29% of UK teachers favor teaching creationism

Some of the finer points of your critique are still eluding me.Shorn of sarcasm, my points would be these:* We can compare Britain today with Britain in the past on such measurable criteria as the murder rate, or the number of slaves bought and sold, or the number of inoffensive nations wiped from the face of the Earth. Such comparisons are rather to the favor of modern Britain.* We cannot compare their standards of internet discourse with those of the present day, 'cos of them not having an internet.As these are facts, and for the greater part very obvious facts which you must know yourself, I don't see how it is "evil" to exhibit them.If it is merely my tone that you object to, then I would urge you to tend to your own eye, which appears to have a beam in it.

GDR, as I understand it, and yes I wish I knew more about the history of it all, the situation in India was not like the situation in Australia or Canada. Yes the Brits were no doubt "snobs and racists" as I already said, but India was an ancient established culture with a huge population, which I believe can't be compared with the natives of Canada or Australia -- or the US where we also have Reservations for the native population. The difference I have in mind is that the British didn't move into India to settle as was the case in Canada and Australia. Some did but as administrators, not settlers.What I was trying to say, and maybe I AM off the wall about this, certainly unrealistic at least, was that a TRUE Christian spirit could have done GOOD for India rather than just exploiting their wealth, you know a spirit of SERVICE, of selfless HELP, and so on, could have done MORE than they did to bring the gospel (yes, that's essential) to build education of all kinds, to encourage enterprise and employ people of all classes in producing their own wealth, and all the rest that brings people into the modern age, so that eventually they could have been self governing the way Australia and Canada are. That's probably MOSTLY unrealistic not only because of British class barriers but INDIAN class barriers which are arguably worse than ever was the case even in England.A Christian outlook, especially if the gospel WAS taught, would have worked toward getting rid of both sets of class distinctions. Yes, I'm sure it's pie in the sky but that's what I meant about a CHRISTIAN spirit, which is not a spirit of exploitation but more of a spirit of help. Of course it would have to have been built on the commercial interests of Britain nevertheless, but business doesn't have to be merely exploitative. Granny said he's sure all the Brits THOUGHT of themselves as Christians, but I WAS talking about a nonexploitative mission to be a blessing to India.From what little I know the country is not MUCH better off economically OR socially now if at all. Are you familiar with the book City of Joy about the slums of Calcutta? I mentioned earlier the ministry to the Dalits I'm aware of, how the people in that region are the poorest of the poor by western standards. The indigenous ministers who are based in a much bigger organization called Gospel for Asia also get around either on foot or bicycle. Still the Dalits may be better off than those in the city slums, or who live on the city streets -- from which Mother Teresa took the dying into her hospitals (I'm no particular fan of Mother Teresa but she did make an effort to help the really sick and dying). The hordes of children who beg foreigners for money are reported on by visitors to India all the time.It's hard to call all that any kind of economic improvement OR social improvement.Oh I agree in theory about "quality of life" versus materialism but you know, the fact of the matter is that people who get material improvements in their lives themselves say they prefer it to their previous condition. It's hard to have "quality of life" without an education, living from hand to mouth, every year getting flooded out by the monsoons, and so on.By the way, I have English ancestry too. MY grandfather, whom I never knew (because my father was the youngest of thirteen and by the time he married my mother at forty my grandfather had died), emigrated to Canada from London and homesteaded in Alberta. We visited that old ranch every summer for years, where one of my aunts lived, and the life was just as it had always been. The only nod to modernity was the wooden boxed wall phone that you cranked to get the Operator. There was a wood cook stove in the kitchen, the only source of heat for the small two story house, light was from hanging kerosene lamps and water had to be carried from the well on the hill in buckets. Of course the "plumbing" was an outhouse and porcelain chamber pots under the beds. You washed in a large bowl in the bedroom with water heated on the wood stove and lugged to each of the bedrooms in a large porcelain pitcher.We helped my aunt milk the cows, gathered eggs from the hens, watched her kill chickens for dinner and tried to help her pluck them -- plucking chickens is NOT easy. And she let us help her make bread. Oh and she made butter in a big metal bowl that spun very fast when you cranked it. She actually had developed the muscles between the joints of every one of her fingers from the work she did to keep that place running.It was great fun for a summer vacation. But what a hard life! All the other old aunts and uncles talked about how GLAD they were for modern conveniences after they'd grown up and moved away. You know, MATERIALISM. Don't put it down, it has a LOT to do with "quality of life."Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I decided to look it up and found this information about a creationist organization in the UK, which contains links to other organizations: Biblical Creation SocietyI'm not entirely sure what this paragraph is saying (in whose name rejected what?) but I gather at least that their beliefs are disputed by other creationist organizations.Here's another UK based organization called Biblical Creation Ministries which the site explains is an offshoot of the organization above. This one is headed up by Paul Garner, whose talk on the Grand Canyon I've linked a couple times here.It's so good I think I'll link it again tooTheir Statement of Faith is one I can wholeheartedly agree with. Maybe I'll disagree with some points as I explore the site, but at the moment it looks to me like Creationism is alive and well in the UK.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Quite. They went there to pillage and loot, and the interests of the locals be damned.

