quote:

---

Originally posted by gkbarnes:
Sorry to double post, but has anyone noticed that the media coveradge that I have seen (admitadly not a lot) has made us Christians look idiots?

---

Fortunately, both the presenter and, surprisingly, Richard Dawkins, made the point on the Today programme that this wasn`t mainstream Christian opinion, despite what David Holloway was claiming (well, actually, he dodged the question).

Fair enough if they taught "Creationism" in RS and Philosophy.

Fair enough if they sought alternative scientific approaches to evolutionary theory.

Not fair enough when they pass off "better Biblical insights" (whatever that might mean) as science and dismiss observable data as mere "philosophy". That is bad teaching.

Only because they are prepared to misrepresent fact, misquote scientists and make stuff up. Take away the misinformation and they have nothing to be persuasive with.

Classic example is the "Transitional Fossils Argument". You'll get guys like Ham saying there are no transitional fossils. But there are thousands. Blatent Lie.

You'll get out of context quotes from cladists who point out that you cannot make specific conclusions about, for example, which fish species evolved into amphibians, mauled around to make it look like the quote is actually saying there is "no evidence" that amphibians evolved from fish. Misquotation.

Then you'll get told that, for example, that our blood proteins are most similar to the butterbean - don't laugh - I read that on a real creationist website. Absolutely made up.

quote:

---

Karl: And in what way are we behaving like fundamentalists Astro? Why is it fundamentalist to object to clear nonsense being passed off as serious science?

---

OK. I have made a concerted effort not to respond to this or anything else this last week with anything resembling an opinion, but I have to weigh in on behalf of Astro, who is, frankly, one of my favourite people on the Ship, and not IMHO prone to foolish statements.

I am not a YEC (and I'm fairly sure Astro isn't either). The vast majority of the ideas espoused in places like AiG are appalling. However, Young Earth Creationism is not at fault because of taking the belief in a literal six-day creation as its basis. This is - whatever you may say, however you may argue it - a legitimate faith position.

Where YECs like Answers in Genesis are at fault is in their attempt to try and prove their faith position using extremely bad science.

Now this is the problem. While I am also disturbed by this school in London, and I am pretty annoyed by Blair's statement, I am disturbed because the evidence in the press suggests that they will be using this self-same bad science to back up their viewpoint.

I am not disturbed that they believe in creation.

It makes me uncomfortable to see Christians write off other Christians as 'fools' because they hold to a belief which us more 'enlightened' Christians 'know' to be false. I believe in the Virgin Birth and the literal Resurrection, and it sticks in my craw to be thought of as 'benighted' and 'stupid' for it. I may not personally hold to a literal 6 day creation, but I'll defend to the hilt the right of a human being to hold to it.

Now I am fairly sure that it's really the bad science that's being condemned. However, reading it, it's fairly easy to take it both ways. The distinction has not been made clear.

My problem is totally calling this stuff science. It is, as you say, a faith position.

But I think that some of the posts on this thread didn't make that distinction clear. After all, they got me annoyed enough to end my self-imposed posting fast.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AG:
I am a creationist, I don't think I hung up my brains when I espoused that view, I have had to argue for it many times.

---

1) YEC is totally at odds with scientific knowledge of how the world actually is. It proposes an idea that not only goes contrary to scientific theories (eg: evolution) but against the data that those theories explain (and they explain the data very well too, I may add).

That data is primarily that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old; this has been verified by a range of independent methods. How can that possibly square with so-called "Biblical teaching" that the earth's approximately 10000 years old?

What is more, there are fossils of creatures in rocks which date back at least 3 billion years. Creatures have been living and dying for most of earths history. What is more the earliest fossils are far simpler than creatures which appear later; the nature of life on earth has clearly changed over millenia.

2) YEC is a modern theological innovation (only 100-150 years old) that is totally at odds with any previous theological thought. As Matt has shown on the Theistic Evolution thread in Purgatory, there are good logical and theological reasons for rejecting a reading of Genesis 1-3 as literal history that were recognised by the early church fathers. YEC takes a beautifully rich and evocative text and strips it of all it's power to speak to people by forcing it into a category of literature that no one until recent times even knew of. It is a totally inexcusable mishandling of the Biblical text that, if taken to logical conclusion, by applying the same "plain reading of Scripture" nonsense to the whole of Scripture can do nothing but render the Bible impotent to speak to us.

quote:

---

I, for one, will only sign the petition if its wording is clear enough that the difference is made. Standing for the truth is good. Bigotry is bad.

