Peter,
I really don't know why you are getting upset about this kind of thing. Non-believers will resort to the hyperbole as will the believer. The ABC is a "broad church" so to speak and we hear all sorts of people saying all sorts of things. That is called freedom of speech and is part of our democracy. You have the absolute right in this country to disagree as loudly as you like but I don't think that "demanding retractions" is going to achieve anything.
I suggest you turn up to the Global Atheist Conference in Melbourne in March and debate the issues.
http://www.atheistconvention.org.au/
Maintain the rage Peter.

This articlee is silly. Vegie religion can equally be interpreted as vegetarians who wear their vegetarianism as a religion.
Talk about crating a straw man.

Has anyone ever investigated "veggie evolutionism"? When my daughters were attending school in Queensland (Yes, this was in the reign of Joh, when all of Australia believed that evolution was prohibited in Queensland schools) they used an illustrated text book which proved evolution by the example of sheep living on an island with nothing but steep slopes to walk on.The sheep developed legs longer on one side than the other. I think the example comes originally from H. G. Wells's Outline of History. Of course some Intelligent Design advocates oversimplify and talk nonsense, usually because they have only a passing acquaintance with their subject and more enthusiasm for the Theist cause than good sense. I'm equally sure (because I've heard them) that many Evolutionists talk rubbish too, again because their faith in what they think a killer theory far outruns their knowledge. When I was a boy I knew many Jewish refugees from Germany and Estern Europe. They loved British rule but laughed loudly at Darwin, whose science they regarded as on a par with English music and English cooking. They all believed in evolution, but evolution that had proceeded from massive irruptions into the life of the planet. Many Darwinians I know would benefit from their intelligent scepticism about Natural Selection. I lost all expectation of objectivity from Robyn Williams many years ago when he brought Mark Aarons onto the Science Show, of all places, to peddle his line that the Vatican had knowingly assisted the escape of Ustase war criminals. It so happened that I had been reading the same files in the then PRO as had Aarons; and while the stuff Aarons referred to did exist,there was a mountain of evidence pointing in the other direction as well. I don't expect a "retraction" from Williams or his interviewee any time soon.

This article is me boils down to ABC people can be pro religion but they’re not allowed to be anti-religion.

DonG = Crazy as a box of frogs. If Queensland was really teaching what you said then they were not teaching Evolution. What you described is Lamarckism and was taught in the USSR. I can't tell head nor tail of the rest of the stuff you made up, my advice is read some science journals.

BTW can you tell me the difference between Darinism and Evolution?

"Christian scientists educated in Christian universities and following a Christian tradition of scientific and mathematical speculation overturned a pagan cosmology and physics, and arrived at conclusions that would have been unimaginable within the confines of the Hellenistic traditions”. These guys where Christians in the same sense the Wernher von Braun was a Nazi, they would not have been able to do what they did without professing loyalty to the powers that be. Evidence for that was how they in the most part dropped the pretence as soon as they were allowed to. The vast majority of working scientist are nontheists.
I also not the soft racism in the authors tone.

My article is not about freedom of speech, it is about the honest search for truth which seems to have gone the way of God. Simply to affirm freedom of speech is not good enough. That is such a hollow thing. You can be sure that if I wrote about the genetic inferiority of native peoples then free speech would quickly go out the window. My article is about the sort of quality journalism that undergoes research so that issues are not misrepresented. It is not pro science or pro religion it is pro professional writing that does not take a simplistic image of a phenomenon to produce simplistic criticisms and then roll out the same old blab.

The national broadcaster should be about quality of opinion, no just any old opinion under the guise of freedom of speech. Science is about a certain kind of truth and Ponder is protecting that truth against the veggi science of creationism and intentional design. I applaud him. But in the process he scapegoats what he likes to thinks is religion. Likewise I am seeking a deeper truth in Christian theology that is just not respected by Ponder or Williams. Who is being closed minded here?

Peter Sellick