Of the books that have been critical of Darwinian evolution in recent years, Michael Denton’s 'Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis' stands out. A review of this book is on the Discovery website. Discovery is described on Google as a “politically conservative non-profit think tank based in Seattle, Washington, that advocates the pseudo scientific concept of intelligent design.”

A dictionary definition of intelligent design will tell you that it is “the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity.” In other words , it is an argument for the existence of god. I am prepared to accept the great bang as god. Along with evolutionary theory, but I am afraid that I cannot love them, nor can I pray to them.

To PeterBo,

Less then a quarter of Australia believes in a God? I doubt that piece of data is reliable or trustworthy. It seems that people keep pushing a statistic that Christianity is going away only to repeat themselves later on when nothing seems to have changed. Because of that I think the narrative that less then a quarter even believe in a god, is just a suspect and only says what people who don't believe in a God want to be true.

Nonetheless. Even if the majority of people don't believe in a god in some way (Christian or otherwise), that doesn't justify whether God exists or not. Search for Him yourself instead of relying on the polls to descide. He's real and He's worth finding.

Runner's post (end of p.5) consists of: "'"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."'

tell that to every god denying regime of the past whether it be Stalin, Mao or Planned parenthood."

Never lose an opportunity to present that worthless canard of history do you? Why not parade out a bit of real history, you know, the stuff that real historians write about.

Sometimes, why not write something that reflects historical truth? There are heaps and heaps of it out there. Wikipedia does a creditable but not perfect job. But then, of course, truth in situations like this is not on your agendum, is it? Your religion has vast resources of anything from infantile apologetics to Goebbelsian verbal diarrhea. It's positively catechetical in its comprehensive coverage of historical perversions.

The diligent seeking of truth is not encouraged by religious organisations generally. At your age you should repudiate being a victim any longer and independently research some conflicting opinions. Surely you've completed your sentence by now? Haven't you outgrown the fear, the subservient dependence, the Stockholm Syndrome?