4thought.tv

Rosie - you can be a moralist without having to affiliate yourself to a church which is built on what is taught in the Bible. I would be inclined to suggest that you only ever have come across scientist who represented the Evolution Theory. I would dearly love you to seek out the views of some Christian scientists - I believe it would really open your mind!

The good Cannon is right, and puts it better than I.
No, we should not teach this creationist nonsense.

Here is a girl who obviously doesnt want God to have a place in this world such an inspiration to others who are lost and seeking for the truth

Ah, lovely, cosy, CofE woolliness. That's not the god we believe in! they cry, without ever being honest enough to define what their god *does* consist of, lest they have to defend it against reason and knowledge.

Rosie, who have not looked into this issue enough. Creationism is very far from being narrow and restrictive - it is the exact opposite. It is the world-view that gave rise to and which underlies modern science itself. Darwinism, on the other hand, is a process which depends on death and ghastly mutations. It led directly to the Nazi atrocities and other forms of eugenics. Christopher Hitchens is right to say that if God created by such a process, he must be an evil being who would not be worth following. There is no need to make such a dreadful compromise; there are other ways to interpret the evidence. Please look into it further with a more open mind and don't continue to disparage so many of your fellow believers in the way that you just have done.

Rosie, you obviously do not realise this (or chose to ignore it) but the teaching in the first chapters Genesis is central to the Christian faith. If we are the sum of an evolutionary process, at what point did the 'Fall' occur, without it there was no need for the sacrifice of Jesus. With evolution we are just natural humans, the result of nature, which your faith empty words.

Good for her. A position of believing that evolution is the process (which doesn't clash with Gen.1 as it says that god said 'let the earth bring forth animals' etc.) is far more reasonable than believing that god spends his time trying to trick people into thinking that he used evolution by faking overwhelming evidence so that he can set them on fire when they fall for it. At least theistic evolutionists such as Rev Canon Harper believe in a nice god rather than the creationist 'evil trickster' god.

The trouble is, we have replaced God with science, and only those scientists who sign up to the evolution dilusion can be regarded as the ones giving us the truth. Time scales aside, as no one alive now was there at the time, the real scientific facts of life are available at the click of your mouse. The main amunition of evolutionists is to use micro evolution "within species" as proof of macro evolution,which is an entirely different unsubstanciated idea with absolutely no basis in scientific established facts whatsoever.

I am not a religious person now, but when I was younger and considering all I had heard from different sources (with a relatively unbiased viewpoint) my first thought on the subject of evolution and the bible was that they could easily work together, especially considering that the original translation of the bible left a lot to be debated about the meaning of the word "day" in genesis. This rings true with Rosie's words, and I appreciate her bravery in having travelled that far in her contemplation of what the true meaning of the bible might be if it is written metaphorically, rather than what the intellectually trapped see as literally.

Our parents had the policy of not saying anything about religion, and then when we asked about things we had heard at school or from friends they would ask what we thought instead of answering. I stopped believing in the Christian god on the same day I stopped believing in Santa, and for the same reasons.

I'm not saying there is no God, but what I am saying is you can't trust most people not to exaggerate. After hundreds of thousands of years, someone is going to tell a whopper, then someone else will believe it and sell it as truth.

Don't teach it, there is nothing to teach but ancient opinions and lies.

Rev Harper. Sort of agree.
It really worries me when people claim the events portrayed in the Flintstones actually happened. It's a 1960s cartoon not a Documentary. The characters are nice enough, but they have things like telephones, washing machines and TV sets which weren't invented for thousands of years. Besides you wouldn't keep a Sabre toothed tiger as a pet.

Did Adam and Eve both have belly buttons? Think about it...

Creationism should be taught along side other rejected theory's in science's history, such as the plumb pudding model of the atom. What is disappointing, is the lack of Christian scientist such as John Lennox shown on such subjects. Arguments like this lose the true values of Christianity.

As a priest, teacher and historian I feel sorry for creationists, quite simply they have a flawed understanding of the Bible.

