Q&A: Plibersek strangely unconvinced about creationism in the classroom

On last night’s Q&A, two viewers,  Dr Karey Harrison from Harristown (via Toowoomba) and Dr Cathy Byrne from NSW raised the question of students being taught creationism ‘as fact’ in schools. How strange that we keep bringing up this subject but politicians keep sticking their heads in the sand and denying it’s happening!

Addressing the panel by video, Dr Harrison said:

I expected my children to be taught science in science classes at the local state school. So I was a bit angry when my son was taught a creation story about  the origin of the universe in his Year 11 physics class at the local high school. My son didn’t want me to do anything because he was concerned about possible repercussions for his grades which in Queensland, count towards university entrance. So I want to know from the panel what is your attitude towards teaching religion in science classes and to Tanya [Plibersek, ALP] and Greg [Hunt, LNP], in particular, what you and your parties will do to stop religion being taught in our science classes?

Labor Minister, Tanya Plibersek’s response was to fob off the question, noting:

“… but it’s one state school. You might have run into one teacher with particular views in one school. I don’t know that we can say that that is a characterisation of what’s being taught in science in all of our state schools. I’d be very surprised and very disturbed if that was the case.”

Soon after, a video question from education researcher, Dr Cathy Byrne, confirmed that the problem was far more widespread than ‘just one school’.

“My question is for Laurence Krauss,” said Dr  Byrne.

“You may know that some evangelical religious groups have direct access to children in state schools in Australia. My research has shown that some of these organisations teach that man and dinosaurs lived together, that the earth is only 6000 years old and that children will burn in hell if they don’t read the Bible every day. How might teaching children such things in our state system effect Australia’s future?”

It is clear that Dr Byrne has found sufficient evidence of creationism in enough schools to feel it is an issue worth raising. Her concern clearly suggests that the problem transcends ‘just one school’.

And Drs Harrison and Byrne are not the only ones concerned about the infiltration of creationism into Australian schools. On February 13, Dr Paul Willis, director of the prestigious Royal Institution of Australia – a national organisation for the promotion of science –  wrote an article revealing his growing concern about creationism in the classroom. Is it likely that Willis would raise the issue if he believed the problem was confined to a rogue teacher or two?

“My concern is not simply for the specifics of demonstrating through science that evolution has occurred, that the palaeontologists are right and that the creationists are laughably wrong on each and every count”, wrote Willis.

“The burden on a science education of having to deal with this rubbish effects the fundamentals of understanding what science is and how it’s conducted. It challenges and erodes an education in logic and reason.”

teaching_creationism

In the Australian Book of Atheism (Warren Bonett, ed, 2010), Professor Graham Oppy, Head of the School of Philosophical, Historical and International Studies at Monash University, affirms that:

“Groups like CSF (Christian Science Foundation), Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries, and Creation Research … work hard to get their materials into schools …”

And they’re succeeding. According to Professor Oppy, since 2000, the teaching of creationism in science classes has become “more prevalent”.

How is it, one might ask, that creationism in the classroom is widely acknowledged by teachers and academics, but, when politicians are asked about it, their  inevitable reaction is to feign surprise!

Late last year, I wrote about a Queensland state school where creationism is being taught ‘as science’ in the science classroom. The information came directly from a science teacher who was so appalled at what was going on at her school, she risked her job to speak out. She later told her story on Radio National’s Life Matters program. That teacher has said, plainly, this is not the only school where this is happening.  Science teachers speak to each other and while many know creationism is a problem, particularly in Queensland schools , many fear for their jobs if they speak out – especially under the current conservative regime of happy clappers. I’m reliably informed that Education Queensland’s reaction to the news that creationism is being taught ‘as science’ in a state high school science class has been to ‘deny, deny, deny’.

So, perhaps we should not be surprised that when creationism in schools was raised last night, Ms Plibersek’s reacted as if she had never heard of such a thing; as if the problem of creationism in Australian classrooms was a completely new issue.  It’s not. We’ve been carping about it for years and politicians from both sides of the political fence have been sticking their fingers in their ears for approximately the same amount of time.

In August 2011, for example, there was a public uproar after a chaplain from a state school in Gympie arranged for creationist, John Mackay, to deliver a ‘scientific’ lecture to students. Yet, chaplains still infest our schools and creationists are still being invited to speak to students.

Recently, one of the Young Australian Skeptics confirmed that, at his ‘semi-private’ Christian school, students were told by an invited guest that the evolutionary theory they were being taught in science class was ‘not true’. As the student says:

“I don’t mind having people come and speak to us in chapel if they are talking about how God wants to help you, loves you, etc; but I cannot stand it when someone comes into the school and tells us the curriculum set for us is wrong. “You learn about evolution in the classroom, but this is the real truth. All of that stuff isn’t based on anything provable.” Arguments ranging from irreducible complexity to the point that Noah’s flood is the reason for the Grand Canyon being around. He even managed to mess up natural selection by almost reversing how it works. What a spectacular man!”

“What actually happened in the past?” is the rhetorical question posed by creationist, Dr Mark Harwood, the above-mentioned speaker, in his set speech to school students. Here is what Harwood and his mates from Creation Ministries International are telling Australian school students:

While still wildly inaccurate, Harwood’s approach is slightly more sophisticated than the misguided religious instruction teachers who have told students that “Noah collected dinosaur eggs to bring on the Ark” and that “Adam and Eve were not eaten by dinosaurs because they were under a protective spell.”

On the Atheist Foundation of Australian forum, I found a post from the chief scientist at a reptile sanctuary in Canberra. With considerable frustration, he reports that when he attempted to answer questions about the reptiles from a visiting school group, a teacher interrupted his explanation and asked him  to answer the questions without mentioning evolution.

“Yeah mate, look we don’t buy into that evolution stuff, there are too many holes in it, its just a theory”

With a stunned gaze I managed to get out some words “what do you mean”

“Well we teach creation at our school, evolution is just one world view, that’s your world view, and our world view is as it is stated in the Bible”

In 2010, the Australian reported that school students in NSW had been presented with ‘creationist showbags” by a  group of scripture volunteers. These “Creation For Kids” give-aways contained “colouring books, calendars and DVDs deriding evolution and claiming that the universe was only 6000 years old.”

And, if  the practice of bringing creationism into the classroom is not widespread as so many teachers, researchers and academics claim, why did the chief executive of Christian Schools Australia, Stephen O’Doherty, howl  (in early 2010) that the SA government was withdrawing “the right to teach ”biblical perspectives” as part of science”?

