Education Scotland

Bid to Ban Creationism is Militant Atheism – The Scotsman

I’ve had enough…its time to call out the self-styled secularists for what they are – militant atheists who want to use the guise of secularism in order to impose their belief system and squash Christianity. I am glad that the Scotsman and the Herald have picked up on this – it is a message we will keep repeating until it sinks in. Christianity is not opposed to science – indeed the very opposite. But those who are militant atheists seek to use science to squash Christianity…they confuse their philosophy of scientism with empirical science…and they have no idea about creation or what creationism actually is….anyway here is the Scotsman article.


  1. David, you said “Christianity is not opposed to science – indeed the very opposite.” But this isn’t true. It’s not “the opposite”. It may not be entirely opposed to science, but there are good reasons science and religion has clashed.
    Let me avoid the debate and cut to the chase: It’s an effective “wedge strategy” for secularists. It’s very easy to show how irrational Faith is when it conflicts with scientific claims. It’s an effective way, right or wrong, to squash the influence of religion.
    I think this is what bothers you – the politics of this “culture war” is not scientific, and Secularism, which celebrates Science, can use any means necessary to promote it’s goals, just as Religion has.
    It’s a war, David. Hopefully a bloodless one, but one that we will win. We aren’t going to stop using an effective strategy simply because you don’t like it.
    Even if Christianity is not opposed to science.
    But it is. You claim a man rose from the dead. That’s unscientific.
    You claim to speak for God. That’s unscientific.
    That’s emotional politicking, and trying to win by playing on emotion.
    There is no God, David. It makes all your claims about God silly.
    Come join the intelligent, caring and good people on the Secularist side. Reject your evil ways. End your bigotry against people because ancient men didn’t like them. Stop your superstitious fear mongering.

    1. Thanks Brent for confirming my response to Linear – you consider yourself to be at war against CHristians – so much for the myth of secular neutrality.

      1. Nothing can be completely neutral. Christianity certainly isn’t, yet you complain that Secularism isn’t? This is absurd, even for you. You, with your threats of Hell and Sin.
        Secularism at least lets you practice you Faith in clear conscience. You would have society bend to the will of your interpretation of your chosen Faith. (For example, you would have people decide that “Marriage” only means “man+woman”, and not “two, loving people”. Who are you to decide what people think?
        See my blog if you want my response to your post.

      2. Brent – would you have a world in which marriage is not allowed between brother and brother or father and son? If so why? Who are you to decide what people think? I would be interested in your answer…

      3. I think society makes the laws, not me. I don’t see the benefit of brother and sister marrying, and it might be detrimental to my society and thus, my neighborhood.
        I like a safe neighborhood.
        Simply because an idea is popular doens’t make it absolutely true.
        Brothers and sisters can and do get married in other countries, and probably here in America. It doesn’t seem to be a huge problem.
        I, personally, do not want to get married to my sister.
        Do you?
        Whatever my answer would be, can you tell me how my opinion proves whether the are objective moral values?
        So, I don’t think brother and sisters shouldn’t get married – at least recognized by the State. Whether they have private ceremonies under the stars and I don’t need to do the same, or adopt them into my family, I really don’t care – as long as, as I said, it doesn’t make my neighborhood or world dangerous.

      4. Could you tell us which countries brothers and sisters can get married? And where in the US? Do you not even know your own country?! Sadly your confused and contradictory morality leads you to the position that you think it would be ok for brothers and sisters to get married. Very sad. Objective moral values come from God. Without that we are left with your confusion….

    2. Brent Arnsen, when you say that Christianity is “unscientific”, what do you mean? Do you merely mean (not in the least controversially) that Christianity isn’t a science? (We all know that.) Or are you trying to claim something more than that?

  2. Hi David,
    Quote “Once we have politicians telling science teachers what to teach, on the advice of one particular faith belief, then we are in real trouble.”
    says David Robertson who wants the creationist mythology of his own particular faith taught as science…
    In your rabid fervour to sling mud at secularism, you don’t even realise you are arguing against yourself. Bit of an own goal there!

