4thought.tv

His comment about "absolute randomness" just proves he knows nothing of evolution.

Why not have both!? :D

Reason most atheists accept the theory of evolution to be the best explanation that describes the complexity of life on this planet is because they don't have any religious agenda to push. They accept it because it is backed up by evidence, not because it goes against god(s).

Evolution may be a fact, but not yet in the way of accounting for the beginning of life and the universe, even Richard Dawkins allows some scope for God (albeit not his belief but nonetheless) in his book The Greatest Show on Earth.
He said "if God did anything, he created a blueprint", so the debate is not over. Would you like to live forever?

What data is there on creation?

What an enormous lack of understanding this person deomnstrates. 'Cats give birth to cats, and dogs give birth to dogs' - yes, those are called species, they're an important aspect of evolution. And don't get me started on the, 'babies aren't born with a firm grasp on evolutionary theory, so God must exist' part...

Summarising Randall: Here is the data - analyse it and draw conclusions. If this is what creationists are seeking, then what are evolutionists worried about? Is the evidence strong enough to allow students such a liberty? Or do we need a dogmatic teacher to tell them what the evidence means? If we are allowed to teach the controversy in schools, we should not feel worried about the student experience. Exposure to different perspectives often brings a subject to life and it certainly helps develop critical thinking skills.

It is good to hear an argument for free debate within the classroom. So many others are clamouring for a kind of toalitarianism which will permit no dissent,which surely is not in the interests of scientific progress and certainly is not the way to educate.

Evolutionists continously harp on about materialism, rationalism & 'objective' science, yet the only reason they can employ the non-material mystery of their mind/ consciousness - which could NOT possibly accidentaly 'evolve' as it, like the vital Information that predates all things, is not material - is because they have been gifted this incredible facility in the first place. We can all clearly see the oft deleterious effects of 'scientific naturalism', when teaching vunerable kids that we are just random, chemical accidents in a meaningless universe, accountable to no one, & when added to our appalling diet of physical, mental and spiritual junk food,well = DEvolution! Anyway, what has evolutionism added to our 'civilisation'? - nothing positive or helpful! It was virtually all Bible [or Koran] believing scientists who founded real, testable, repeatable, useful science, and any advances today owe nothing to Darwinian ideas - even so-called 'superbugs' are not 'evolving' to cope with our gross overuse of antibiotics, for instance. FACTS are what need to be taught: the astonishing Design of the universe, the Catastrophic nature of the fossil record, the Mind-boggling design of cell & DNA, the Interdependence/ Ecology of all living things etc - & how we were ordered, but failed, to look after them. And once again, 'Evolution' divorced from real observable science, has little useful to say about our biggest global and human problems: only the Bible answers those, and their only solution....

So sad. We have adults in this country who could go on record saying such things. The education system has badly failed this poor poor deluded fellow, and many like him. So very very sad.

Children also find stories about the tooth fairy, father christmas and unicorns convincing. Seriously, they're gullible little idiots. Then they are taught to think critically, examine empirical evidence, and come to conclusions. Or at least some of them are, evidently.

'Children are born with an intrinsic belief in a creator'? Well, apart from the fact that many children who are born into agnostic or generally not religious families never develop a faith, what is that supposed to prove (assuming it's the case, which it isn't)?

I mean, it's news to me that human beings were born with the ability to fully understand the origins and workings of the entire universe. I mean, we're certainly not born with the knowledge to drive an automobile or how to purchase stamps, so that's sort of a tall order to ask of a baby. Perhaps there may be some sort of slight gap between intuitive assumptions and physical reality. Hmm.

Finally, don't presume to tell me why I'm an atheist. I'm an atheist because I believe in proof, not presumption. The universe doesn't care either way whether I'm happy or not. It has zero bearing on the debate.

I had to stop this when he said creation RESEARCH.

What the hell does that involve? Reading Genesis 1 over and over again? You sure as hell won't find anything backing up the jewish creation myth in the real world.

Your position is heavily based on what you want to be true, not what is true, and more importantly on ignoring anything that disproves you. Dogs have not always bred from dogs, why do you think that sometimes they walk round in a small circle before sitting down? It's a genetic trait that they've got left over from their wolf ancestors. And I don't see how 'mankind's sin' can lead to the creation of new species such as the nylon-eating bacteria.

we manipulate dogs and cats evolution ourselves. how do u think we domesticated them in the first place? by selectively breeding the most placid and tolerant towards people together

This is one man's opinion. The school I attended taught Darwin's Theory of Evolution (and I stress theory) and Creation along side each other. At least you have a choice if boths creation and evolution are taught along side each other.

It makes me laugh how these people can be so dogmatic. I am creationist but that is my belief. What right has Stephen Law to say what we can or cannot believe, after all Evolution is only a theory.

Religious belief is the absolute antithesis to the scientific method. In scientific enquiry a thesis is proposed and accepted once evidence supports it's likliehood. If evidence should come to light then beliefs are prone to change. Religious belief does not support this flexibility as it is based upon faith and not evidence. Science should always remain impartial and objective. Religion should be taught in the same objective way, explaining that some people believe in this or that, incorporating all belief systems. That is the only way that children can make a truly independent and intelligent choice, devoid of indoctrination.

brilliant.
Religions should be thought at school on the same level as father Xmas. Never seen him, but some of us still choose to believe in it. Faith. I personnally think that education is everything; and the way it is now is really not the way it ought to be, so, should we let children to believe this nonsense... of course not. we should help them become their own person and blossom, not hide behind a already dead belief system!This would not keep them from being spiritual people. On the contrary! One can only hope that it is this kind of event that will help raise consciousness!

Whatever view you have, big bang theory or creationism, you get to the same argument which no one is currently able to answer. If God made everything, who made God? And if there isn't a creator, what created the conditions for the big bang? Personnally, I believe that the world is to beautiful for it all to have happened by itself...

Creationism, the new word for drivel.

If creationism is true, then which God, creation myth, is it that created the universe?? Let me guess... the christian God. There are hundreds and thousands of creation myths and God's (including the mythologies that have as much evidence of their God(s) creating the universe than any 'established' religion).
Also, using the argument for creationism, I can prove that Santa created the universe... simple replace the word GOD for SANTA when ever the argument for creationism is put forward and hey presto!! There you have it... as much evidence and proof that Santa created the universe and not a God.

Erm, likening creationists to conspiracy theorists shows you have taken 'sides' with anti-conspiracy theorists - I.e. Those who - like creationists - argue AGAINST facts.

How to ruin your position as an intellectual - d'oh

The children of today are brain washed about the failed multicultural dream of some. I don't agree with it being taught or that it works, But then they are taught that people like are are bad!

if creationism is just a conspiracy theory then what is 'Darwin’s Theory of Evolution" as Darwin only put this forward as a theory and science continues to try to prove it by tenuous links based on an evolution theory not on any provable scientific fact. For Stephen Law to insinuate that those who choose to believe in Gods Creation of the Earth are unhinged and indoctrinated and sucked into our belief knows little of a true living God maybe if he wants to be a true scientist he should investigate properly both sides of an argument instead of starting with a conclusion and then trying to prove it. My God is real, living and is fully responsible for my life and his life and the rest of life on earth.

"Give people the data and let them mke up their own minds" seems pretty sensible to me. I just watched 4 thought TV and saw a chap ridiculing young earth creationism without ever saying why he thought it was a ridiculous thing to think. That annoys me. Although I personally am not a young earth creationist, I think that what this guy says is better.

There is no proof extant that either Creation Theory or Darwinism are the truth.