We know that creationism is entering Australian state schools’ science classrooms by stealth. We know that it  is still taught, quite openly, in Christian schools. In schools where the science classroom has been successfully ‘roped off’ from creationist myths, the fundamentalists find other ways to undermine the science curriculum.  This will continue as long as government ministers, like Plibersek, adopt denial as the most convenient way to deal with the rising problem of religion in schools.

We know that, throughout Australia, in both public and private schools, inside and outside of science classes, evolution is being undermined while a fundamentalist, literalist view of creation is being touted to students by whatever means and in whatever pedagogical venue the creationists can manage to infiltrate.

Indeed, a 2010 report notes that:

“Kings Christian Church youth worker Dustin Bell said he taught ‘about creation’ in Sunshine Coast schools.”

“Set Free Christian Church’s Tim McKenzie said when students questioned him why dinosaur fossils carbon dated as earlier than man, he replied that the great flood must have skewed the data.”

And, in a shocking but amusing anecdote (which I can confirm, because I know the parent involved):

“A parent of a Year 5 student on the Sunshine Coast said his daughter was ostracised to the library after arguing with her scripture teacher about DNA.

“The scripture teacher told the class that all people were descended from Adam and Eve,” he said.

“My daughter rightly pointed out, as I had been teaching her about DNA and science, that ‘wouldn’t they all be inbred’?

“But the teacher replied that DNA wasn’t invented then.”

Another parent, Graeme,  from the Sunshine Coast complained  to Queensland Labor Premier, Anna Bligh, that, after his daughter’s science teacher explained the theory of evolution by natural selection to the class, he screened a video on intelligent design.  In reply, Premier Bligh assured Graeme that it was perfectly acceptable for science teachers to ask their students to ‘look at a range of opinions – a range of views’.

So, when teaching geography, do we also show students DVDs from flat earth theorists?

When teaching astronomy, do we bring in an astrologer to explain how the stars guide our lives and personalities?

When teaching kids how the brain works, do we ask teachers to screen a video of John Edwards so they will understand ‘there is a view’ that a living, functioning brain is not a necessary prerequisite to communication. (A necessary clarification –  I’m speaking here of the spirits with whom Edwards allegedly communes, not Edwards himself!) After all, we wouldn’t want the children of parents who believe in TV psychics to feel their parents’ views are not being respected in the science class, would we?

Teaching creationism alongside evolution cannot be justified as ‘teaching the controversy’. As Professor Lawrence Krauss confirmed on Q & A last night, there is no ‘controversy’ about evolutionary theory. It’s supported by over 200 years of irrefutable evidence from a wide range of  scientific and medical disciplines. While a huge collection of fossil evidence (complete with ‘missing’ links) has helped to establish evolution by natural selection ‘as fact’, evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins assures us the evidence from other fields is so voluminous that evolution can now be proven even without reference to fossils:

“Fossils are not necessary to prove evolution nowadays, as we can do that with comparative evidence, especially via chemical molecular evidence. But fossils are very nice for showing the direct course evolution took – fossils are the only evidence we have which show what animals were like in the distant past.

We are very lucky to have fossils, [but] if we didn’t have fossils at all, we’d still know evolution was true. There are some gaps in the fossil record too, of course, which those sceptical about evolution think is important, but of course it’s not. The whole fossil record could be one big gap and we would still know evolution was true. But although there are gaps there are still substantial parts of evolution where we have a pretty good record of what exactly happened.”

It is simply unacceptable that the laxity of our state and federal governments has allowed an ideological belief to infiltrate schools and undermine the teaching of a vitally important scientific theory which undergirds so many of this nation’s scientific, agricultural and medical endeavours. We need our children to be well informed about science because they are the scientists, researchers, inventors and innovators of the future.

Dr John Dickson from the Centre for Public Christianity confirmed on Q&A last night, that a literal interpretation of Genesis is neither scientifically nor theologically sound. Further, he noted that not even early Christians would have read Genesis literally – this is a far later affectation.

Even the Catholic Church, which can’t seem to get its head around the fact that condoms reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS, has been forced to  acknowledge the truth of evolutionary theory. There is simply no reason for our government to cave in to extremist fundamentalist fringe views at the expense of our children’s education.

Indeed, it is unfair to allow children to be confused by well-meaning, but misinformed religious evangelists – whether these be teachers, principals, guest speakers, or volunteers invited into the school for the purpose of teaching religion.

Let me try an analogy. Would anyone find it acceptable for children to be told by an RI teacher or guest speaker that their maths teacher is lying when they say 1+1=2  and that, in fact,  1+1 actually equals 3?  How would we feel if some maths teachers who, despite all evidence to the contrary, subscribed to the belief that 1+1=3 were allowed to teach that in the maths classroom while the government looked the other way, denied it was happening and responded to evidence by downplaying it as an ‘isolated incident’? Teaching that there is some scientific controversy about the fact of evolution by natural selection, or suggesting to students that creationism is somehow supported by science is every bit as unsound as telling them that 1+1=3.

Ms Plibersek and her party (state and federal) have to stop ignoring the problem of religion in government funded schools – both state and private – and implement policies which promote science, reason and critical thinking and which confine religious mythology to the home and the church.

If you know of an incident or incidents of creationism being taught or touted within Australian schools, please contact Ms Plibersek’s office at:  Minister.Plibersek@health.gov.au. Perhaps we can convince her that it’s not happening in ‘just one school’.

Chrys Stevenson

Related Media

Q&A – Monday, 18 February 2013

Creationism in Schools – Radio National, Life Matters

Faith in Schools: the dismantling of Australia’s secular public education system  – ABC Religion & Ethics, Chrys Stevenson

Keeping ignorance and extremism out of public schools: The role of teachers and their unions – ABC Religion & Ethics, Dr Cathy Byrne

Creationists hijack lessons and teach schoolkids man and dinosaurs walked together, Carly Hennessy and Kathleen Donaghey, the Courier-Mail.

63 thoughts on “Q&A: Plibersek strangely unconvinced about creationism in the classroom

  1. Brett Caton

    She knew damn well that it was common, but I’m guessing she didn’t want to upset her ‘Donors’.

    It staggers me when religious folk lie and deceive because they think they’ll convert more people that way.

    Reply
  2. doug Steley

    I was disappointed that the the idea that creationism being taught in state schools was so quickly dismissed as being an isolated incident

    I will be writing to the minister to voice my opinions

    If it is taught in one state school they system is failing our students

    They need to find out exactly how many schools it is being taught in and make sure it stops immediately.

    Reply
  3. Peter Bartley

    It continues to amaze me that in our secular schools this tripe is still being allowed to infect our kids. Religion is not another world view when it is compared to evolution. Evolution is provable, observable and makes predictions, while creationism does nothing.

    Reply
  4. Hugh Wilson - ASL

    A great round-up Chrys, totally accurate.

    This is not the first time Plibersek has squibbed the question either.

    She did so back some years when the ASL had a video question on Q&A concerning the two sets of gendered-sexist ‘Christian Values’ drawn straight from a Hillsong-type agenda that was being taught to students in another Queensland high school.

    Of course, Garrett is hardly likely to upset the applecart and Gillard remains close to the ACL and The Salvo’s, while her internal party support comes from the last dregs of the old DLP, who seem to partially inhabit St. Peter’s Square and still dream of making Santamaria Australia’s next saint, and what’s left of the so-called ‘Socialist Left’ of the ALP have been in hiding since Macklin insisted she (and presumably all ALP Ministers) could live the life of Riley on the dole.

    Reply
  5. Chrissie Ray

    I read recently what Larry Graham (ex ALP ) politician said …that “Politicians can’t bring themselves to vote for it (Dying with Dignity)because they are petrified of the opposition from organised religion and religious activists, and that opposition is local and fierce.”
    Pollies are frightened to seem unreligious in any field and selectively deny the truth that stares at them in the face because they could lose their political power, careers and personal opportunities. We need to convince them to take a rational approach and listen to what’s really going on.

    Reply
    1. Fred

      Julia Gillard has been perfectly frank about her lack of religious belief. It didn’t seem to hurt her politically.

      Reply
      1. Andrew Fitzharry

        Gillard also says she is ‘left wing’ and has been a member of the Socialist Left for years, while seemingly preferring the right wing politics and people, like Jim Wallace from the ACL and all her right wing union mates.

        Ever seen her with Doug Cameron? No, always with Shorten and Howes.

        She is hardly a credible character, I’d say.

        In fact, I don’t recall a single ‘left’ thing about her but I do have images of her sucking up to the ACL burned into the back of my retinas, and my ears still ring with her praise for the Salvos even as they were apologising for 60 years of child abuse and she was handing out $222m so chaplains could be a ‘Salvo in the schoolyards’.

        Now, is Abbott any more credible?

        Hardly, but at least he doesn’t hide the fact he’s a twat, and we all know he’s close friends with Pell, which is probably a genuine friendship too.

        Gillard’s last ‘friend’ was Latham. Says it all really.

      2. Peter Bartley

        Fred, I agree with you. I often wonder at the way Julia cowtows to the religious right of the ALP. I expect that she needs to keep them on side as much as she can being an atheist, unmarried, living in sin and worst of all a female. It is a great step to have a female PM and an Athiest on top, so we should be happy that we have come this far.

  6. cooeerup

    Those of us who call themselves atheists, agnostics, deists, humanists, or secularists need to band together and start throwing our own political weight around. If we are to believe the last census we make up 25% of the population (more if secularists include the moderately religious). I’m sure we are a large enough group to demand change if we got our act together. The fact that we don’t means we should hang our heads in shame for our inaction.
    Where are people from these groups joining P&C groups attached to schools. Where are they putting their hand up to run for office locally, state, and federal. Where are they volunteering to be secular replacements for chaplains, or ethics tutors.
    When are we going to stop complaining from the sidelines and start acting. Aaaaarrrrgggghhhhh
    Vent over.

    Reply
  7. Tess

    …”There is simply no reason for our government to cave in to extremist fundamentalist fringe views at the expense of our children’s education.”…

    Why are they then? Why is this happening under our Government’s noses? Is it their ignorance? Is it because of the sheer stupidity of this belief system and the absurdity, that this is its secret that gets it through? “No-one will believe this!” Is this it’s approach and to how it is getting in?

    It’s very disconcerting to have our education high jacked to these pirates of this pseudo-science. What the hell is going on??

    Reply
  8. Jim Palfreyman

    Cooeerup and Tess raise very good points. I personally think it’s because the government is on a knife-edge vote-wise. Heading into an election a politician needs to piss off as few people as possible. And this government has had to walk the knife edge all term – just to avoid getting a few independents offside. It’s had its positives, but this is possibly a negative.

    I don’t blame the politicians themselves here – after all it is their job that they apply for each election. I blame the system – it doesn’t work well when the parliament is hung.

    Cooeerup says we need to be more vocal, or perhaps better phrased: lobby politicians more effectively. This idea means we work *with* the system and get the pollies to realise the huge support they would have in this matter. We are, after all, the silent majority in this country.

    Reply
  9. Andrew Fitzharry

    “It is a great step to have a female PM and an Athiest on top, so we should be happy that we have come this far”.

    Peter, in The Australian today is a snip of a story about Eva Cox (on Q&A next week I think), who would make a great PM, and she suggests we should all stop falling over ourselves, particularly women, in the rush to remain quiet about Gillard’s many shortcomings, just because she is a woman, and I agree. That goes for her pretending to be an ‘atheist’ too.

    To be honest, we’ve gone down and backwards under both Rudd and Gillard, and to be brutally honest, Rudd’s over-egged Christianity sounds marginally more authentic than Gillard’s Baptoatheism ever could.

    Don’t fall for the ‘at least it’s a start’ nonsense – Gillard’s been a wasted opportunity for Australia, but whether Rudd would have been any better is now a moot point, and let’s hope we never have to test that again.

    Reply
    1. Peter Bartley

      Actually I don’t think she come up short, she was from day one in a difficult situation. Over the entire term if this ALP government we have survived the GFC very well. There has been a lot of good decisions made including the NBN, carbon trading scheme and the disability insurance scheme. We have done very well under this government. Julia down plays her beliefs for obvious reasons.

      Reply
  10. Team Oyeniyi

    This cracked me up: “But the teacher replied that DNA wasn’t invented then.” W. T. F. ???

    Chrys, I love your article and have shared it just about everywhere possible. Unfortunately that just doesn’t solve the damn problem. In Victoria we are still fighting to get religion out of schools.

    Can we PLEASE have ethics classes instead!

    Between Abbott and Rudd we have the religious fundamentalists who will further support the brainwashing of the next generation. We cannot allow it to happen.