Right, the British were exactly the same as, oh, Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Hitler, and all the other conquerors of other peoples. Nothing but looting and pillaging, raping and murdering. Right.and Stalin and Pol Pot and the TurksHey, by saying it would have been better if they'd had a spirit of service aren't I agreeing with you that they wrongly exploited the native people? But I'm not going to agree with the weird denunciations that try to equate their empire-building with the viciousness of all-out bloody looters and pillagers, which HAVE existed in history.You guys lack a sense of proportion in your neverending sanctimonious pronouncements of Moral Indignation. Good grief, humanity isn't perfect, what makes you think you're above the fallen human beings who preceded you?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Because we like to think that we have entered a more enlightened age. Because we like to think that we can learn from humanity's past mistakes. Because we live in an age when a lot of what we do is subject to scrutiny and global comment. Because current mores are more tolerant. And because we like to believe that humanity can improve, be more moral and rise above the brutality of its past.Not universally - not without exception - but surely that should be the goal - to improve mankind.I notice from the statement of faith that you linked earlier that the world view that you wholeheartedly agree with, likes to see humanity as inherently and irrevocably sinful, but that that is ok, because you can be sinful and then forgiven through worship.Personally, I prefer to have a go at trying not to be too sinful in the first place. I prefer to have a go at being above the brutish, exploitative, fallen human beings of my (and others') countries' pasts.Whose is the better path, Faith ? Someone who tries to rise above man's past sins and lead as moral a life as they can now ? Or someone who thinks that sin is normal but capable of being wiped clean by wearing the right religious badge ?

I guess that's not the impression I get from your posts, or from your blogging on the exchanges that happen here. (My apologies if you didn't intend that I read those; I'll stop, if that's your request.)Let me ask you this, then, by way of trying to reach some clarity. If you take a position, and you get a reply from me that says "Faith, you're just flat-out wrong about this" is that something you take personally? If you being wrong is then ascribed to not knowing a fact that we knew, is that what you take personally? I don't see it as any higher than the indignation you display about how we're openly dismissive of the Bible and the "word of God" you believe contained therein. And I get that - your faith is so important to you that you made it your EvC username. Many of your blog posts are a full-throated defense of faith in God. If that's what you believe, it's to your credit to defend it as strongly as you can. (I disagree about the utility of faith in anything, even in God, but you're well aware.)But just as your faith is deeply central to you, the biological sciences are deeply central to us. We're like sports fans about biology around here, why else would we be here? And the whole creationism project - the notion that untrained laymen and 14-year-olds with open Bibles can know better than a million man-hours of painstaking research into the natural world, the notion that superstition is to be placed on the same level as science, particularly in our childrens' textbooks - is just so deeply insulting to us, and to the level of effort and expense we and our colleagues have put into being able to have even the slightest idea of what's going on out there in the world, that yeah, we start from a position of indignation about it. You would, too. You do, too, when the subject is the Bible.But for whatever you think about our level of indignation, I hope you'll remember our level of enthusiasm when it comes to being able to answer your questions - not rebut your statements - about biology, geology, and the other subjects we've worked a long time to know even the first thing about. The enthusiasm isn't for being able to "show off" for you, or at the prospect of winning a convert - although that's a hope. It's the enthusiasm for having the opportunity to show you the incredible beauty of it all - a beauty you've not yet seen even a small fraction of.

... said the conservative christian. I've committed genocide less often. I've burned few people at the stake. I've owned fewer slaves. I'm just generally not such an evil son-of-a-bitch.Oh, but wait, I believe that the Bush tax cuts should be allowed to lapse. Well, I guess then I'm every bit as evil as someone who would have burned you alive for disagreeing with me about theology.Sheesh, let us talk about moral indignation. I get all worked up about genocide. Whereas you assail me as evil for believing in principle that people might conceivably be entitled to the state benefits which you yourself claim (or at least did last time we discussed this). And one of us is being "sanctimonious". Which of us is it? Is it "sanctimonious" for me to say that it is wrong to exterminate an entire nation? Or is it "sanctimonious" for you to denounce the source of your daily bread?