Religious evidence is based solely on a book purported to be the word of God.
If you believe that to be true then it is your privilege.

Scientific evidence is only true for today. Witness E=mc2 as the latest casualty of new knowledge. If you believe that the earth was flat at one time then that also is your privilege.

Neither can be substantiated. It is all opinion and nothing more, so knickers should remain untwisted over a question to which there is no answer.

Academic debate on controversial topics is fine, but those topics need to have a basis in reality. I would not debate with a creationist for the same reason that I would not debate with an alchemist, a flat-earther, an astrologer or a psychic. These ideas have no scientific support which is why they have all been discarded by credible scholars as has creationism.

Instead of spending time on public debates, why aren't creationists publishing their ideas in prominent peer-reviewed journals such as Science, Nature, or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences? If you want to be taken seriously by scientists and scholars, this is where you need to publish.

Academic publishing is an intellectual free market, where ideas that have credible empirical support are carefully and thoroughly examined. Nothing could possibly be more exciting and electrifying to biology than scientific disproof of evolutionary theory or scientific proof of the existence of a god. That would be Nobel Prize winning work, and it would be eagerly published by any of the prominent mainstream journals.

Stephen Law is in the same ilk as Richard Dawkins - he has an emotional investment in what he is saying and comes over, not as objective, but in quite an emotional way. That's probably because it takes quite a bit of energy to suppress the truth - as the book of Romans puts it. See Romans 1: 18-20 - 'what can be known about God is plain because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world His eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things He has made.' Science is uncovering more and more of the amazing complexity and design of our universe - created by an amazing Designer.

Creationism should definitely NOT be taught alongside science. It is interesting that Randall Hardy started his prsentation by stating that he is a christian, indicating that his is a religious belief, not a science. If creationism is to be included in schools, then it should be part of the Relious Education class, which deals with beliefs arounf=d the world.

The words he used to criticize atheists, could equally be used the other way around against religious believers, who are continually pressing their views onto other.

Religion is a personal thing, and should be kept that way. Children are impressionable, and should not be influenced by beliefs, as if they were facts.

It should be remembered that over half of the UK are not religious, and do not believe in god, and it is time for our education system, and society to reflect this.

"I think atheists are most uncomfortable...in their atheism and they need to persuade others that they are right for their own peace of mind" 1, What has this to do with evolution? 2, How do you know this, do you have any evidence? 3, What makes you think you know how I feel? 4, Are you not trying to "persuade others" that you are right and does that not mean that you, too, are most uncomfortable. If Creationism had any validity at all I would be quite happy for it to be taught in schools but it doesn't. Creationism is a lie and nothing other than religious indoctrination. Why not teach astrology as an alternative to astronomy or let students choose their subjects using tarot cards.

Personally, I don't believe in creationism. The Bible itself opens with the statement that the heavens and the earth (i.e. all the universe) were created 'in the beginning'. It does not say when the begining was. And this statement is separate to the 'craative days' which could easily have followed millions or billions of years later. That these creative days were epochs and not 24 hour days is evident in the text itself which gave each day an 'evening and morning' and each day finished and was counted except for the final day - in other words we are still living in the 7th day even now. Also the same account puts all these days as well as the creation of the whole universe into just one day: (Genesis 2:4)
So no, I don't believe creationism should be taught in schools as I believe it to be a misrepresentation of the Bible. However I do feel that the theory of evolution should not be taught as fact becuase there is no real evidence of any changes from ANY species into another species. In other words I believe evolution and creation are both 'beliefs' and both may be taught but evidence must be put forward to prove their case.

I was taught by Catholic nuns from the age of 5 until 17. They accepted Darwin, saying that all that was required was to believe that,at some point, God put a soul into man. They also taught the age of the Earth in many millions of years encouraged palaeontology,archaeology and above all debate. If taught in schools, Creationism should be put with myths and legends where it belongs.

If all living things were created by some super intelligence, how come so many millions of species have become extinct? How come so much incredible pain is involved when creatures eat each other. Right now trillions of creatures are killing and eating each other. If I had created life on earth I could have done a much better job of it. Of course uneducated people or children think all life was created, they don't have the knowledge to explain it any other way. When people don't understand something they think its magic. 6 days and here we are. Creationism is not based on facts, on research, its based on myth and scripts written by people who simply did not understand life on earth. Its a theory with absolutely no basis in fact whatsoever. Evolution is based solely on facts. To compare the two is ridiculous. You are actually severely distorting a childs brain by doing so and encouraging them to believe in magic. Anyway which of the hundreds of thousands of different religions will you teach as being the correct one? Which of the many creationist theories will you teach? The Red Indian one, the Eskimo one, one of the many tribal ones, the Christian one? After all its not fair just to use the Christian one surely?

If all living things were created by some super intelligence, how come so many millions of species have become extinct? How come so much incredible pain is involved when creatures eat each other. Right now trillions of creatures are killing and eating each other. If I had created life on earth I could have done a much better job of it. Of course uneducated people or children think all life was created, they don't have the knowledge to explain it any other way. When people don't understand something they think its magic. 6 days and here we are. Creationism is not based on facts, on research, its based on myth and scripts written by people who simply did not understand life on earth. Its a theory with absolutely no basis in fact whatsoever. Evolution is based solely on facts. To compare the two is ridiculous. You are actually severely distorting a childs brain by doing so and encouraging them to believe in magic. Anyway which of the hundreds of thousands of different religions will you teach as being the correct one? Which of the many creationist theories will you teach? The Red Indian one, the Eskimo one, one of the many tribal ones, the Christian one? After all its not fair just to use the Christian one surely?

Why should evolution be pushed forward as the origin of life when there is NO evidence to support this theory. Natural selection is not the same as evolution involving the transmission of new DNA- no evidence has ever been found. As someone who was taught evolution, I grew up seeing how ridiculous a fairy tale this is and now knowing a personal God I can't deny that this world around us could only have come about by something much bigger than our puny brains can come up with. I have just had my 1st child and I'm sorry but looking at her & her complex body formed over 9 months in the womb blows my mind that she came about by a series of random mistakes over millions of years to form such a complex being. this is why being taught evolution in school alone will give her a false sense of her significance when it still has no credible proof.

There is so much doublethink in Randal Hardy's talk that it is very hard to take it as a serious contribution to the debate.
He says "give children the evidence"-- the scientific theory CAME FROM hundreds of years of accumulated evidence - it would not exist if the evidence had not suggested it.
Creationism relies on being afraid to challenge the stab at an hypothesis (does Mr Hardy know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis?) made by a primitive desert tribe.
The US courts have already kicked Creationism out of school science teaching; for once I wish we were more like thiem.

Like breeds like hmm?

Interesting that around 60 years ago penicillin killed virtually anything you threw it at. Now? Not so much. Interesting also is that we can manipulate a creature such as a dog into two separate forms in relatively few generations which are mechanically incompatible (see the Great Dane and Chihuahua). Also of note is that Lions and Tigers, structurally and behaviourally separate species, CAN procreate (see Ligers).

And let's not forget all the geneticists who are working away revealing more and more of the secrets of our own and the rest of the planet’s biology, which if evolution were not fact, would be completely meaningless. Things like genetic modification, gene therapy, ancestor tracing, DNA evidence etc. should not be possible if evolution were not the case.

Also, according to most of creation myths the world is not as old as we know it to be. We know because certain geological processes like the formation of oil and gas, fossilisation, and the structure of our planet and the rest of the universe demand it to be so.

