is in no doubt…

‘These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.’

…and neither is the apostate from Islam, Wafa Sultan:

‘Islam is not a religion. Islam is a very dangerous political ideology … There is no such thing as radical Islam and regular Islam or spiritual Islam ... There is only one Islam.’

21 May 2011 at 14:32  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

Evolution by natural selection may be accepted science, but it is not scientifically proven.

Please remember that the vast majority of scientists are not biological ones. Indeed if most of them knew on what kind of flimsy evidence Darwinian Evolution was actually based, they would laugh at the idea that it was based on science at all.

There exists NO EVIDENCE at all that over time one species turns into another species, by natural selection alone or by the use of any other known method.

This process has not been duplicated either in a laboratory or in the natural environment. It has not been shown to have happen at all anywhere on this or any other planet under natural or any other conditions.

Biologists do not even have a credible or otherwise theory as to how or why a species of plant or animal changes from one to another.

Evolution by natural selection is therefore not science it is a bad theory which has created an equally bad religiously inclined DOGMA.

This of course does not mean that the world and everything on it today was created in 6 days or even 6 million of them. However I hope I have gone some way in reminding people that Darwinian Evolution has gone no further in conclusively showing us all how we consciously arrived at this place, any more or any less then ancient scripture.

The truth is we as a species, do not know much about anything at all worth knowing, still less about who , or why we are, then we did 200,000 or more years ago, and very possible far less.

21 May 2011 at 14:54  
Anonymous len said...

Atlas shrugged ,
You have beaten me to it!. Evolution is a theory, after all if you don`t believe in a Creator you have to come up with something , don`t you?.

However, I believe God is right about how the world came into being and when it was created .
He was there, He said so,I believe Him.

21 May 2011 at 15:07  
Anonymous graham wood said...

Dreadnaught said:
"Creationism is the product of ignorance."

This rash statement is a recycled version of 'The fool has said in his heart there is no God.

On the contrary creation (ism) is the exact opposite of ignorance and the direct result of revelation seen in the natural world, which in turn is corroborated by the Biblical witness. Belief in God's creative act is therefore enlightenment.
Atheists have never been able to explain where matter originates, though they have many theories.
Likewise they have never been able to explain the existence of indisputable and constantly observed phenomena - Beauty, love, self consciousness, mind, conscience, rationality and a moral consciousness.
Thus Scripture affirms:
"Because that which may be know of God is manifest in them, for God has showed it unto them .... therefore they are without excuse"
If Dreadnaught has an explanation for the existence of matter or these other phenomena - do give us the benefit of your wisdom.

21 May 2011 at 15:13  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Here we go again. Can you not see that it is religion in any of its whacky flavours that is the problem? Faith schools are an anathema in a modern democratic society. They are simply a throwback to a bygone age. All religions rely on indoctrination of the young and vulnerable children are exposed to myth and superstition portrayed as fact and that is unethical. The NSS with its meagre resources plays an important role in combating religious encroachment on the secular State as well as countering religious privilege and I am proud to be a long time member.

21 May 2011 at 15:56  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

Your only argument is - 'it's in the book - so it is true!'

This is no argument at all and until you can come up with something better you are quite at liberty to carry on living in your fools paradise -If you get sick don't send for a doctor send for a faith healer - there's plenty around.

You say atheists have never been able to explain where matter comes from,as if you have the key to the answer; and this is where your philosophy falls apart - neither do you - show me any reference in your book that can explain quantum physics in a way understandable to a layman, because that is the equivalent of what you are asking of me. Myth and Legend versus explainable science? - get over yourself.

Men of Science are not as arrogant as men of religion. The simple answer to your question is I (we) don't know yet and neither do you, but science is getting closer to explaining what is there.

We would not know as much as we do if we simply said 'god made it - end of!'


21 May 2011 at 15:57  
Blogger welshguru said...

Truth is dear ones no one can prove 'divine creation' or 'evolution' as none of us were there. It's all a matter of faith and atheist have more 'faith' than creationists. At least christians believe someone made something out of nothing as opposed to nothing making something out of nothing. You want secular logic, you take your pick.

21 May 2011 at 16:07  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

welshguru said:-

Truth is dear ones no one can prove 'divine creation' or 'evolution' as none of us were there -


Evolutional change is going on all the time and this has been proven ad-infinitum - we are are witnessing it now if you care to look - it just happens to take place first at the micro level. You can't be unaware of the biological changes that take in certain bacteria that have evolved to now be immune to previously effective anti-biotics?

May be some of our creationist friends can explain why their big G created these parasites in the first place. Oh but of course - he did it to punish or test little children by infecting them with all manner of unwelcome diseases - nice chap!

21 May 2011 at 16:31  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

YOur Grace
I think it would be worth asking the NSS how many members it has. I have asked them twice and they ignore my emails. On whose behalf do they speak? On whose behalf do they get constantly quoted by the media? I suspect they would have less influence if we knew how many paid up members they had? I imagine it would be fewer than paid up Methodists.

21 May 2011 at 16:57  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Dreadnaught 15:57_If that exclamation gives you satisfaction so be it.

But most reasonable people know very well that men and women of science can be no less arrogant than can those of religion; and these are not mutually exclusive categories.

One difference between the one sort of activity and results which is often thought and spoken of as "science" and the other sort, "religion", is that religion has something important to say about failings such as arrogance. Some can see that the opening chapters of the Bible take that as a starting point; the remainder of the canonical Bible is an elaboration. And some may see, and always have, that what those books are about, from beginning to end, is the continuing evolution of the created world and of the Sons of Adam and Daughters of Eve.

The men and women who know of both "science" and "religion" will know what that means.

The paradox is that what goes by the name of "Darwin's" theory of evolution, or modern theories based on astrophysics or other observations and experiments, is taken by some as a refutation of what has been given in the form of the Bible and by others as making possible an expansion, enlargement and deepening of understanding.

21 May 2011 at 17:12  
Anonymous Bede said...

The word 'Creationism' needs to be carefully and clearly defined. Christians believe that God created the physical universe, and that therefore He can be called the Creator.

But 'Creationism' seems to have developed in the USA in the 1920s, and involves the belief that the earth is only some 6000 years old (and that no evolution has occurred). Their beliefs about this largely derive from Archbishop Ussher, who is hardly considered a major theologian by anyone today.

This form of 'Creationism' has never been proclaimed as a fundamental Christian belief by any major orthodox and traditional Christian Church, and was the belief of most of mankind until it was realised that the age of the Earth is far greater than previously thought.

21 May 2011 at 17:27  
Blogger English Viking said...


No one has the foggiest about the age of the Earth. That is a fact.