    I know the theists vehemently disagree with the use of the term brainwashing, but may I point everyone to a Dave Allen description of his “initiation” into the world of religion. If this isn’t brainwashing, I don’t know what is!

    Reply
  11. palmboy

    I too have heard a Qld science teacher say that creationism is taught in their school – which was described as a major metro school.
    This teacher also knew of other schools where this happened.

    Even one school, is one too many.

    Reply
  12. Paul

    Chrys
    What a well put together post.
    Thanks for it. I watched QandA and was very dissapointed with Tanya on that point. I thought the Christian guy was very good in his attitude and although I am anti-religion (mildly) I do like his embracement of science to explain ‘how’.
    If only all religious people took his attitude . . . . . . .
    I agree with the above comment, 1 school is 1 too many, and would add 1 class and 1 teacher is 1 too many.
    Creationism should be taught in comparative religion classes as something that some fundamental religions hold as a belief in spite of the evidence.
    Perhaps it should be in the science class as an example of anti-science. As shown in the cartoon.

    Reply
    1. Hugh Wilson ASLy

      Paul, certainly in Qld there are no ‘comparative religion’ classes in state schools.

      The QSA does have a Y11-12 course able to be run in all schools, but from memory, only in about 80 private schools in the state does this happen, no state schools.

      But why would any ‘professional’ teacher teach ‘anti-science’ in a science class?

      Do maths teachers do that in maths?

      Or do we have chemistry teachers teaching alchemy, or have students researching astrology to offset their learnings about astronomy?

      Science is science, and faith is faith.

      The ‘Dover’ case in the USA managed to work that out, and that was even with a handpicked Republican judge!

      Reply
    2. Peter Bartley

      I disagree Creationism should not be taught in science even on the condition that you mentioned. It is NOT science and only science should be taught in school. If one wishes to have a discussion on opposed theories use two real scientific ideas and leave religion to the churches.

      Reply
  13. Pingback: Abbott the UnAustralian | Love versus Goliath : A Partner Visa Journey

  14. Pingback: The 58th Down Under Feminists Carnival! | wom*news

  15. Pingback: Creationism in the Australian Classroom | Pagan Writes

  16. Margaret Chapman

    The theory of evolution has been taught in our public schools and most private schools for so long now as fact, that we have generations of children and adults who have been totally indoctrinated. There are many brilliant scientists around the world who have come to the conclusion that there is absolutely no possibility that life can evolve in the way that those such as Richard Dawkins espouse. Charles Darwin, the man who made this theory popular, was unconvinced of this theory when he died. Think about it, don’t take for granted the theory of evolution because it is said to be scientific fact. Science cannot be just a whim in the imagination of someone, that is not science. The difference about what was known about the complexity of the human cell back in Darwin’s day compared to what scientists know about it today is just extraordinary! With out science we would not have the technology and medical expertise that we have today, but any scientist who is honest would have to admit that he or she doesn’t have all the answers to life on earth and may never have for that matter.

    !

    Reply
      1. Margaret Chapman

        In reply to the Cross-Eyed Bear? There is no point in me naming the scientists who know that the theory of evolution is just that, a theory, because you obviously have a thing about Christianity, but if you are really interested have a look on you-tube, on top documentaries, Expelled – No Intelligence, and think about it.

      2. Gladly, the Cross-Eyed Bear: Assorted Rants on Religion, Science, Politics and Philosophy from a bear of very little brain Post author

        No. Really. You have made the claim. Back it up. Who are these brilliant scientists? What institutions do they work from? Oxford? Cambridge? Harvard? The Australian National University?

        What peer-reviewed, scientific journals are these brilliant studies published in? Give me the citations and I will read them.

        Expelled has been exposed on various counts of dishonesty and misrepresentation. As a Christian, do you really want to associate yourself with liars?

        You have come to my blog, Margaret and made a statement of fact. Now back it up or look very, very silly.

        Sent from my iPhone

      3. Gladly, the Cross-Eyed Bear: Assorted Rants on Religion, Science, Politics and Philosophy from a bear of very little brain Post author

        And Margaret, I don’t have a thing against Christians. I have a thing against Christians who lie. Or atheists who lie for that matter. You have come here and lied. There are no credible, mainstream scientists who deny evolution. There are some ideologically driven ones who so, but they are not acknowledged by anyone except fundamentalists as ‘brilliant’.

        Not only have you come onto my blog and lied. You expect me to do the work to back up your statement. What a hide!

        And then, you send me to a known liar like Ben Stein to verify your lie?

        I don’t think Jesus would be celebrating this litany of propaganda in his name, Margaret.

  17. Margaret Chapman

    Hello…Gladly the Cross-Eyed Bear, I’m glad to hear that you don’t have anything against Christians or Athiests. I have not lied. Of course there are no mainstream scientists, who deny evolution,( I presume that you mean evolutionary driven scientists, as they are coming at science from an evolutionary point of view.) No Jesus never has nor ever will celebrate propaganda, but truth is not propaganda.

    Reply
    1. Chrys Stevenson

      Margaret, you have made a statement of fact. Produce the names and academic studies of these ‘brilliant’ scientists you swear to God are out there. Surely you wouldn’t come to this blog not knowing anything more than what you’ve seen on YouTube and on a two-bit piece of propaganda like Expelled and purport to know more than an Oxford scholar like Dawkins? Or if you don’t like Dawkins, how about staunch Christian and evolutionist, Ken MIller? Or the Catholic Church which very reluctantly has been forced to admit that you simply can’t argue against the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence that supports evolutionary theory.

      A scientific theory is not a ‘hypothesis’ Margaret. You show your ignorance here. A scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed”. It is NOT, “Well, I have a theory on that …”

      Darwin’s theory has been repeatedly confirmed by countless studies in numerous different disciplines over 200 years. Predictions made on the basis of Darwin’s early work have been proven right time and time again. The evidence for evolution is now so strong (genetics, DNA etc) that EVEN IF THERE WERE NO FOSSIL EVIDENCE it would still be considered proven.

      Have you heard of the theory of gravity, Margaret? It’s not a hypothesis. It is something which is proven beyond any reasonable doubt. If you step out of a window you will fall to the ground. Gravity exists.

      Have you heard of the Germ Theory of Disease, Margaret? It states that some diseases are caused by micro-organisms. We know this to be true, of course. It has been proven time and again. THAT is why it is acknowledged as a scientific THEORY.

