-The Lord’s prayer. Given by Jesus himself, who may or may not have been God incarnate (probability of his divinity based on the evidence is quite good). At the very least Jesus, the greatest example of humanity to have ever lived, prayed often - so if its good enough for him its good enough for me, humility seems to demand it.

-Evolution. A very good scientific theory, one of the greatest, but its poor author never meant it to bear cosmological weight, as if it could explain its own existence or the existence of life itself. We are certainly missing something and we have more to learn.

If the author is genuinely interested in the reasons for belief, rather than caricatures then Mere Christianity by CS Lewis has always been a good book for that. Frances Collins the leader of the human genome project and the last well known person I can think to have read it, found the book well argued and ultimately persuasive.

Interestingly, I studied biology at a faith-based school and was told, as reported in the article, that this was one explanation of the way things happened. I did not, however, study creation science; never in my Catholic education did I have the creation myth presented to me as anything other than a Bible story. Perhaps this article misrepresents things with its juxtaposition of Joh's suggestion that creation science is taught at school with the 'disclaimer' placed before evolution studies.

Furthermore, the suggestion that evolution could be wrong was followed with a brief history of the changes in the theory itself. This wasn't intended to show us that the theory is unreliable, but rather a lesson that science itself is an ever-evolving corpus of knowledge and understanding.

In Queensland, at least, I don't think creationism COULD be taught alongside evolution. The biology syllabus - and junior science syllabus - doesn't allow for it. I can't speak for other states, but on this point, at least, I disagree with the overall message of the article.