the creationist are coming out down under

[mr friendly guy]

After our indoctrination, er I mean education minister suggested that he won't oppose Intelligent design being taught in schools (thankfully not as a science, even though it purports to be one), creationist nutters have started coming out whatever dark domain they live. For example

It appears that in the debate on intelligent design a basic flaw is overlooked in the argument against there being a divine designer behind the universe.

The fact is that what the Bible teaches about creation and what science has to say are not exclusive of one another.

In demonstration of this point we have only to look at what the Bible teaches about the creation of the first human being – Adam. Genesis 2 makes clear he was not created as a vulnerable and dependent infant but as a fully mature adult. Now if a scientist came across Adam the day after his creation, using the normal methods of testing that science provides, that scientist would come to the conclusion Adam was not one day old but an adult. The Bible is right in saying that Adam was created young and science is right in saying that Adam was apparently many years old.

So it is that the Bible teaches that the intelligent designer (God) created mature planets, animals, birds, fish etc, each with the capacity as mature living things to reproduce after their own kinds. Likewise the same designer is said to have created in the earth mineral deposits such as gold (Genesis 2:12) which normally, like the growth of a man, are produced over long periods of time.

The fact is that just as we pack a vehicle with all we may need for a few weeks camping in the outback, so Christianity teaches God created the Earth with everything packed into it knowing beforehand what would be needed for humanity’s use until His planned end of the trip. It is this truth about our world and its designer that provides humanity with purpose and meaning for all that takes place in life – without it there is no reason for life, direction or hope. So science by its measurements teaches what is the apparent age of the Earth, while the Bible teaches that the Earth is much younger. The two are not in conflict.

What is in conflict is an interpretation of science that teaches there is no designer and the complexity of our world happened by accident over billions of years. I would not accept that explanation for the complexity of a designer watch, much less can I accept that explanation for the greater complexity of human life and the universe.

Christianity and science are not at odds, the conflict is between the theory of evolution and the teaching of the Bible – interestingly both deal with the same testable evidence that science provides but come up with different explanations for the origins of the universe.

It appears that in the debate on intelligent design a basic flaw is overlooked in the argument against there being a divine designer behind the universe.

The fact is that what the Bible teaches about creation and what science has to say are not exclusive of one another.

You are obviously too stupid to understand that a book claiming hailstones are stored in giant warehouses in the sky, night and day being separated for 3 days before the sun was created to mark time is wrong and contradictory to scientific thought and observations.

But I think what you really meant to say is - the fact is that what the Bible teaches about creation and what PSEUDOscience has to say are not exclusive of one another?

In demonstration of this point we have only to look at what the Bible teaches about the creation of the first human being – Adam. Genesis 2 makes clear he was not created as a vulnerable and dependent infant but as a fully mature adult. Now if a scientist came across Adam the day after his creation, using the normal methods of testing that science provides, that scientist would come to the conclusion Adam was not one day old but an adult. The Bible is right in saying that Adam was created young and science is right in saying that Adam was apparently many years old.

1. Why don’t you actually provide objective evidence that Adam was created as described in the Bible without using the fallacious method of using the source to justify itself. But I see your argument relies on the opposition to disprove your apologist statement instead of you proving it.

2. I am going to have to ask for some help with the next point. Most biological markers are a marker of physiological rather than chronological age, although Adam would be physiologically an adult even if chronologically only 1 day old. However I am thinking something like telomeres might be a marker the scientist could use to conclude Adam's age.

So it is that the Bible teaches that the intelligent designer (God) created mature planets, animals, birds, fish etc, each with the capacity as mature living things to reproduce after their own kinds. Likewise the same designer is said to have created in the earth mineral deposits such as gold (Genesis 2:12) which normally, like the growth of a man, are produced over long periods of time.

The fact is that just as we pack a vehicle with all we may need for a few weeks camping in the outback, so Christianity teaches God created the Earth with everything packed into it knowing beforehand what would be needed for humanity’s use until His planned end of the trip. It is this truth about our world and its designer that provides humanity with purpose and meaning for all that takes place in life – without it there is no reason for life, direction or hope. So science by its measurements teaches what is the apparent age of the Earth, while the Bible teaches that the Earth is much younger. The two are not in conflict.