That seems way over the top as a response.Unlike the "comparisons" that you give, the "invasion" of India was a mercantile invasion, not a military invasion. Sure, the British government then sent troops to protect its citizens.As for your reference to "the spirit of Christ", I guess that is what happened. The God of the religious right is the God of pillaging and looting. They demonstrate this with their support of the politics of greed.

You will always be ignorant if you don't follow peoples suggestions to learn about the subjects you woefully attempt to post on. I told you earlier that the British takeover of India was not a military takeover by the Brit government. It was done by the British East India Company.Read some damn history before you spout of about things you know nothing about.

Faith, Canada and Australia have good relations with the UK and the same system of government as the UK for one reason; they killed most of the people who were already living there, marginalised the rest, stole their land and installed their own system of government. That's why we're so close. That's why we share the same head of state. many of the pre-Empire Indian nations were self governing.But yes, if the British had gone to India in a "spirit of help", they could have done great things and helped India become stronger. They didn't do that though. Instead, they ruthlessly exploited the place and its peoples. that's why I challenged the nostalgic view of empire you expressed in your first post. Actually, it seems like we are now in agreement; the Empire was not an example of a vanished utopian era of British Christianity. In fact, it was exploitative and distinctly unchristian. So when you said that it was sad that the sun had gone down on the Empire, you misspoke. Fair enough. Sadly, I can attest to this from personal experience. India is an amazing country to visit. It is vast, varied and beautiful. I met some wonderful people there. But I also witnessed the most disturbing kind of poverty. The sad truth is that at the lowest levels of Indian society, the very poor, were badly off under the Mughals and Rajahs, badly off under the Raj and in many cases, they're still badly off now. Fortunately, India is a genuinely developing nation, with a growing economy and good prospects for the future. It is still held back by corruption at all levels, but there is reason to be hopeful.Mutate and Survive

That’s all fine. The thing is that it should all be done without occupying and exploiting the country. The British made servants of the Indian people. As you point out, the point is that serving, which is the opposite of what they did. I read City of Joy twice actually. It was a very moving book. Mother Theresa did go as a servant not an occupier. Mother Theresa is more than a hero in my view. I’ve been to New Delhi a few times and it is a very vibrant city but there are numerous problems. However, there is also a quality of life that might surprise you. As I said, I believe that the western view confuses quality of life with materialism. The people there seem as happy as people here and in fact it seems to me in most cases happier and I attribute that to the fact that materialism will in the end always disappoint. Nice story. My grandfather also homesteaded in Alberta, not far from Calgary. My other grew up on the second ranch he had. He raised black angus cattle for years.

Mother Teresa was no hero. She loved the poverty not the poor. He actions caused more problems than they solved.Oh she was a liar too.Here is just one account of the "true" Mother Teresa.
Mother Teresa
A quick search will show up many more criticism of her.To glorify oneself on the misery of others is a vile thing. If there is a hell there is a special place reserved for people like her.I realize this is off topic and I am very sorry. I just could not let this pass without comment.

Here is the first thing on your link.

quote:

---

In a sermon delivered at St. Agnes Church, in New York City,on Good Friday, 1989, Father George William Rutler reported that when Mother [Teresa] was asked ', What do you think is the worst problem in the world today?', she more than anyone could name a number of candidates: famine, plague, disease, the breakdown of the family, rebellion against God, the corruption of the media, world debt, nuclear threat, and so on. Yet, without pausing a second she said, 'Wherever I go in the world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive communion in the hand."

---

This is a statement made without any other support. I looked on many sites to substantiate this and all of the sites refuted it. Her order itself made the statement that their own sisters could take communion either way.We will all believe what we want to I guess. By the way, I'm not Roman Catholic.

Really? Really?
That is what you got out of that whole thing? This is absolutley precious.
The difference between people like you and I is that I am willing to do research to see what is the reality. You on the other hand seem to be willing to accept thing unquestioningly.As I said before, do some research. I think you may be a little disappointed in your "hero". That was just the first link I found on a quick search. There are many more.Oh by the way are you accusing the good Father of lying or the person reporting it? If you want I am sure I could find the text of the actual sermon.