      In exactly this way, evolution is acknowledged as a “theory” (in the scientific sense) because it has been proven.

      Now, Margaret. I have a challenge for you. I will name you a couple of scientists who are Christians who accept, absolutely, that evolution is fact. Dr Ken Miller is an American cell biologist and molecular biologist who is currently Professor of Biology and Royce Family Professor for Teaching Excellence at Brown University. A credible centre of learning.

      Francis Collins is a renowned geneticist and former director of the Human Genome Project, Collins is also an evangelical Christian who was the keynote speaker at the 2007 National Prayer Breakfast, and he has spent years establishing the compatibility between science and religious belief. Collins is a strong supporter of evolutionary theory as being FACT.

      Two credible, brilliant Christian scientists, Margaret, who state the evolutionary theory is fact. I can come up with more if you like.

      Here is your challenge. Find me two scientists. Just TWO from credible tertiary institutions, who have published in mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific journals work that refutes the truth of evolution. TWO names, Margaret. TWO.

      Surely defending Jesus is worth a little effort on your part. Otherwise, I will accept your apology that you came to this blog, uninformed, inexpert and relying on shoddy evidence and lied for Jesus. Shame on you.

      Reply
  18. Margaret Chapman

    I’m not relying on shoddy evidence, Cross-Eyed Bear, what I’m concerned about, is that a theory like evolution , which is flawed is still being taught at all. DNA and the human genome are so complex that scientists still do not know the full extent of their complexity and may never know.

    Reply
      1. Margaret Chapman

        As you well know, The Journal of Creation and Creation Magazine, both publications of Creation Ministries International, publish articles by credible scientists in many fields. I am no scientist as is obvious, but when I observe the complexity of life and the beauty of the design of the plants, animals and the humans which these scientific publications bring to light I am convinced of a Creator.

    1. Peter Bartley

      How is evolution flawed? It is not only logical, backed by evidence, it is the only game in town. Nothing else comes close to understanding the diversity of life.

      Reply
  19. Margaret Chapman

    The above mentioned are extremely well researched, and of course the scientists and writers come from the Biblical perspective,(I presume that is what you mean by fundamentalist) but that should not exclude them from the scientific observations that they make. After all that is what science is all about. I would love to send you a years subscription so that you can see for yourself. I can assure you that I am not lying.

    Reply
    1. Gladly, the Cross-Eyed Bear: Assorted Rants on Religion, Science, Politics and Philosophy from a bear of very little brain Post author

      Peer reviewed scientific journal. Not propaganda Christian rags. TWO names Margaret of “brilliant scientists” with no religious ideological axe to grind who argue the case against evolution. If this is legitimate science, it should be simple for you to find TWO names in the international scientific community.

      After all, I quickly supplied you with the names of two Christian scientists who argue strongly that evolution is fact.

      Where is your evidence Margaret. Names, articles and the names of the scientific journals they appear in.

      Your failure to produce the evidence speaks volumes.

      Sent from my iPhone

      Reply
      1. Chrys Stevenson

        Margaret you have been deceived if you think the scientists writing for Creationist magazines are ‘brilliant’. Brilliant science cannot, by definition, follow when one starts with a view that a literal reading of the Bible cannot be proven wrong.

        What Creationists set out to do is to *prove* a preconception. That is not science. That is why they cannot get their articles published in anything but the tinpot propaganda rags you kindly offered to supply me.with.

        Science goes, fearlessly, wherever the evidence leads. Often, the evidence shows us that we are wrong in our preconceptions. That’s why we do the science.

        You should watch dramatisation of the Dover vs Kitzmiller trial. The video is available free on YouTube. This was a big case in the US which provided every opportunity for the Creationists to produce these ‘brilliant scientists’ who could disprove evolution. Instead, sadly, they could only wheel out Michael Behe who proved himself singularly inadequate to the task. Intelligent Design was found NOT to be science and, what’s more, the Creationists who argued the case testified inconsistently, lied outright under oath, and repeatedly failed to testify truthfully. It was a travesty.

        By the way. Darwin did not, as you suggest, doubt his own work. Even Answers in Genesis confirms this! http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/09/14/darwin-and-the-eye

        Do you know how that rumour got started, Margaret? From Creationists quoting selectively from Darwin’s writing and lopping off the second paragraph which clearly shows that Darwin, while speculating on the *apparent* absurdity of the evolution of an eye, resolved that it was not absurd at all.

        There were no deathbed retractions either. I have spoken to Darwin’s great grandson and he assures me that ridiculous rumour is untrue.

        You are being lied to, Margaret and, in turn, you are spreading lies. The scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming.
        The journals you cite are theological not scientific.
        You have singularly failed to support the case you made.
        You have not been able to cite even ONE non-fundamentalist scientist in ONE mainstream peer-reviewed journal who argues the case you stated so confidently in your original post.
        You have embarrassed yourself and you have embarrassed Christians of good will who are tarnished by fundamentalist liars.

        Be more careful who you take on next time. I don’t troll fundamentalist websites trying to deconvert Christians. Don’t you dare come here and spread propaganda and expect to be given a free pass.

    2. g2-5bba245eb6db01d36e28de6648a6336a

      If you would be so kind Margaret i would love to know if you believe what you believe because of what science tells you or because of your religious faith ?

      is the only reason you hold your beliefs because of the scientists or do you only believe the scientists because they reenforce your faith ?

      Reply
      1. Margaret Chapman

        I believe that The God of The Holy Bible cannot lie. He tells us in the Book of Genesis the account of creation. It is not difficult to believe, yes, it takes a certain amount of faith in God, but not a lot, an uneducated child can believe and so can the most educated person, as many do. On the other hand, evolution, The Origin of Species, which Charles Darwin popularised is an extremely complicated process. It depends on millions of years and a huge amount of faith in the scientific establishment to give us an answer, on something which is already right before our eye’s. We are all aware of what is around us, the creation points to a Creator and that is who we are made to worship Proverbs 3:5-6 SAYS,” trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight”.

    1. Chrys Stevenson

      Indeed, and the logic (or illogic) goes something like this.

      My sacred book says that circles have corners. Therefore, that must be literally true.

      Every piece of legitimate evidence – including observation – tells us that circles don’t have corners. Therefore there must be some international conspiracy to hide the truth.

      Mainstream geometry journals will not concede that circles have corners. Therefore they must be lying.

      Our geometricians, however, set out to prove that circles have corners. They do this by making shit up, misquoting legitimate geometricians, and making arguments which completely ignore the multitude of hard evidence which says that circles don’t have corners because if our sacred book states it, it must be true.

      For a religion that suggests it is based on Truth there is a hell of a lot of deception going on. No wonder Christianity is dying – Christians like Margaret are killing it.

      Reply
  20. Margaret Morgan

    Hi, another Margaret here! But feel free to call me Morgan to avoid confusion.🙂

    So, Margaret, I would love to chat with you about evolutionary theory. I recently completed a Bachelor of Advanced Science majoring in biology, and won an international science blogging award judged by Richard Dawkins for a piece on endosymbiosis, horizontal gene transfer and the evolution of photosynthesising eukaryotes, so I have a strong interest in the subject.

    Perhaps we could start with your providing a single example of evolutionary theory that you consider disproved, and we can take it from there.

    Looking forward to the discussion!

    Reply
  21. g2-5bba245eb6db01d36e28de6648a6336a

    PS Margaret C I too would be fascinated to know the names of these scientists and the scientific journals that have published their findings.

    I am assuming they base their theories on their own independent research and not just on finding fault the research and data collected by other people.

    I for one would be delighted and amazed to see the evidence that a 150 year old theory has been challenged disproved and replaced, that is how science works and I am a great believer in the value of good science.

    Reply
  22. g2-5bba245eb6db01d36e28de6648a6336a

    You big meanies

    you have frightened Margaret Chapman away with all your demands for facts evidence and proof !

    You should just BELIEVE what you are told by Christians as they would never lie or make things up just to feel safe and comfortable in their own beliefs……. they wouldn’t ….. would they ?

    Reply
  23. Chrys Stevenson

    OK, I had a little time so I googled ‘complexity of the human cell’ to see what the Creationists are arguing about it. Sigh. Apparently it’s that old ‘irreducible complexity’ argument that Behe tried with the bacterium flagellum, the one that was so brilliantly debunked in the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial.

    Evolutionary biologists have demonstrated how such systems could have evolved. Behe’s claim as an argument from incredulity. In other words, the Creationist says, “I just don’t see how …” or “I don’t believe that ….” and that’s it. Instead, the scientist says, “Let us see how this might have worked”; not discounting anything on the basis of doctrine or preconceptions.

    In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that “Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity was more than adequately refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the mainstream international scientific community. In other words, Behe’s argument about “irreducible complexity” was found, in a court of law, to be unscientific bunkum.

    According to Wikipedia in the Kitzmiller trial: “The judge ruled that “intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature”

    Here’s the creationist argument:

    “Darwin himself stated in the Origin of Species that if just one complex system could be discovered that would become in-operational by subtraction of just one component his theory would be completely dis-proven. Let’s take a journey to the center of a cell and view just some of the awesome complexity.via DNA Synthesis, DNA Transcription, and Protein Synthesis via Molecular Machines and Nanomotors. It is known that many molecular systems of these become dysfunctional or even non-operational by mutation or deletion of just one component of a macromolecular assembly. Most biological pathways are intimately dependent on the operation of many other complex macromolecular assemblies. Dysfunction of just one component of any pathway can render the entire system nonoperational.”

    Margaret Morgan – want to take a stab at this?

    Reply
  24. Margaret Morgan

    That molecular machines, like the flagella, need to have precisely the same construction to be functional is nonsense. There are many different species of micro-organisms that have flagella, and there is substantial variation in the proteins used. Individual parts of the flagella have been observed in other species, performing different tasks. As so often happens in evolution, pre-existing traits are co-opted for other uses. So the ion pumps found in cell membranes can be altered over time to perform an entirely different function: the nano-machine that allows locomotion.

    Yes, the deletion or insertion or mistranslation of DNA can indeed cause an organism to cease functioning. DNA is the template by which proteins are synthesised, so a genetic glitch can result in none of the protein being produced, too much of the protein, or a different protein. More often than not, it does lead to a loss of fitness. But very occasionally, it adds an advantage to that individual. It might be more efficient locomotion, the ability to digest a greater range of foods, improved vision or hearing, or a sexual advantage. As a result that individual is more likely to survive to maturity, and thus to reproduce. And thus to pass on its genes, including the mutated genes. In an environment where selection pressure is strong, the likelihood of an advantageous trait going into the population is high.

    Life is a story told by the victors. Every extant individual organism on the planet is an evolutionary survivor, the result of millions of generations of ancestors successfully reproducing. From that perspective, it is easy to lose sight of the losers: all those millions of species that have become extinct because they haven’t been able to adapt to a changing environment, and all those billions of individuals which died before reproducing. I think also that one of the difficulties some people have in comprehending evolutionary theory is that they simply cannot grasp the vastness of the time that has elapsed. These changes are tiny and incremental. They are full of dead-ends and by-waters. Without comprehending the enormity of evolutionary time, you cannot comprehend evolution.

    There has been no example of “irreducible complexity” that has not be debunked. In every case, biologists have been able to point to slight variations in the supposedly unique system, or precursors to that system either performing the same function or a different one.

    Incidentally, Margaret, your statement that biology doesn’t know everything about DNA is absolutely true. Unlike you, though, I do not consider that a flaw. It is striving to understand the unknown that is the driver of scientific progress. Unlike creationism, which takes a position and then attempts to find evidence to support it, science starts with the evidence and tries to come up with a theory to explain it. If evidence emerges which doesn’t support it, then that evidence will be tested by other scientists and if found to be real, it’s the theory that must change—and it does.

    And I suspect that science knows a great deal more about DNA than you give it credit for.

    Reply
  25. Margaret Chapman

    Hello Chrys and crew, apologies for my mistake in suggesting that Darwin did not believe his own theory on his deathbed, but he did believe that it was absurd to think that the eye could have evolved, and was pretty bothered by that, although still hanging on to his theory of evolution; as far as we know. Peter Bartley asks why is it flawed? Don’t you have some doubts? because as you say “it’s the only game in town”, sounds very dictatorial to me, no room for anyone else’s opinion. Science probably does know more about DNA than I give it credit for because scientific theories are constantly changing, and long periods of time help the cause. I would direct you to http://www.ucg.org 10 Ways Darwin Got it Wrong, and A Good News Interview With Michael Behe, Ph,d. The poor judge in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial was probably too frightened to come to any other conclusion judging by the affront of some on this blog! Anyway I’m sticking with the One who has’t let me down and will have the final say, His name is Jesus Christ.