---

Which is the essence of my dislike of Reform.

Of course, they have every right to their views, but I object to them attempting to impose them on the rest of the Church of England. And I object extremely strongly on taxpayers money being used to pay for them to put out religious propaganda masquerading as science in schools.

Creationism is a faith position, and as such should not be taught as science.

But science is essentially emperical, so anything that can't be shown emperically is only a theory. Which does include part of evolution. Yes we can observe some changes over time, such as the examples given above, and these are acceptable. But to extrapolate that to suggest that man evolved from the sea over a period of millions of years is overstepping the mark, because it can't be observed or repeated or any other tests done to show it may be true. I would suggest that we need to be honest and say scientists do not definitely know, we just have theories at the moment, and we are trying to find out more.

But I do agree with the way science seems to be taught now. I think we need to teach about the value of doubt, the ability to understand statistics and how they can be manipulated, how scientific methodology actually works, and how to think for yourself. Which seems a hell of a lot more important than which theory is acceptable to believe.

Throw some of this into the petition and I will certainly consider signing it.

The reason for funding technology colleges,I thought was to produce more and better scientists.

It's like somebody said "Ok, we're going to have more medical schools to produce more Doctors for the NHS, but the catch is they'll all be taught their anatomy out of Galen." So what that it was proved medically useless ages ago?

To make such a huge fuss out of school inspection, quality, standards, education etc. and then to justify teaching children pseudo-science, which Blair must know to be such, and to justify it on exam results - that was just unbelievable.

When i think of the hoops they make people jump through in the name of 'quality' teaching and research assessment...and then this!

Grrrr!

But Karl, if you are to do this thing, can I suggest you review the following statement -

quote:

---

My problem is totally calling this stuff science. It is, as you say, a faith position.

---

It might, BTW, also help people see why other posters, who may agree with your science, nonetheless are accusing people here of bigotry, or something approaching it. It's technically the correct word. It would be well to avoid it in whatever is produced.

It's not done by extrapolation. It's from direct evidence.

It doesn't need to be repeatable. Evolutionary theory makes predictions. Those predictions can be tested. When this is done, they are borne out. This is why it is science, and why it is not over-stepping the mark.

You seem to misunderstand "theory". In science, "theory" is as high as any idea gets. What in common parlance is called a "theory", a scientist would call a "hypothesis". The theory of evolution is as firmly established by evidence as the sphericity of the earth and the atomic nature of matter.

quote:

---

Philosophically - specifically, the philosophy of science - would disagree with that - they are both faith positions. All theories are "faith positions". Anything less than this is positivism, and if you go down that route you have already priveleged Dawkin's position over your own. The problems lie elsewhere, as you have already well indicated.

---

Doesn't it depend on which philosopher of science you read. I realise that Popper is rather de trop these days in some circle but he does have the benefit of being the one philosopher of science that scientists take seriously.

For Popper the essence of science is falsification. A statement is scientific if it can be falsified empirically. "God created the world" is not a scientific statement because there is no way that it could be falsified. "The world is four billion years old" could be falsified and is therefore a scientific statement. Science therefore proceeds by Conjecture and Refutation. A scientist thinks up an idea and his colleagues promptly try to prove him or her wrong.

Now what Popper was not trying to do was disallow unfalsifiable statements - Metaphysics. In fact I think he came to the view that metaphysics was an important source of truth. But the logic of his position suggests that scientific statements are of a different order to metaphysical statements and that we should not confuse the two.

Futhermore the propositions to which creationists are wedded, i.e. the literal truth of the Genesis account, have been falsified. Repeatedly. This is no more a faith position than the proposition that the moon is not made of Green Cheese. Trust me, people have been there.

The Christian reason for opposing creationism is that it is untrue and as Christians we worship a God of Truth.

The Scientific reason is that creationism has been empirically falsified.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl:

It's not done by extrapolation. It's from direct evidence.{/QB]

[QB]It doesn't need to be repeatable. Evolutionary theory makes predictions. Those predictions can be tested. When this is done, they are borne out. This is why it is science, and why it is not over-stepping the mark.

To an extent. Where you can formulate your hypothesis, test and retest it, and find that your results agree with it then you can call it science. The point I'm disagreeing with is some of what is taught as fact cannot be tested, so therefore it should be taught as theory.

You seem to misunderstand "theory". In science, "theory" is as high as any idea gets.

Agreed. But this isn't being explained and people don't seem to understand the difference. Which may well be part of the reason we have such a public distrust of science.