21 May 2011 at 17:43  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Can we have a roll call?

21 May 2011 at 18:20  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

No one has the foggiest about the age of the Earth. That is a fact.

4.5 billion years seems to be the current agreed estimate based on isotopic depletion levels in certain earth rocks compared to lunar samples.
Is the fog lifting a little for you Viking?

21 May 2011 at 18:27  
Anonymous len said...

Evolution is not a single science which can be studied in a laboratory, but a whole list of beliefs as long as infinity.

Belief no 1, the Earth appeared out of 'nothing' and so on.......

Unfortunately neither the Biblical Creation Model nor the Evolution Model can be subjected to the normal scientific experimental processes. They are both belief systems.

In order to have a intelligent discussion about either Creation or Evolution, an unprejudiced person will have to abandon concepts that science has "proved Evolution."

21 May 2011 at 18:33  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

English Viking said...
No one has the foggiest about the age of the Earth. That is a fact."

Now I'm rolling about laughting!

There are two variants of Creationism. The one outlined by Mr Cranmer and the one espoused by those who hold everything came into being 6,000 years ago.

One can believe in a creator without fully understanding how we came into being. But we can enquire and search.

The 'big bang' and what came after, is so marvelous and mysterious an event, and the evolution of the universe, life and intelligent human kind, so awsome as to leave no doubt in my mind about a creator God.

However, theory or no, Darwin started an important journey of investigation into God's creation. As have other scientists who seek to understand the beauty of our world and universe.

The choice is a happy accident, randon good fortune because of an infinity of chances in the universe or universes; or a creator.

Faith and science do not have to be mutually exclusive - now do they?

21 May 2011 at 18:37  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Among the mischiefs which an understanding of the Bible may help to counter are false dichotomies such as can be implied by the usage "faith and science".

EV is not mistaken in mentioning "No one has the foggiest about the age of the Earth. That is a fact."

And there is much else which has been given out as science based knowledge which is less worthy of serious acceptance than the time-line worked out by the good Archbishop Ussher, whose results need not be scorned for their limitations any more than Descartes' or Newton's.

21 May 2011 at 19:14  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Mr J said ...

"EV is not mistaken in mentioning "No one has the foggiest about the age of the Earth. That is a fact.""

Oh, please, don't encourage this nonsense! It discredits christian scientists. Of course we have a notion about the age of the earth and the universe!

Stop being silly. God may has brought the universe and the earth and all living creatures into existance in a moment 6,000 years ago and made it all appear as if it were a 14 billion year old process. Or, it really is a slow unfolding, characturised by design and the shaping of miraculous chance. If so it is no less marvelous and studying it points to a creator who had purpose and design, and who even used one-off events, in bringing us into being.

21 May 2011 at 19:39  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Dodo 19:39

1) EV will, of courses, answer for himself if he wishes. But your mentioning "...christian scientists...we have a notion" seems to mean that you, Dodo, include yourself among christians who are scientists (which is the same thing as scientists who are christians?). Lower case so presumably not an adherent of Mary Baker Eddy. Well and good, and you may therefore be able to recognise my reference to the limitations of Descartes and Newton.

2) "God... has brought the universe and the earth and all living creatures into existance... points to a creator who had purpose and design, and who even used one-off events, in bringing us into being." To my mind, that is not in dispute here.

3) You are probably aware that Archbishop Ussher was of the Anglican Church in Ireland, and that at the time of his writing, Galileo's work was still on the Index of the Roman Church and Giordano Bruno had been condemned by the Inquisition in 1600.

4) Consideration of the validity and deficiency of Ussher's chronology need not be prejudiced by the knowledge that in 1626 he was party to a document which expressed the opinion: "The religion of the papists is superstitious and idolatrous; their faith and doctrine erroneous and heretical; their church in respect of both, apostatical; to give them therefore a toleration, or to consent that they may freely exercise their religion, and profess their faith and doctrine, is a grievous sin."

21 May 2011 at 20:23  
Blogger English Viking said...


Measuring time by isotopic depletion depends upon a uniform rate of decay. A MASSIVE assumption.

Oooh. Now you know how stupid a system that is.

I wasn't advocating one particular age over another, I was stating a fact; no-one knows how old the Earth is, excepting God, of course.


Is it your mission in life to reply to every post of mine? You are becoming obsessive. BTW I'm not surprised that you don't believe the Bible on this matter, that is your consistent position on almost everything.

Any news on the infant baptism thing? No?

21 May 2011 at 20:34  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

Viking - you simply don't understand the subject.

21 May 2011 at 21:05  
Blogger English Viking said...


Yes, that's right. I have no idea how old the Earth is. Neither do you.

You won't deny the need for a uniform rate of decay though, will you?

21 May 2011 at 21:21  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Thank you Your Grace, for bringing forward this topic.

We should take this Min of Ed person and sit him down in a few of OUR schools - both better and worse. Let it be him himself: he won't object if he really believes in lib'rul democracy. Then let him play the role of pupil for a course or two, and work through the curriculum as the children do. Which is to say, let him walk in their sandals, rather than imposing his will.

Let a few parents do the same, including those who want freedom from his diktats. Let us force him to compare his results with theirs. Indeed, let a cross-section of parents and grandparents supervise the whole exercise.

As for this NSS affair - if it's wielding enough power to sway the euSSR's Min of Ed., we have a right to see not only the number of members, but their academic qualifications; let's know who's funding them, and the source of those funds; and let's see how much they contribute to what, so as to get their way.

Thus let them prove that they're not all poachers...the breed that sets traps for lesser animals. We Gamekeepers need to protect our property; and we didn't elect the NSS or the euSSR to do it for us.

21 May 2011 at 22:54  
Anonymous non mouse said...

P.S: An exercise such as that I suggest for the Min of Ed and parents could be done without their attending or disrupting classes - electronic monitoring systems permit that.

21 May 2011 at 22:59  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

I have always thought about it along these lines. I am but a naive child, so I could easily be mistaken theologically, but it makes sense to me...

God is all knowing and all powerful. Whatever is logically possible is possible for God. He is logic and He is love and He is goodness; all of these things are defined as relative to Him.

Now God could do whatever He wanted (so long as it is in his nature i.e. logical, loving and good) and know the exact consequences down to a subatomic level. If He is to create a world where we are free to know Him and love Him, there is no reason why He couldn't simply create the rules and allow the Universe to play everything out.

Why would He create a ready made world when He could simply start it off with the right rules? Wouldn't it show His glory more that He can manipulate the Universe billions of years in advance to get such outcomes. Creating the Universe as is seems to imply that He couldn't create it from scratch.