These two paragraphs could be summed up with the God is a trickster argument, where God tricks scientist into getting all these funny ages. This type of argument relies on the pseudoscientific method, ie assuming the theory is correct, and making observations fit with the theory or making up an explanation to reconcile observations with theory even when there is no evidence to support this explanation. But then the good reverend most probably hasn’t heard of a fellow theologian known as William of Occam.

What is in conflict is an interpretation of science that teaches there is no designer and the complexity of our world happened by accident over billions of years.

And here I thought that science teaches that the world was formed due to the laws of physics – gravity causes mass to attract mass. These masses (hydrogen) will continue to come together until nuclear fusion occurs which causes rising temperatures and pressure and a star is born. The fusion reaction will prevent the star from collapsing, but eventually the star will run out of hydrogen to convert into helium. If the star has enough mass it will convert helium to heavier elements and so on to prolong its life. Eventually gravity would cause these heavier elements to coalesce and planets are formed. Seems like an application of the laws of physics, but I guess to the intellectually lazy it would seem like an “accident”.

I would not accept that explanation for the complexity of a designer watch, much less can I accept that explanation for the greater complexity of human life and the universe.

Obviously the fact that we decide a watch is artificial because we know we made it and NOT because of its “complexity” seems beyond your ability to grasp.

Christianity and science are not at odds, the conflict is between the theory of evolution and the teaching of the Bible – interestingly both deal with the same testable evidence that science provides but come up with different explanations for the origins of the universe.

While it is possible for someone to be religious and scientific (obviously by ignoring parts where the two conflict) Christianity and science are at odds. One relies on revelation and faith to justify itself, the other relies on observations and testing. One will revise its teachings in the face of new evidence, the other will stubbornly cling to its belief.

But hey, you fooled me with the part about the Bible having testable evidence, since you never once showed this testable evidence. And its nice to see another dumbfuck who thinks evolution is supposed to explain the origins of the universe, but then we can’t expect creationist crackpots to actually study the theory the purport to debunk.


There are some more letters which I will repost later and try demolishing their arguments. Since it was getting late I picked the longest letter to start.

[Darth Wong]

The problem is that the audience for an exchange like this is generally too stupid and ignorant to recognize the fallacies being employed by the other side. If the average person were 50% smarter, creationism would not exist as a political force.

[PainRack]

Over here, the problem is that the audience simply doesn't care about the message.

A goodly portion of them don't know the rebuttals and the majority of them refuse to anaylses the material to see the mistakes made even though they SHOULD know better.

There's a sort of weird transference of trust going on, trust that the person making the speech knows what he's talking about and that its "true" and any objections are just opposing it because they're on the wrong side. Somehow, the fact that the person speaks with religious authority translates to the person being an authority on science.

They want to believe. Its sorta like an avid photographer I know who believe that the Moon photographs were faked....... even though he should know that the reason why he doesn't see stars is because of lightning.

[weemadando]

Yet another Australian fundie who will never go anywhere.

Creation the- sorry, Intelligent Design, will never get anywhere near Australian classrooms as anything other than a laughing stock unless Family First miraculously gains power in both the House of Reps and the Senate.

[LeftWingExtremist]

The problem is that the audience for an exchange like this is generally too stupid and ignorant to recognize the fallacies being employed by the other side. If the average person were 50% smarter, creationism would not exist as a political force.

yes i would agree i live in australia and there are tons of people i would consider stupid. next election i will put the biggest number i can in the family first party box.

[thejester]

Creation the- sorry, Intelligent Design, will never get anywhere near Australian classrooms as anything other than a laughing stock unless Family First miraculously gains power in both the House of Reps and the Senate.

I wouldn't be so sure. With the way things are in the Senate (Joyce in particular) the Family First bloke could become very important. Brenadan Nielsen's already welcomed the idea of teaching ID alongside evolution - seems a very cheap grab for votes. Given what happened to One Nation, where in it's second election its voters switched en masse to the Liberals because of immigration, I think it's entirely possible ID could gather momentum in the Australian education system. Thank god I'll be out of it in two months.

[mr friendly guy]

More bullshit coming the next day. I don't know whether to feel happy that I am smarter than average or sad that average in my country is so stupid.