What in common parlance is called a "theory", a scientist would call a "hypothesis".

Again, agreed. I used theory over hypothesis as not everybody on the board is a scientist. I don't see the need to confuse people with jargon.

The theory of evolution is as firmly established by evidence as the sphericity of the earth and the atomic nature of matter.

---

I'm not convinced some parts of evolution are that well established by evidence. Can we agree to differ?

quote:

---

But I do agree with the way science seems to be taught now.

---

doh. I meant disagree, not agree.

On a side note, (this isn't meant as a dig at Karl) I thought that the Earth actually bulges at the equator due to the effect of the moon/tides and that quantum physics was shedding new light on the atomic nature of matter.

quote:

---

I thought that the Earth actually bulges at the equator due to the effect of the moon/tides and that quantum physics was shedding new light on the atomic nature of matter.

---

Yaffle - yes, obviously other views can be heard but I don't think I misrepresent things at a macro level. I think people would be more cautious now and say a hypothesis was scientific if testable, if only because (cognitive dissonance notwithstanding) theories do not fall automatically if falsified. Propositions are contingent on other things, and frequently it is the other things that need examining.

Believing the moon is made of green cheese is a faith position - just a very stupid one!

Sorry I can't be more explicit - it would bore everyone stupid and I've got to get to choir practice.

Also as a creationist which these days I regard as a private view and not worth arguing about, possibly because Alan Cresswell is right and when I argue with anyone with half an ounce of brains I come off worse. But even as a creationist I don't accept the Ken Ham's argument on creation evangelism. I don't think that there is any milage in pounding someone with "proof" that God created the world in six days. This does not bring them any closer to the Kingdom. They will either go and read counter arguments and so be further away because you will only convince them that to be a real Christian they must believe this, or they will become the kind of trivia obsessive that is always proving obscure theological points rather than doing something useful.

Imagine the scene..... Speakers Corner in Jerusalem about AD 30.

Jesus "I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. You can trust me on this. "

Heckler " But you claim your Dad made the world in 6 days"

Jesus "Um, yes that's right!"

Heckler "Where as science has proved that it all happened through evolution. Spontaneously all by it's self."

Jesus "Oh! I forgot about that bit."

Heckler "And what about the burning bush. The most likely explanation is that it was an optical illusion caused by the sunset."

Jesus "Oh dear you have a point there...."

Heckler "And I needn't go into whether or not those many eyed beasts at the world are real or not.... "

Jesus "I can't argue with that point. B-b-b-b-but you definitely will go to a very bad place if you don't believe me!"

Heckler "But you have just admitted you can't trust a word you have said"

Jesus "Um yeah. Any chance I could give that appointment with Governor Pilate a miss? Only I haven't got time to hang about all day."

*******************************************
The question is did God make the world or not? Answer "yes" and you are a Creationist..(But I will add not necessarily "Young Earth Creationist")

I was listening to the radio interview on the way to work this morning. The point that the school was trying to make is that they teach that God made the world, the universe and everything in it. A philosophical position and a position of faith. All christians should be behind the school on that particular point. Any same person willhave to view the "Creationist" tag applied by the press and media with a degree of suspicion.

Where as a humanist/ aethiestic view of scientific evidence takes the phillosphical position that evolution is a natural occurance and that the universe is a result of coincidence of physical laws. Their resulting position of faith is that God does not exist.

Whether we like it or not the "fact" that God created the world is a core part of the Christian faith. As such, all mainstream Christians should be "creationist" .(again I will add not necessarily "Young Earth Creationist") in a sense. The job of science is to explain how the world works and how the universe came about including how the world came to be filled with the remains of a variety of life that has been and gone and is fabulously old from a human perspective. That does not mean we have to while away our time proposing propostorous theories as to how this came to be in order to try to reconcile the two accounts.

Personally I have no concerns about a teacher stating that they believe the world is about 6000 years old as long as they also accurately reflect other's opinions so that their pupil can a) make their own mind up b) understand enough about science to function in the prevailing culture and physical universe and c) laugh at their ideas if they think they are outrageously foolish.

IMO the thing that really makes Christians look foolish is the lack of consistency in their beliefs and their scriptures teachings. If you are going to start throwing some out where will you stop? What we should be doing is debating the arguments where brothers who are holding on to daft ideas whilst being clear about why and through whom the world came about.

All this reminds me of my (very short-lived) membership of a CU bible study group, a couple of years ago at college.