Should you teach creation science? I have nothing against religion. I can’t say I know why anything ended up existing rather than nothing, and I can’t say there isn’t something which binds us together. But that’s not something you can teach, because no one can know these things. Creationism should not be taught on even the same level as religious studies, for the reason that at least most of the time religious studies do not teach themselves as facts, but opinions.

Of course it should be taught in school. Evolution tries to support the idea that life on this planet started from an single cell, which had to come from somewhere. It's insulting being told that we humans come from monkeys. The human body is so complex , so well designed that any changes in any cell work that doesn't occur in integration with the whole system will lead to death. Ask any evolutionist to support their ideas based on scientific data and they will show none. Have anyone seen a dog that evoluted from a rock? Or a fish that started living on land due to evolution? I want someone who actually followed the process. And because of it, because there is no way of proving it, we are experiencing evolution not as theory but evolution as faith.
It's clear that Christians failed to be good witnesses, many times standing against science as a way of defending their views. Science is one of the coolest things in the whole world and God has given us the chance of explore and understand His creation!
If someone thinks that the bible can't be proven right, just check the fulfilled prophecies.

Very sad this man takes such a poor view of people who choose to side with creationism, as if they are mentally ill,i suppose lots of Nasa astronauts that believe in God should be locked as well for believing that God created the earth.
I also agree that students can be taught both points of view and let them decide. I suppose also if Isaac newton came in to read his translation and studies of the bible their jaw might drop also ... very disappointing channel 4!!

What data is there on other universes? Cosmologists are having to postulate other universes in order to explain what we now can see. It is just as likely that dark matter/dark energy is actually God, as it is from another universe (indeed both are unfounded empirically).
I said this to a friend on a train and got a real funny look from someone, she must have either been a Christian or a scientist!

What a complete waste of our creator given intelligence to come up with a half baked theory like 'creationism' as the answer to our existence - after all everyone knows the true answer to 'life the universe and everything' is 42 - so stop looking further and get on with living.

Richard Judd

Reply to Barry:

From Horizon - 'Is Everything We Know about the Universe Wrong?', it was only dark energy not dark matter. Dark matter being God is my own theory.

There is no proof for creationism, as there is no proof for any religions.
So why should any of these be taught as though they are fact. This just closes minds. The world is wonderful enough without having to explain it with fairy stories. It amazes me that people feel free to comment on things like palmistry, reading tea leaves or spiritualism. Yet as soon as someone says they can't touch a light switch on a Saturday, people say oh I respect that. Its about time we moved into the 21st century with our thinking, and progress. Wake up world, look at who gains if they can indoctrinate you into their madness.

Teaching fairy stories as fact is outrageous! And what is the government doing allowing new creationist 'free schools'.

Why should there be an option between fact and fiction? Schools should only teach factual information as fact. Otherwise why not teach greek mythology as a possible option? (Because it didnt catch on as well?)

As a scientist, I know that evolution is a theory yet it is taught as fact to our children. All methods - without exception - of determining fossils' age are not exact science and are indeed far from simple approximations. My scientific mind will question why creationism is not be taught. There are scientific reasoning processes that support creationism too. Beside, there is no effect without cause in science. In short, creationism yields to this scientific law of cause and effect.

Hi Barry (it’s a shame you can’t reply more than once!),

I suppose I would have to concede to your reply to Didier, that in a debate on which is the most ‘fact’ Evolution would beat Creation, since Evolution as a phenomenon can be somewhat proved empirically. After all you will never be able to recreate Creation by a God in a lab.

However wouldn’t you agree that Creation as a theory is plausible? Given first of all the theory i.e. an intelligent power created everything, then the things that we would expect to see if that were true, one being the fine tuning of the universe, speed of light, gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces, if any of these were different by a millionth the universe would not have come to the point it is now, we wouldn’t be here.

Even though I have no religious beliefs of my own, I feel it is a very important freedom for people to be able to follow their own beliefs

I would have no objection to the teaching of creationism within its correct setting - namely the RE class, alongside other Christian views, those of Islam, Buddhism, and Norse god myths like Thor and Odin, and for that matter, Leprechauns, The Tooth Fairy, Father Christmas and any other superstitious nonsense.

But it is not science, and it is imperative that it is never taught as science. The harm would be immense. Imagine what our world would be like if mathematics teachers were allowed to teach that two plus two is seven - on the grounds that it's an equally valid alternative view?

Wouldn’t it be more beneficial, to teach our young how to question?
That way, whatever the nature of the ideology presented to them, they would be equipped to identify those inherent weaknesses every human devised understanding must possess. Adults, in resisting such a proposal, might just as well openly condemn their offspring to ignorance. For if that elder’s understanding is correct in every respect, any and all examination would only serve to confirm as much.

'athiests need to persuade others that they are right' how is that different from the aims listed in your societiy's website which includes 'to promote the scientific aspects of creation'

what's the difference??

seriously, if this debate is going to have any merit whatsoever you really need to find a more intelligent bunch of creationists to back up their side. all they are doing is showing a mind numbing level of misunderstaning of the principles of science and a complete lack of ability to communicate it. not doing yourselves any favours boys

I would like to know where the evidence for an innate knowledge of a creator has come from?

religion should not be taught in schools as this is a belief, children at a young age believe what the teachers tell them, keep to the facts and what tools are needed for them to get on with life. if not children should be given the facts in both sides so they can make their own minds up.

"evolutionists and atheists fear Creationism being taught in schools because children will find it convincing"

This can be said of anything that's not based in fact, we don't want our children convincing it's real. After all, we send them to school to learn and we tell them to listen and pay attention. But we want them to be taught the truth, not an idea made up to support the stories of a 2000 year old book of dubious origin.

The Branch Davidians at Waco were convinced David Koresh was going to be the father of the next Chosen One. Being conviced of seomthing does not make it true.

what evidence is there that when people are born they instinctivly belive in a creator?

laughable nonsense... it has absolutely no place in any school it was acceptable in Victorian times but you can't overturn 200 years of scientific research because of a "belief"

I am a Christian and a scientist and I have never heard such dribble. Creationism should not be taught in school

evolution is not a theory, it's a fact!

"Atheists are uncomfortable most of the time in their atheism...etc.etc.."

So, he's wrong about at least TWO things now - creationism AND Atheists' (lack of) belief!

As an EX-christian, I can attest to the absolute falseness of this assertion.

i would just like to say i have no problem with theists or agnostics but being atheist i dont want to hear it shouted in the street and i dont want my daughter being brought up in a religeous enviroment untill she is 16 and then can decide for herself

Creationism is a man made theory - it dosnt belong in science lessons it has no basis in science- keep religion out of all schools

Regarding the comment at the end, athiests do not dictate what is taught at schools. You do not have to be athiest to belive in evolution. Religion nowdays is about a lifestyle choice, a way to live, rather than a set of beliefs you have to follow.

absolute drivel. it perhaps should be taught in RS or anthropology but not alongside evolution, again it appears that most superstitious people do not understand what is meant by "scientific theory". Natural Selection is a proven fact shown by research using DNA amongst other things. Believing that an omnipotent entity created the world in 6 days using the 7th as a rest day (then not omnipotent) is a religious belief based on faith not science. It takes the money and influence that Mr Reg Vardy has to ensure that such myths are taught in state science classes.

Had Christianity started in the last Century it's likely the Book of Genesis would have included Evolutionary Theory.
Being as it was written in the late Iron Age it couldn't.

Ooh! While we're at, let's stop lying to children and admit there really is a Father Christmas.

