No, I believe children are born the way they will always act, with a little help from their environment/significant others.

Having known a close friends family for over 25 years, I watched her twin boys grow up in the same environment. Mum and Dad were married, church-going Christians , and Dad worked from home in his business, while mum worked part-time as a nurse.

From an early age, one twin was a really 'masculine' boy, playing sports and enjoying cars and guns etc. the other twin liked tap and ballet dancing, and was constantly playing with his sisters dolls and clothes, as well as liking to put on his mums makeup.

His worried parents tried everything to steer him towards more male pursuits, but he remained very 'arty' all his school years.

He 'came out' as being gay at the age of 19...

Marketing has a lot to answer for in developing children's preferences. Who would like that garish 'Barbie pink' without a lot of conditioning? I recently saw Eau de Toilette in a chemist, not only made for children but branded with kids movie motifs like Spiderman and Cars. Weird beyond belief.

Amazingly, the same goes for my cows & bulls, even the nanny & Billy goats I had for a while.
Hasbeen,
Only because you were too stingy to send them to University :-)

Oh jolly good runner, when pressed you can give a name but no other details. Given your history of bearing false witness on the views of scientists (Lipson, Whitten) I can give you no congratulations for having guessed a creationist this time. In reality, just another one you haven't read for yourself and have no honest capacity to comment upon. Does "christ" approve of you bearing pompous false witness?

Returning to gendered education: You have stated that education has been "dumbed down" for girls, how does that reflect on the higher degrees of your daughter and wife? Do you think them undeserving? Perhaps the "dumbing down" permitted your son in too? Please explain clearly whether you regard their achievements as a benchmark to be proud of or as a cheapened trinket to make fun of. I think you are being hypocritical in wanting it both ways. If you dodge the question a third time, It would only be the usual creationist dishonesty.

runner, I Don't read any bigots, which leaves out most creationists. I am often at odds with the "bible", I think it bears as much resemblance to truth as Colonel Sander's Military pretensions. You will need to find original copies to arouse more than stark boredom from me.

Rusty.

get caught out red handed Rusty and all you do is carry on your lies. Oxford uni obviously does not count for you. I suppose no problem for a moral relativist.

Caught red handed at what runner? Not trusting a known false witness? Can't apologise for that, but you can. I don't trust you. You have previously misrepresented the professional opinions of Whitten and Lipson, using poorly referenced quotes to support your poorly derived and shallowly held opinion. You have borne false witness of others in defence of your position as a witness of your alleged "lord". I would be ashamed of myself if I were to trust your statements. That you are so undeserving of trust in these matters is your shame, not mine.

The great number of Oxford educated scientists who understand and support evolution and regard creationism as tat are the ones I respect runner. Unlike you, I passed school well and have higher degrees in science specialising in molecular genetics, with a personal interest in molecular evolution. I am qualified to regard Lennox's work directly. He does not "rightly" condemn atheism, he embarrasses himself and should stick to mathematics.

One last time runner: Simple Simon Says...Please clarify your opinion that education has been dumbed down (for girls) in light of the fact that your own kids have benefited.

Rusty