As John Dickson said on G & A the other evening, "I get science plus Jesus."

This article is very much, "I'm right and Christians are idiots." There are many, many highly educated Christians who reconcile both worlds without any trouble, mainly because science doesn't actually contradict Christianity.

re; "Nope, science doesn't affirm anything, affirmation is part of a belief system."
That shows a poor understanding of science and of belief systems.

Belief systems are systems not supported by actual evidence.
I do not treat science as a belief system. Science is empirical and a Einstein suggested one contrary experiment or measurement can destroy a current theory.

After 153 years, no evidence to date has contradicted or undermined Darwin's Theory or after 106 years Einstein's. As one commentator recently wrote, "Evolution happens! Darwin's explanation is a theory explaining how."

There are many areas of science where the evidence has confirmed that the theory can be relied on. If that wasn't the case we would not fly in aeroplanes, use mobile phones or have people fly to the moon. In such systems the underlying theories can hardly be considered as unproven. The theories are beyond reasonable doubt. I use reasonable to mean supported by sensible reasons.

Put another way, Electronic devices work! electrical, magnetic and light theories underlie the design." The theories are proven in any meaningful sense of the word in its common use.

Yes John we hear you.

It must be very depressing to consider the prospect of Tony Abbott leading the next government.

Never mind, in about 3 generations you can give us the benefit of a similar review about the incoming Union/ALP government, Islam and Judaism.

Whilst you’re at it perhaps you might do an Hypocrisy Test and see if you can’t find some “Embarrassment Genes”.

I think the article missed the point. How many have actually read the entire speech rather than responded to the excerpts in the posted article?

It’s not the arcane Biblical references that matter but Abbott’s smarmy grovelling obsequience to his audience. It’s not hard to see whose interests he really represents when IPA sponsors include major mining companies, Monsanto, Philip Morris, News Limited, Oil companies, Gunns forestry, Murray irrigation and - thanks to John Howard - the Australian taxpayer even handed them $50,000 in 2003.

The audience included Rupert Murdoch, Alan Jones, Janet Albrechtsen and Gina Reinhardt and was hosted by Andrew Bolt - a typical cross section of Australian society or a collection of self-interested power brokers salivating over the spoils to come their way after the next election?

Of particular interest was his solemn promise to abolish the Department of Climate Change and the Clean Energy Fund when Combet has already abolished it. Really on top of things there.
Well at least among all the usual generalities he did confirm that Medibank Private was going to be sold off.

The fact that he selectively uses religion as a tool to advance his own political views is nothing to be proud of, particularly when he is a demonstrable liar and prone to tell people only what they want to hear rather than have convictions of his own - rather than those told to him by some of the names mentioned above.

Foyle

“To do so allows the various religions free reign to indoctrinate the the youngsters in the coming generations.”

But it’s okay for the State - a compulsory monopoly of force - to compulsorily indoctrinate the entire population for 10 years full-time in their formative years, generation after generation? The irrationality of this belief system is demonstrated here:
http://mises.org/journals/jls/19_2/19_2_5.pdf

“Belief systems are systems not supported by actual evidence.”

Surely it’s possible to believe something that is supported by actual evidence? I would treat a belief system as any system of beliefs. Whether or not it is supported by actual evidence is a further question.

“I do not treat science as a belief system.”

I think there’s a need to beware of a “scientistic” belief system. This is one believing that one’s conclusions are backed by science when they aren’t, because either or both
a) the process of reasoning to a conclusion is logically invalid or unsound and therefore unscientific;
b) the conclusion rests on value judgments that are not supplied by the science.

Many such scientistic belief systems are based on demonstrable fallacies but nevertheless are supported by massive government funding and vested interests in the relevant industries.

The claims of statists and socialists - democratic or otherwise - to the backing of science are laughable. These are better classified as belief systems of the irrational kind!

Foyle,
Darwinism is theory backed by the ARTS of archaeology and philosophy it can be conflated with a scientific methodology via a statistical philosophy within ethical parameters but it's not backed by it.
Read back over your posts and look at the way you've established these ethical parameters around "evolution", we're both actually debating from a philosophical point of view.
As a philosophy Darwinism meshes well with the other aspects of modernity, that's why it's so popular, it sits well within a Liberal or "rational" ethical framework.
You're also being coy, you know there are taboos surrounding supposed human evolution because the science doesn't back the artistic interpretations of Archaeologists and Philosophers, it's an ethical minefield for liberals and egalitarians.