    I’ll challenge you again to come up with a single coherent argument against secularism, as actually argued by secularists.
    See this article by Stephen Law as an example of what secularism means.

    Or are you going to censor me again?
    best wishes,
    Linear C

    1. Linear – I’m not a secularist so I don’t do censorship…its not me trying to remove Christian views (or secularist) views from schools. Secularism is a broad term which means whatever anyone wants it to me. In its basic form it is just simply the separation of church and state. However the more militant secularists are in reality statists – seeking to make the State the arbiter of everything and to remove all religion from public life.

      1. Hi David,
        Again, nice own goal. It must be embarrassing to argue against yourself publicly!
        But onto your reply. Quote “Secularism is a broad term which means whatever anyone wants it to me.”
        I’m glad you at least admit you are making up your own definition of secularism, and that you are not actually arguing against the NSS.
        So again I’ll issue my challenge; come up with a single coherent argument against secularism, as actually argued by secularists.
        See this article by Stephen Law as an example of what secularism means.
        Time to put up or shut up.
        Linear C

      2. secularism is the view that church/religion and state should be separate – so far so good. The trouble comes when atheists use secularism as a gusie for imposing their atheist views by making the state the be all and end all. The NSS speaks about secular principles and yet many secularists I argue against deny that there are any secular principles other than separation of church and state. The point is that secularists are generally confused and incoherent, united only by their hatred of religion.

  3. I left school in 1970 with two As and a B at A-level, in Maths, Physics and Chemistry.

    I obtained a first class honours degree, studying the Science and Maths Foundation Courses, Maths and Physics at Second Level (apart from one course on computing), and Physics (75%) and Information Systems (25%) at Third Level. I was joint winner in my year of the undergraduate DeBroglie Prize for excellence on my Third Level quantum theory course.

    I lectured for two years in a British university.

    I pursued a career in software development for almost thirty years.

    I took the Common Professional Examination, which is nowadays called the Post-graduate Diploma in Law, in 1993-5.

    This education notwithstanding, I *still* do not feel equipped *today* to evaluate for myself the evidence for the evolution narrative, or the creation narrative, both of which I was exposed to as a pre-school child, causing me cognitive dissonance at the age of four that caused me to realise that grown-ups didn’t know what we were and where we came from, unless by divine revelation, so it was no use asking them.

    Yet, in England, there is a proposal to decline any publicly-funded places at pre-schools that deliver the creation narrative “in science lessons”, as though two, three and four year-olds at pre schools actually *had* any specific “science lessons” in the first place.

    I smell a rat. This isn’t about *education* as we know it – helping children to grow up able to think for themselves, critically, accessing the written word. It is entirely about *indoctrination* of children, making sure that the *government* decides the “right” answer to every controversial question, and makes sure that the children are only exposed to narratives and propaganda that lay down belief systems in their minds that our ingrained for the rest of their lives, because they were indoctrinated in the government-approved creed before they were mature enough to question what adults told them was true, no arguments accepted.

    I do not think that we should assert narratives about our origins in science lessons at all. Science is a method of enquiry, more than a body of asserted fact. Equip children to think, test, reason. Educate them. Don’t tell them answers. Encourage them to be able to find answers, which are not necessarily the answers their parents want them to believe, still less those that the government, or some “secularist” lobby group, want them all to believe. That’s how my dad raised me. It is also how John Stuart Mill was raised. Reportedly the author of On Liberty embraced the Christian faith later in life.

    I hope children are rebellious enough not to put up with this in the long term, and that not too many of them have to shed their blood, to prise back the freedoms from the state that the baby-boomer generation has valued so little.

    1. ^ typo: “are”, not “our” (last sentence, third from last para) “remain” would be even better; please correct for me, since not “edit” function on this blog; thanks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: