One = wrote: [snip] I am not prepared to give the names of other persons. It is possible for readers to look up web-sites on these issues as I have been doing. The Internet gives a library within one’s own home. Another == responded: I am looking for a source — ANY source — for the “information” you have been giving. A book, ideally.

If you are just looking up stuff on the web, you should be warned that there is a lot of nonsense on the web. That is one good reason for being open about where you obtain information.

The real reason you won’t give a reference, I suspect, is that you are beginning to realise that I and a few others here have more than enough familiarity with science to identify the flaws and hold them up to the harsh light of day.

This is not just prejudice and assumption. I am pretty sure I will be able to identify unambiguous errors in any creationist material. The quality of creationist work is, in every case I have seen, dreadful. THAT is why it has no impact on science, and why the major use is to snow naive Christians who don’t know any better.

A friend of mine in talk.origins came up with a simple definition of creationism… “Creationism is superstitious codswallop being peddled by moral degenerates to mental defectives.” — Herb Huston

This is harsh and confrontational, I admit. But it sums up concisely the nature of the beast.

= What I am saying is (1) life did not just happen – there had to be intelligence to bring that about. The Intelligent Designer, I believe, is God Almighty of the Judeo-Christian faith

== Your first assertion is given without justification; and the second assertion is a statement of faith which has no place in the public state school system.

= (2) life did not develop from unicelluar to multi-celluar – one life form evolving from the previous

== This is incorrect. That is EXACTLTY what has happened. The scientific evidence is voluminous and unambiguous. Life forms evolve.

If you are going to teach science, then teach science. If you have a religious reason for objecting, that is your business, but it has no place in a science class. If you have a scientific reason for objecting, let’s hear it.

I don’t mind if you choose to reject science. But what gets me angry is seeking to undermine education in science with pseuodoscience, invented from nothing to shore up an idiosyncratic religious position which has been an impediment to understanding through the whole of history.

You don’t understand the scientific models you want to reject, you can’t describe a scientific model to replace them, and you won’t even give a reference to someone you think COULD do such a thing.

= (3)there is enough – more than enough information – about living things and the natural environment for children to learn so there is no need for evolution of millions of years to be part of the school syllabuses.

== WHAT information.

If you are going to teach science, then teach science. Giving children a watered down eighteenth century version of science just because of religious objections from a small but noisy fundamentalist minority is, effectively, educational abuse.

Even if you DON’T accept the science, you should at LEAST know what it is you are rejecting!

As Theodosius Dobzhansky said “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”. Dobzhansky was a Christian, by the way.

Would you accept the argument that there is enough information in history for children to learn so there is no need for science to be part of the syllabus?

Of course not! Shame on you for using such an excuse to avoid giving our children a basic introduction to fundamentals of modern science.

And it is not just evolution to which you object. You may not realise this, but you ALSO need to reject geology (because it involves an Earth which is billions of years old, and has no mention of a flood) and Australian anthropology (because no rational scientist accepts the ridicuous claim that Aborigines have only been here for 4000 years or so) and astronomy (because it requires a universe billions of years old, and existing long before the Earth, or life, or the Sun and Moon existed.

= issues to be debated in the University courses. At present it is given as indoctrination.

== Rubbish. It is given in exactly the same way as any other area of science; and you have given no reason for poisoning the discussion by using this word “indocrination” with respect to one part of the syllabus and not others.

= One Fourth Grade child said to me, “You know… if it had happened over millions of years it might be possible.” He didn’t have the evidence – only the teacher’s assertion that it was so. Another child had a photocopied paper on the Big Bang as fact – but it is really a theory that is debatable.

= Those children probably know more about it than you do. It would not be hard.

Children do not have the skills to make a detailed and comprehensive understanding of all these matters. To some extent, they do have to trust their teachers. But the fact is that children can easily learn about the rudiments of evidence for evolution, and the great age of the earth; and with access to a good library a bright child can easily soak up information of which their teachers are unaware. The big bang is a subtle concept, but even here the fundamental observation is accessible to children also … which is that all galaxies we see are rushing away from each other, which means that in the past they were all much closer together.

That observation is the fundamental fact of the Big Bang, and it is about as debatable as the proposition that the Sun is in motion around the Earth.

You probably would not be even capable of describing the points of dispute in modern cosmology. On what basis, then, do you claim it is debatable? There are debates, to be sure; but the basic fact of an expanding universe is long since proved to the complete satisfaction of the scientific community.

You are reluctant to accept information form working scientists; so let me quote a comment from Answers in Genesis, which is a young earth creationist organisation active here in Australia. This is from open comments they made to another creationist, Kent Hovind.