Great idea. Present theories/laws based on empirical and measurable evidence alongside crackpot theories based on stories made up round the campfire thousands of years ago, and ask the students to take their pick as to which one is correct. Why not teach astrology and the uses of crystals in healing as a science subjects?

The Bible says (in Genesis 1:16) that God Created “The 2 Great Lights” – it is established and agreed (by generations of scholars),that these “2 Great Lights” refer to "the Sun" and "the Moon".
IF THE BIBLE WAS 100% accurate then the ball of rock currently orbiting the Earth would emit visible light, but as anyone with a thinking brain knows this is not the case.

The bible (the alleged word of God) is inaccurate, and therefore cannot be accepted as anything other than good book that contains at least 1 provable item of misinformation about our existence/creation
BTW I AM not an Atheist, I just believe that MY GOD would know, like I do, that the Moon is a ROCK, and is not a Light!

I noticed someone has used 'mystery' to describe the mind/consciousness. Do they believe in Intelligent Design aswell? As surely this creates a paradox in belief. Mystery, superstition and blind belief- all theistic qualities that have no root in intelligence(but plenty in psychological disorders). I find it amusing also that creationists pick up the word 'evolution' and have no idea what it means. Look up some facts about 'natural selection' for starters to see how things 'evolve' and how humans go against nature(duh). Bible stories are stories. Like fables. They are fine in that respect. I had religious education at school- that is the place for learning these books and faiths. By the way, I am not an atheist. I don't see why I should have a label of being a non-someting. Also I do not accept any god as a rational concept. I am an evolved human being. From a theist's point of view I am made by their god. Explain that.

I find it strange that he claims that atheists need to persuade others about their views, that is a mechanism I've seen almost solely practised by non-atheists. Then to say that a good education system would say here is the data see which is best, for most of the time that education has been available to the masses religion has been a large part of it, I certainly don't remember getting taught Darwinism every week at school for 10 years, I do remember getting religious studies though. He appears to have transferred all the things that religions do and claim that others do it instead. I'm surprised that he didn't say that people go around waving “On the origin of species” in peoples faces and reading sentences from it because they have special meaning.

All religions written by people 2000 years ago in the cave, based on imaginations of some hopeless people as an attempt to understand the complexity of the nature.
Religion use unknown (GOD) to interpret known (life) while science use known (evidence) to understand unknown (why we are here).
If the evolution is not a right interpretation for life, I don't understand why and how God created 10000000000000 species.

Evolution just a Theory (like Gravity), if you would like to test your faith drive with your eyes closed.

Are we born with a belief in God?

We are told/educated to believe there is a God.

We also tell our children there is a 'Tooth Fairy' and a 'Father Christmas' to name just two more acceptable beliefs.

Education must be impartial - presenting the facts - not indoctrination.

The Tax Payers from all backgrounds - Atheist, Catholic, C of E, Muslim, Jewish, Budhist, etc, should not have to pay for Selective Indoctrination in 'Faith Schools'. Open minds result in educated, tolerant individuals and a civilised Society.

We must say 'No' to State Funded 'Faith Schools' which will incubate divisions in our very 'mixed' British Culture. It is our responsibility as a well-educated, literate, individuals to ensure future generations of any race or creed can grow up in the tolerant and open Society that we are known for Worldwide. Let's Educate not Indoctrinate.

As an atheist i am very warm my the idea, that about 2 millions ago some ape's begin the long and hard journey to us. i am not empty!
Evolution is NOT absolute randomness. evolution can have predictable out came, the evidence is massive.
the truly deranged idea that earth was at some point made perfect and sin made all bad. this say more about child like, black and white views some christians have than anything near the facts.
i feet so very sorry for you mr hardy and the thing you will never be able to see.

I am standing watching this film because my "creator" designed such a bad back that I recently required surgery. Back pain is a huge cost to people and society, did god make a mistake, or are we evolved from creatures that lived in trees and our backs are not well adapted for bipedal movement.
The speaker says people believe in a creator ergo it must be true , people used to believe the world was flat...did that make it true?
As a conciliatory gesture, if this man wants access to peddle his religion as science, then that's fine so long as he accepts scientists must get equal access Religion lessons particularly in primary schools.

No, no, a thousand times NO.

Creationism is a MYTH. Evolution is a FACT. It is a theory in the same way that gravity is a theory, but an apple still falls from a tree and hits the ground.

Creationism has no place in education, because the role of religion is and has always been to control people through fear and ritual and habit. I am incensed that my young daughter is still told off at school if she does not bow her head and fold her hands during 'prayers' at school. I have studied sciences at degree level including geology and biology. There is no perfection is nature, just as there is no perfection in man, and if any religious enthusiast tries to use the eye as proof of creationism I will scream. How about cancer? Is that 'god's will'? Child abuse? Tsunami and earthquakes?

How dare he speak of presenting the 'data' to children for them to make up their own minds? There is no 'data' to support creationism - there is only a book, a lot of money and power, and people who are still too scared of the threatened hell-fires to even attempt to rationalise their belief.

If god existed, good things would happen to good people, bad things would afflict only the evil-doers. If you watch the news on any day, that is clearly not the case.

The Church is worried because more and more people are openly atheist and live decent normal lives quite happily without having to thank a god for everything, or pray on a Sunday with other believers. The Church sees its power slipping and seeks to recover it by reaching once more for their easiest target - our children. Young children at school are at their most vulnerable, and their young minds are at their most receptive. This is a chilling move, entirely duplicating the horror taking place in the United States educational system, where creationism has replaced evolution in teaching in some schools. This is madness, an insanity of the worst kind, and must be prevented from gaining a foothold in Britain.

The world would be a better place without religion. Communities would be more tolerant without faith schools indoctrinating children to follow a set pathway of beliefs before they reach adulthood, and teaching them to think that their faith is the only faith. How many wars have been fought over religion?

I hope this dangerous idea is given the short shrift it deserves. If creationism were taught in school, I would remove my children from the state system immediately. The world is a wonderful place, and most people are wonderfully varied with many interesting ideas and talents. And atheists are the most balanced and humane people I know. The ones who are mean, bigoted, narrow-minded or critical ususally turn out to have a strong faith. Why is that?

The earth is 4.6 billion years old. Humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years. Fossils and other evidence of life exist from many million years ago, from dinosaurs to the poor dodo. Creationism explains none of this, it just stifles imagination and spreads lies and confusion. What a silly idea.

I learnt about creationism when as I was in school many years ago.

I learnt about the Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist etc... stories. They varied enormously. Christian denominations don't agree with each other on what exactly their own creation stories mean.

Presenting it as "either evolution as I understand it or my creation story as I understand it" is disingenuous. It presents a simple either/or choice which ignores the history of beliefs on this subject which completely ignores how we got to this point.

The essence of the problem is this: people need to understand that how you answer a question is much more important than what the answer is.

Knowing that 2 + 2 = 4 is far less important than learning the arithmetic principals that make the statement true. This is no different in a pure system like mathematics than it is to any other domain of knowledge.

Science presents a method to gain knowledge in an iterative way. It never presents final answers - there are none in the epistemology of science. All answers are provisional and subject to be proven inaccurate or just plain wrong. The only authority to appeal to is nature itself.

On the flip side religious dogma leaves no room for the dictates to be wrong: they are simply statements of truth given by a higher authority. There is no room for growth of knowledge other than if the authority chooses to reveal more - as prophets have made their business throughout history. As there have been many prophets of many religions making many claims how do you verify them? Ultimately at this point the religious will appeal to the mechanism of science - it is true because if it were not true then nature would be different. And hence religions will appeal to evidence be it prophecy, miracles or other things.