There is a good reason why creationism should not be taught in schools, the best reason of all: it's because it is wrong. Evolution is supported by a mountain of evidence, and is one of the most supported theories in science. Evolution has no agenda for or against religion, it is simply the sum of all the evidence out there, the obvious conclusion.

The idea that creationism could be taught in school as some kind of peer with - or instead of - evolution fills me with horror. Creationism is not science, it is just religion.

If creation myths are to be taught in the science class, why discriminate in favour of the Judeo-Christian one? Let's have our science lessons cluttered up with creation stories from the Australian Aboriginals, Native Americans, Aztecs, the Celts and the Yanomamo and then, at the end if there's time, squeeze in a bit about evolution...

If we are going to teach creation stories in our schools, let's not discriminate in favour of the Judeo-Christian one. Let's have our sciences lessons taken up with the creation stories of the Australian Aboriginals, the Aztecs, the Norse, the Native Americans.
Perhaps at the end of the science class, we could squeeze in a bit about evolution...

I've got nothing against creation stories; after all, they were the method used to explain what was then unknown. Their place, today, however, is in the history or RE class, not in science.

It's a sign of desperation from the creationists when they claim their genesis myth is a credible alternative to a scientific theory validated by a multitude of different disciplines.

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.

I firmly belive that education has led us away from myth and creationism, and through education of fact and not belief in faith we have arrived at a point in time where we have trains planes rockets ships and advances in human anatomy biology and all manner of things.
If we are to teach children belief and not fact then we are all entitled to a belief and therefore with no facts as refferance what do we belive, we believe in none truths and have to hope that our faith in a belief that has no proof is correct.In law we dont have a belief we have evidence and we believe the iterpretation of that evidence and make a sound judgement upon it.
My dad belives that adam ripped his rib from his body through it on the floor and up popped eve......and with all the evidence on a gentic level will not exept that we have a common genetic inheritence (apes). Belief based on evidence not on faith is the key and creationism has no place in schools....thats not to say that religeon should not be tought I think it is important that understanding religeon enables one to be tolerant of some ones faith and that is a good thing. Prove that God exists then teach it in scools and not untill... The bible was written by a man or woman and they had a great sence of style and imagination, the only difference between a book that was written 2000 years ago and a book of fiction today is we are now blessed with the abilty through education to question what we read and the freedom to belive or not what is fiction and to see through the smoke screen of controle and disregard it. The bible is the greatest work of fiction ever published, what we have to understand that this disease called religeon has been around for thousands of years and it has become intrenched and is as distuctive as the Atom bomb and is most devisive........we do not need the thret of eternal damnation to be moral or spitual.

Randall sir, please I beg you, open your eyes, if you truly beleive creationsim is a tenable concept, in light of what some very smart, logical and above all enquiring members of your own species have learned about the universe in general; and in the context of your 4thought, biology in particular, then I respectfully submit that either noone has properly expained what evolution is to you, or you chose, in order to protect your personal faith, not to listen.
Evolution is in fact beutiful in its simplicity: You have three things.
1. Competition/a surplus of young: that is, more of each speices are born, hatched or germinated, then go on to reproduce themselves.
2. Heredity: I will wager you look more like your father than I do, a monk named Gregor Mendal did some good work in this area and I was tought that at school.
3. Change between generations: You are not a clone of your father.
That triumvirate is called natural selection and it is at the heart of evolution, the rest is detail.

No, creationism absolutly should not be tought in school, any school, and for this most importaint of reasons: A child from an athiest family may not be hoodwinked by being tought religion in the guise of science at school, but for a child from a familiy of faith? If they get religion at both home and tought as sience at school (before they are suffencently well educated not to be fooled by it) then they may think it must be true.

The state cannot control what is tought at home, only what is tought at school.

And no please do not try the counter argumant of saying that a child from an athiastic family should be tought creationism at school, because they already are, in RE.

Evolutionists aren't necessarily atheists and many may well be Christians, as I am. The Bible's Creation story was written by people who knew little of today's science and its interpretation. How else could they explain it?

