News

Scottish secularists branded as ‘bigots’

Scottish secularists branded as ‘bigots’

David Robertson, due to become Moderator of the Free Church of Scotland next year, has accused the Scottish Secular Society (SSS) of using the ‘false bogeyman of creationism’ in an attempt to ‘undermine and attack Christianity in pursuit of their sectarian and bigoted anti-religious beliefs’.

According to this report Robertson went into full-on rant mode over the SSS’s recent call to ban schools from teaching creationism in science lessons. He branded the secularists as “militant atheists” who want to impose their own views on youngsters and discourage questioning,

The SSS had launched a petition calling on Education Secretary Mike Russell to issue guidance to publicly-funded schools and colleges to:

Prevent the teaching of creationism and related doctrines as viable alternatives to established science.

Creationism is the belief that the universe and living beings originate “from specific acts of divine creation”. The SSS revealed last year that this nonsense and the denial of evolution:

Has been found in three separate Scottish schools in a very short period of time.

This, it argued, raises concerns that:

Such views and excesses may be endemic in the system.

creationism-ark

The SSS – whose petition would allow creationism to be discussed in religious education classes – is to make its case to MSPs at the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee next week.

But ahead of that, Robertson claimed it is seeking to:

Impose an atheistic philosophy on children.

The Dundee-based preacher said:

The Scottish Secular Society is so terrified that children might be infected by the idea that God the creator actually had something to do with creation that they are asking politicians to decide what should be taught in science lessons.

Since when was science determined by MSPs? Once we have politicians telling science teachers what to teach, on the advice of one particular faith belief, then we are in real trouble.

Could we not have a more tolerant and Christian view of science? And could we not encourage children to think about the issues for themselves, rather than just tell them what to think?

The St Peter’s Free Church minister, who thought it a good idea last month to bring “the good news of Jesus” to homosexuals, continued:

The secularist faith tells them that there can be no intelligent design, because of course they do not want to believe even in the possibility of a designer.
However in this they are not being scientific – they are just seeking to impose their religious view upon the whole of society and turn their philosophy into a state doctrine imposed by force.

We agree entirely that science should be taught in science classrooms and not religious or philosophical viewpoints, and the basic principle of modern empirical science is that it is open to question and change.

But here we have militant atheists using science as a kind of Trojan horse to get their philosophical and religious views taught and to discourage questioning.

He added:

It is desperately disappointing that secularists believe the key danger in 21st-century Scotland is apparently creationism, not the 20 percent of Scottish children who live in poverty, nor the many thousands who have faced the ravages of sexual abuse and drug addiction.

Both SSS chair Spencer Fildes and Professor Paul Braterman, the group’s scientific adviser, are due to appear before the committee on Tuesday.
In a submission to MSPs, Mr Fildes argued that nothing in the petition would prevent the discussion of creationism in its “proper place as part of the study of ideas”.

He also claimed that it did not “infringe on individual freedom of belief”.

The SSS said at the moment, the Scottish curriculum does not specifically make clear that:

Teaching creationism as an alternative to the overwhelming scientific consensus on the origins of the universe, or in any context as a viable alternative to accepted science, is unacceptable.

But it stated:

This is not the case in England and Wales, where the Department for Education has stated that ‘We do not expect creationism, intelligent design and similar ideas to be taught as valid scientific theories in any state-funded school’.

Mr Fildes said the SSS:

Had no wish to restrict the discussion of creationism as part of the study of religious or other ideas.

But he argued:

Pupils must be taught about evolution as firmly based science, and not presented with ‘creationism’ as scientific fact or as a valid alternative to evolution.

This guidance is not intended to inhibit discussion of beliefs about the origins of the earth and living things, such as creationism, in religious education and other cultural studies, as long as they are not presented as valid alternatives to established science.

17 responses to “Scottish secularists branded as ‘bigots’”

  1. barriejohn says:

    Atheists want to “impose their own views on youngsters and discourage questioning”. Where do they find these people?

  2. Newspaniard says:

    So, are these “science” guys saying that the Earth is NOT 6,000 years old? Come on, pull the other one. Some people will say anything to get their names in the papers. They’ll be saying next that the Sun doesn’t go around the Earth. (Har de bleedin’ har!)