Your report (Teachers reject creation theory, 13/8) contained a veritable smorgasbord of discussion on the teaching of intelligent design and evolution in school science. Perhaps the menu was a little one sided? Those quoted all belonged to the same debating team.

It’s a pity that so much of this discussion assumes traditional scientific theories are proved (or even provable) while others (still rational) positions are matters of personal faith only. In fact philosophers have long known that theories such as evolution ( and much modern physics) are not demonstrable in any lab. Has anyone experimentally reproduced one species evolving into another? In fact, all grand theories are based on a set of assumptions.

I am no creationist, but to assert as Professor Schmitt does in our report, that such theories are “based on scientific method” and tested and proved over time is to confuse the gathering of simple data with the development of an overarching theory to make sense of the data. There are light years between gathering information on our solar system’s planets and constructing a theory for their (unrepeatable) development billions of years ago. I certainly hope no one attempts a second big bang in my university’s physics labs.

I note, also, that when surveyed, the vast majority of Australians claim to believe in a divine creative being, so the argument seems to be whether majority opinion should be included in our children’s science lessons. Hardly contentious, unless you’re an atheistic fundamentalist.

However, there’s a deeper issue. It is this splitting of our minds and lives into water-tight compartments – the economic, the scientific, the spiritual. That is darkening our society and creating stress, confusion and, in too many of our young people, despair.

Fundamentalists of all colours should take courage, leave their bunkers and join an open – minded quest for a rich, intelligent and meaningful life. That’s the sort of science I wish my children to learn.

Your report (Teachers reject creation theory, 13/8) contained a veritable smorgasbord of discussion on the teaching of intelligent design and evolution in school science. Perhaps the menu was a little one sided? Those quoted all belonged to the same debating team.

Maybe because the other team have no valid arguments. Nooo, that couldn’t have anything to do with it. It must be because the newspaper is bias.

It’s a pity that so much of this discussion assumes traditional scientific theories are proved (or even provable) while others (still rational) positions are matters of personal faith only.

Except they have been “proved” (absolute proof does not exist in science, but having the theory closely match the observations would count as “proof” in this context), so the assumption is valid. And I like to see what these other “rational” positions are. Oh wait, you don’t provide any. Tickle me pink, why am I not surprised?

In fact philosophers have long known that theories such as evolution ( and much modern physics) are not demonstrable in any lab.

And philosophers are correct because you said so. Now kindly go back to putting your hands over your ears and shouting lah lah lah lah lah.

Has anyone experimentally reproduced one species evolving into another?

Yes, since the early part of the 20th century as a simple google search will show http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html. Do try and keep up with the times, or you can continue shouting lah lah lah lah.

In fact, all grand theories are based on a set of assumptions.

They are called assumptions because the concepts which we base one theory is derived by someone else in a different experiment, and to save repeating the previous experiment we assume the previous experiment was correct (after undergoing extensive scrutiny). It concepts which form our assumptions are not pulled out from thin out, unlike say assuming God exists but from observations and experimentation. Darwin did not assume evolution existed when he first proposed it. He derived the theory from his observations. But its becoming apparent that you don’t even understand the basics of what the scientific method is.

I am no creationist, but to assert as Professor Schmitt does in our report, that such theories are “based on scientific method” and tested and proved over time is to confuse the gathering of simple data with the development of an overarching theory to make sense of the data.

Who does this moron think he is fooling? By stating he is not bias (even though he clearly is) does he magically think his argument carries more weight? Does he not realise that evolution has been tested over time and the gist of it (ie species change over time with small changes accumulating leading to the development of a new species)? But then he didn’t realise speciation had been observed since the early 1900’s either, suggesting lack of research.

There are light years between gathering information on our solar system’s planets and constructing a theory for their (unrepeatable) development billions of years ago. I certainly hope no one attempts a second big bang in my university’s physics labs.

I see that it never occurs to you that by the same logic, we cannot construct a theory for the unrepeatable event known as “Genesis”. I certainly hope God doesn’t act like a retard and tries creating the Earth without the Sun and expecting life to flourish on it. But don’t worry, we don’t need to repeat the same thing to conclude how it works, the same way police do not have to murder the victim again to show how he was killed.

