On a final note, I’d just like to say that I am using harsh terms here in an attempt to raise an awareness of something that I believe is quite a tragedy (which is why the word “emotive” is annoying me). Especially when I see a child around the age of 10 naively mocking evolution simply because they trust what their parents tell them. I feel you have down-played my claims party because of a misunderstanding of what I saying at first saying and I take most of the responsibility for this as I have been less-than-clear at times.

If it makes you (and others) happy, I will take back what I said about ‘child abuse’ and leave it at this: Fundamentalists are abusers - abusers of the trust that their children have in every word they say.

Let me make this clear: I do not wish to see religion banned, nor do I want to see the imprisonment or lynching of those who teach their children nonsense. All I would be happy to see is that this behaviour be scorned upon by society.

But why is it not scorned upon? Is it because we are so willing to appear accepting (see Grim’s post that appears to suggest that others who think like me may one day want the death penalty for indoctrination) of others’ beliefs that we completely forget who’s being done a raw deal in all this? Why do we turn a blind eye to indoctrination just because it’s someone’s faith? Why does one’s faith mean that we can’t shake our heads at such behaviour? If I was to start my own religion that allowed me to teach my children wacky ideas, why would people then feel able to openly shake their heads at me? Have we become immune to this nonsense because we’ve seen it happen for thousands of years? All I argue is that enough is enough.

Might I add too though, George, (and as I said to Waterboy) I think that if all Theists were like you, religion would not be a problem.

Bennie,
You ask how much do we know about creationism? That is up to the individual. You could get a book written by a respected creationist and find out what it’s really about. Or you could base your opinions on misinformation from their detractors. It’s up to you.

Adam,
I don’t know what prompts you to say the things you do about Christian education. Have you ever set foot in a school that discussed the issue of evolution and creation openly with its students? Have you ever spoken with a school teacher who saw the value in such discussion? I have a state school teacher friend who raised the issue with his biology class. He did so because he didn’t want his kids to be ignorant of how to deal with controversy.

Your comments are full of misapprehension. For instance, many parents are choosing home schooling not because of the issue of creation or any other single issue. They simply believe it is a path to a better education. In fact, the public school system is a fairly recent invention. How do you think people were educated in most past eras? Do you think Blaise Pascal or Isaac Newton learned to read at their local state school? Did it hurt them?

Shadow Minister,
You object to creation being called a theory. Like a rose with another name, let’s call it something else. Creation is an idea, a concept, a metaphysical model, that which stands in opposition to evolution. It is also a public issue open to discussion. There are some out there who can’t handle that it’s being discussed quite a lot.

As for evolutionists needing the US court system to defend their ‘theory’, this says a lot about the US educational and legal systems. It also says a lot about the fragility of the Darwinian view. A truly robust theory should be able to withstand public scrutiny on its own merit. More evidence of Darwin’s approaching ‘use-by’ date.

Sir Vivor,
I do kinda belong to a sect. Called the Christian faith, it branched out from Judaism about 2000 years ago. It follows the teachings of Jesus and his apostles as described in the Old and New Testaments. I am unaware of the official position of our church on genetic engineering, but I’ll give it a stab.

I’ll guess the church thinks genetic engineering, applying human ingenuity to modify genetic outcomes, as not much different to other forms of selective breeding practices occurring over thousands of years. God gave mankind brains and a mandate to responsibly and justly manage the world.

You accuse us of “denying evolution”. That is unfortunate as I don’t want to be seen as inhibiting progress or denying anything clearly demonstrable. Perhaps I should try and explain what we’re about. The Christian church is about getting the foundations right so that progress can be achieved. In the scientific domain, that means getting the basis right for correct thinking.

Here we have achieved much. You would note how the scientific method and modern science generally was born in the Christian West, within those countries and centuries strongly influenced by Biblical teaching. If in doubt, take a quick look at the influences upon the names mentioned in this thread so far: Isaac Newton considered himself a theologian, spending more time, paper, and ink on his theological writings than on his physics. The Wright brothers were sons of a bishop. Mendel was a Catholic monk.

The problem with Darwin’s thinking was that he ascribed creative tendencies to undirected matter. That is, matter, given enough time, under its own steam, will organise itself into various life forms. This isn’t only counter-intuitive but it has no foundation. It is a thinking hazard.

We don’t gain anything technologically by thinking this way. Do aircraft engineers build anything by allowing aluminium sheets and turbine engines to just do what comes naturally over millions of years? We could say similar things about your genetic engineering. The crucial ingredients were adaptive functions already present and intelligent direction. And still nothing new was created.

