Dear Dan,

I repeat my words:

"I made no such contention. I merely stated that there is no evidence for creationism. Dawkins has a great deal of passion and bias. His passion and bias is based on the fact that there is no evidence for creationism, and creationists maintain their position regardless of the lack of evidence.

Prejudice is an irrational bias which people cannot justify. Dawkins can justify his bias. It is based on evidence."

There is nothing in the above statements referring to atheism. Dawkins can justify his bias toward evolution since there is evidence for it.

I don't know why you brought up atheism since that is another subject and I had not referred to it.

David, you admit that Dawkins has a great deal of bias.

Dawkins openly states his atheism (I didn’t bring it up, Dawkins himself did). His atheist position forms part of his bias (predisposition or partiality).

You said that Dawkin’s bias is justified by the evidence.

This is why I asked you whether you think atheism can be justified.

Do you not think it is possible that Dawkins is allowing his atheism to colour his view of the evidence?

Dear Dan,

Whether one is an atheist or not there simply is no evidence for creationism. Atheism cannot bias an attitude toward evidence where there is no evidence.

David,
Atheism can certainly bias your view so that you ignore clear evidence that is likely to infer a conclusion contrary to your predisposition.

I don’t criticise Dawkins for having a bias. Everybody has one. But which ‘bias’ takes best account of all of the evidence?

I’ll repeat what I said on 20/2/08. “Most evidence is not disputed, only their implications and interpretations. Creationists don’t dispute the gaps in the fossil record that Davidf recently reminded us of. They just suggest that such gaps may go beyond the usual evolutionist rationalisations, and point to real distinctions between different types of living things.”

These gaps are clear evidence in the fossil record for distinctly separate categories in the history of living things (as depicted in the book of Genesis). However, those with particular blinkers on their eyes will, as anticipated, avoid seeing such an interpretation.

"These gaps are clear evidence in the fossil record for distinctly separate categories in the history of living things".

ah, yes. the god of the gaps: the argument for god when all else fails.

david, aj, of course your debate is akin to playing tennis with a brick wall, but i hope you're having fun. i've certainly been having fun watching.

Dear Dan,

Why should one believe the creation myths in the bible any more than one should believe the Aboriginal creation myths of the Rainbow serpent or the Age of the Gods in Japanese mythology?

Evolution is a fact. Species have arisen, and other species have disappeared. Sure there are gaps in the fossil record. The various creation myths arose when there was no fossil evidence at all.

You can choose one of the many creation myths, but what criteria can justify choosing one myth over the other myths?