I can observe the universe expanding in a certain direction. By back tracking this movement I can conclude that at the beginning the universe must have been just a point. And from that, the Big Bang theory is born.

I note, also, that when surveyed, the vast majority of Australians claim to believe in a divine creative being, so the argument seems to be whether majority opinion should be included in our children’s science lessons. Hardly contentious, unless you’re an atheistic fundamentalist.

Hey moron, the issue is contentious because the validity of scientific theories are not dependent on popularity. Why am I not surprise you don’t understand such a simple concept? But I can see you are busy now using the “my opponents are bias” fallacy after proclaiming yourself non-bias.

However, there’s a deeper issue. It is this splitting of our minds and lives into water-tight compartments – the economic, the scientific, the spiritual. That is darkening our society and creating stress, confusion and, in too many of our young people, despair.

Are you on drugs or something. These “compartments” exist independently of each other because by their very nature they are different. But you soon go on a tangent with a rant about how this creates despair without explaining how. Why don’t you try “proving this experimentally”, or we suppose to apply a double standard and assume you are automatically correct.

Fundamentalists of all colours should take courage, leave their bunkers and join an open – minded quest for a rich, intelligent and meaningful life. That’s the sort of science I wish my children to learn.

Who gives a flying fuck what sort of “science” you want your kids to learn? Its apparent that to you open minded = accepting any crack pot theory without evidence, intelligent = using numerous logical fallacies and meaningful = ignoring evidence in favour of what you want to believe in, isn’t what science is about. If you want you kids to learn that, there is already a subject which does just that. Its called religion.

[mr friendly guy]

I will say one thing, all this time on SD.net and debunking this bullshit in the papers has improved my debating skills quite a bit.

Brendan Nelson’s support of intelligent design as being worthy of inclusion in schools’ science curriculum was criticized as a “promotion of Christian creationism” (report, 13/8).

In the early 1980’s Nobel Prize-winning scientist Francis Crick ( an avowed atheist) and astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, after completing a lengthy detailed study of the mathematical probability of life evolving by chance, concluded that life was far too complex for it to have occurred naturally on Earth.

Many years ago, a newspaper reported that a prominent scientist, while debating evolution against Christian creationists, was asked the question : “Why are creationists allowed to continue to advance their intelligent design basis in the scientific arena?” The evolutionary scientist replied that “the biblical creation basis of human life was far more acceptable from a scientific perspective than evolution, whose theories are continually needing modification due to ongoing scientific discoveries”. The scientist then went on to say : “But the creation account presupposes the existence of a creator God, and as I don’t believe there is a God, evolution must be true.”

Evidence and argument for intelligent design, although they do indeed support the Christian basis for origins, are coming more and more from the non-Christian scientific community.

It seems the opposition to the intelligent design hypothesis is not so much due to analysis of the scientific evidence but to an inability to accept the existence of a creator God to start with.

Could it be that students are being denied the balanced curriculum of scientific origins, not because of scientific perspectives but because of educators’ reluctance to allow students to consider the existence of a biblical creator and the implications that involves? An interesting question indeed. I support Brendan Nelson’s proposal.

Brendan Nelson’s support of intelligent design as being worthy of inclusion in schools’ science curriculum was criticized as a “promotion of Christian creationism” (report, 13/8).

Another Christian who doesn’t take time to read properly the topic he is debating. What a shock. Nelson made a grab for the Christian vote by saying he did not oppose ID being thought in schools, but NOT in science classes.

link

Brendan Nelson said he would be "quite concerned" if intelligent design were to replace "teaching the origins of mankind in a scientific sense."

In the early 1980’s Nobel Prize-winning scientist Francis Crick ( an avowed atheist) and astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, after completing a lengthy detailed study of the mathematical probability of life evolving by chance, concluded that life was far too complex for it to have occurred naturally on Earth.

Since you clearly understand Crick’s and Hoyle’s argument, why don’t you summarise it and demolish evolution instead of just appealing to their authority? Hint : Hoyle failed to understand that the natural selection component of evolution is NON-RANDOM.

Many years ago, a newspaper reported that a prominent scientist, while debating evolution against Christian creationists, was asked the question : “Why are creationists allowed to continue to advance their intelligent design basis in the scientific arena?”