    Reply
  26. Chrys Stevenson

    No, Margaret. Darwin did not believe it was absurd to think the eye could have evolved. He understood that it could SEEM absurd but then went on to explain why it wasn’t. Really, do some research woman! I’ve given you the link from AiG for God’s sake. Are you incapable of reading?

    After saying that it appeared absurd, Darwin says: ““When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.”

    Scientists have since shown conclusively that there is nothing whatsoever ‘absurd’ about the evolution of an eye from a simple organ that can detect differences in dark and light to the complex organism we have today.

    Now, let me say something that may not have struck you. Let’s play your silly game and take it to it’s ‘n’th’ degree. Let’s say, having come up with idea of evolution by natural selection Darwin said, “Oh my! I think I’ve been mistaken! I think I got it ALL wrong and Goddidit.”

    That would not matter one bit. Because it is not in the least bit important what Darwin thought of his own theory. Why? Because SINCE Darwin there has been so much evidence that he was RIGHT that his personal opinion has no bearing on anything – just as your personal opinion that evolution cannot be factual – despite all the evidence pointing to that very fact – does not alter the FACT of evolution one little bit.

    If I said, “Margaret, I don’t like to think that if I jump out of that window, I will fall to my death. You see, I believe I’m a fairy princess and, therefore I believe, with all my heart and soul that I can fly. And that faith will overcome the lies of all those doubting Thomases who say that the theory of gravity will come into force if I defenestrate myself.”

    What do you think would happen as I launched out of the window? I would drop like a fucking rock, Margaret. Because it doesn’t MATTER what I think about gravity. It exists.

    Exactly the same thing is true of the theory of evolution.

    They are proven beyond reasonable doubt. THAT is why they are called theories, Margaret.

    Michael Behe is not a respected scientist Margaret. He is widely viewed as a goose. And a lying goose at that.

    We are well aware of the ridiculous propaganda put up by Creationists to try to persuade scientifically illiterate people like you that evolution is ‘flawed’. The fact is, it isn’t flawed. It is a strong theory, substantiated time after time over more than a hundred years across multiple fields of study. There is no controversy whatsoever about the fact of evolution in mainstream science. Nor is there any controversy in the minds of most serious theologians. It is only a small group of fundamentalist nutters who churn out this baseless propaganda to fool the likes of you.

    And how very silly they have made you look here, Margaret.

    You keep insisting that you are right but you have been able to put up no evidence whatsoever that mainstream science – real science – can’t explain fully. (See Margaret Morgan’s patient explanation above about irreducible complexity).

    You are the victim of a gross deception, Margaret. You have been set up by men who probably don’t even believe the shit they’re selling you.

    Your faith does not depend on the literal truth of Genesis, Margaret. There are millions of Christians throughout the world, including REAL scientists who accept the insurmountable evidence that evolution is FACT and who still see God’s hand in starting that process. Personally, I think God is bunkum, but faith in God and acceptance of evolution are not incompatible.

    Facts, Margaret are what they are – not what you want them to be.You may not want to believe in evolution. Evolution doesn’t give a shit. It makes no difference to it at all. I may as well say, “Well, I don’t want to believe that Margaret exists. I want to believe that she is just a figment of someone’s imagination. ” All the wishing in the world isn’t going to make you disappear in a puff of smoke.

    You are entitled to your own opinions Margaret. You are not entitled to your own facts.

    I think it’s very sad. You seem like a nice lady who genuinely has swallowed this nonsense and does not have the education or capacity for critical thought to see it for what it is. It’s a scam.

    I don’t care whether you believe in God or not, Margaret. For that matter, I don’t much care whether or not you believe in evolution.

    I do care that you thought you could skip onto my blog and throw around ridiculous statements when you had no capacity to argue your case intelligently or back up what you were saying.

    If Jesus is looking in on this discussion I can imagine he is saying, “Shut up, Margaret, you’re not bloody helping.”

    Reply
  27. Margaret Morgan

    “…but [Darwin] did believe that it was absurd to think that the eye could have evolved, and was pretty bothered by that, although still hanging on to his theory of evolution; as far as we know.”

    I suspect you’ve just absorbed this mythology, Margaret, from your religious contacts. For you to say that makes it clear that you haven’t actually read “On the Origin of Species”. I have.

    Here’s what he wrote:

    “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

    That’s the bit you’ve been told about, right?

    But immediately after that, he wrote:

    “Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.”

    So, no, he didn’t think it absurd at all. In fact, he pretty much got the evolution of the eye right.

    Does it not occur to you that if you’ve been lied to about what Darwin said about this, you might not also have been lied to about other elements of evolutionary theory?

    It is a common assumption among creationists that the science of biological evolution is dependent upon everything that Darwin thought or said having been correct. But Darwin didn’t know about Mendel’s work in genetic inheritance when he wrote his works. He didn’t know about genes. He didn’t know about DNA. He didn’t know about protein synthesis. Needless to say, with genetic and palaeontological advances, we now know vastly more than Darwin did about the mechanisms of evolution and have far more evidence at our disposal than he did. Darwin isn’t some sort of god to biologists, and even if he had “recanted” on his deathbed, it wouldn’t matter a whit to the robustness of his theory. He was a brilliant scientist who recognised a fundamental truth about the processes of life, based on the evidence he found. Nothing more, nothing less. He saw that species evolve over time, through a mechanism of inheritance that was subject to selection resulting from environment. And in that, he was utterly correct.

    For you to throw your hands up and say, “I’m sticking with the One who has’t let me down and will have the final say, His name is Jesus Christ.” is frankly an insult to those many Christians who accept evolutionary theory. One of the most talented geneticists I’ve worked with is a Christian. He has no difficulty reconciling his religion with his science. I don’t agree with him on the god stuff, but I utterly respect his intellect because unlike you, he has followed the scientific evidence, rather than taking a position and then cherry-picking the literature to support his religious stance.

    And again, I must ask you…. Why do you trust the people who tell you that Darwin “recanted” or that he was flummoxed by the eye? Why do you trust the people who tell you that the flagellum is irreducibly complex, when the evidence demonstrates that they are completely wrong? Why do you think you can’t be a Christian if you accept the reality of evolution? Miller, who gave such damning scientific evidence in Kitzmiller -v- Dover, is a Christian. Did you know that? Maybe you should look into the evidence for evolution, with an open mind, recognising that accepting its reality it does not automatically mean that you can’t be a Christian.