  3. AgentCormac says:

    ‘And could we not encourage children to think about the issues for themselves, rather than just tell them what to think?’

    Oh, the irony!

  4. Broga says:

    Another nervous Christian desperate to insist on biblical truth with no evidence to support it. He probably thinks the English in the King James version of the bible is “the word of God.” There is a hysterical feel to his rant. He has a job to protect.

  5. Angela_K says:

    I suppose Robertson would be OK with science being taught in religious classes where science could pull apart the preposterous idea of creationism, the impossibility of Noah saving two of all specie, a bloke coming back to life….No, thought not.

    “…not the 20 percent of Scottish children who live in poverty, nor the many thousands who have faced the ravages of sexual abuse…” so says a man who belongs to an obscenely rich cult that covers up child sex abuse by its members.

  6. Paul Cook says:

    How desperate are these people, without any evidence, to demand children ‘learn’ that creationism is a science topic. There is no such place for such a stupid thing. It is insulting.
    Creationism is an infantile concept. They do not even understand what science means.

  7. Broga says:

    @Paul Cook: On the creationist thing the Christians always insist on cutting off when they decide. I have a religious relative who tells me, “God created the Universe. And you have no explanation of your own.”

    I asked, “And who created God?”

    “God doesn’t need to be created as he has always been there,” she chirps happily.

    “So why can’t the Universe always have been there?” I asked.

    She accused me of being “tiresome.”

  8. AgentCormac says:

    @Broga

    You know you’ve won the argument when someone resorts to calling you ‘tiresome’. It’s shorthand for saying ‘I have no idea how to answer that, so I’m going to stop talking to you about it now’. Moral victory. Result.

  9. Paul Cook says:

    @agent
    And @ Broga

    Agent yes I have to agree. A win.

    Broga what you need to say is ‘you have no evidence of your assertion- you just made that up- so I don’t need to provide any evidence in reply’.

  10. Paul Cook says:

    @broga

    Have a look at some of Stenger’s books.
    He wil explain just what you assert- that the universe could have always been there. Or we might be in a multiverse.
    Or, Professor Hawking of course. But don’t get confused by Professor Hawking and his reference to a god- as that is a Spinoza god. ( In short not a god at all. (Whatever god means as there is not an acceptable definition of such a word)).

  11. zombiehunter says:

    Ah the wee frees, a miserable shower of puritanical bored who need to lighten up and come into the 21st century.

    I do love that creationism toon there though 😀

  12. L.Long says:

    I creation is science and their BookO’Schite is science then why are the bigoted xtians NOT using are terrible iPhones and instead using ‘invisible voices in the head’ and other BS from their book???
    They are lying hypocritical Aholes that are using any means possible to push back on the ones that threaten them the most…Atheists & Secularists.
    But the worse part are the many many sheeple (they called themselves sheep before I ever did) that buy into this BS.
    If this nitwit is so smart than have him show you anything the xtian believe system has done that is good for people in general as science did. i.e. (their BS) prayer gets you nothing…(science) antibiotics gets you fixed up.

  13. Broga says:

    @Paul Cook: Thanks. I’ll check out Stenger’s books.

  14. Robster says:

    To enable discussion of the Creationist nonsense but to avoid giving it some sort of perverse credibility, we should consider referring to it as the “Pink Unicorn theory of Creation” or something equally silly. To have it discussed even in a negative scientific context will enable the proponents of biblical creation to at least act as though it’s worth considering as an alternative through the careful editing of quotes. Got to remember these people are not and cannot be honest.

  15. Great Satan says:

    So, secularists are the bigots eh ? what about these religiots – http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/george-square-trouble-the-night-our-readers-became-reporters.1411314286
    looks like secularists should have a bigger target in their sights than creationists perhaps ?

  16. jay says:

    One of my pet annoyances is how the word ‘bigot’ has strayed so far from it’s real meaning (and I see this across the spectrum) where people describe moral or social opinions that differ from theirs as ‘bigotted’.

    Bigotry in its real sense is a belief (particularly moral one) held with irrational intensity. Prejudice is not in itself bigotry.

  17. Dave Godfrey says:

    I think creationism should be taught in science lessons. Along with astrology, tarot reading, water divining and faith healing. They are good examples of what is not scientific.