Are you that ignorant or something? Creationist haven’t advanced their theories in the scientific arena? There is no peer review of creationist literature like other scientific theories. You will notice that the Creationist have given up on the convincing the scientific arena and have since moved on to the public arena instead.

The evolutionary scientist replied that “the biblical creation basis of human life was far more acceptable from a scientific perspective than evolution, whose theories are continually needing modification due to ongoing scientific discoveries”.

The strength of science lies in the fact that theories which do not match new evidence is discarded or modified. Clearly this moron doesn’t understand jack shit about science. He also doesn’t realise that the part about evolution has been modified is the how and the why, not the “does it occur at all” part. The person who thinks a theory is “more acceptable” because it doesn’t change even when the evidence suggests against it is a pseudoscientist. Kind of like the person who believes the Earth is 6000 years old even against the overwhelming evidence.

The scientist then went on to say : “But the creation account presupposes the existence of a creator God, and as I don’t believe there is a God, evolution must be true.”

Funny how he doesn’t provide the name of this scientist who used the appeal to consequence fallacy isn’t it. Does this scientist even exists? What exactly is he trying to argue here? Because one “scientist” uses fallacious reasoning it discounts the whole of science and the scientific community? Certainly seems that way. Sorry, who is using logical fallacies again?

Evidence and argument for intelligent design, although they do indeed support the Christian basis for origins, are coming more and more from the non-Christian scientific community

Such as? Hint Behe the proponent of intelligent design doesn’t count since he is a Christian. One has to wonder do these members of the non-Christian scientific community who support your view even exists since you can’t even name them?

It seems the opposition to the intelligent design hypothesis is not so much due to analysis of the scientific evidence but to an inability to accept the existence of a creator God to start with.

Then why don’t you provide this “scientific evidence” and show how the analysis must lead to the existence of a creator. Then provide evidence that people who oppose ID do it because of an inability to accept God. Or are we just suppose to take your word for it because you said so?

Could it be that students are being denied the balanced curriculum of scientific origins, not because of scientific perspectives but because of educators’ reluctance to allow students to consider the existence of a biblical creator and the implications that involves? An interesting question indeed. I support Brendan Nelson’s proposal.

1. Use of logical fallacies (appeal to motive). Tick.
2. Unsupported claims (scientific evidence for ID). Tick.
3. Pure retardation (that scientific curriculum must be balanced, as opposed to teaching the theory which most fits the evidence). Tick
4. Creationist idiot displaying his stupidity. Tick.

[weemadando]

Creation the- sorry, Intelligent Design, will never get anywhere near Australian classrooms as anything other than a laughing stock unless Family First miraculously gains power in both the House of Reps and the Senate.

I wouldn't be so sure. With the way things are in the Senate (Joyce in particular) the Family First bloke could become very important. Brenadan Nielsen's already welcomed the idea of teaching ID alongside evolution - seems a very cheap grab for votes. Given what happened to One Nation, where in it's second election its voters switched en masse to the Liberals because of immigration, I think it's entirely possible ID could gather momentum in the Australian education system. Thank god I'll be out of it in two months.

Not a chance. It has to get parliamentary approval in order for such a massive change in teaching theory to enter the curriculum. And that would be at both a national AND a state level. And even then schools would probably have some discretion in the matter.

And, when ID was last raised in Australian parliament (mid last year IIRC) it was actually LAUGHED out of the Senate. And until FF has a few more people in place they have to maintain the pretense of actually being a legitimate political entity, not a religious group.

[thejester]

Out of interest Friendly Guy, what paper did you get them out of? Fairfax or Murdoch?

Not a chance. It has to get parliamentary approval in order for such a massive change in teaching theory to enter the curriculum. And that would be at both a national AND a state level. And even then schools would probably have some discretion in the matter.

What is the official curriculum? I'm in a Victorian private school and haven't done biology at a VCE level. Our Yr 10 science textbook had evolution in it, but we didn't do it as we ran out of time. So everyone in my year who didn't do VCE biology hasn't learnt about evolution (and it shows). The question then is: what legislation would have to be amended or created to allow ID to pass?