Not only this, but by creating the Universe as is scientifically believed, it explains why we have natural disasters. If it weren't for continental shift we wouldn't have land mass. If it weren't for the great oceans, rain would be sparse and plantlife non-existent. If it weren't for volcanoes then there would be little variation in the types of rock. All of these cause natural disasters, but without them, humans would never have evolved. In fact, if there were no trials and tribulations in life then we would never have advanced past basic life: we wouldn't need to. To create the Universe as is just seems cruel.

This is why I believe that not only is there is no reason for a Christian to object to the Old Universe theory on theological grounds, but that it is preferable to the Young Universe theory.

One cannot use the Bible to derive scientific fact. The Bible is all truth, but the types of truth vary. Some are historical, some are moral, and some are spiritual. It was not written for the purpose of telling us how the Universe works, just why it's there and how to live in it. Genesis creation is allegorical like Jonah, Job or any of Jesus's parables.

21 May 2011 at 23:21  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Viki - answered Infant Baptism hours ago. Do keep up.

I answer your posts because they are so stupid as to be funny and it constitutes light entertainment.

So you take the Book of Genesis literally do you? The age of the earth being determined by the generations listed in the Bible? Forget all the science? Of course there is no precise age known for the earth - a couple of years either side of 4.54 billion years will do.

Mr J - I really have no idea who Mr Ussher was or any knowledge of his attack on Rome. If he believed the planet was 6,000 years old in the 1600's he can be forgiven. To hold such a view in the 21st Century is sheer lunacy and brings christianity into disrepute - unless, that is, you care to argue that God brought all things into being in 6 days and made it appear to be 13.75 billion years old, give or take a few years.

21 May 2011 at 23:32  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It would be easier for interested parents to keep schools on a correct path if they had more power.

At the least they need to be able to speak out publicly and at school meetings in criticism of these and other matters without the fear of

(a) legal action following the inevitable accusations of committing "hate" crimes and

(b) disadvantaging their children as a result of reprisal actions by politically motivated teachers. (NB and only tangentially relevant, 13 of the 19 Green party candidates in my local elections this year are school teachers - they do not seem well placed to teach a balanced view on warmism)

21 May 2011 at 23:33  
Anonymous God said...

English Viking is right, I can't recall how old the earth is and I jolly well created the nice place you call home. I do afterall exist outside of time.

21 May 2011 at 23:38  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Dodo_Your response shows a delight in lampooning something of your own invention rather than what another has put forward in discussion. It is, of course, for you to decide whether to persist with the habit or seek to get over it.

21 May 2011 at 23:57  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Lakester91 (23:21) "...One cannot use the Bible to derive scientific fact...."

That is so true, and the story is about moving from godfearing to godloving and godserving.

But to consider the question of the school curriculum and the deficiencies of secularism....

Factually speaking (and free from proselytising) it can be observed that the cultural development of western civilisation cannot be fully understood without an adequate knowledge of the theology received from the past, and the liturgies which are connected with it. This should be as implicit in any school's curriculum and teaching practice as recognition of the importance of reasoning, of mathematics and technology, and of literature and languages.

Included in that remark is rejection of the notion that modern science can now be recommended as having surpassed Christian theology (taking as given that any validity of Christian theology depends upon the canonical books of the Bible.) In summary:

The translation of the Nicene Creed (as printed in the Book of Common Prayer) includes: "I believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, And of all things visible and invisible: And in one Lord Jesus Christ.... Light of Light,....And I believe in the Holy Ghost, The Lord and giver of life..."

For some time one of the purposes claimed for scientific activity has been evolving a uniform theory of fundamental physics "of all things visible and invisible", and most especially of invisibles such as "gravity", "electricity", "magnetism" and any other subatomic or inter-stellar forces, detectable by instruments or conjectured. Much of this has to do with the theory of light and motion within space and time, and the use of advanced mathematics. The relationship of the mental activity for such mathematics to the sense-perceptible world is itself a conundrum.

And another endeavour has been to reconcile fundamental physics with what may be understood by "the giver of life".

The rest of the Nicene Creed summarises in theological and figurative language what was at that time (4c.) accepted by most bishops as a statement about the way of salvation for the "quick and the dead" which would come in the future when "the only-begotten son of God shall come again with glory". This became the standard for Orthodoxy on the one hand and heresy and apostasy on the other.

Some theologians may now be seeking to revise or abandon the theology of that time. Others who may be theologians or not, including "freethinkers", may look for other ways of addressing such questions as those which the Creed was intended to answer.

It does not follow that a curriculum should require teachers or pupils themselves to be proficient in theology or take part in catechitical methods or credal or liturgical practices.

22 May 2011 at 00:15  
Blogger English Viking said...


You most certainly have not answered the question concerning infant baptism as a means of salvation.

I specifically asked you to quote scripture. You have quoted none.

I asked a direct question, which you have refused to answer; is Hitler saved, seeing how he was baptised as a baby into the Roman Catholic 'Church'.

Let your yes be yes, and your no be no.

Was Hitler a Christian, by virtue of his baptism? Yes or no.

22 May 2011 at 00:42  
Blogger English Viking said...

PS Dodo,

You appear to sneer at one that thinks that God means what He says, and says what He means.

Why would a Christian not believe what the Bible says to be literally true?

22 May 2011 at 00:45  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

English Viking

"I asked a direct question, which you have refused to answer; is Hitler saved, seeing how he was baptised as a baby into the Roman Catholic 'Church'.
Let your yes be yes, and your no be no."

I know you inhabit a world of black and white but do grow up.

As I've already stated, in another blog, Hitler's baptism as an infant was insufficient on its own for salvation. It removed the guilt and consequential seperation from God of Adam's original sin.

Unlike you I do not, nor do most Churches, accept the idea of a single transforming "born again" event that is then symbolically represented by baptism. The term is used twice by John and once by Peter and is not a central tenet of early church teaching. Indeed, it only really became fashionable in the 1960's.

So, not only are you "born again!, you are, amongst other things, a literal "creationalist" in the narrow sense of the word.

Ridiculous! The Bible was written by men, inspired by the Holy Spirit. It would, of course, be limited by the scientific knowledge of the times.

Is there water above the earth, divided by a 'firmament'? Do women have one less rib than men? Read Genesis - there are even two accounts of the creation of Adam and Eve. Would God contradict Himself?

There are many, many other passages in the Bible constrained by the author's circumstances and some that are figurative.

