Sellick clearly states that:

“The theory of evolution tells us that we are here by accident, we are not the product of an intentional creator.

Now all of this is true, but taken as an existential framework it is a wonder that we don’t all just lie in our baths and slit our wrists. If this is the only framework that we give the young then it is no wonder that they become shallow, hedonistic materialists, what other option do they have? The scientific existential framework is a recipe for despair and suicide and drug use….

What we need is an educational program that teaches the two realms just as literature is taught alongside natural science. But this must be done so that the historical/imaginative construct of Christian theology is given equal weigh for being “true” as it does that of natural science.”

OK. Sellick wants the mystical taught at school as a valid part of education. I don’t have a problem, in fact the subject of religion – ALL RELIGIONS – should be taught as part of the human experience.

But Sellick wants only Christianity taught. WHY?

Sellick, your prejudice and hypocrisy is showing, time for some reflection on your continued disparagement of the multitudes of humanity who do not believe exactly as you do.

Rather an amusing video Ronnie (‘Why Don't Bees Go to Heaven?'). Kevin Rudd’s sophism concludes (and as you quote), “…so I think there is an intelligent mind at work” is lazy.

A pervasive idea that appears to have taken hold is that science tends to be materialistic – a purely philosophical position where nothing can exist beyond matter. Pure empiricism suggests this also, where, if it can’t be measured it therefore cannot exist – another false priori.

Confusing the whole issue are those who propose the teaching and endorsement of intelligent design alongside of science as legitimate (President Bush is also one of these). To be consistent to this therefore, and in the words of Francisco Ayala , “we should [therefore] teach astrology with astronomy, and alchemy with chemistry, and witchcraft with medicine.”

On the paternalism of Catholic hierarchy one should note that in the second century, the force of ancient marriage tradition - the Septuagintal, New Testament pastoral, Greek, and Roman alike, had not successfully pressured all Christians to conform to the familial status quo in which father knows best and the husband is the head of his wife and children. The irony is here, for if ‘man’ is simply animal (by ‘soul’ and instinct) , “Let him who has taken one woman keep her, whereas all can share her, just as the other animals show us. With view to the permanence of the race, he has implanted in males a strong and ardent desire which neither law nor custom nor any other restraint is able to destroy. For it is God´s decree......” - Epiphanes, the son of the Gnostic teacher Carpocrates. Destroy a familial religion and again, we subjugate the ‘fairer’ of our species.

fractelle, very very good question. why only the christian story, indeed.

george, in fact i do subscribe to the right to insult. and i'm not fussed by sellick's insults, i'm merely pointing out the fact. in terms of sources of nonsense, and respect or the lack of it, i'm not convinced there's the symmetry you seem to imply. but that question can wait for another day. as for silly articles being the source of good discussion, that's much more a comment on you and reida and fractelle and others, than it is of sellick.

dan, i'm not sure what point you're trying to make. are you suggesting that the idea of the earth being or not being at the centre of the universe is devoid of serious theological origins or theological implications

Bushbasher,
It is a limited perception of Dan’s, through also his simplistic illustration, that we are at or near the centre of the universe by saying, “ [it is to] see a similar number of stars when you look out one window as when you look out the other." Bit like saying, “the earth is flat for as far as I can see... therefore the earth is flat.” Both analogies illustrate a bad conclusion drawn on the basis of narrow observation. It is perhaps worthy noting also that the modern notion of there once being a medieval belief in a flat earth, especially in Christianity, is a fallacy and is commonly referred to as “The Myth of the Flat Earth.”

In speaking of myths, another is the one ‘social scientists’ celebrate with their secularization thesis, despite the fact it has never been consistent with empirical reality. This notion rests on contrasts between now and a so called bygone ‘Age of Faith’, a pure nostalgia. A lack of religious participation was, if anything, even more widespread in medieval times than now. The idea the world is becoming more secular is an illusion, despite what we’d like to believe. If we are to expand the ‘secularization doctrine’ to non-Christian societies we can see that not even the highly magical 'folk religions' in Asia have shown the slightest declines in response to quite rapid modernization.

Peter Berger (1968 ) told the New York Times that the by "the 21st century, religious believers are likely to be found only in small sects, huddled together to resist a worldwide secular culture. He said "the predicament of the believer is increasingly like that of a Tibetan astrologer on a prolonged visit to an American university." Amusing as his statement is, it just simply ‘ain’t’ true.

I think George alluding to the ‘glass-jaw’ is excellent in terms of how we might take offense at some-other’s ‘non-sense’. I would also say, whatever is said (and by whom), we take it on the jaw – but always with reserve and the right of a return.

Peter's idea of Darwin's theory of evolution:-

"The theory of evolution tells us that we are here by accident...."

I'm sad to see Peter, a "man of science", trip over himself on this one. The theory of evolution does not say we are here by accident. This is ignorant commentary perpetrated by Christian fundamentalists that have not read "The origin of species" or, if they have, then by these utterances have completely failed to understand the concepts behind one of the greatest pieces of scientific reasoning of all time.

I quote Peter's enemy, Richard Dawkins( a real scientist) :-

"Natural selection is quintessentially non-random, yet it is lamentably often miscalled random. This one mistake underlies much of the sceptical backlash against evolution. Chance cannot explain life. Design is as bad an explanation as chance because it raises bigger questions than it answers. Evolution by natural selection is the only workable theory ever proposed that is capable of explaining life, and it does so brilliantly."

Interesting site, Ronnie,

What struck me in Rudd’s response was this...

“If you were to reduce that to mathematical probabilities, I’ve got to say it probably wouldn’t have happened...”

Yet if you were reduce to mathematics the concept of something as infinitesimally complex as God coming into existence from no simple beginnings, then the probabilities would be infinitely smaller.

Of course, Theists simply get around this by declaring that God cannot be explained in terms of the physical world – which of course, answers nothing.

Each to their own, I guess.

What I found frightening though, was the thought of the stickers for science textbooks. I can’t find anything about that though. Where did you hear that from?

Here’s another video you might want to link to, Ronnie. It’s a message from comedian Marcus Brigstocke to the three Abrahamic religions of the world...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY-ZrwFwLQg

Dan,

<<Lately I read somewhere that there are some lines of evidence from astronomy to suggest that we, meaning our galaxy, is roughly speaking at or near the centre of the universe. The simplest of these was to see a similar number of stars when you look out one window as when you look out the other.>>

The ‘looking out the windows’ example is simplistic in the extreme (like Relda’s ‘Flat-Earth’ analogy). Even with no light pollution, virtually everything we see in the night sky is within our own galaxy.

The universe is expanding like dots on a balloon as it’s being blown-up. Only the galaxies (represented by the dots) wouldn’t expand like they would on the balloon since they are held together by gravity.

So in effect, there is no physical ‘center’ as such.

I would suggest that whoever wrote what you were reading didn’t really know what they where talking about.