In reality it is very simple. As an Evolutionist I believe that God created the world. He created the Universe, Galaxies, the Solar system, the planets, one being the Earth and everything in it...very slowly over billions of years. He created life on Earth (and almost certainly elsewhere in the Universe but currently beyond our ken)...... Fossils found dating back millions of years show that all this did not and could not just happen here in 7 days! Astronomy confirms that light from some stars He created take thousands of light years to reach us. Not 7 days. Even light from the sun takes over 8 minutes to reach us!

In my view it's simple. Both Creationism and Evolutionism should be taught in school, explaining that they are but two versions of the same theory.

For young children - the simple 7 day story: Creationism. For older children and young adults, the explanation of how life evolved over billions of years: Evolution.

Both have God as the Creator. Simple - no problem!

So you'all: Get a life! Yours Evolved from His Creation.

I somewhat understand what Rev. Harper is trying to say, however I believe schools are already narrow minded in the fact that they teach the theory of evolution as fact and not as theory. Yes, I would hate for it all to be come a list of rules (God created in 6 days, and rested on the 7th, He did this and this, etc...)however, I do not believe bringing creationism into the schools will deter people away from true faith. Otherwise it would not be 'faith'. I have no issues on teaching and testing one way, however do not exclude those, or dismiss that there are those who do not agree with the theory itself. I excelled in science, even though I do believe in creationism, and learned all the information, tested well, but never took it all to heart. I grow tired of having to be tolerant of other's believes and views and not receiving the same in return.

You have got to be kidding?

No, under no circumstances should creationism be taught in schools, there is no 'controversy', there is no 'alternative theories'. There is the proven scientific fact and there this is BS.

If you want equal time for 'alternative views' like creationism then as has been said before equal time should also be given to the theory that the world was invented by the flying spaghetti monster six years ago and all before that was just a very lucid dream he gave us. Which has equal amounts of plausibilty and proof behind it as creationism.

As Dawkins said, why stop there, next will be the alternate theory in history lessons that the holocaust never happened and it was in fact a Zionist conspiracy.

You have science lessons for science, you have religious studies lessons where you get taught what all the major world religions believe from a neutral perspective, simply for the purposes of education.

What you believe is up to you but if you have been educated properly and fairly and you've been taught the art of critical thinking, the truth can be easily reached.

I absolutely know that whatever argument is thrown up against creation it should be taught in Schools. The fact is in this day and age creation is being taught in schools more and more. There is a reason for this its because scientists now have evidence that the world was created six thousand years ago and man did walk with dinosaurs. Also the fossil record shows there is absolutely no evidence for evolution. As a well known creationist put it he has no problem with evolution being taught but to teach just that is just bad science and it is just plain dangerous just to teach just one point of view because science is so diverse. Lets not forget the key factor , fact creation has been proven in science.

So what is your God like? What does your God taste like? I think you've got the whole thing the wrong way round. It's the Atheist Scientists who have led the accusation that Bible believing Christians believe in a literal 6 day creation in order to mock and discredit the whole idea of God.

This is becoming a serious subject in the UK. I can see the "human rights" mob demanding this nonsense be taught in schools. Bung it in the RE classes only, it will be something else free thinking students to giggle about.

lets shoehorn the facts into this dodge ancient fairy tale! thats science that is!

Creationism to be taught not Evolution? As a Christian I have no problem with Creationism being taught to young children, a simple concept for simple minds. How else could God's might work in creating the Universe and all within it have been explained over a thousand years before Christ? Today that story remains a wonderful way to tell young children and should be taught to them.

For thinking children of an older age it is obviously a concept that ranks alongside a Flat Earth, the world going round the sun and the existence of Santa Claus and only those of simple minds or of gullible character could possibly take it seriously in this scientific age.

To my mind it is clear that God is the creator of all that is, seen and unseen and Evolution has been and still is His way of bringing, over billions of years, sense from His Big Bang to the current day. It has taken a little longer than 7 days, but it is still His work.

So teach both Creationism - to young children - and to the remainder teach Evolution, both God's work.