“…we think that Christians should be very much concerned about whether Biblical creation is being defended using arguments that are, for instance, factually incorrect, logically invalid, based on an incorrect understanding of the scientific evidence, etc. These sorts of things, often propagated by individuals who have very little scientific training, actually end up harming the cause of Biblical creation (and hence, by extension, the Bible itself). They can provide a potent justification/excuse for people to ‘write off’ creation.”

(from <http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1011hovind.asp>)

Now in fact, the situtation is worse than this; scientific creationism itself, including the many errors of Answers in Genesis, is indeed a potent justification for people to write off Christianity altogether. This is quite common.

But the principles they express here is valid. Christians who make comments about science should ensure at least a bare minimum of understanding of the science they reject.

~~~

= Where are all the (fossillised) intermediary forms of all existing living organisms? They are not in the school texts that I have.

== Nor will they ever be, nor would we expect them to be.

But if your school texts were any good at all, they would have shown some of the excellent transitional series that do exist.

In fact, there are far more transitionals and intermediate forms known than could fit into a school book.

Fossilisation is unusual; and some organisms fossilise much better than others. There are also problems in that over time, geological strata are being eroded as often as they are being deposited; and erosion will destroy many fossils lucky enough to exist. Also, many species are highly localised; and so we may never get to find their fossils because we can’t excavate all the earth. Also, some fossils are certainly buried miles under the existing surface, or under the ocean, and will never be found. Etc. Etc. These factors means that a complete record of every single life form from the past cannot exist.

However, there have been a *lot* of life forms over time, and so although the fossil record is far from complete, we can perform sufficient sampling to test evolutionary models; and the results have been an emphatic confirmation of evolutionary theory.

For example: marine environments are more conducive to fossilisation. Hence we have excellent records for many marine creatures.

We have quite a good record of intermediate species between humans and our common ancestor with the apes. But there is basically nothing at all for chimpanzees over that time. This is almost certainly because our ancestors lived in a savannah environment, whereas chimpanzees tended to live in thickly forested mountains. It is tough to fossilise in a forest since remains do not last long enough in the first place, and it is tough for fossils once formed to be preserved on a mountain, due to the high rates of erosion.

But Africa is large, and who knows what finds await. Most people are of course more interested in evidence of our own ancestors, and there is plenty of that.

We have a superb series of transitionals for the whales; and this has come up only in the last ten years since we started to look in the right place. (Pakistan, basically.)

There are countless other examples available; more than enough to demonstrate the fact the living creatures evolve over time.

Creationists hate the site <http://www.talkorigins.org>, but frankly it has some of the best material available; specifically aimed for an amateur who is willing to extend themselves and put in a bit of effort to learn about the relevant issues.

Here is a some information on fossilised intermediate forms:

The “Transitional Vertebrate Fossils” FAQ The best transitions are actually not for vertebrates, but it is vertebrates that people invariably think of, because we also are vertebrates. (Vertebrate means roughly: with a spine.) So these are the examples which have the most impact. <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html>

The “29 evidences for macroevolution” FAQ. Covers some of the reasons that macroevolution — the universal common descent of life with gradual modification from shared ancestors — is now about as solidly proved as a scientific model can be. This is a long FAQ; and it includes as one kind of evidence a discussion of some spectacular intermediate and transitional forms. <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/>

“The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence” This deals with one evolutionary lineage recently resolved with a magnificent series of transitionals that have basically resolved questions about the ancestry of whales which were matters of speculation a decade ago. <http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/>

“Fossil Hominids. The evidence for human evolution” This is a dramatic FAQ, and it deals with our own ancestors. <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs>

~~~

== I did not say that the birth of a child shows evolution, I do not say it happens by chance; and I most certainly have never taught anything so silly.

Have a care Gladys. When you make up untruths like that, it comes damn close to telling lies, and demonstrating what I have long felt — that creationism erodes personal integrity.

Things in the natural world, whether evolution or the growth of a child, or the tides, or the weather, do not just happen “by chance”. The natural world shows a remarkable internal consistency and regularity, which is what makes science possible.

That living creatures evolve, and that babies grow, is no more chance than it is chance the rain falls down rather than up.

Have another look at my comments on the birth of a child; I am making a theological point on God’s role as a creator.

The birth of a child is an amazing and highly complex natural process. We study that process with science, and the study of embryological development involves the expression of DNA, the specialisation of cells, the growth of an adult human from a single cell, etc. At no point in any of this science is God invoked.

Does this mean God is *uninvolved*? Few Christians would accept that! As you say above, you believe it involves the work of God.

But THINK a minute.

