Every response to this article is grist to the creationist mill.

It's their strategy: make some preposterous claims regarding well-tested science, then cite any disagreement as proof that evolution is "in crisis".

No argument can be won against creationists. They will accept, without question, any half-baked idea which reinforces their belief, and turn away from any concrete evidence which refutes it.

Engaging with individual creationists is pointless and frustrating. If we're going to write letters, let's write them to Brendan Nelson and register our objection to a dark-ages cult which demeans both science and religion.

Ignorance is stronger than accuracy because it's much easier. Spend your energy where it counts, or we'll wake up to a world where children are taught that a 2000-year-old folk tale is a valid substitute for observable and testable knowledge.

Steve, that convo with the Yale student.. I don't think it would pan out quite like he said, but looking back in history, I would not be surprised. Gengis Khan fought most of his early wars over trade issues, and anyone who thinks the Chinese have forgotten how the British treated them with the Opium wars or the Japanese with the rape of Nanjing needs therapy :)

So, logically, that they would forge ahead with strengthening their power, should be no surprise. That they would also eventually seek a bit of 'our turn' in the imperialism stakes would also not exactly shock. The truth is, there is a latent chinese 'empire' already sitting in most of South East Asia, with one high profile Chinese business identity claiming (just after the post Soharto riots/civil strife/anti chinese unrest) that up to that point they controlled 90% plus of the Indo economy and within a few more years they would have 'the lot' had it not been for the backlash.

These events are very instructive for our own situation in regard to any highly motivated minority whether it be of an Islamic or Chinese or Italian flavor. They tend to chanel trade within their own groups. Ever had an Italian concreter do work for you ? :) I did, and all the associated work.. bobcat.. trucks.. etc.. all Italian. We all do it, well..most, and its quite managable when minorities are small.

So, it should come as no lightning bolt that some elements of the "Christian" (so called) group see opportunities also.

Oh..on your point re my faith .. that you could not or 'would' not ... I'm reminded of the great apostle Paul prior to the Damascus Road encounter :)
We never know just 'how' God is going to deal with us in life. But that is the point.. its about God, not some Bible Basher giving us scriptural stick.

Have you had a peek at Tony Pitts 'Save Australia Alliance' ? I'm not sure about his 'conspiracy' theory re Port Arthur but other points seem well argued.

Bd, “So, a good knowledge of the New Testament is the best weapon in refuting such views.” I have yet to find on these forums anyone that has a good knowledge of the writings you call the new testament. Just like ID, you just quote fanciful words that have no relationship to the original writings, nor what they were about

How can you quote Paul, when he didn't write anything, the writer a jewish scribe, lived about 100 years after the so called event. You refuse to accept the scientific and historical facts that show what you believe and what the man jesus said, are completely different. Not only that but you say you follow in his footstep, really. He said, he was the leader of the non believers and abhorred religion.

Never do you accept the truth that this man never died on the cross, just like many who were crucified. Those that died, died from exposure, loss of blood and shock. He was taken down very quickly, taken to a middle class tomb and had his wounds fixed. It is recorded in Roman history, as well as in historical texts from Asia minor, where he lived out his life

You fools follow a totally false path, whilst the true path the man walked and preached is hidden by your despotic beliefs and actions. The only way the religious can operate is in a underhanded lying way, your credibility diminishes each day as people realise how far from truth you lot are.

The alchemist: Just where, what fairy story do you obtain all the "rivetting?" facts you used in your last diatribe? Alice in Wonderland perhaps?
You exhibit "remarkable?" wisdom and very deep and inexhaustable knowledge. It's a "credit?" to you and you are really showing us all just the type of person you are. In awe and humility. numbat

From a Creationist:
“Both evolution & ID/Creationism are unprovable scientifically. However, logic can have a good go at it. Both require interpretation of evidence and a belief that things have happened in the past, which can not be re-created in a lab (i.e. faith).
“Some evolutionists have considered the duck-billed platypus as a chimera. However, that does not seem to get evolutionists to deny the theory. In the latest Creation magazine there is an article about a bird of prey which has not only sight and smell but also a very good sonar system similar to bats and dolphins, but with no "evolutionary" links.
“A simple line of argument could be along the lines of this:
1. Evolution is a theory of BIOLOGY. Fossils etc. are forensic and circumstantial evidence. If the biology is impossible then this evidence must have another interpretation.
2. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
3. Single cells reproduce by splitting into two. (I just had this discussion with a TOP cell biologist who admitted that still nobody knows how this happens. Believe it or not, millions of dollars are still being spent to try and find the mechanism of cell division. It is extremely complex.)
4. Explain to me how a group of cells got together with another group of cells and decided that it might be more fun to have two cells join together to reproduce, and then design and put together the infrastructure to allow this to happen, as well as designing and building the infrastructure to allow this combined cell to mature into an organism which can then do the same.
“The argument is ‘How could sex evolve?’. It is impossible. Therefore evolution is impossible.”
(Cont. …)

(Cont. …)
“Not only that, a single cell, even the simplest bacterium, is so complicated that nobody yet knows how they work. I work on pianos, which have around 12,000 parts. I can see design in them. Nobody could be convinced that they happened by accident. The design in them is obvious. Yet they cannot reproduce; their workings are understood; and they simpler, by huge orders of magnitude, than even the "simplest" living organisms.
“The design and machinery in each living cell is clear evidence of a designer and manufacturer. ‘There is none so blind as he who will not see.’”

OK now a little from me:

It REALLY annoys me when evolutionists, questioned about evolution, either say “its proven fact, there’s concrete scientific evidence for it, we see evolution at work every day” (often expanding the term ‘evolution’ to its uncontested elements to argue that) but then get mad when your bring up the [HUGE!] gaps in the theory! Many say “what are you, a god of the gaps person? Maybe a Christian Taliban fundamentalist? You obviously know nothing about science [how dare you question a hypothesis! How unscientific!]”

The fact that the majority of scientists believe we descended from ape like creatures means nothing, the majority of “scientists” believed the world was flat quite a few centuries ago (contrary to popular thought, this idea is not supported by religion).

The fact that there are organisations full of former atheists/evolutionary Christians, experts in their respective fields of science, who through scientific investigation found reason to question evolution and now argue for Creation, (scientists who are much more advanced in their fields than I think the majority of people in this post) means that there is sufficient reason to question the validity of evolution as undisputed scientific fact.

So can we all please keep an open mind without resorting to name calling? That helps nobody.

P.S. Alchemist, where are you getting your facts? Dan Brown?