[weemadando]

OK - I'm not entirely sure of the specifics, but due to public schools being gov't funded (state and federally) both of them have oversight into what is taught.

For a RADICAL change in the teachings of something like biology (such as ID) approval from both legislative groups would likely be required.

For some fun - look up creation theory and intelligent design in the Hansard archives to get an idea of what the Parliament as a whole thinks of it.

As for evolution not being taught be Year 10 - what the fuck - I went to a private school, Scotch Oakburn College (Uniting Church backed) and we learnt evolution in Year 8. And despite being a religiously funded school, creationism was never mentioned outside of Chapel (a weekly 40 minute snore fest) or the religion component of Personal Development classes.

[Xon]

After our indoctrination, er I mean education minister suggested that he won't oppose Intelligent design being taught in schools (thankfully not as a science, even though it purports to be one), creationist nutters have started coming out whatever dark domain they live.

The kicker is the Federal level education minister can not directly dictate what school will teach.

Talk about a blatent vote grab

[mr friendly guy]

Out of interest Friendly Guy, what paper did you get them out of? Fairfax or Murdoch?

The West Australian

According to their own website : West Australian Newspapers Limited are the publishers of The West Australian and 19 regional newspapers. I am not sure if they are owned by a bigger corporation, but it doesn't seem that way.

And they just keep on coming

Donald Rumsfeld, US secretary of Defence, once famously stated that “stuff happens”. This, unfortunately, sums up the scientific basis of the theory of evolution. Everything in evolution, from the big bang onwards, relies on the pre-existence of matter and the laws that control its behaviour. Yet, no scientific or rational explanation is given for their existence. They are accepted as “just being there”. However, without them there would be true chaos or, more appropriately, nothing.

Even if a rational explanation were forthcoming, there is still the minor problem of the origin of life. Only living organisms beget life. Inanimate objects do not suddenly produce animate ones. This is scientific fact and the Frankenstein notion that a bolt of lightning could somehow bring a collection of elements to life has never been demonstrated or proved in a laboratory or anywhere else.

When reduced to this level, it becomes obvious that the theory of evolution is no more and no less than a religious faith masquerading as science. It has no more basis in fact than fairies at the bottom of the garden, possibly even less so. It is unproved and unprovable. That it should be accepted uncritically into our education system shows just how many so called educated people have been deceived in the rush to throw off the restraints of traditional religious teaching.

Maybe the introduction of intelligent design will help restore a balance.

Donald Rumsfeld, US secretary of Defence, once famously stated that “stuff happens”. This, unfortunately, sums up the scientific basis of the theory of evolution

Donald Rumsfeld, US secretary of Defence, once famously stated that “stuff happens”. This pretty much sums up the basis of Creationism – “God just did it.”

[Editor’s note – ignoramus here apparently doesn’t understand evolution works by mutations and natural selection, and not because it “just happens”]

Everything in evolution, from the big bang onwards, relies on the pre-existence of matter and the laws that control its behaviour.

Everything in Creationism from Genesis onwards relies on the pre-existence of something called God and his “divine powers”, both of which has never been observed unlike matter and the laws controlling its behaviour.

[Editor’s note – ignoramus seems to be confusing evolution with the Big Bang. Never a good sign for cretins, er I mean creationists as it usually indicates they didn’t actually bother studying the material].

Yet, no scientific or rational explanation is given for their existence. They are accepted as “just being there”.

Yet, no scientific or rational explanation is given for God’s existence. He is accepted as “just being there”.

[Editor’s note – dumbass doesn’t realise the self contradictory nature of using “first cause” arguments]

However, without them there would be true chaos or, more appropriately, nothing.

However, without God or any divine being for that matter, there would be no religious bigotry, no attempt to retard scientific progress (in modern times), no crusades, no Spanish Inquisition, or more appropriately, a nicer world to be in.

[Editor’s note – ignoramus fails to understand that if there is nothing, there wouldn’t be chaos. Chaos is greater in complex systems, or to put it another way, chaos needs something to be there for chaos to occur].

Even if a rational explanation were forthcoming, there is still the minor problem of the origin of life. Only living organisms beget life. Inanimate objects do not suddenly produce animate ones. This is scientific fact and the Frankenstein notion that a bolt of lightning could somehow bring a collection of elements to life has never been demonstrated or proved in a laboratory or anywhere else.