And that's precisely why the church needs a leadership that has the authority to define doctrine based on the interpretation of scripture and an understanding of tradition. And that is just what Christ commissioned Peter and the Apostles to be.

22 May 2011 at 01:30  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Mr J,

I am fully in agreement with your post.

I would add, as I believe is implied in your post, that Christianity should take rather more prominent role in religious education and a much less absent role in the teaching of history.

Mr EV,

Why would a Christian not believe what the Bible says to be literally true?

I mentioned in my previous post that there are different classifications of truth, none less significant than the others. True wisdom is understanding what kind of truth each passage espouses. Just because a passage is not scientifically or historically true, does not make it any less so morally or spiritually.

22 May 2011 at 01:30  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Your graces post is an important question and perhaps shows there is still much work to be done.
As your grace has endlessly pointed out anti creationist is not a benign position , for it inferes somthing else is to be taught.

Of course children must have a good education ,it is perhaps one of the most primary reasons for civil goverment to exist. A good education requires a curriculum as understanding has order within it.
My basic premise is that the current cosmological understanding is that a rapid appearence of the universe occurred about 14bn years ago , what was pre this event is very much unproven and is in the realms of theoretical mathematics and physics. Whilst the universe does appear to exist and operate under understood laws of physics ,the laws seem to go all wrong as you get closer to the moment this unique event took place , and seem not apply.
The further problems of a universe teaming with planets with similar levels of intelligent life ,despite the trillions of stars and sufficent time ,have so far proved untrue.
So we have a unique event and a unique planet/life within that event. Even the most jaded scientist if escaping the complex maths of the theories , must admit that creationists have not been defeated ergo it is relevent curriculum subject.
The next problem is perhaps how creationism should be taught ,as it has grown up ,along with the improving science. I am quite sure given that we live with technology which works to certain laws ,that infering that a man with a flowing beard who is invisible but has followers created the earth/universe all in one go in 7 days around 6600 yrs ago (a bible derived theory) , is at the heart of what the athiests hate about religous creationism as they have better questions about geology , age of sun/moon .So much of the arguments, are in the details of what the creation (or universe appearence event) left for man/science to measure ,imagine,compute and theorise.

I have to say that all has not been good in the creationist education camp, either suffering the wish not to be arrogant or just plain half science. One I attended some years ago still leaves me fuming , as he claimed the geology was much newer and could be proven by trees being rapidly fossilised post mt st Helens , when I asked about his view on plate tectonics , he admitted he didnt have an answer as to why we can measure there movements and effects, which is no use.
The historical churches failings with science and its science maytrs such as Gallelio , have put wind in sails for some time as have things like,transplants,mechanical hearts, IVF and now control of genetics.
Yet the fundamental question remains less certain as science runs out at unique events ,as it is based on repeated and measurable events/studies.
This selective nature of science gets endless TV treatment, the fact that genesis record of gods creation work , shows a darwinian order gets overlooked.
Also has the dominance of scientific belief , what then is supposed to happen to religous teaching , should it be taught , as half hearted comfort to the gullable , or more profund and necessary for society to exist ,let alone the saving of an unmeasurable soul .
I do not see much compromise ,indeed in some respects faith is so different to scientific belief that I doubt there will be one.However this should not mean that a good religous education is dumbed down just to appease the imperfect knowledge of science , citing religion as imperfect is all too rash , when one considers we do not know what was before the begining , even though there appears to have been a beginning from somewhere we do not understand via a unique event a good 14bn years before man came along , to take a mere 10,000 yrs for some to 1mn or so people to arrive at definte athiesm and 1.6 bn christians to believe somthing else.

22 May 2011 at 03:15  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len: "Evolution is not a single science which can be studied in a laboratory, but a whole list of beliefs as long as infinity.

Belief no 1, the Earth appeared out of 'nothing' and so on.......

Unfortunately neither the Biblical Creation Model nor the Evolution Model can be subjected to the normal scientific experimental processes. They are both belief systems.

In order to have a intelligent discussion about either Creation or Evolution, an unprejudiced person will have to abandon concepts that science has "proved Evolution."

Len, your "Belief no 1" up there is not part of the theory of evolution by natural selection. The theory explains how species can come about in our existing world.

The evolution model is not a belief system in the way that a religious one is. People use the word 'belief' to mean different things. That I believe the sun will 'rise' tomorrow is not the same sort of belief as believing that Jesus was both man and god.

Finally, science does not prove things in the way you appear to think. It's based on inductive logic. It presents approximations to the truth until something proves the approximation false. That's a crucial distinction. We accumulate knowledge based on observation, repetition, and so on.

The theory of evolution by natural selection is a very good explanation of how species have come about. It has evidential support in many different branches of science. But all it needs is a particular fossil, such as that of homo sapiens, to turn up in the wrong place for it to fall down spectacularly in its current incarnation.

22 May 2011 at 07:35  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Lakester91 01:30_ Yes, and much that appears in the comments here shows how easily faulty reasoning distracts and obscures today as happened at the time of the Apostles, and in former and later times when the books of the canonical Bible were severally written, and later copied, translated and transmitted.

22 May 2011 at 08:07  
Anonymous len said...

Hows this for faith?

There was once a big bang and out of this explosion came man, animals ,birds ,flowers,trees,seas, continents,all in perfect order, each part in harmony with the other,each planet perfectly positioned to ensure life on Earth, billions of stars etc.......................

No I am not joking, people believe this!

22 May 2011 at 08:13  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

God gave us life, oceans of blue, green earth and a night sky filled with lanterns of light, along with a moon that pulls the tides.

A ninth wave in the sea is the biggest and we live in our mothers waters for nine month.

Along with a promise the Sun will rise in the morning.

Yet we still ask for miracles in order to prove God exists.

Do you ever get the feeling some folk just take life for granted.

22 May 2011 at 08:22  
Anonymous len said...

I think the' big bang' theory is became a bit 'old hat' because people are starting to see through it( can`t fool ALL the people all of the time) and other 'theories 'are being presented.
One theory gaining credibility(with the gullible)is that we stated life 'out there'somewhere amongst the stars, and [possibly]arrived attached to a comet,(or even an alien spaceship!)
(I have heard Prof Dawkin`s hint at this,the comet not the spaceship)

This planet Earth and the life forms on it were created, and if you deny THE Creator God, the explanations of the existence of everything will get even more wilder and fantastic.

(WV humar, bet these theories give God a chuckle)

22 May 2011 at 08:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len: "Hows this for faith?

There was once a big bang and out of this explosion came man, animals ,birds ,flowers,trees,seas, continents,all in perfect order, each part in harmony with the other,each planet perfectly positioned to ensure life on Earth, billions of stars etc.......................