The tl;dr version is this: if you want to teach creationism teach it all including how those beliefs came to be held. Just don't be surprised if you don't get the desired results when you can't exclude everything that isn't your chosen version of what the creation was and ignore the history of how those beliefs came to be.

I had to laugh at Randall Hardy's assertion that atheists are uncomfortable with their atheism, and need to persuade others for their own peace of mind. But this is projection. Creationists seek to force their mythology on children's minds because they are uncomfortable with the discoveries of science which show evolution to be a fact.
As an atheist I am uncomfortable with creationists trying to teach their scientifically evidenceless assertions as science. I've seen the harm creationism can do in American education and life. Kara Neumann anyone?
If religious people want to teach their mythologies as religion I'm fine with that, only they shouldn't try sugar coating their myths with the gloss of science. Which is what they do when they refer to creationism as a "theory". A scientific theory is a very different kettle of fish to the common use of the term. Creationism is a hypothesis with no evidence and much scientific evidence against it. Therefore it should be taught only as part of religious education, Not science.

Randall Hardy should educate himself prior to professing to comment of the education of our children.
Religious education within all schools should educate children about each of the worlds major religions as well as putting them within their historical context whilst explaining that people had less accurate knowledge and explained the world as they saw it i.e Roman gods, Greeks gods etc.
Science should be taught as just that! provable facts. To call evolution a theory with our current knowledge of genealogy is simply disingenuous. The overwhelming evidence for its validity has changed its status to scientific fact!

This is the most nonsensical argument for teaching creationism I have ever encountered. Data.. what data.. highly dubious assertion about children having a 'natural' or innate leaning towards a Judao Christian monotheistic belief system. Cats giving forth to cats.. err..perhaps someone should have explained the birds and the bees to this man.. I think he is a little confused. Children should be taught lots of things in school.. creationism IMHO belongs in a Religious education class when children are older (12+) and less prone to indoctrination from 'the believers'.

I am currently a student, and i am a strong athiest, brought up in an athiest family. I have looked at the theorys of Gods 'Existance' and find them rather hilarious. Look at how much evidence there is to support the theory of evolution, and then look at the theory of God's existance. a book!? How do we know it wasnt written by the church (which there is some evidence of). How can you say that we should teach this to children? surely teach it in later life, when they can make an informed decision and not let their brains be over run with nonsense of this kind. Surely this would mean you doubt your religions existance if you insist on telling it to the weak minds of children so they suck it in. Are you afraid no one will believe it? I have no problem with being taught, after all i was one of those students, and i actually found it quite disturbing. The things that we have to watch in our R.E classes is quite sick. How can you possibly believe there is a god when there is all this suffering in the world? Teach it in the 'Myths & Legends' catagory where it belongs, not alongside the theory of evolution when there is so much fact to support it and virtually nil for the theory of 'God'. Failing that, just get rid of religion all together and admit it was made up for the church to make money. A christian said to me that evolution was a load of rubbish and i asked for his proof. He told me that there are some types of bird who have a unique breathing system. i agreed. He then said 'for that to happen, they must of had to get rid of it to change it, killing the bird and making reproduction impossible'. To which my reply was 'Evolution happens over millions of years, not over one day.' Look at the fossils, they show you everything.

As usual, Creationists clearly think it is a battle between Dawin and Biblical Creationists.

Wikipedia lists at least 30 creation stories. All of these should be given time in school if Biblical Creationism is.

My favoured is the Finnish saga (which name I forget).

The world was made by the warrior-poet, Väinämöinen.

Vainamoinen created the world and cleared the first forest.

But he was a good environmentalist...

He left a tall tree for the eagle to perch on
And he left another tree for the cuckoo to sing from. And the cuckoo thanked him by singing "cuckoo! cuckoo!".

Of course, the real question is who or what came before Väinämöinen.

Randall says people believe in Creation wwhne they are born
And most believe in Father Christmas too.

Relax!

Relax!

Global warming is not happening.

For the Cornwall Church of the Lord's Creation (USA, of course) says that our Lord, the Great Engineer, would never let His Perfect Creation, go wrong.

So that's dinosaurs and global warming all sorted by a single church. :)

Why should we teach something which we know is so contrary to the scientific concensus of the academic community?

Produce some papers and get them peer reviewed because beyond that your calling for a fairly low rent philosophical (and thats an insult to philosophy really) point to be taught alongside the kind of stuff that allowed us to irradicate smallpox and fly planes around the globe.

Creationism is religious faith and opinion. There is NO scientific theory of creationism, CONTRARY to what Hardy suggested in his film. As such, creationism (in all its variants) should NOT be taught in science education. If it is covered at all it should be covered in religious studies.

I am also aware that proponents of Young Earth Creationism in particular tend to misrepresent facts or the views of others when making their arguments.

Young people and adults - normally, here in the UK - can choose their religion (if any). Although they can certainly be debated, scientific facts are not a matter of 'choice'.

I do not agree that Creationism should be taught in schools. Hard facts not fiction, hearsay or fairy-tale, is what matters in your formativce years. Adding yet more opportunities for children with different views to be bullied, is just pointless, in my opinion. May I also add that a programme braodcast to millions to show the apparent facts and purpose of Creationism, should not become a Soap box to discriminate against other forms of belief. Randall Hardys' attempt to show Atheism in a bad light, shows his fear of it. There is no possible way he could know that "All Atheists are uncomfortable with their Atheism". He also makes the common mistake of confusing the english language meaning of 'Theory' for the Science equivalent 'Theory' The two are completely different meanings.

I do not agree that Creationism should be taught in Schools. The formative years of a childs life should be spent learning facts and figures that will aid employment and good social standing in adult life. The teaching of any Religion, belief system, hearsay, or Fairy-story is down to the immediate family of the child, not the work of a teacher. I also fail to see how Mr Randall Hardy can assume to know that Atheists are "uncomfortable with their Atheism" It is opinion, not based on experimentation, noor upon hard facts, and therefore should not be offered up on a programme shown to potentially millions of people. Further to this I feel that Channel 4 should have been more vigilant in their screening of these aired statements. Atheists beleive in evolution because it offers scientific based facts (Carbon Dating for example.) Creationists would tell you the T-Rex was a quiet herbivore that lived merrily alongside man (They only have the 6,000 years that they believe exist, so all animals were here for mankinds use) Science tells us that the T-Rex was a viscous predatory hunter, this is backed up by fossil remains, and most definately did not exist in the time of the first Homo Sapien. I also note that Mr Hardy makes the all too common mistake of thinking that the English language version of the word "Theory", is exactly the same as the Scientific version of the word. The two are in fact poles apart.

Creationism, Evangelism, Evolutionism,and probably any other ism you like.Not one of them is concrete proof of anything.Awareness of the ism is fine, but to force one ism against another is pointless. Awareness of isms whatever they are, allows the individual to assess for oneself the importance of it.
To foist religion into science or science into religion is also pointless unless the purpose of it is to mislead or construe.Our Planet has been here for many millions of years whilst we have existed upon it for but a mere blink of an eye. Opinions are all we can have, based upon the research we do.
By all means teach the children the theory of creationism in the context it belongs, but also show as much importance to the other theories so that they may be allowed to conclude for themselves.If we make the conclusion for them that is tantamount to narrowmindedness and brainwashing in some circumstances.

I for one found it interesting that this man works for a "Creation Research" Ministry, one wonders what peer reviewed scholarly works this organisation has produced during its "research".