If you say that the growth of a child involves the work of God, are you then saying that scientists are WRONG to consider the processes of DNA replication, and the subsequent processes of expression of genes, and the development and specialisation of cells, and so on? Are you saying that all this study of natural processes should be replaced by a model in which God does it?

That would be truly insane, and I am sure you do no such thing.

But if I, as an individual, am individually created by God; and if God’s creative action is revealed in the development of a baby, then you already accept, in principle, that God is deeply involved in the natural world.

The point of this example is as follows. If you think that evolution is a denial of God, then why is the study of embryological development not also a denial of God? And if natural embryological development is consistent with God as my personal creator, then what is the problem with natural evolutionary development being consistent with God as the creator of humanity in general?

= Atheists have no proof that God does not exist. Atheists, if they are honest, would call themselves agnostics. Atheists say that Christians have no proof. For a Christian the proof is in Jesus Christ and one’s realationship with Him, as well as the wondes of the Universe whenever they were created.

I honestly consider fairies do not exist. I can’t prove it, but that is an invalid basis for suggesting someone who does not believe in fairies is being dishonest.

I recognize that all human knowledge is provisional. But that is not the same as saying that we can know nothing. By that basis, you could say that anyone who makes any claim is being dishonest. That is sophistry; and rather offensive sophistry at that.

I have gone over my reasons for thinking that God does not exist before in this group. Basically, they center around the plain association of personality with a physical from that exhibits personality; and the powerful indications that there is no corresponding frame for a God. As we get to the specifics of the Christian view of God, I am even more positive on the matter.

= Schooling should be learning how to learn. It should be the start of a learning process that goes on through life. It can never cover all the knowledge that can be learnt.

== Right.

= There is a ridiculous reporting of the learning process in the media when a certain percentage of children are unable to answer certain questions without an explanation of why that has occurred. Sometimes a slower learning child will know certain answers that a brighter-learning child does not know.

In these days there is a much wider information base from which teachers choose when planning the learning environment. As an older teacher I don’t accept that. I believe there should be core information and when known enrichment given into other areas of learning. In such an approach the points we have been debating would be structured at the higher levels of education. But that does not suit you.

== It does not suit anyone at all — except perhaps a tiny minority who want to keep their children uninformed about science for fear that they will lose their faith.

Everyone with any sense recognizes that one of the important things for a child to learn in the modern world is about science. And frankly, you cannot STOP them learning. Children LOVE learning about science, and so they should!

You have enormous concerns about evolution. I am not sure how much you also recognize the difficulties you have with physics, with geology, with astronomy, with anthropology, with history, and so on. Creationism is inconsistent with almost the whole breadth of human knowledge.

But even if you reject science, you STILL need to recognize that science is powerfully influential in the modern world, and children will be hearing about it, all the time. The basic facts of modern biology, geology, astronomy, and so on, are seen at every turn, and it would be criminally irresponsible to leave a child without access to a decent education which can help them understand it.

The idea that you can just brush it all aside because there are a lot of other things you could teach instead, is advocating an educational abuse of children. And the idea that evolution, and geology, and astronomy, etc are all just “unproven theory”, or “chance”, or an atheistic rejection of God, is just an indication that your own education has been inadequate.

I cannot persuade you of this; but I can (and I think I have)

shown that the views you present on the role of education and the nature of science are uninformed and foolish.

I think education is pretty safe, for the most part. But even so, creationist pseudoscience continues to impede many young Christians in gaining an appreciation of the world we live in. My hope is that the church will recognize the damage being done to their members by creationism, and address the matter explicitly themselves.

= In the 70’s I was told of across-subject areas learning. That is very apparent in respect of evolution which one can find mentioned in many subjects. A teacher-lecturer told me they were “working on a scheme so (they would) be the only ones able to teach the children.

== I do not believe you are able to remember accurately the content or context of remarks made thirty years ago, by people whom you do not reference and who are not here to explain what they were saying.

I expect this is a bit like the untruths you repeat about me teaching that the growth of a child happens by chance.

Paranoid fantasies aside, there is no plan or desire to set up a small clique of individuals who are the only ones able to teach science to children.

I think that someone who teaches maths needs to be reasonably knowledgeable about maths, and that someone who teaches history needs to be reasonably knowledgeable about history, and that someone who teaches science needs to be reasonably knowledgeable about science. I am all for helping as many teachers as possible gain the skills to make them better teachers in as many fields as they would like to handle.

You would not be a good teacher for a science class — not so much because of what you believe about creationism, but most especially because you don’t know anything about actual science and you misrepresent it at every turn.

Cheers — Chris