New UK Creationists

I tentatively touched upon this subject sometime ago as part of another blog on human evolution, but as I think its slightly 'loony tunes' I didn't ever follow it up. 

God Creating The Heaven And The Earth
(Brueghel Jan II -  Wikimedia Commons)

It seemed a particularly American kinda obsession, or at least so I thought, until I read this BBC article, which shows that belief in "creationism" aka "intelligent design" is on the rise in the UK.

Now a couple of points come to mind:

• The number of Christians is still in decline in the UK, so the fact that more, of less of them (so to speak), believe in Creationism or Intelligent Design is irrelevant.
• The rise of Islam will push up the general level of belief in Creationism (they obviously don't believe in any Intelligent Design except by their god, Allah).

However, even so, I am frankly amazed that the subject still continues to bob about, but maybe the sea of ignorance in which it does, is wider and deeper than I suspected.

The fact that Sarah Palin a vice presidential candidate in the US is a creationist shows how the US still leads the non Islamic world in this subject, where its estimated that 47% of Americans reject outright Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

In fact it's been rumored that Sarah Palin wants to teach creationism in schools. While she vowed not to add it to Alaska's curriculum, she has spoken in favor of classroom discussion of both creationism and evolution. "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. it doesn't have to be part of the curriculum," Palin told the Anchorage Daily News in a 2006 interview.

Even in the UK, the continuing sop to Islam, allows for the idea that creationism should be discussed in science lessons, according to professor Reiss who is in charge of education at the Royal Society. He says that with more (Muslim) children coming into class who do not accept the scientific version of the history of the universe, creationism should not be treated as taboo.

Mini Update: Professor Reiss (a Church of England minister) resigned a couple of days later: As a supporter of 'free speech' I am not a supporter of people losing their roles just through speaking honestly.

The teachers unions are for once not joining in this clamour for teaching fable as fact and have objected to the rise of creationist beliefs, but as they are often kowtowing to ignorance such as the teaching of Afrocentric 'history,' even when it is a modern myth, they are a voice that gets little attention on this subject.

Now when I last touched upon creationism, I had a comment from a blogger Hannah J who whilst a creationist, wants to be a biology teacher .... hmm, they just don't do irony do they? Anyway, she has a religious blog (all it appears to consist of, is selected Psalms). She did however stop long enough to leave this comment defending creationist beliefs.

"One thing: there is nothing new under the sun. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria, for example, don't suddenly possess the resistance gene/enzyme out of thin air. It's already present in them; the 'resistant' ones just produce more of it.

And no, not all creationists believe in Usher's exact chronology (For the length of time since the earth was created NoPC). We believe in unbiased scientific studies, such as one involving both ICR and evolutionary geologists demonstrating that the earth is 8000 or fewer years old."

I assume that she accurately reflects creationist (although not necessarily ID) beliefs, and that this also reflects the thoughts of the UK creationists, so my (slightly edited) reply to her, will probably address all the arguments they could raise.

Firstly – They are just plain scientifically wrong about resistance to treatments. I could prove this a number of ways but I will give a couple of examples:

Antibiotic resistance occurs when bacteria change in some small way that reduces, or eliminates the effectiveness of drugs, chemicals, or other agents designed to cure or prevent infections. The bacteria survive, and continue to multiply causing more harm. If they had some natural resistance from the start, then some would always survive any initial drug treatment, because they naturally have more resistance than others, and so people would never be fully cured by the initial treatment via the antibiotics.

Obviously drugs like Penicillin worked for decades, so the bacteria didn't have any initial resistance, and its taken nearly 50 yrs for the odd chance mutation to develop amongst certain bacteria, that allowed these new forms to resist treatments.

The problem for creationists is, that as they don’t believe in evolution, the evolutionary mutations that naturally occur in cell replacement, and that eventually give some bacteria a ‘resistance’, can’t therefore occur in their immutable world, where everything is as God (or the great intelligent designer) originally designed it, and is therefore perfect as it is.

Oddly God allegedly made man in his own image, but didn't make us perfect, so ….. ?

If I gave a population a full dose of a terrible plague, they would nearly all might die, but likely some would survive, because of natural resistance. They would breed this resistance into the population going forward e.g Tuberculosis (TB) which in the 17th-19th centuries was often the largest single cause of death among Europeans, particularly in cities. Which, as it was a disease of young adults (victims usually in their 20s and early 30s), exerted enormous selective pressure on European populations by preventing them having more or any children.

However the death rates from TB began to drop long before improvements in public health, food hygiene e.g. milk pasteurization (which cut rates of bovine TB transmissions to humans), or the development of effective medical therapies i.e., antibiotics. Given no other reasonable explanation for the decline, then natural selection for resistance to TB seems to be the answer. 

If I gave anyone a full dose of a terrible plague, they would probably die. If however I gave them a tiny (minuscule) amount of a less fatal derivative of the plague (a process known as variolation) they would be ill but likely survive, because as their immune system is exposed to the new germ for the first time, it would respond by trying to fight it off. But afterward, if they survived, their immune cells would remember the invader and be better equipped to fight it, should it return. They would also respond to the original plague in a similar manner because it would provoke the same recognition.

So they would eventually develop a full resistance to that plague, and would eventually be able to take a full dosage without dying or even getting seriously ill. They didn't have any natural resistance to start with, but their body would have developed some anti-gens and anti bodies, that could attack the full plague. See the history of vaccines: Cowpox and Small pox - originally smallpox was eventually fought by the variolation method, whereby people who had never had smallpox, were exposed to material from smallpox sores (pustules), by scratching the material into their arm or inhaling it through their nose. After variolation, these people usually developed the symptoms associated with smallpox, such as fever and a rash, but far fewer died as it wasn't the full disease. 