No I am not joking, people believe this!"

You're talking about non-Creationist Christians, right? That's implied by the perfect positioning of planets there where god has been steering the process of creation all this time or whatever they believe.

For the rest of us, we know that species become extinct, natural events have wiped out civilisations, the animal kingdom is red in tooth and claw causing immense suffering on a daily basis, asteroids have hit the earth, and so on. It's not in perfect harmony at all.

22 May 2011 at 08:40  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len: "One theory gaining credibility(with the gullible)is that we stated life 'out there'somewhere amongst the stars, and [possibly]arrived attached to a comet,(or even an alien spaceship!)
(I have heard Prof Dawkin`s hint at this,the comet not the spaceship)"

Len, that's a hypothesis not a theory. They're different things.

22 May 2011 at 08:43  
Anonymous Angelo said...

Can't add to what has been said already by all the believers in creationism. But I would say that it shows how narrow minded, bigotted and fearful the followers of evolution can be.
Not to mention vindictive in their attempt to stifle and suppress the search for the truth by open debate.
But then totalitarian regimes never like challenge do they? Didn't Communism start this way, from a disaffected atheist who wanted to rid the world of God but ended up getting rid of Good wherever the creeping cancer of his regime touched?.

22 May 2011 at 09:33  
Anonymous IanCad said...

Len @ 08:13

Love it!!
It is quite amazing how evolutionists, self-styled intellectuals and other Flat-Earthers cling to their silly theories with such tenacity.

22 May 2011 at 10:07  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

^ :O

22 May 2011 at 10:35  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Schools should at least teach the theory of evolution by natural selection properly. At least one of the regulars here actually thinks the theory says we are descended from monkeys. :O

22 May 2011 at 10:43  
Anonymous Springer said...

When describing complementarity within physics (eg ‘wave’ and ‘particle’), Wolfgang Pauli said the following: “What appears are [not] contradictions but [are] rather a limitation of the applicability of our ways of perception, not only by the possibilities of observation but also by the possibilities of definition (caused by the laws of nature).”

In a private letter he speculated an extension of complementarity beyond physics, thus:

“If a proposition is too clear, then something goes wrong with its correctness, and if a proposition is true, then its clarity is limited. For every truth contains something partly unknown, only foreboded, and thus also a hidden opposite of its conscious meaning.”

(Beautiful lines - quoted from Karl von Meyen in ‘Recasting Reality’)

The CERN archives also contain a handwritten note from Pauli in which he elaborates this still further: Under the title of Complementarity he makes two categories ‘Symbolic Description’ and ‘Quantitative Description’. Under Symbolic Description he says (amongst other things): “includes emotional side of existence”, “abstains from precision”, “mental and physical not distinguished”. And mutually complementing these terms, under ‘Quantitative Description’ he writes: “incomplete”, “always morally noncommittal”, “disregarding the mental origin of all propositions”.

In effect he describes the complement between different uses of language. Under ‘Symbolic Description’ we might add Poetry and under ‘Quantitative Description’ would be Science.

Or perhaps we might replace Poetry with Religion. This would be my choice: Under ‘Symbolic Description’ stands Religion, and under ‘Quantitative Description’ there is Science.

The Creation Stories of religion describe symbolically the EMOTIONAL EXPERIENCE of our world and the sense of awe we can feel before nature. Pauli might say that such story propositions can indeed be true (ie. in relation to experience), but that their clarity is limited (ie. local).

The Creation Theories of evolution describe an ‘incomplete’ yet REASONED OUTCOME of our world. This, Pauli might say, can bring immense clarity, yet loses something of its ‘correctness’ with respect to our full experience of the world.

But the Creation Stories and the Creation Theories remain complementary – not contradictory.

Contradictions only occur when someone assumes that just one position (be it quantitative or symbolic) is the TOTAL position.

22 May 2011 at 11:23  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"No I am not joking, people believe this!"

It's surprising what people can actually believe at times.

22 May 2011 at 11:52  
Anonymous len said...

Danjo ,

Well i`ll be a monkeys uncle.............. NOT! :)

22 May 2011 at 12:11  
Blogger English Viking said...


Still no scriptures to show that the Bible teaches that baptising an infant, against his will, somehow removes guilt and connects the child to the life of Christ.

I'd be most grateful if you'd supply some, or admit that your papa made it up so he could charge suckers to dip their kids.

You say I'm black and white on this matter of salvation. So is Christ.

He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. Matthew 12 v 30 There is no middle ground.

Are you going to answer me on the matter of how you personally know whether you are saved, when you advocate some kind of lengthy process of salvation, involving numerous works and rituals, and how you know that I am not just a way behind you in this process? What happens if I get hit by a bus before the process is complete? How does one know when one is 'there'?

As always, scriptures please.

22 May 2011 at 15:17  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Embrace the bumbling, waffling C-of-E and be done with all extreme nonsense of whatever origin. It is a work of genius that suits the needs of all civilised people.

22 May 2011 at 15:21  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

len said...
"Hows this for faith?
There was once a big bang and out of this explosion came man, animals ,birds ,flowers,trees,seas, continents,all in perfect order, each part in harmony with the other,each planet perfectly positioned to ensure life on Earth, billions of stars etc.......................
No I am not joking, people believe this!"

You forgot to mention DNA and RNA.

All this shows just shows how awesome God truely is to have preordained such a wonderful outcome!

You're surely not denying the reality of science?

This scientifically based understanding does not contradict Genesis at all - unless you take that book literally. And, if you do there are one or two self evident contradictions in it.

Science and religion are not oppossed. They both hit a wall of knowing, beyond which one chooses God or matter.

22 May 2011 at 16:02  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

English Viking

Do let up. I've no time for your obsessive hatred of Roman Catholicism.

Read my post about exchanging biblical quotes. If you want to know the answers to the questions you pose, then do the research. I'd answer but it is a waste of time.

"Do not scatter pearls before swine"

22 May 2011 at 16:06  
Blogger English Viking said...


So you don't know then?

You believe things you can't explain and that have zero scriptural warrant, just because papa says so.

And you think I'm stupid?