This broadcast contained nothing more than the same tired old straw-man statements, arguments from incredulity, unsubstantiated claims, misrepresentations of science and a good old ad hominem attack towards atheists. It's quite obvious that Mr Hardy wants only Judeo-Christain creationism taught, would he be as supportive for the teaching of the Hindu creation story, the Inuit creation story, the Aboriginal creation story? I'm guessing not.

Should we also teach intelligent falling in physics alongside gravity, alchemy in chemistry classes and Storks bringing babies in biology.

I'd rather the education system in the UK didn't fall to the levels of the USA.

A 5 minute broadcast of strawmen statements, arguments from ignorance, misrepresentations of science, totally unsubstantiated claims, false dichotomy and a good old ad hominem attack, all the usual tired old repeated drivel one would expect from the proponents of creationism, I think the only thing My Hardy missed out was a quote-mine. One wonders what peer reviewed scholarly works Mr Hardy's "Creation Research" organisation has published during their "research".

If you demand that biblical creationism be taught then you should also teach he creation stories of Hindu, Inuit, Aboriginal etc.. etc.., I'm guessing non of the biblical creationists would also demand these be taught, but lets not stop there, lets teach intelligent falling in physics, alchemy in chemistry and Storks bringing babies in biology.

Randall Hardy says he works for an organisation that wishes to get creationism taught in schools and he doesn’t even present a reasonable argument against evolution. If he thinks that cats giving birth to cats and dogs to dogs is the best evidence against evolution then he has no real evidence whatsoever! The creationists do their case no good whatsoever by not stating what scientific evidence there is against evolution. Perhaps if all the animals that exist now could be found as fossils dating back to 580 million years ago there would be evidence that evolution is wrong, but that evidence as far as I know does not exist.

Some people have posted that all that creationists want is that the alternative to evolution is presented, i.e. everything appeared fully created and that animals do not evolve into different animals. I do wonder if these posters are dishonest or just mistaken. However this is not what Randall Hardy says here.

Randall Hardy says he works for Creation research so I looked it up on the internet. It appears that they do not believe in modern paleoecology and the principle of geological actualism, “which states that all past geological action was like all present geological action”. It is important for Young Earth Creationists to reject these ideas so they can reject the idea that there are different strata formed at different times over a long period of time. Do they also reject radiometric dating? Some do!

PSnow recommends Jonathan Sarfati book The Greatest Hoax on Earth, however in this book, “Sarfati goes on to claim that the Earth is young because radioactive half-lives changed dramatically sometime in the past 6000 years. That is, each of the half-lives changed to today's values in such a way that the earth only "appears" to be 4.5 billion years old.” Another reviewer points out that this would create a hotter earth’s core which would destroy the earth’s crust! In fact God doesn’t state in the Bible how old the earth is and it is some man who came up with the figure of 6,000 years!

Randall Hardy states that children when born believe in a creator (god) and it is only once they are educated they are educated out of this belief. Isn’t that like saying that primitive man believes in a creator god but educated man when presented with scientific evidence rejects a simple creator god?

Randall Hardy is astonishing when he says that atheists for peace of mind have to teach their beliefs while he ignores that Christians are driven to teach their beliefs. Perhaps the real reason is that when someone believes something is correct they wish to share this belief because they believe it to be true and don’t wish others to have false beliefs?

Then at the end of his video he presents the Christian view of Adam and original sin. This is not a view you have to form from reading Genesis and I believe that Judaism doesn’t share it and Jesus never taught it.

How sad this Guy has closed his mind to the obvious. Evolution is only a 'theory' albeit allegedly science based. Unfortunately it is more unbelievable than 'Intelligent design' theory. One only needs to look at the complexity of the human species (male and female both different) to realise that there needed to be a designer/creator for all the pieces to knit together and produce something which is 'fearfully and wonderfully made'. Science of course recognises it does not have all the answers - thus the Hadron Collider looking for the missing link -'God'.

Creationism can be shown to be false by science. The only sensible reason for it to be in a science class is as an example of how not to do science which, I understand, is exactly what some science teachers do. Good for them.

Whether they realise it or not, teaching creationism as fact in any respect is lying to people, lying for Jesus, be it in a church or in a school. Lying to children is particularly disgraceful and is ALREADY happening in a few UK schools. Randall Hardy has shown his disingenuous concerns by mentioning 'atheism' as if it goes hand in hand with evolution. It doesn't, that is creationist propaganda and his kind of gross misrepresentation of the situation is typical of creationists who seem happy to lie to children (and adults) as long as the end result is belief in God. Pretty disgusting stuff, keep your ignorance to yourself.

What a joker! Children also believe in tooth fairies and santa claus. Also, lions mate with tigers to make ligers! A god who created things good and didnt know about his angel called lucifer. Did god know about what would happen? Still this is based on the idea that such a incompetant god exists. Also the whole messiahs and second comings popping up everywhere, claiming they are divine, but really human, greedy, some womanizers, some paedophiles, rich etc. He is a typical believer who regurgitated what churches preach against evolution.

I was a born again Christian for 10 years. I never heard much talk about 'Creationism'; people at church believed God had created them - how, they weren't arrogant enough to define: the Bible doesn't tell us in a scientific way, as science as we know it emerged some 2000 years after its creation stories were written.
The Christians I've seen in this series are not so humble and humane. They claim precise knowledge and spread these beliefs, but either don't know what science, science theories, and evolutionary theory are, or they DO yet they don't admit it as it would undermine their groundless arguments.
I still respect many of my Christian friends for their integrity and commitment. However, these speakers show either ignorance or deliberate deceit - either of which discredits both themselves and their faith.
Evolution HAPPENS. Never mind what happened; we see it happening right now. Preach a well thought out theology if you like, but that's your RELIGIOUS belief, NOT SCIENCE. Denying that evolution happened and happens is as ignorant or deceitful as denying there's such a thing as the weather.

Should creationism be taught in schools?

Absolutely, positively, categorically not! Rev Randal Hardy argues that children should be able to make up their own mind - they can't: they're children.

A child by definition is a human between the stages of birth and puberty, thus so young, that it hasn't got yet the psychological and intellectual maturity to make responsible choices about their education (so there's no way a child can be approached with: "Here's the data, see what you think" as Hardy puts it. All children are at the mercy of us adults and it is our collective responsibility that their fragile minds aren't distorted/corrupted with religiously biased nonsense such as creationism/ID.

What further enrages me is the perpetual unwillingness of the sorts of Hardy to comprehend that Evolution is not 'just a theory like any other' (thus drawing the wrong conclusion that supposedly creationism/ID is just that too) or "Ways of interpreting data" as Hardy puts it.

Evolution is a theory based on scientific facts and evidence accumulated over centuries. Theirs is not. His utter and sheer scientific ignorance he showed in his phrasing of 'absolute randomness' - it is THAT scientific ignorance we need to protect our children from in our education system.

Polluting the minds of innocent children with religiously-biased dangerous nonsense such as this is nothing else than child abuse.

Should I ever have a child in a school that teaches this rubbish, I'd remove it INSTANTLY and would start legal proceedings IMMEDIATELY.

So can we please stop this insanity and officially ban ANYTHING in school curriculums that is NOT based on scientific and humanistic evidence!

This includes faith schools: Faith and religion cannot ever be more than a personal decision any human during his/her intellectual development will always be able to make anyway.

Creationist just don't understand that most of us atheists do not oppose religion per se, but we insist on its separation from state and education.It has been the same odious discussion now for decades.

Creationists... they just don't evolve do they?

