Dan! "God and man are one"! its either ignorants or you have not excepted what I have written? What I have said is picking up speed all round the planet, so what Iam saying, we are all on the same side.

Please! Stop going around in circles! I hear what you are saying, and your only pulling at straws.

EVO

re: "I am in search of good science as well as good theology. I don’t see how evolution fits either."

theology - "1. the science which treats of God, His attributes and His relations to the universe" (Macquarie Concise Dictionary, page 1045)

science - "2. systematised knowledge, in general" (Macquarie Concise Dictionary, page 888) (as opposed to experimental science)

Dan, can you kindly and succinctly state whether you agree or disagree with each of the following statements?

(1) The words of the Holy Bible (King James Edition, say) are literally true.
(2) The world was created in 6 days
(3) Humans are a separate and distinct creation from other apes and other animals.
(4) Humans and other animals do not "evolve" by organic evolution or any other mechanism of change over time.

My assumption is that you consider all four statements to be true. Is that so?

Dear Michael,

If my post were an emotional outburst, there would have been capital letters and exclamation marks everywhere. But I don’t believe I need to explain what is wrong with coercing a child to reject facts much more than I have already in my last response to George, and scientific reasoning explains why the belief is patently wrong.

I find it ironic that you say: “The heart shouldn’t overrule the head.” This is what should be told to all creationists as their beliefs do not come from reasoning or evidence but from an emotional dependency that relies on believing that the Bible is literal truth. This is becoming very clear in the posts of one particular creationist here who (when cornered) retreated to another thread and has now resorted to threatening others with hell.

I’m not sure why you think this place is not suitable for a debate though. The word limits are a little restricting but the “Pro-evolution” camp seems to be doing just fine.

I will be happy to lower my tone on ‘abuse’ when someone can show me that my claims are wrong. So far, that hasn’t happened.

Thank you for your offer to respond to anything that has been said earlier, but I don’t believe that is necessary. I have heard all the arguments for creationism before and they all fall into two categories: Fallacies and/or misrepresentations.

Dear George.

By “abuse” I was specifically referring to creationism and the coercion methods used by some parents to ensure their children uncritically believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. It is unfair to potentially condemn a child to appear foolish and instill ignorant mindset in them for the rest of their lives.

Yes, it is a disservice to deny a child education, but I wasn’t just talking about that. I was talking about the methods used to train children to actively reject anything that may contradict the parents’ beliefs and what can result from that (ignorance etc.).

(Cont’d)

The word ‘murder’ is, by definition, an unlawful act. ‘Child abuse’ is simply abuse that happens to a child. I can see no formal definitions that refer to ‘child abuse’ as specifically being the ‘unlawful’ abuse of a child. So I still think your over-reaction was unwarranted, although your apology is accepted.

There is a big difference between ‘indoctrination’ and ‘religious education’. Indoctrination means to teach someone to accept a doctrine uncritically and coercing a child to reject science for religious purposes fits the definition of ‘indoctrination’ to a tea, so I’m not sure why you wouldn’t use the term in that situation.

Whether or not I class “education into a Christian world view” (as you have put it) as ‘indoctrination’ (and hence abuse) would largely depend on how it was done. If the child is threatened with, or even told about such nonsense as ‘hell’, then yes, that is psychological abuse and the only reason it isn’t outlawed is because religion holds an untouchable status in societies. But there would be a very fine line between ‘education into a Christian world view’ and ‘indoctrination’ since religions generally rely on the followers not thinking critically about the religion.

The comparison you make between indoctrination into Marxism/Nazism and Atheism is nonsensical as you cannot indoctrinate someone into a way of thinking that has no doctrine. Nazism and Marxism have a doctrine, Atheism doesn’t.

As for “Evolutionism”, this is a term that is predominantly used by creationists in order to make evolution sound like a religion and is sloppy English in my books.

AdamD wrote:

The comparison you make between indoctrination into Marxism/Nazism and Atheism is nonsensical as you cannot indoctrinate someone into a way of thinking that has no doctrine. Nazism and Marxism have a doctrine, Atheism doesn’t.

Dear AdamD,

Although atheism does not have a doctrine it has become part of other doctrines. It is an integral part of Marxism to such a degree that it is often associated with Marxism. I am an atheist. On a boat trip between Italy and Greece I was talking to an Italian man and mentioned I was an atheist. He found it difficult to understand how I could be an atheist and not a Marxist. A person whose inclinations would lead him or her to be a religious believer upon indoctrination into Marxism would have to profess atheism. Such profession may lead to actual atheism.

Charles Darwin simply showed the link between natural selection and the ability of species to evolve, he did not claim to lay down the exact mechanism by which it occurred.

The use of genetics and fossil records simply enhances and refines the theory and does not in any way replace it. Any claims to this end are spurious.

Ford invented the assembly line method of building cars. The new assembly lines bear very little resemblance, but still are founded on the same principles.

Darwin's theory is stronger today than it was a century ago.