22 May 2011 at 17:02  
Blogger prziloczek said...

Silly me! What I had not realised was that there has been a serious amount of lobbying going on in Mr Gove's office.
I wondered a bit about Assembly and my remarks about the daily presentation of Christianity ( by law). I accepted that our provider was not a Church and went along with it. Well, now I can see where Mr Gove is coming from. Along with the NSS, I wonder how many Christian people he has had in his office. (Any?)
That is one thing.
The other is that it is none of the business of the NSS to declare what a free school teaches in its schools. If the RE teacher, for instance, is forbidden to teach the idea that God created the world (seven days is not part of the argument) by design, then what else will the NSS decide shall not be taught? How about, for instance, Citizenship Classes where all talk of the monarchy has been forbidden by the Republican Alliance? Or where all Tory PMs are banned from History lessons by the Socialist Workers? I thought this was going to be a free school.
Silly me!
After a time, I begin to wonder whether another Comprehensive run from the DfE along NSS lines is actually worth having at all.

22 May 2011 at 17:30  
Anonymous len said...

The only DNA I am interested in is provided by God in the Spiritual re-birth

the Divine Nature from Above.

22 May 2011 at 19:31  
Anonymous len said...

Science can barely predict the weather for 3 days.
But science pronounces the origins of the Universe with total cionfidence.

ain`t science wonderful?

22 May 2011 at 19:48  
Anonymous MrJ said...

"dna" rattles too easily off a know-little's tongue.

"deoxyribonucleic acid" is a pedants's tongue-twister.

"Divine Nature from Above" sounds good, feels good -- but may be a temptation to vain-glory, or at least too easily profaned ? Remember the Caesars.

22 May 2011 at 19:49  
Anonymous len said...

Mr J,

Without the divine nature from above(the whole purpose of Jesus`s mission to Earth was not to get us into Heaven, but to get Heaven into us) what have we got?.

' Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.'
(2 Peter 1:4)

22 May 2011 at 20:06  
Anonymous len said...

Mr J,
The Caesars,
Their authority passed to the Popes you know, hardly divine and hardly a nature from above........see what youv`e stated now !

We will have Dodo 'going off on one now'.

22 May 2011 at 20:20  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Weather - beginning of the Universe! Comparison? How ludicrous!

Clearly 'creationism', as presented here by those who take every word of Genesis literally, is a threat to the education of children. And I wouldn't want them running religious instruction either with their ideas of a sudden, irresistable "rebirth" which you either experience or you don't.

Maybe if they took their noses out of the Bible and actually looked at the wonders of creation from time to time they might just begin to understand the true mystery of creation. But no, they have to search endlessly through Scripture to give credance to their individual and rebellious perceptions of God and salvation.

The Church is the authoritive teacher of truth and was given this position by Christ. Yet they dismiss 2,000 years of tradition and teaching by the odd selected passage from scripture.

To remind them:

"And I say to you: That you are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."

Pretty clear that Peter and his successors were given the authority of heaven to determine doctrine on earth and it would be so in heaven.

"I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now. But when he, the Spirit of truth, has come, he will teach you all truth."

Also clear the Church, founded by Christ, would be guided and protected by God and led into all truth.

Wriggle and squirm Viking; be clever and profound Mr J and be pompous len, but read the Bible without blinkers and without your own need for justification.

Do any of you actually accept the Nicene Creed? Do you accept any teaching authority? Or do you create your own idea of God and fashion Him in your own image?

22 May 2011 at 20:21  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

len said...
Science can barely predict the weather for 3 days.
But science pronounces the origins of the Universe with total cionfidence.

ain`t science wonderful

This is such a stupid remark apart from the last an unintended truism.

Science at least supports its pronouncements with reason and explanation and never assumes it has reached any absolute truth.

This is where he loses the plot and refers to ens in the same manner of ignorance that resulted the Scopes monkey trial.

And he wants to be taken seriously? - Sad.

22 May 2011 at 20:57  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...


Have you noticed the unholy trinity have suddenly gone quiet. They can't be at Evensong.

22 May 2011 at 21:52  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Dodo 20:21 "... 'creationism', as presented here by those who take every word of Genesis literally".

I have not seen anyone HERE of that kind. There may be some elsewhere. It seems the great naturalist Philip Gosse was one (among other things the inventor of the home seawater aquarium).

Nor have I seen any here who fail to be aware of the wonders of creation.

Nor any who "dismiss 2,000 years of tradition and teaching by the odd selected passage from scripture."

Are you reading from a different script?

As somebody has written, O Dodo:

"read the Bible without blinkers and without your own need for justification".

For the finer points of the two credal statements printed in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, the well-known distinction between the Orthodox (Greek) version and the Latin version has to be taken into consideration; and then a devotional attempt made to enter into the spirit of a mode of expression which is (like the opening chapters of Genesis) different from the common and everyday written or spoken word of journalism, broadcasting or schoolroom today.

22 May 2011 at 21:52  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Dreadnaught: "Science... supports its pronouncements with reason and explanation and never assumes it has reached any absolute truth."

1) The same can be said of many, including those engaged in scientific work, who do not find all the pronouncements to which you seem to refer in this omnium gatherum way sufficiently founded in reason and experience.

2) It may be easier for someone who has not lost touch with reason to take len seriously than your comment at 20:57

22 May 2011 at 21:58  
Anonymous MrJ said...

to take len more seriously (typo)

22 May 2011 at 22:13  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

Mr J

Do you believe God created a universe and world essentially completed with animals and species already in place and with intelligent humans? Or is the universe, the earth and animal life still evolving and developing, according to 'laws' we can study and understand, albeit under the guiding hand of God?

And stop the nonsense about Latin and Greek and interpretation, do you accept the Nicene Creed? It's clear enough!

You, English Viki and len just repeat the same old, same old. Ignore the early church's traditional practices, the clear and unambiquous authority given to the Apostles, find obscure Biblical texts to quote and stretch their meaning, and then demand Scriptural rebuttals. And you never answer questions although you accuse others of this.

23 May 2011 at 00:18  
Anonymous IanCad said...

Mr. Last Dodo @ 20:57

Re: Peter and The Rock.

It is early in the morning so please excuse my breach of blogging protocol by posting a previous comment on this delusion.