Some interesting problems raised in this theme. Do we ever really know who is teaching our children?

Yes, the secular system is scared of the comfort religion offers.

There are several PROBLEMS with the pro-creationism talks, such as Randall Hardy and Sam Scott Perry.

WHICH form of creationism do they want taught (their own presumably)?

Do they want it taught in SCIENCE (which is against Government guidelines) or would they settle for coverage within Religious Studies?

Creationism is not entirely falsifiable by the scientific method, so therefore it does NOT count as 'scientific'.

The only rational explanation for mainstream science on origins being wrong AND Genesis being entirely correct is if there is a God and that God is allowing his creation to hoax us. (But creationists wish to sow doubts about evolution over billions of years because this is (a) unbiblical and (b) can often be a barrier to people embracing the Christian gospel.)

Evolution gave us the ability to distinguish between friend or foe.Thats why crackpots look like crackpots.

i agree with everything mr hardy says

Bring on the debate of Creationism v's Evolution or any other philosophy. I do believe creationism should be taught in schools as part of the RE curriculum. Athiests, Scientists and Evolutionists should have nothing to fear from this debate.

The Bible is not at variance with any proven scientific fact. Some of its statements show a knowledge of the world of science which the writers could not have had apart from Divine revelation, e.g. when the world of science said the world was flat, the bible declared the world to be round.

So don't be exclusive with regards creatonism as there is much to be learned from the "Royal Law", "The Lively Oracles of God" - The Bible.

I agree with him; teach them both let them decide. Its wrong to force your views on someone. we all have the gift of choice and a brain to help us make those choices according to what feels right to us. so yes, teach creationism and teach evolution and let the student decide which makes more sense. Personally I believe that if carefully explored we'll discover that creationism and evolution are just two different interpretations of the same event

Creationism is clearly not science - and shouldn't be taught as such.
It's even debatable as to whether it should be taught in R.E.
How would Randall feel if Paganism, Witchcraft and other weird beliefs were taught in R.E. alongside Creationism?

All of us have a world view, a way we look at life which will affect how we view the world around us. This can come from family, school, experience etc. Both those scientists with evolutionary beliefs and those scientists with creationist beliefs look at the same fossils, the same stars, the same biological processes and ask the same questions "what? how? why?". It is their personal world view that will affect the hypotheses they draw up to answer those questions. If you believe God exists, then you allow for that in your hypothesis, if you don't believe in God then God's possible influence is not considered and is therefore rejected before any scientific work has been carried out. It is not unscientific to believe there may be a God (try proving there isn't one) and so it is also scientific to formulate questions about the world with God in view. There are many scientists who have decided that God doesn't exist and for them, on a personal level, talk of creationism is therefore ridiculous. However there are many renowned scientists who do believe in God and since God is a possibility in this complex world of ours it does not make them unscientific. They may appear wacky in a world dominated by atheistic thinking but it is not bad science to say God exists. Since this is the case and since science seeks to answer questions in an unbiased manner then it would seem a good thing that there are many scientists of all different backgrounds and beliefs (remember not believing in God is a belief since it is impossible to prove his existence or lack of it)trying to answer the big origins questions. Hence it is also scientific to include both worldviews - one with a God and one without one when teaching/discussing science.

Randall Hardy asks that we treat creationism as a scientific theory, and consider it alongside evolution. The scientific approach requires us to formulate falsifiable hypotheses based on our theories, and to consider the data both for and against these. The data in favour of evolution are vast, varied, collected by thousands of independent research groups, and critically assessed by scientific peer review (whether or not you appreciate his anti-religious fervour Richard Dawkin’s The Greatest Show On Earth goes to great length to outline the breadth and depth of this data). Meanwhile, no data against evolution has ever lived up to this level of scientific scrutiny. This is the critical point, because if a single piece of evidence unequivocally disproved evolution, for example a human skeleton was accurately dated to the age of the dinosaurs, the whole theory (in the scientific sense of the word) would need to be reconsidered or possibly even abandoned altogether.

This has NEVER happened.

In contrast, many hypotheses which could be generated from the creationist account have already been proven to be false. Creationists have hypothesised that the world is 5000 - 10000 years old based on biblical accounts, however we know it is approximately 4.55 billion years old (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html). Creation must also hypothesise that all creatures were put on the earth in their present form, and that evolution does not take place. I struggle to articulate the scale of evidence against this. Evolution is observed based on fossil records, genetic studies, divergence between extant species, it can even be observed in real time in bacteria (for example the evolution of drug resistant strains).

If creationism is to be treated as a scientific theory, it must follow the scientific process. Once a hypothesis is disproved, it must be refined or abandoned, or the evidence against it must be shown to be incorrect. If creationists followed this approach, they would very rapidly begin run out of hypotheses.

Science is dynamic. Inaccurate or incorrect hypotheses are abandoned and ideas and theories themselves evolve, bringing us ever closer to the truth. Creationism can be disproved at its most fundamental levels. To treat it as a scientific theory is to abandon it forever.

This man is unbelievably arrogant and intelectually lazy.
A god that created things good? Which one would that be
The Roman one , the muslim one , the wee free?
He seems to be very close to atheism himself as I suspect he is as opposed to every religion other than his own. He's narrowed it down to one god.
Perhaps if he was less complacent he'd be able to rid himself of the last one!

I find this quite amusing that the evolutionists want answers to something which they see every day. If everything as the evolutionists believe has evolved then show me something which is in the process of evolving, they can not because they wouldn't even know where to begin. Humans as we are we're created and have not changed since the beginning, we are still the same bunch of argumentative small brained beings. We are told that it is like this because science says so. And we believe it because we are to lazy to check it out for ourselves. I used to be an evolutionist, but then I studied and found so many errors, I mean who can believe that the galaxies and all the stars in them just happened, not a chance for the Big Bang to happen you need time space and matter. With out one of those things you will not have any of the others. Also for someone to think that we all have evolved from apes is also rascist because have you seen an ape, what would be there closest relation in the Human race, exactly. Evolution was thought up by a man who wanted to prove that there was not a God because he was suffering from a deep depression caused by the loss of his 4 year old daughter. He was blaming God for it. So came up with a theory which he later refuted. Creation by design has more fact than fiction has more answers than science because it isn't thought it's there in reality just look around you. Have the trees evolved to suit there surroundings no has the grass adapted to it environment no, why because they are a part of the created planet in the created galaxy that we live in.

Certain Christians really need to go to Bible study, they say they are believers in God but then fail to believe the Word of Gid which is the love letter to all Believers, if they cannot have faith in the Words that were given to Man by God himself then they are following the wide road not the narrow, I believe in Gods word ie the Bible, that tells me that Gid created everything the stars the moon the Sun the plants the animals Man and Woman, and I believe that as a Christian society and believe this guys we are as freedom only came through Christian values, we should be taught from the word of God and also from science, because long before the so called scientist ever thought of disproving religion they stood alongside each other. Instead of trying to remove GOd from Schools you should be bringing it back, RE educate don't suffocate.

If we teach the Christian creationist story we should also teach children the truth about Christianity, and the lengths Christians went to in order to achieve their aim of total control over the minds of man. What is clear from this debate is that Christians have such arrogance that their holy book and their holy men and women are the only 'truth' worth knowing. All religions make these claims. What makes Christianity so special, they can't agree with each other on anything and as history demonstrates they are the most intolerant of people with more splinter groups, churches, sects and denominations all claiming some divine revelation. Their holy book is not one book but many different interpretations and translations of older religions, rewritten more times than you could imagine. Their ideas on their god change almost daily. Why would anyone want children exposed to this collection of the most hideous of religions; except as a warning of how dangerous and despotic a religion can be with their overwhelming desire to keep everyone in fear and ignorance.