    Please, think about it.

    Reply
  28. Chrys Stevenson

    Margaret Chapman said: “I believe that The God of The Holy Bible cannot lie. He tells us in the Book of Genesis the account of creation. It is not difficult to believe, yes, it takes a certain amount of faith in God, but not a lot, an uneducated child can believe and so can the most educated person, as many do. On the other hand, evolution, The Origin of Species, which Charles Darwin popularised is an extremely complicated process. It depends on millions of years and a huge amount of faith in the scientific establishment to give us an answer, on something which is already right before our eye’s. We are all aware of what is around us, the creation points to a Creator and that is who we are made to worship Proverbs 3:5-6 SAYS,” trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight”.”

    Margaret God tells you nothing in the Bible. A motley collection of Jewish scholars, trying to keep Jewish national identity alive during a time of exile, wrote down a collection of myths and stories about the Jewish people (many of them dating back to or drawn from earlier non-Abrahamic myths.) Theologians agree that, not only does the Bible have multiple authors, many of the stories and values and ideas within it conflict – including the different accounts of Genesis.

    But you don’t what to know any of that, do you? You will stand in the face of every piece of evidence that contradicts what you WANT to believe in, stick your fingers in your ears and sing, ‘LA LA LA LA LA’ to block out the sound of reason.

    Scientists don’t have ‘faith’ in evolution. They believe it because the evidence supports it. If the evidence supported something else, they would support that. Science is not a religion, it is not dogmatic. There is no international conspiracy to ‘prop up’ the flawed theory of evolution, Margaret. If a scientist was able to prove through credible evidence, that the theory of evolution was fatally flawed and should be abandoned, she would not be ostracized by the scientific community – she would be lauded and given the Nobel Prize. The reason this is not done in the case of the ‘brilliant’ scientists who write for the tacky little propaganda sheet put out by Creation Ministries is because their ‘science’ is dishonest, ill-conceived and, frankly, laughable. It fools only gullible , well-meaning people like you, Margaret.

    YOU think, by YOUR observation that the world around us points to a creator. But YOU, Margaret, are not a scientist. A child can look at a magician and think, “Whoa! There’s NO WAY you could make an elephant disappear from a stage JUST LIKE THAT! There’s no other way to explain it. It MUST be magic.”

    Anyone who saw the elephant disappear would swear it was there one minute and gone the next!

    But, the fact that the child’s mind cannot conceive of the technique which makes the elephant disappear doesn’t mean that the trick was achieved through some supernatural force. Of course, as we know, there MUST be a natural explanation. And there is. You can view it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38EZ4GJqQXM

    The same is true of evolution. You are stating an argument from incredulity. “I just can’t see how ….” But, like the child watching the magician’s trick, the fact that YOU can’t see how something happened naturally doesn’t mean that it didn’t.

    The point is, that scientists, like Margaret Morgan, are able to make a good case for how life on earth evolved in its fascinating diversity and complexity. It is elegantly explained by evolutionary theory and, what’s more, the theory is supported by an overwhelming weight of evidence – NOT just from fossils but from branches of science that Darwin could never have even imagined.

    So, now, Margaret, I think you’ve had a good run here. Check out my Moderation Policy (in the right side-bar under “Pages”). You will see that people who disagree with me are welcome here – until they fail to make an argument beyond Goddidit or until they fail to entertain me.

    You have illustrated no intellectual capacity to do anything beyond repeat what you want to believe, despite having been shown plainly and with evidence that you have been the victim of extremist propaganda. You have been played for a fool. In the face of evidence which shows that the original statements you made here are bunk, you continue to repeat, “But I believe in God!” Well, good for you, but that doesn’t make the evidence for evolution go away. You may as well be a small child, who having been told how the elephant disappears says obstinately, ‘BUT I WANT TO BELIEVE IN MAGIC!’ You’re not a child, Margaret. You’re an adult. Think like one.

    So, Margaret, sadly you have failed to stun us with your intellect or entertain me with your wit. And so, as my moderation policy warns, I am now going to say a fond “Fuck off.” You seem to be a lovely lady. I just wish you would use the brain that God gave you. . Even he might be pleased at that.

    Reply
  29. Chrys Stevenson

    And, just a final note. It’s funny, isn’t it, that Margaret doesn’t have enough ‘faith’ in the scientific establishment to accept their expertise in respect to evolution. However, should Margaret or one of her family develop a serious illness, I’ll bet the doctor would be called and treatments developed by the very same scientific method used to establish the fact of evolution, would be gratefully accepted. Ironically, our understanding of evolution has even assisted our understanding of some diseases and helped to develop treatments. Margaret doesn’t want to know about that. And, to add insult to injury, when scientific method resulted in curing Margaret or a member of her family from a serious disease, who would she thank? God.

    Reply
  30. Aaron Duffy

    I guess progress is going to be even more unlikely on this issue now, given that our prime minister and a large proportion of his ministers believe in creationism and are shunning science at every opportunity. :/

    Reply
  31. Mark R

    Here I am scrutinising all the religious fruit cakes in the US.The one’s that say things like “You can’t buy a miracle that’s absurd. But you can plant a seed for fifty bucks”. These type of evangelist seems to fester in the US and only adore and praise money.

    But it’s the creationists that seem to have the biggest impact on the way Americans view Earth’s past and present. Their method is mass misinformation by trying to discredit science where science principals do not fit in the bible. The Creation museum and Noah’s Ark in Kentucky are meant to be serious places of learning.Their views are quite bizarre and child like.

    Now I hear the same thing is happening in Australia. That is a bit concerning. If it was going to happen, Queensland would be the place for it. School is for learning facts not religion.

    Reply
  32. SirCumference

    Never ever argue with a creationist. they cannot respond with intelligence. only denial. Dawkins and Gould had the right approach. Starve them of oxygen. . I noticed a flood of support for Darwin. where are the hoardes of credible creationists flocking here to absolutly trash and debunk science. for those opposed to science, when u r sick, go to an astrologer, throw away your mobile phone, it really does not work. sell your car and buy a horse and dont ever ever fly in an aeroplane. for a humorous read, ” Telling lies for God ” by Professor Ian Plimer can be a real eye opener. dont give these people any space at all. but when they invade our space, go hard and show no quarter. their shit is evil and wrong. To all science supports, lets do more than talk. Is there any experienced organisers or like that can start to form a formal group to not defend our views, but actually attack creationists and resist their push into schools.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s