The topic of the first meeting was: "Creation". Within minutes, someone was saying, "of course we all know that God created the earth in seven days...".

To my genuine surprise, my loud guffaws were met with stony silence!

I then spent half an hour trying to convince a load of vetinary, medical and science students the proof behind evolutionary theory. It was, actually, a shocking and embarrassing situation. (It was my first encounter with Creationists in Britain) They were pretty hostile, I can tell you.

(NB: I don't mean to imply that all Creationists are hostile. Or that they're not fully entitled to their beliefs.)

When I consider the remarkable way in which molecular genetic simularities bear out the predicted phylogenies from the fossil record, I consider the case for evolution as damned near proven as anything in science.

First, a tengent. You must excuse me, but I have no training and no qualifications (B-grades in GCSE Biology and Chemistry don't count) in any kind of formal science. I happily declare my complete ignorance of correct scientific mehodology.

So I genuinely have to ask: what does 'falsifiable' mean when you're using it in this discussion? Because I'm fairly sure it doesn't mean what I assumed it to mean. Please. In words that a post-structuralist literary scholar can understand, k?

Two. It seems to me that when you're scientifically disproving 'Creation', what you're actually doing is disproving the lame pseudoscientific arguments used to 'support' it. You are manifestly not disproving creation, nor are you disproving the six-day creation. To illustrate my point:

quote:

---

Karl said It has long seemed to me that if God did not use evolution, He went out of His way to make it look like He did.

---

Well, why not?

The belief in the six-day creation presupposes that God created a perfect world, and that this perfect world ceased to exist as if it never had at the moment of the Fall.

This, outside of science fiction and given what we know about physics and stuff, impossible.

But then if we believe in an omnipotent God, we believe that He can do anything - even the impossible. Of course, this cannot be proven or disproven. It can only be believed or disbelieved - and actually, I have a lot more respect for someone who believes this than I do for someone who attempts to 'prove' it using easily squashed arguments and inaccurate evidence.

In the same way, if it was the tenet of my faith to believe that the world was created exactly as it was - history, geography, fossils, people, memories - on September 25th 1975, thn who could prove it? Who could disprove it?

By all means, mock creation science. I know I do. I mean I know some YECs, and frankly, even I can out-argue them with what I know about science.

But please do not, in the manner of a fundamentalist, attempt to disprove a faith position which, by definition, cannot be disproved.

(a) an attempt is being made to pass off a faith position as science. I'm all for recognising "faith positions" (indeed, following Polanyi, I'm aware that much use of scientific data, method and programmed research is used in order to reveal certain faith positions, cf. directed research in the Soviet Union).

However, what is happening here is that the faith position is been given equal footing with observable data and is being paraded as the same thing.

If the school said "We will teach English language skills, but we're going to challenge curent grammatical forms and teach that French grammar offers "better insights" into the way the English language works", you'd think they were barking mad. If it was being taught in say "Comparative Grammer", this wouldn't be a problem.

Equally, if "Creationism" was being taught in Philosophy (along with scientific philosophy, "Scientificism") then no-one would be batting an eyelid. But it is being taught as actually science, and it is bad actual science.

This concept of the Bible having "better insights" into the physical data, as Alan says, debases the biblical material and does something with them that they are not designed to do. If the school curriculum contained detailed analysis of why the data is being improperly interpreted without recourse to a simplistic (and incredibly recent, minority reading of biblical texts), then I wouldn't have a problem - but that is not where the school is coming from. It is basically saying, "Teach observed data as if it were a faith position, teach a faith position as if it were observable data", and this in a science class. That is wrong.

While I accept that God certainly could make the world in 6 days, with all the evidence to the contrary it seems unlikely - having eliminated the idea that science can be made to fit a 6 creation, we have two possibilities:

1. Genesis tells a true story, but God's creation tells us a lie.

2. God's creation tells us a true story, and Genesis tells us a "different" true story.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
But please do not, in the manner of a fundamentalist, attempt to disprove a faith position which, by definition, cannot be disproved.

---

I object to something that is not science being taught in science classes, and I object to something which is radically different from orthodox Christianty being presented as mainstream Christian belief.

quote:

---

The question is did God make the world or not? Answer "yes" and you are a Creationist..(But I will add not necessarily "Young Earth Creationist")

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I object to something that is not science being taught in science classes, and I object to something which is radically different from orthodox Christianty being presented as mainstream Christian belief

---

I completely agree. But the distinction needs to be clearly made.

quote:

---

First, a tengent. You must excuse me, but I have no training and no qualifications (B-grades in GCSE Biology and Chemistry don't count) in any kind of formal science. I happily declare my complete ignorance of correct scientific mehodology.