Randall. Creationism is taught in schools. It's taught in RE lessons, which are a compulsory component of the national curriculum. I suspect what you really mean is why evolution isn't taught as mere theory. I would say it's because evolution is a proven scientific fact with tons of supporting, verifiable evidence. I would also like to ask where is the evidence for your statement that new born babies have an instinctive understanding that they have been 'created'. A very tedious little film from someone who just wants to impose their own very narrow belief system on the rest of us.

I still respect my Christian friends' integrity, honesty, and humility. The Creationists on this series rather show either ignorance or deceitfulness.
You can build a theology that God is creator, but denying that evolution happened and HAPPENS is like denying the weather happens.
The speakers I've seen hereon wrongly present their religious views as the basis for scientific ideas, and hence discredit their religion. Don't be taken in.

Science continues to unravel the lie that is Religion and as a result religion offloads its baggage piece by piece. Creationism is just another liability that exposes religion for what it is, a controlling mechanism to manipulate the masses.

This is so beautifully put. I teach in an inner London comprehensive, where a lot of the students believe in creationism, or rather are vehemently anti-evolution/big bang/scientific explanations for the origin of the Universe and life. These opinions come directly from their (evangelical) preachers who seemingly fill sermons with rants against science, rather than preaching the central Christian messages of love, christianity and forgiveness. I have never understood why certain branches of the church waste time with this debate, and is so refreshing to see this put so eloquently by a Church of England vicar. Thanks you - I will be showing this to my students!

teaching creationism to children is fine, if you want them to grow up... see through the lie, and ultimately feel betrayed, and lied to by the people they are meant to trust......infact it sets them up for a life of being told lies by the political system, so that they can be controlled.

why dont we instead teach the truth,- natural selection, or is this to dangerous a concept to teach to our youth?

If we are going to allow Creationism to be 'taught' (is that the correct word?) in schools then let's also introduce fairies, goblins, magic (black and white), leprachauns and other such nonsense.

Curiously, believers of Creationism shows how evolution's selection processes doesn't always work properly (as Darwin himself pointed out). Anyone who believes in this moronic nonsense is doomed to be genetically removed from the pool eventually! The sooner the better!!

Ms Harper's comments might have made more impact if she had not adopted such a totally un-Christian, elistist attitude.
Creationists come in all shapes and sizes. There are "Young Earthers" and "Old Earthers", "fundamentalists" and "literalists", "knowledgeable" and "not so knowledgeable".

But in Ms Harper's world the only Creationists seem to be eccentric weirdos who hold to an extreme young earth, literalist view utterly unsupported by any knowledge.

And where on earth did she get the idea that the Book of Genesis (Old Testament) is one of the four Gospels (New Testament).

If Ms Harper is having difficulties communicating the Christian message then maybe she should look a little closer to home instead of trying to lay the blame on others.

Funny sort of 'christian'. Doesn't believe God's word but claims to follow Him!

I was really disappointed to hear so many inconsistent and illogical statements from someone in her position. What is the basis of truth here? Until scientists can come up with substantial evidence for evolutionary origins, I'll stick with the simple truth of what is written in Genesis 1. This view isn't popular in the land of Darwin, but truth is truth whether or not it is believed by the majority.

Martin Billingham omits a crucial piece of information from his apparently reasonable exposition:

Evolutionist discussions of the origins of life, the universe, and everything ALWAYS exclude - as a matter of principle - the possibility of anything supernatural.

Thus, without needing to offer a smidgin of supporting evidence the possibility of a creator God is written off as a complete impossibility.

And creationists are stupid, deceitful, etc. You cannot be serious.
Evolutionism is a religion fighting for it's life in a world that placing less and less faith in ability of scientists to solve the real problems that are now faced by the human race.

Look at the responses to your broadcast, Rosie. All you have achieved is a lukewarm round of applause from the atheists. Seems even they are less than impressed by your equivocation.

Absolutely no! In my opinion people are born faithless and can decide as they make their way through life based on their own experiences whether faith is to be part of their life or not. Pushing impressionable minds down unfactual paths can only be detrimental to children and to society as a whole.