However Edward Jenner noted that milkmaids who caught the invariably non lethal cowpox, never caught the lethal smallpox, and by the somewhat cruel use of his gardeners child, proved that giving someone cowpox (and the exposing the child to smallpox on several occasions), totally immunised against smallpox. This he realised was like the variolation method in that it had given the child a derivative but non lethal version of smallpox, and thus immunised the body against the lethal version. Thus began the first vaccinations.

Secondly: On another vein (so to speak), I find it stretching mine or anyone's credulity, to consider the Earth to only be around 8,000 yrs old i.e. 6,000 BC

Obviously human records (history) are only certain (i.e. written records, cities in Mesopotamia etc) back until 5,500 BC (ish), but the archaeological and fossil record (which obviously creationists don't accept), goes back firmly into a Neolithic period that stretches way back past 6,000 BC. In fact there is evidence for Humans being around for well over 100,000 yrs, which is a bit of a problem to creationists. Homo Sapians (as thinking men showing behavioral modernity) have been around for at least about 70,000 years according to scientists, and I find the evidence for this increasingly compelling as new discoveries are made.

The commentors claim that “We believe in unbiased scientific studies” is a somewhat loaded term .... it means that creationists only like studies that back their beliefs, not mine. Unfortunately I feel that all theirs involves the concept of a divine being, or a 'guiding intelligence' in order to explain the inconsistencies.

Obviously there is also an issue with Dinosaurs and Humans, who were, according to creationists obviously walking the earth at the same time. Of course the dinosaurs would have to have become extinct inside a thousand years, or maybe via the Great Flood of Noah’s day, around 4,500 years ago, or they would have constantly been bumping into (and eating) Abraham and the elders of Zion etc in the bible.

But that still leaves ‘Behemoth’ in the Bible (post flood .. Job 40:15-24) … there must have been two of them as well as the ‘*dragons’ (Job 30:29 ‘I am a brother to dragons,’) in the Ark. What happened to them? Or maybe the dinosaur bones were just planted by God, or the ID, so that the scientists of the last and current century, would make up silly theories, and deny god, and go to hell …. So, a prankster god like the Norse Loki?

Even if all that could be answered to my satisfaction, I would still be asking “But where were they before the creation?” …. I mean if an “intelligent designer” (whatever that is … if not God?) was already here, then the universe already existed …. If it was a God/Divine being, then where did he/she come from? … Who created them? Or are we saying that … oh what the hell, the sophistry of the intelligent design / God argument just depresses me, as its entirely circular and always relies on total faith or the suspension of disbelief at some point.

Just remember this, Intelligent Design is not (as many creationists or ID’ers describe it) a ‘Scientific Theory’, because it postulates a divine or intelligent super being creating the universe. It is at best a philosophical argument, and at worst just mumbo jumbo superstition. Why not equally have a creator as Jehovah, Zeus, or Odin, or Krishna or Baal or any other God who has ever been worshipped?

For in the end the creationist God, who created the universe in order to enable humans to appear, who can then be given free will, apparently only did so in order for that ‘god’ to then judge them for their sins …which because they had been created with free will (and therefore imperfectly), they were bound to commit.

The problem for ID’ers is that there is no obvious reason for their intelligent designer to bother to create an entire universe just for humans, and if they did it solely “in order to enable humans to appear, who can then be given free will, in order for ‘god’ to judge them for their sins” … then their cover is blown….. they are just creationists in disguise.

Just out of badness, I will also throw in cosmology as well.

In order for the laws of physics to still apply, Bible creationists have to discount the universe, as stars are described as being only just ‘lamps painted in the sky’ … Because if the speed of light is true (or is that wrong as well?), but the stars are not really billions of light years away (e.g one galaxy is 12.8 billion light years away), then the most they can be now is 8,0000 light yrs away i.e the history of the Earth, and of course on creation week they would have had to be only light seconds/minutes away at most.

If they had been 8,000 light years away at the finish of Earths creation, then we would only just now be getting the light from them, and obviously no stars would have been visible in the recent past because their light wouldn't have reached us for 8,000 years! God (or the intelligent designer) had said 'let their be light' on day one ... but no source of light was created until day three:

• In the beginning - God started creation (ground zero day so to speak .... was creation the rest of the universe as a backdrop for Earth?). 
• On the first day - light was created (... but no means or source for the light?). 
• On the second day - the sky was created (somewhere to put the light?). 
• On the third day - dry land, seas, plants and trees were created (but where is the light coming from if no stars and sun ... or was the earth in darkness and lit only by a holy light?). 
• On the fourth day - the Sun, Moon and stars were created (at last ... an actual source of light). 
• On  the fifth day - creatures that live in the sea and creatures that fly were created. 
• On the sixth day - animals that live on the land and finally humans, made in the image of God were created
  

and by day seven - God finished had his work of creation and rested, making the seventh day a special holy day ....

In fact its hard to see why the ID or God made a whole universe just for Earth and humans to exist in .... why not just a few solar systems (for stars) or even just the Earth and the Sun? Why go to all that effort of a Galaxy or Universe when we will never see or visit any of it, or even need it?

The Vatican (Catholic Church) appears to believe that non human intelligent life exists in the vastness of the Universe (as do many other mainstream Religious groups), so maybe there are other souls out there on the newly discovered planets ... or maybe there is just intelligent life, with no god or intelligent designer in sight? The Vatican is even organising a conference next year to mark the 200th anniversary of the birth of the author of the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin, the architect of evolution. 

Question Of Evolution US 2007

So is creationism or ID, just a non mainstream literalist Protestant, evangelical Christian, and some Jewish philosophical strands (and of course many mainstream Islamic) belief system .... if so,then strange bedfellows indeed?

*Mainstream theology has always said that ‘dragons could often be read as Satan.