Shadow Minister,
>>What on earth is neo-Darwinism?<<
“Encyclopaedia Britannica uses this term to refer to current evolutionary theory. This term is also used in the scientific literature, ... referring to "neo-Darwinism as practised today" and some figures in the study of evolution like Richard Dawkins...” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Darwinism). In my copy of “The Blind Watchmaker” it is defined on page 115.

>>Creationism has a vast and malignant following that are not content to keep their beliefs to themselves but feel obligated to impose it on others.<<
I am not sure what is a “malignant following“ but yes, there are people who want to convince you they are right, for instance by writing a book about the “delusions” of those who see the world and life differently. I can accept that some people find Dawkins convincing, without claiming that he wrote the book because he “felt obligated to impose“ his ideas and explanations (his own delusions about what educated theists believe?) on others. Those who find Dawkins‘ arguments “imposing” simply do not have to read his book, the same as we do not have to read, or even react to, posts here that we feel are “imposing“ themselves on us.

Dear AdamD,
Since I agree that my definitions emphasized too much the extreme positions, let me say it this way: BOTH those who (mis)use their belief in God to oppose the scientific theory of evolution, AND those who (mis)use the scientific theory of revolution as an argument against the existence of a Creator God, can sometimes try to forcibly impose on us (see above) their metaphysical presuppositions (about the existence or non-existence of a reality beyond the one that science can study and describe).

Both these presuppositions are compatible with established scientific theories like evolution, big bang, relativity theory, quantum physics etc. Where I disagree with both Dawkins and religious fundamentalists is their claim that theism is incompatible with any of these scientific theories, although Dawkins and religious fundamentalists each draw different conclusions from this conviction. (ctd)

(ctd) I agree that one cannot compare the two extremes. However, if a theist can accept that attacking evolution on the basis of a priori religious positions is annoying, an atheist should accept that attacking theism using evolution theory is also annoying. Because the vast majority of educated contemporary e.g. Christians see in evolution the “technology” - or at least that part of it that is comprehensible to us - of “the act of Creation”, a concept that is outside the confines of science.

I agree that you can fanatically defend a belief but not fanatically be indifferent to it. We had fanatical Communists and fanatical Anticommunists but not those who fanatically could not care less. So we have theist zealots and antitheist (but not atheist) zealots.

Perhaps religion does have “the power to delude“ that atheism lacks, so maybe therefore those who need to attack ALL theists use “evolution” as an appropriate tool to justify themselves, thus using a scientific theory as an ideology. I would not speculate about the numbers of these compared to those experiencing the need to attack evolution.

When I referred to your experience with religious education of children at home, I did not mean your personal experience but that of a professional, e.g. educationalist, child psychologist or teacher. Nevertheless, thank you for the info about your upbringing. I myself do not remember having been told explicitly not to question God’s existence but I remember having been told not to engage in many activities (e.g. trying to take apart an electric appliance while under power) until I was sure I knew how to do it; or to questions things I have been taught about (in science or religion) until I developed a critical enough mind. Religion, like a gun or a knife, is not the problem. It becomes a poblem when it ends up in the wrong hands.

Let me return the compliment by saying that I have also learned from you how an atheist can see the world, and how I have to be more careful when formulating my own convictions.

Dear George,

I agree with you. I don't think there is a God. However, if God exists God could have used evolution and all the scientific principles that humans have discovered to effect his purposes.

However, I am not at odds with a religious believer who believes in things I can neither prove nor disprove but don't believe in as long as that person doesn't demand that I believe in those things and denies my humanity because I don't believe in what he or she believes in.

I know many religious Christians who do not deny the discoveries of science. One was a minister who became a senator in the Australian parliament. I consulted to him while he served in the senate, and it was a good experience for us both.

I visited a mosque in the Brisbane West End, and the imam invited me to observe the service and participate in the later discussion. After the service the men (the male services are separate from the female services) split into groups of about 12 and discussed part of the Koran. They discussed a sura where the Prophet advocated education. A couple of the men had read Rushdie's "Satanic Verses" and didn't like the book. However, all in the group were against censorship, for free speech and against any penalty for those like Rushdie who wrote material they disapproved of.

I became friendly with a Muslim in the Netherlands who told me that at his mosque after the services the congregation would be asked if anyone had any problems of any nature. It was a small group so everyone could give an individual answer. Those who said yes were questioned as to the nature of the problem. Discussion would follow in which some of the participants could offer advice or assistance. It sounded done in a caring way.

We must not put all who do not believe as we do as people we can not deal with, be friends with and care for.