Data? Then show me the data for creationism since you seem to constantly seem to refer to the "data". Absolute randomness"? Don't you mean natural selection, little tip next time you argue agianst a concrete theory at least have the common decentcy to reasearch the topic beforehand.

You argue that atheists are uncomfortable in their atheism, yet I've never seen an atheist standing in the street yelling that they have all the answers to society's problems or boasting their moral superiority.

Also, you're argument (which is a form that is very different to a theory, and I feel you could use some clarification on such terms) that 'cats breed cats, and dogs breed dogs' is fundamentally flawed. Dogs have been selectively bred, over thousands of years from wolves. They share irrefutable genetic and behavioral similarities which allow them to cross-breed, yet are classed as different species. Or are you going to include the caveat that if two animals belong to the same genus they still qualify?

Look at the information and make up our own minds? Uh Duh, this is why have come to this conclusion and actually used our minds

I am UTTERLY CERTAIN that I myself and every living thing in the universe and the universe itself is the work of an intelligent Pilchard, The Creator. Though I have never seen Him I know He cares about me and I see his good work everywhere. He has revealed Himself to mankind in a sacred scripture, a gift to all of us to be found on selected pages on the internet site called Wikipedia. The enlightened believer knows which words on each page are His and how to read them in the right order. Of course some of the words don't mean exactly what they say but our scolars can interpret them and tell us where are going wrong. The very FACT that they have actually been written by so many people who could not possibly have the skill on thier own to create such a supreme work, which by the way is bigger and more up to date than any other book, proves beyond any doubt that it is devinely inspired.

He is all powerful (as evidenced by the absolute fact that he turned three loaves into wine a few thousand years ago - I think, well opinion is divided on that one,... and some other miracles... ).

Anyway, He choses to reveal his terrible power in the form of Wind - something that is far too complex to simply occur naturally, I mean what are the chances all those trillions of air molecules would all suddenly line up and all start moving in the same direction on their own? Almost infinitesimally small, no they must be directed by the Pilchard, its the only logical conclusion. And don't even get me started on waves in the sea - its just all to complicated for me to explain any other way! You breathe air don't you? And fish breathe water right? Well without air and water we'd all die so the Pilchard is clearly the giver and taker of all life. Simple! The evidence is staring you in th face! Are't you much happier knowing there's an explanation for everything? The answer is so easy it must be true and I challenge anyone to prove me wrong.

We should be teaching all this in schools, otherwise how will our children know right from wrong? There is plenty of time in the curriculum for this and any number of other views, although of course this is the only correct one and anyone who conspires to dismisses it as fantastic rubbish is closed minded and fearful of the truth!

Not sure when He will get around to feeding the hungry and healing the sick. I guess all that must be up to us.

Creationism can be taught at schools during Religious Instruction. It can be taught alongside similar mythical stories about the origin of humans, from all around the world, from all religions and all cultures.

However since creationism is not accepted as a Scientific Theory by the majority of the scientific community, it should not be taught in the science class room. It would be just as bizarre to teach: astrology in the astronomy class, or alchemy in the chemistry classroom; or trepanation in medicine; or gematria in the mathematics class; or “flat earth theory” in geography; or dowsing in geology; or séance in weather forecasting!

I don’t appreciate the provocative swipe at atheism. May I point out that I feel most comfortable, most of the time in my atheism, except when I have to listen to other peoples religious views thrust on me (in my living room). Perhaps Randall Hardy, we should also teach Satanism, Tooth Fairyism, and “Santa Claus-ism” at school and say to children “here is the data, now see what you think matches best”.

Well said - I agree totally.

What created the creator?

This man is an idiot. He doesn't understand evolution and is in no position to give any useful opinion. Developmental psychology, which he attempts to bring to the support of his argument, points out that children will believe what they are told, before they acquire the ability to think for themselves. It is for this reason that creationists want to teach their superstitious belief in schools to an age group which has not yet acquired critical faculties. 'Let them decide for themselves' is consequently a misrepresentation of what he intends should happen were creationism to be taught in schools. Anything taught in schools as fact, to children under a certain age, would be indoctrination and what it is therefore justifiabe to teach should be proven facts. Creationism has no such facts. Evolution has proofs from all scientific disciplines in any way relevant to it.

You can't be a Christian and believe in Evolution. This is what I was taught by creationists. Then I found out that evolution not only made sense but was true. Then I had to stop being a Christian. I still feel very sad about this because I feel that I still believe in God and am quite sad about the whole thing, but this is the way Christianity is I suppose.

If it was in the RE sylabus then creationism could be taught. That is the ONLY place it could be taught in because it isn't science. Its religious dogma.

read the king james bible job "where were u when i created the earth declare if thou has understanding. he streacheth out the north over the empty place and hangeth the earth upon nothing " we did not know the earth hung upon nothing until till now. he is talking about the "north" of our milky way system. you would have to look from space to see this. which make acturus,orion and peladies the chambers of the "south" we dont know north n south of the universe yet. he sealeth up the hand of every man that all men may know his works. "fingerprints"we didnt discover them till 1800s. "can thou send lightnings that they may go and say here we are" "telephone -radio messages " when the morning stars sang togeather" put an electronic telescope on bunch of stars they ""sing "he has compassed the waters with bounds til the day and night come to an end " the moon has gravatational pull on the sea when the moon is moved the sea will overflow the earth past its bound the sandy shores" the earth is turned as clay to the seal we have only found out lately the earth "turns" hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow " a snowflake through a magnifying glass" where is the way where light dwells and as for darkness where is the place thereof "that thou should take it to the bound thereof he is saying he has been to the "end of the universe" and know the paths to the house thereof because the number of thy days is great" because he lives forever. i say look 4 wisdom and understanding forget these a levels and all that crap they will only want u to answer what they want u to

Should creationism be taught in schools?
An unequivocal and resounding - NO.

I don't think Atheists generally are saying that the theory of creationism should not be taught in schools. That is not the issue. What Atheists object to is creationism, or put another way fairy stories, being taught in the science class as as a scientific subject. Your inference that Atheists do not want creationism taught in schools is untrue and misleading. But I suppose as you profess to be a Christian this is to be expected and about par for the course.

Creationism could be taught in schools not as a theory, but as a myth. As usual a number of totally unfounded statements based on his own 'faith'. what is bias?

I love the "beard" tag hahaha. :D

I be leave All religions are the main courses of war and hate,WHY?
Wham a child is born,depending upon the leafs of the parents , the child invariably grows to beleave in what the they beleave in,ie their leligion for example. Who asks to be born white, black, Muslim. Christian, Jew Etc etc etc. WHO KNOWS WHERE WE COME FROM OR WHERE WE GO?
NO ONE!
So why do we kill and maim for beleafs we are unable to we cannot prove?!

Children should NOT be given the freedom to make up their own minds. I am a parent. Do I give my children freedom to choose to go to school, to comport themselves in a civilised manner, to eat at least reasonably sensibly or to do their homework? No. We teach children so they can be capable of making informed choices when they are ready to do so while still giving them responsibility and as much freedom as is reasonable. Even so, Creationism should be discussed in school - as part of the Religious and Social Education program, much like topics such as Christianity, Islam, Scientology and Jedi etc. It does not meet the criteria to be taught as anything other than a comparable mythology and has no basis in any science class,