So I genuinely have to ask: what does 'falsifiable' mean when you're using it in this discussion? Because I'm fairly sure it doesn't mean what I assumed it to mean. Please. In words that a post-structuralist literary scholar can understand, k?

Two. It seems to me that when you're scientifically disproving 'Creation', what you're actually doing is disproving the lame pseudoscientific arguments used to 'support' it. You are manifestly not disproving creation, nor are you disproving the six-day creation.

---

Wood, a discreet veil should be drawn over my 'O'Level results. Suffice it to say that your formal scientific training is a lot better than mine!

As Sean points out, to say that a statement is falsifiable, is to say that there is some way in which a statement could be empirically disproved. The statement "Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius, at sea level is falsifiable because you can boil a beaker of water and stick a thermometer in it. If it boils at 99 degrees or 101 degrees it has been falsified. The statement "In the begining God created the heavens and the earth" is not falsifiable because there is no concievable way of disproving it. This in Poppers terminology is the demarcation between scientific and metaphysical statements.

Now you are quite correct in saying that one cannot disprove the creation of the world by God butit is not a scientific theory and therefore should not be taught as science. And you are quite right that creationists depend on untrue assertions to bolster their theories which can be refuted. For example Holloway claims that evolution is not compatible with the second law of thermodynamics which is patently untrue.

To say that one cannot disprove the six days of creation because God could have created the world to look like that is, frankly, sophistry.

Whilst it is quite true that one cannot logically disprove it, or the proposition that the world was created in 1975, or the proposition that there is an invisible, inaudible, insubstantial dragon living in my flat such claims are, of their essence, irrational.

Any number of these unprovable claims can be made. The likelihood of any of them is scant and I fail to see why the education system, or indeed the Church should privilege one of these claims merely to placate the pious. Unless you can offer a serious reason to abandon rational dicourse and the scientific method I am afraid that creationists should either offer us proper scientific evidence to back their claims or to withdraw their assertions.

Is believing in those things sophistry?

While I completely agree that you cannot teach it as science, I cannot accept that creationists should 'back it up with evidence or shut up'. That attitude got us into the whole 'creation science' business in the first place.

To discount what is to some a dearly held religious belief as 'sophistry' is appalling, and precisely why this discussion is winding me up. As IanB said early on, you're at risk of positivism.

Please note: I am neither espousing the belief, nor am I defending it. I am definitely not defending the teaching of it in schools as science. However, I will defend the right of a person to hold such beliefs and talk about them without being bloopdy mocked as 'ignorant and stupid'

I can see differences between creation & such miricles as the Virgin Birth & the Resurection. The latter are exceptional events and although we have scientific evidence that such events do not normally happen, we have no scientific evidence that they did not happen. In the case of a 6 day recent creation we do have scientific evidence that it did not happen.

Hearing more about this Tyneside college on the radio last night the interviews with the parents seemed to indicate that the parents sent their children there because they like the ethos of the school. The interview with Richard Dawkins showed up his fundamentalist nature. In the interviews with the pupils none of them believed in a literal 6 day creation. Though I suspect many are taught that at home.

quote:

---

But why is it less rational than believing in the resurrection of Christ? The virgin birth? The feeding of the five thousand?
Is believing in those things sophistry?

While I completely agree that you cannot teach it as science, I cannot accept that creationists should 'back it up with evidence or shut up'. That attitude got us into the whole 'creation science' business in the first place.

To discount what is to some a dearly held religious belief as 'sophistry' is appalling, and precisely why this discussion is winding me up. As IanB said early on, you're at risk of positivism.

---

All right one thing at a time.

The miracles in the New Testament are based on eye witness accounts. To believe in them one needs to believe that a) The accounts are accurate. b) Accept the metaphysical propositons underlying them. I think that it is reasonably certain that the accounts are pretty accurate and for reasons which space does not permit me to go into I believe that the existence of God is a proposition of a different order than the proposition that God created the earth in six days complete with fossil record to annoy paleontologists.

The whole creationism debate is about whether or not the account (more properly accounts actually)in Genesis is literally true. This is a scientific proposition as it can be empirically falsified. Sorry Wood, it has been. Either those who believe it are ignorant of the vast body of scientific evidence. - Yes, the I word. Yes I know that I am ignorant of lots of things. Yes, I'm sure that many of the people who believe in the literal version are better Christians than I am. In fact I know perfectly well that the one Creationist of my acquaintance is a better Christian than I am. Nonetheless, in this instance ignorance is the correct technical term. - Or they are being wilfully dishonest. I'm sorry if this upsets you, but I reread the chapter of Holloway's book last night and it consisted of palpable misrepresentations of the scientific evidence.