Even if we generously assume there is a being called “God”, there is still the minor problem of the origin of life. [Ignoramus states that ] only living organisms beget life. Inanimate objects do not suddenly produce animate ones so how did God create life from inaminate objects? The Creationism notion that God could somehow bring a collection of elements to life (without an explanation of the mechanism) has never been demonstrated or proved in a laboratory or anywhere else (yet we are suppose to accept it over the more favourable theory because the other does not explain 100% everything).

[Editor’s note – ignoramus is blissfully unaware of something known as abiogenesis, the theory of how life came from non – life on early Earth.

When reduced to this level, it becomes obvious that the theory of evolution is no more and no less than a religious faith masquerading as science. It has no more basis in fact than fairies at the bottom of the garden, possibly even less so. It is unproved and unprovable. That it should be accepted uncritically into our education system shows just how many so called educated people have been deceived in the rush to throw off the restraints of traditional religious teaching.

When reduced to this level, it becomes obvious that Creationism and Intelligent Design is no more and no less than a religious faith masquerading as science. It has no more basis in fact than Zeus or Thor. It is unproved and unprovable.

[Editor’s note – ignoramus doesn’t realise that evolution has been observed and tested experimentally. Fairies at the bottom of the garden haven’t. Try again].

That it should be accepted uncritically into our education system shows just how many so called educated people have been deceived in the rush to throw off the restraints of traditional religious teaching.

That Creationists should attempt to thrust it into our education system via the public arena rather than the scientific arena shows just how many moronic uneducated sheep have been deceived in the rush to be indoctrinated.

[Editor’s note – ignoramus doesn’t realise that the scientific community conducts peer reviews, and evolution has whethered the storm, so it hardly is accepted uncritically. Ignoramus also uses an appeal to motive fallacy, and naturally can’t get his head around the fact that there is evidence supporting evolution. No it must be because “evolutionists” hate religion. Yeah that must be it ].

Maybe the introduction of intelligent design will help restore a balance

Maybe stopping intelligent design will help teach FACTS which is much more better than this strange concept of “balance”.

I went to Rossmoyne, one of the best high schools in Western Australia (even compared to the private schools). We learnt evolution in year 9 but I don't recall learning more than say reading Richard Dawkins or SD.net's main site, but I do know we were never given the impression that evolution is part of big bang theory or vice versa. So where does this strange idea enter creationist's heads from?

[Darth Wong]

If religious beliefs deserve equal time in science class in order to create "balance", then I insist that skeptics be allowed equal time at Sunday church services in order to create "balance" there too.

[weemadando]

Indeed, being an atheist and a firm believer in atheism, I demand the same tax breaks as a church receives - and every atheist should get the same as we have no collective church that would otherwise benefit.

[thejester]

As for evolution not being taught be Year 10 - what the fuck - I went to a private school, Scotch Oakburn College (Uniting Church backed) and we learnt evolution in Year 8. And despite being a religiously funded school, creationism was never mentioned outside of Chapel (a weekly 40 minute snore fest) or the religion component of Personal Development classes.

Christian College, Geelong. School board is a mixture of Baptists, United, Salvos, and some other assorted denominations. Like you, we've never got ID/Creation outside of Chapel (in fact, I don't think we ever got it there), but we never got taught evolution either. Mind you, our school's pretty hard core fundy in the leadership - our principal honest-to-god said "God wants you to wear your uniform correctly", leaving everyone else saying "Wanna back that up?"

[Ford Prefect]

Christian College, Geelong. School board is a mixture of Baptists, United, Salvos, and some other assorted denominations. Like you, we've never got ID/Creation outside of Chapel (in fact, I don't think we ever got it there), but we never got taught evolution either. Mind you, our school's pretty hard core fundy in the leadership - our principal honest-to-god said "God wants you to wear your uniform correctly", leaving everyone else saying "Wanna back that up?"

That would makes sense. I myself have only attended Catholic schools, but I first learnt about evolution in primary school. Genesis never really came into it, even though we knew of it. It might have had something to do with a priest telling us that Genesis didn't happen how it was written.