Peter is not The Rock. Jesus Christ is. In the Old Testament Christ is identified as The Rock many times. Deut. 32:3-4, 1 Sam. 2:2, 2 Sam. 22:23-32, Isaiah 44:8 are just a few. Peter refers to Christ as The Rock three times; Acts 4:11-12, 1 Peter 2:3-6, 1 Peter 2:7-8. Paul states the same four times; 1 Cor. 10:4, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:19-20, Romans 9-33. Three times Our Lord declares the same; Luke 20:17-18, Matt. 21:42-44, Mark 12:10-11. Peter's tomb is, allegedly, in St. Peter's. Indeed it is the centre of worship. Peter is dead. He did not rise. As the gates of Hell (the grave) shall not prevail against Christ's Church this presents a problem for Rome. Christ has risen from the grave. His Church prevails.
If Jesus had given Peter Apostolic succession the shameful scene at the Last Supper of the disciples bickering over who should be the greatest would have been moot.
It was not until the year 445 that the then pope Leo 1st. promulgated the fallacy of Petrine Inheritance. This was a time of schism and rivalry among the bishops. Thus, Leo claimed for himself lineage from the Apostle.
We must be wary of the stinking puddles of men's traditions

23 May 2011 at 08:22  
Anonymous len said...

Nothing will get the evolutionists more 'rattled' than to 'step on the toes' of their theories .
In fact many have lost their jobs for just questioning' the theory.'
And Dreadnought(wasn`t that an old battleship?)if evolution isn`t even open to debate hasn`t it been accepted as a fact?.
Perhaps a proviso should be given at the beginning of each lesson on evolutionary theory"This is not fact but a lot of people believe in it."

And you call that science?

23 May 2011 at 08:42  
Anonymous len said...

Professor Richard Dawkins has hit out at science teachers being "so ignorant of science" after a poll showed a majority backed the teaching of creationism in schools.
The outspoken Oxford professor was responding to research out last month by pollster Ipsos Mori which found 65 per cent of teaching staff backed its discussion.
( ›)

(65%! do we live in a democracy or

23 May 2011 at 09:01  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

Len -
If state education is to be handed to autonomous groups of parents and teachers, the state must retain the power to propagate its history, traditions and culture. If it abdicates that responsibility, we risk producing entire generations of children who will grow up ignorant of the origins of our language, literature and the art and science of our civilisation.

Len you would do well to read and read again what Cranmer said in this instance.

23 May 2011 at 09:55  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Dear Dodo,

Thank you for troubling to make a response. But you will be able to see that:

"...nonsense about Latin and Greek and interpretation, do you accept the Nicene Creed? It's clear enough!"

will make it seem that you had chosen to bluster, which would be unbecoming your person, your chosen blog name and the cause for which you are contending, the importance and value of which in the working out of God's Providence, Grace and Covenants is held in reverence and respect.

The following is offered as an expansion of previous comments, but is not inviting reply.

Your broad and sweeping assertions and bold judgments against others had made it seem that you had sufficient knowledge of the Ecumenical Councils held, after the time of the Apostles, in the course of the first millennium of the Christian Era; and of the schism when the Roman Church, at the instance of the Bishop of Rome who by that time had acquired the nick-name "Pope", separated itself from the Orthodox Communion (for reasons which are commonly regarded as complex, and may still be in some controversy). Those were troubled times in the East and in the West, and both those successor parts of imperial Rome were under attack from the followers of Mohammed, who in that period acquired by conquest Jerusalem, Palestine, Syria, Persia and much of the westward territories of the Mediteranean.

About the "Nicene creed" information is easily accessible:

1) Filioque?
etc, etc....

2) iota?
etc, etc....

For those with a mind for it those are questions which are of abiding interest. They certainly ought not to be neglected by persons in leading positions in the moral or natural sciences, whether adherents of the traditional teaching of the One Holy and Undivided Trinity or not.

But it seems that a fruitful approach to those questions is more to be expected from a devotional understanding of the meaning and purpose of the canonical Bible as a whole, from beginning to end. That gives the context for certain passages within it which are, as it were, the guiding lamps illuminating the way. In this the Church Fathers, Doctors and those they have acknowledged as Saints seem to concur. But "a devotional understanding of the meaning and purpose of the canonical Bible as a whole" may have been too little practised or encouraged in later times.

It is concerns of this kind which bring disquiet to those who feel estranged from any one or more of the historic denominations, whether or not holding to either version of the Nicene Creed or any variation or development of it.

Let us now move on to consider Cranmer's latest (May 23, "Why not go back to Israel’s 63 BC lines?", at 10:47 AM)

23 May 2011 at 11:43  
Anonymous len said...

Dreadnaught, I would say that this policy(the above) is' shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.'
With due respect.

The State is busy indoctrinating our youth in the policy of 'Political Correctness'and the 'new moral code' (Human Rights) which is forced upon us and virtually abolishes free speech.

The' State 'is actually a small group of men in the E U who 'decide' what is best for us and what morals SHOULD be(legally enforced)' acceptable' to us.

23 May 2011 at 12:21  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

LanCad said ...

Of course Jesus Christ is THE rock - but he renamed Peter A rock.

Please explain the texts referring to Apostolic authority even if it was not Peter who was appointed first among them.

And also the references to the Holy Spirit leading the Apostles to all Truth and them being invested with power to loose and bind on earth.

23 May 2011 at 13:08  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...


Answer the following:

"Do you believe God created a universe and world essentially completed with animals and species already in place and with intelligent humans? Or is the universe, the earth and animal life still evolving and developing, according to 'laws' we can study and understand, albeit under the guiding hand of God?"

23 May 2011 at 13:11  
Anonymous len said...

Dodo, why should I answer anything when you refuse to?.

There is only one type of 'evolution' that has been observed.Micro evolution.
House sparrows have adapted to the climate of North America, mosquitoes have evolved in response to global warming, and insects have evolved resistance to our pesticides. These are all examples of microevolution — evolution on a small scale.This is within a species.

Micro-evolution was first understood when George Mendel demonstrated the variation within species based on genetic mechanisms. By Mendelian genetics we see the various dog species, which range from the St. Bernard to the chihuahua. The concept of micro-evolution is widely accepted today and supports the biblical notion of life reproducing after its own “kind.” In other words, it is accepted in scientific circles that all the different types of dogs most likely descended from a common canine ancestor.

On the other hand Darwinian macro-evolution is undergoing tremendous scrutiny in scientific circles because of the lack of evidence to support it.

23 May 2011 at 15:43  
Anonymous Gerard Tibercross said...

Why have the young universe nutcases, who will look you in the eye and tell you the universe was created in 4004 BC, been allowed to call themselves "creationists". I believe in one God,the Father, the Almighty maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is seen and unseen. That does not make me a "creationist" any more than the astrophysicist who came up with Big Bang theory was. I think we can be fairly sure that Rt Rev Monsignor Georges Lemaitre SJ believed that God created the universe. He surely did not believe that was in the evening (time zone unsure) of 26th October 4004 BC.

I can look into the sky and see light coming from the Andromeda nebula, or the Andromeda Galaxy if you prefer, which has been on its way for 2.5 million years. So which bits of science do "creationists" accept, and which do they deny?

I find "intelligent design" unconvincing. An omniscient God shouldn't have to keep coming back to fine tune his creation. He set it in train and then stopped working - Genesis 2.2. Evolution is God's intelligent design.

