Grim,
I don't know how to say this politely, but can I ask that you at least open a book written by a creationist before making your next comment on creationism.

You are right in suggesting that I would not reject any valid scientific observation out of hand. In regard to observation, can I ask when it was you or anyone else observed a bird evolving from a reptile, or a person evolving from an ape. For these are the types of claims  about which we have right to be sceptical.

Poirot, 
With regard to there not being any opposition between faith and science, you won't find any argument from my side.

Tonight I watched the debate between Richard Dawkins and Cardinal Pell.
Interestingly, I was hoping to be impressed by Pell. I've read Dawkins' book and although most of his points made sense to me, I tended to view him with skepticism because I was dubious of his role as a headline personality in an unfolding movement.

I have to say that Cardinal Pell came across to me as spectacularly underwhelming. He was wishy-washy and arrogant and, frankly, just plain muddling and ordinary. I think we enjoy better debate and deeper insight here on OLO from those of religious persuasion. I very much desired to be impressed by this man of God (he is a cardinal, after all) - instead I found he didn't give me food for thought. No challenging insights. No higher wisdom.

On the other hand, I found Richard Dawkins to be sensible, clear and measured in the points he was making. Where I had perhaps expected him to come across as arrogant and dismissive, I came away with the opposite impression.

Perhaps I'm biased - I wonder how others found it?

>>In regard to observation, can I ask when it was you or anyone else observed a bird evolving from a reptile, or a person evolving from an ape.<<

How are we meant to do that, Dan? Surely you acknowledge that if these things happened they happened in a prehistoric era. Do you know how to build a time machine which allows travel to the past? Neither does anybody else. Which makes it impossible to gather the sort of observations you demand as evidence for evolutionary theory. How very convenient.

Although we don't have time machines we do have lots of fossils which show quite clearly evolutionary changes over time: changes which include birds evolving from dinosaurs and people evolving from ape-like ancestors.

Cheers,

Tony

G'day Dan,
it would be pointless to go over the same ground, trying to supply all the evidence for evolution again (and again and again...) I would however quote from your earlier contribution:

“ 2. We believe that science is the major source of truth about the physical universe in which we find ourselves, from the microscopic to the macroscopic level. More than that, we put our trust in the consensus of scientific experts in their respective fields, recognising that while they might be proven wrong, we would be foolish not to believe them.”

Since all scientific institutions and most religious ones accept the theory of evolution, this quote is germane. Thank you.
The point I have been trying to make here concerns your query “should science be taught as dogma?” and the answer as I said is no.
I assume we can accept the definition of 'dogma' in this instance to be “a doctrine accepted as unquestionably true (by any particular group, ie scientists in this instance)?
While I would regard Dawkins as a very 'dogmatic' person, and extremely staunch in his belief in Darwinian Evolution, I believe as a scientist even Dawkins would accept that there are and possibly always will be questions.
Again, to qualify as science, it must be testable and predictive.
Since the study of science must involve testing and questioning, I really don't see how it can be taught as 'dogma'. At the same time, I don't see how Creationism can be taught as anything else.
If new and incontrovertible evidence were found proving Creation, it could logically only be found by a scientist, not a Creationist, who is bound by his belief not to even ask the fundamental question.
Incidentally, I did read Denton's “Evolution, a theory in Crisis” and have read others. It is interesting that Denton has, in his latest book unconditionally accepted the validity of the nested hierarchy, common descent, and the tree of life.

Luciferase:
<Your attack, Squeers, on those you disagree with you in the current topic, labelling them as "neo-liberals", is insulting because, IMO, most do write from an informed position, do seek one truth, do justify their position and are prepared to concede well argued points>

A) I haven't "attacked"; I've criticised first the article and then the tone and vacuous content of a few posters. B) no one has responded to my questions or criticism in a way that indicates I've been understood. I've questioned and critiqued (which means not necessarily critical in the negative sense) New Atheism (it's my target, not individuals. Though New Atheists like Dawkins and Nichols tend to all the vacuity of gurus and charismatics) several times now to no avail, barring a full measure of resentment, indeed hypersensitivity. Like Dawkins, his followers apparently have no understanding of theology or philosophy; more importantly, they have no comprehension of their own ideology and its tendencies.
I haven't called anyone a neoliberal btw, my position is that the New Atheists are neoliberals by default--this is plain in what I've said. I cannot argue my position with people who don't know what I'm talking about.

And I didn't "concede, at one point, that [you] just may have a little intelligence". I said, "you seem intelligent", once again to defend myself against the charge of arrogance etc that you've repeated here.
However intelligent you or your comrades might be, you've failed to show the New Atheism is founded on anything but straw-men, high-dudgeon and vacuity--both in its criticism of religion and in itself.

Poirot,
I never expected anything more from Pell. He's about the worst spokesperson Catholics could elect. But the whole affair was an embarrassment, from the giggling audience to the pious Pell to the indignant Dawkins. Absolutely nothing of any depth was discussed.

Poirot, I watched the debate. I wish they had extended it by another
hour, for IMHO it revealed quite a bit.

Both men clearly had their cheer squads there and I think that Jones
did quite a good job at keeping an even balance, to avoid things
getting out of hand.

Pell had clearly done some homework leading up to the show, but as
I had suspected, he has yet to learn a great deal about evolution
theory, which Dawkins understands in minute detail.

I agree, Pell was fairly wishy washy about heaven, hell and all the
rest. I guess religious leaders act a bit like politicians. They
do that deliberately, as if they are too specific, their words can
come back to haunt them, at some later stage. Its ok for Pell to say
that hell is for Hitler, but of course his church has a history of
teaching 5 year old kiddies that if they commit a mortal sin, they
will burn forever. The other comment that I found interesting is
that Pell thinks that animals have souls too.

Clearly Pell's understanding of Christianity is quite different to
that of somebody like runner. They all make up different versions,
as they go along