I am not, lest I be misunderstood, disagreeing those who believe the book of Genesis to have been inspired by God. What I am disagreeing with is those who believe that it is a factually accurate record of what actually happened.

quote:

---

On a side note, (this isn't meant as a dig at Karl) I thought that the Earth actually bulges at the equator due to the effect of the moon/tides

---

[Pedant Mode On]
Not quite correct.The fact that the Earth is an oblate spheroid is a result of its rotation.
However the combined influences of the Sun and Moon do indeed have an effect,not on the Earth's oblateness but causes the precession of the equinoxes
[/Pedant Mode Off]
I think I agree with Dyfrig on this one

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yaffle:
The whole creationism debate is about whether or not the account (more properly accounts actually)in Genesis is literally true. This is a scientific proposition as it can be empirically falsified. Sorry Wood, it has been.

---

I maintain that it has not. Sorry Yaffle. It hasn't.

For the sake of the sanity of both of us, and in order to avoid a replay of that Monty Python sketch where the guy wants an argument and he gets flat disagreement with every statement, I think we must agree to disagree.

quote:

---

Either those who believe it are ignorant of the vast body of scientific evidence ...Nonetheless, in this instance ignorance is the correct technical term. - Or they are being wilfully dishonest.

---

I believe that there is a third position. While I accept that the 'complete with fossils' argument has holes, and that the 'creation science' position is untenable, I believe that you can hold the position that God created the world in a shaort space of time with integrity. My minister - a man whose opinion I respect on admire on about 95% of things - holds it, and right now I frankly can't see why I shouldn't either.

There are any number of observations that are incompatible with a young-earth hypothesis.

I would submit strata depth, varves, dendrochronolgy and persistence of long half-life radioactive elements.

The are only three options for holding a young earth view in the light of these:

(a) Ignorance of the data
(b) Omphalos argument - God made it look old even though it isn't.
(c) The scientists have got it wrong.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astro:
YEC may not be a valid scientfic viewpoint but it is a valid theological one.

---

If you are serious about setting up a petition, then forget it. Email petitions very, very rarely are taken seriously.

If you want to have your complaints taken seriously then you need to send in individual letters to the people corncerned, eg OFSTED, the school, the bishop. Getting twenty letters is going to achieve more than an email with 50 names attached.

quote:

---

Alan Cresswell wrote:
But, how do you define a valid theological position? YEC is as valid a theological position as, say, JWs or Mormonism.

---

For what it was worth I was given a book expounding YEC by a JW boss before I returned to college after a year out. The theological position has wide spread adherance

If God did make a world appear x billion years old complete with fossil record there is no way of proving it. The people who we think were around at the time only take cameo parts in Time Team* these days.

Wow 53 "furious icons" on one page of a thread - must be a rant against child molesters or satanists!

Oh no, I'm wrong - it's a rant by Christians against fellow Christians because they hold an "unscientific" point of belief!

So lets se..... there are lots of other "unscientific" beliefs that we can flame as well.....

a) Obviously it has been proven that Jesus Christ never existed.

b) and as for Moses and Abraham - well if Jesus doesn't get a look in then these two old fogies don't.

c) The account of the Exodus - well it makes a good film - but that's about it.

d) Miracles that Jesus performed - well he didn't exist and even if he did - suspend the laws of nature? - nahhh.

e) The virgin birth? - how stupid

e) The ressurection?

f) forgivness? - nope sorry - no Jesus / no miracles / no ressurection - better just get on with life the best we can.

Teaching Creationism as a faith position I have no problem with, eg 'some Christians believe that the Genesis story is literally true, and point to evidence x,y,z'.

What this school seems to be espousing, unless it has been misreported, is promoting evidence x,y,z as more acceptable science than the evidence for evolution, and that Creationism is the 'correct' and even official teaching of the Church.

Possibly one thing that makes my cursor gravitate towards our friend is that it seems to be another instance of David Holloway and his REFORM cronies (and I'm an evangelical-ish Anglican, btw) laying down the law about how sound they are with their legalistic, narrow self-righteousness, and how the church must be protected from all us liberal backsliders out there. I mean, next thing you know people will be thinking Christianity is all about grace, eh?