Theologians can tell us why God created the universe. Let's just trust the scientists to explain how.

23 May 2011 at 16:05  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Today scientific activity speaks of photosynthesis and photons. One way of approaching the questions canvassed here is to read from the beginning of the Bible to the first mention of "light" (Gk. phot-os) and to follow the other passages about light, especially in the gospel of John. It may be thought remarkable (if no more than coincidence) that the name of the Patriarch of Constantinople at one of the critical times in the disputes with the Popes at Rome was Photios (same root: phos), revered in the Orthodox (Eastern) Church as St. Photios the Great.

23 May 2011 at 16:49  
Anonymous IanCad said...

The Last Dodo @ 13:08

It could be inferred that Peter was compared to a small rock. In no way would this annoint him with the leadership of the Christian Church.
Certainly, all the disciples were blessed with apostolic authority and of course the Holy Spirit led them.
In no way should any of this have been used to create a hierarchy that has such a sorry record of persecution, militarism and so many other evils.
This may sound harsh, and, perhaps is. Strangely, many of our best friends are Catholic. They know our views on the historic church and confine it to the past. Sadly the institution is still the most powerful organisation in the world with all the potential to again revert to the follies of the past.

23 May 2011 at 18:18  
Blogger Lakester91 said...


Macro-evolution takes an insane amount of time to happen because it depends on the positive change in a huge number of genes, whereas micro-evolution can occur with just a single gene, nucleotide or even an epigenetic change. Duchenne's muscular dystrophy for example can be caused by the loss of a single nucleotide, but the difference between animals can include changing the number of chromosomes!

I hardly understand what you're trying to say though. Even if evolution is an incorrect theory, it is only as incorrect as young Earth creationism.

Mr Tibercross,

You have summed it up perfectly.


It could be inferred that Peter was compared to a small rock...

Only if one starts with such a presumption. This might help

23 May 2011 at 18:39  
Anonymous len said...

Let Peter have the last word;
(1 Peter 2)

4 As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him— 5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house[a] to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For in Scripture it says:
“See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame.”[b]

7 Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,

“The stone the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone,”[c]

8 and,

“A stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall.”

They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.

(Peter never claimed to be the 'rock')

23 May 2011 at 18:54  
Anonymous len said...

Back to the matter in hand.
Creationism should be taught in schools as well as Evolution.
Let the pupils decide for themselves what is true.
If you teach Mathematics 1+1=2 is a fact,evolution is not a fact and cannot be proved, neither can creation.
end of.

24 May 2011 at 07:34  
Anonymous tb said...

Creationism in this context is usually referring to the young earth pseudoscience. I'm sure you're not as ignorant of this as you're pretending to be.

24 May 2011 at 12:47  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...


I believe God created the universe and everything visible and invisible. That make's me a 'creationist'. However, I see no conflict with scientific theories. God's majesty and splendour is being displayed by each new scientific discovery.

The question about Divine creation is over what period of time and in what manner. Instantly and fully completed? Or a predetermined process, much like the selection of the Jewish people, Mary and the birth, death and resurrection of Our Lord?

Do address the question that you have refused to:

"Do you believe God created a universe and world essentially completed with animals and species already in place and with intelligent humans? Or is the universe, the earth and animal life still evolving and developing, according to 'laws' we can study and understand, albeit under the guiding hand of God?"

24 May 2011 at 13:18  
Anonymous len said...

Wev`e already done this one Dodo.

I believe the Creation account in Genesis.Why,because God says so,I cannot prove it,and don`t need to, and if people do not believe God its their problem not mine!!.

I believe in diversity in the species, and that animals can adapt to their environment.This can be observed.I do not believe a fish can evolve into a horse.
I do not believe we came out of huge explosion, the primordial slime, attached to a comet,on an alien astronauts boot,or any other far fetched 'theory .

Hope this makes my position clear.

24 May 2011 at 15:54  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...

len said ...

Absolutely clear, but please don't refer to alien astronauts in the same way as the 'big bang' theory.

You can, of course, believe in Genesis, and the particular creation of Adam and Eve and the Fall of man, without dismissing the 'big bang' or 'string' theories.

Genesis does have internal 'problems'. Who did Cane and Abel take as wives? Did Eve have a daughter? The two different accounts of the creation of Adam and of Eve, and the waters above the heavens seperated by the 'firmament'.

This suggests it isn't word for word accurate but rather inspired yet constrained by the knowledge of the times it was written.

24 May 2011 at 17:44  
Anonymous len said...

Dodo, When you start to 'cherry pick 'scripture,(ie pick out the parts you agree with, and reject the parts you don`t agree with you have departed on a hazardous course.

Jesus consistently interpreted the Old Testament quite literally, including

The Creation account of Adam and Eve (Matthew 13:35; 25:34; Mark 10:6),

Noah's Ark and the flood (Matthew 24:38-39; Luke 17:26-27),

Jonah and the great fish (Matthew 12:39-41),

Sodom and Gomorrah (Matthew 10:15), and

The account of Lot and his wife (Luke 17:28-29).

Jesus affirmed the Bible's

divine inspiration (Matthew 22:43),

its indestructibility (Matthew 5:17-18),

its infallibility (John 10:35),

its final authority (Matthew 4:4,7,10),

its historicity (Matthew 12:40; 24:37),

its factual inerrancy (Matthew 22:29-32), and

its spiritual clarity (Luke 24:25).
Moreover, He emphasized the importance of each word of Scripture (Luke 16:17). Indeed, He sometimes based His argumentation on a single expression of the biblical text (Matthew 22:32,43-45; John 10:34).

(I do not profess to know more than Jesus so I accept Scripture in the same way!)

24 May 2011 at 18:39  
Blogger The Last Dodo said...


We'll start with creation.

The references from Matthew have no direct bearing on "creation". They simply refer to the foundation/beginning of the world.

Mark is more pertinent:

"But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female."

These passages can be understood in a number of ways. In God's Mind there is no distinction between beginning and end 'in time' - there is no 'time', no beginning, middle and end. God is outside of 'time'.

As for Scripture and its factul innerancy, I think you are stretching:

"You err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God."

The same applies to the other passages cited. You have placed a particular interpretation on them to suit your argument. Others give weight to other interpretations. End result? Confusion and dispute.

This underscores the need for an authoritive teaching body - as established by Jesus.

24 May 2011 at 22:55  
Anonymous len said...

I think I will leave you to it.
I don`t know if you cannot understand or just don`t want to.

24 May 2011 at 23:12  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older