i have a new theory. i think runner is the missing link.

The sound of panic and the need to resort to lying is very telling in runner’s post.

I just hope runner doesn’t go as far as some creationists do by sending hate mail and sometimes even death threats to prominent scientists - and presenters such as David Attenborough.

It’s just as I read one scientist say recently: These people know they’re idiots and don’t like being reminded of it.

150 years on and evolution remains completely untouched by Creationists - and they hate it.

Grim, You provide an example of the care taken to assure the faithful reproduction of biblical texts. I agree entirely. The Bible I have to hand says the text is "conformable to that of the edition of 1611 commonly known as the authorised or King James Version" - carefully revised after comparison with the original non-English texts.

But conservatism certainly pervades science. There is revolutionary change happening as we speak, in such areas as molecular biology, nanotechnology and quantum computing, but the steps from one change to the next are governed by a highly conservative review process. Scientific knowledge evolves and diversifies through a research and publication cycle which is governed by a conservative elite, represented by editors of scientific journals (among others), some more eminent than others.

Widespread application of technologies depends almost entirely on the engagement of major financial institutions, global organisations and corporations.

The conservatism of science is hidden from popular view, but it is prevalent and powerful. It is a conservatism of process, rather than a devotion to precise relay of prior texts. Galileo, Newton and Darwin were attentive to a method rather than to an exact wording. Today's scientists may use similar experimental methods with new tools.

It seems the scientific method offers itself up to scepticism rather than faith, and religious experience offers itself up to faith rather than skepticism, but both may suffer from dogmatists, either unthinking or scheming.

Grim, I meant no rebuke, and thank you for your graciousness. As for my belief in texts about Jesus, I reserve the right to choose symbol and metaphor rather than the literal word, where words fly in the face of common sense. As for faith-based experience, it may range from mystical enlightenment to another bet on the greyhounds.

Darwin's theory and the Christian religion provide conflicting views of the origin of species, simple as that. The only way they can be reconciled is to 'interpret' the scriptures to mean something other than what they are plainly saying.

There is no point talking to creationists about evolution. They are coming from an intellectually vicious mind-set. They start with the assumption that God exists, created the world and oversees it. They reject any fact or reason that tends to show otherwise. They don't care that they don't know who wrote the book of Genesis, they don't care that they don't know what his personal circumstances were, they don't care that they don't know what interest he had in the outcome, they don't care that there is not the slightest reason to believe that he knew what he is talking about.

The rational or scientific method is to seek objections to a theory as Darwin did, and reject the theory or the parts of it that don't fit the evidence.

The religious method is to reject the evidence if it doesn't fit the theory, and actively ignore and misrepresent objections, as the creationists do.

In this way, religious belief just keeps on popping up, like one of those punching clowns, forever proof against evidence. In this way too, the Marxists have more in common with the creationists than either has with Darwin or scientists.

Sir Vivor, I think we are -largely- on the same page; even though I am a nominal atheist.
I too, have great respect for (most of) the (alleged) teachings of (the legendary) Jesus. Please feel free to consult a small piece I contributed some time back:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8048
Cheers, grim.

"Darwin's theory and the Christian religion provide conflicting views of the origin of species, simple as that. The only way they can be reconciled is to 'interpret' the scriptures to mean something other than what they are plainly saying."

In fact the Vatican's already on board.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/vatican-newspaper-backs-judges-support-of-evolution/2006/01/19/1137553712027.html

Creationists are denialists, pure and simple. Time to catch up!