When Genesis was written God had a problem; How to communicate God's role in the creation of the universe without spouting 21st centaury science to an uneducated ethnic group he cared for deeply. So he used his favourite technique; a parable, a familiar use of language to explain a deeper spiritual truth. My assertion is this; The word that turns this key is “day”. I argue that this was a God day, not an Earth day. Why? Because the parable starts with God creating the universe, so it’s from His pov. If we move beyond discussing a literal 24 hrs, God could take 14 billion Earth years to effect one of His and suddenly it all fits together. Evolution can develop in that time frame with God bowling the first ball. A God of truth and love would never have planted fake fossils, and he knew we would find them. Finding the truth is part of our duty. Telling it the way it is, is another.

Dear Rosie,
I'm a confirmed atheist.Evolution is a tautology as far as it is a theory but I do think Christianity has been harmed by Creationism.Christianity's defense has long been along the lines of 'it's not gospel', which begs any number of questions.

Roy.

I am neither religious nor atheist - I do not consider any evidence exists or can exist to prove either argument right and atheism, in its radical form preached by so many scientists, is an extreme form of a religion by its own demonstration.

Creationism is already taught in schools as part of RE. Science and religion are different subjects and the creationism v evolution debate is mistargeted.

The bible says the world was made in 7 days. There are several aspects to this

(1) Firstly, the world (and presumably the universe) would presumably have been created prior to the existence and energy and matter. Accordingly, as time is function of energy and matter, then the description "7 days" existed only to make it understable to people 2000 years ago. It would have been difficult to explain the theory of relativity to the peoples of Palestine and Judah about 3000 years ago.

(2)the fact that 7 days does not bear up to modern scientific understanding does not mean that the creation argument is wrong. The New Testament reviews many statements by Jesus which teach via parables. The Old Testament creationist explanation is similarly a parable (presumably the family tradition was established early). A lot of the narrative can quite easily be compared to scientific explanations of evolution.

(3)Even if we accept that a chronological 7 days iss dictated as the time it took to make the world and all of its contents, we then have to consider how we demonstrate an inability to do this. If god exists, then (as stated above) he would have designed the phyics and maths surrounding this area and accordingly, as with any model maker, he is not constrained by the limits of his creation. In summary, if god exists, he cannot be prove by his creation and neither can he be stopped from doing something which his creation (being anything including light, mass and energy) is unable to accomplish.

(4) As stated above, the bible record was probably taken by someone who was a lot less analytical or enquiring and was written for an audience with even less comprehension. We cannot expect such records to be as accurate in all of its detail and thus disprove them on the basis of such inaccuracy.

(5) Lastly, the bible was written over a period between 2-3,000 years ago. Since then various scripts have been lost, deliberately left out or greatly edited through various nation's histories, wars and political and religious changes. It is simply a case of Chinese whispers and the failure of some of the text to stand up to modern scientific scrutiny does not undermine the truth of the script(ure).

I would like to reemphasise that, despite the above, I am not religious and do not ascribe to any of these beliefs, but merely believe that the argument itself is flawed as neither side will ever be proven right or wrong (unless, of course, God (if he exists) descends from the heavens very shortly to prove the creationists right).

The non-believers should instead take an objective stance based on the arguments and not channelled via a single approach that only science/maths can be used to explain everything around us (as the theories are constantly being revised and therefore are never completely accurate at any single point in time).

Rosie Harper - you're a breath of fresh air. I agree that the whole debate around creationism is a bit of a distraction - I mean, is it really that important? I do wonder about people who become so animated about it. I sometimes think it might actually be borne out of fear ie. some people have to narrowly define things (literally) in order to feel in control/feel secure. They find it difficult to be open to other concepts of God or creation because they're actually afraid ... which is ironic really when people of faith are meant to live freely, adventurously and without fear! And I agree also that to only teach children a creationist view would be to sell them short. However, having said that, I have no objection to creationism being taught in schools for what it is - a particular worldview/concept - the most important and valuable gift we can give to children is the ability to 'think well' but in order to do that they need exposure to different views and ideas.

If creationism shouldn't be taught, then neither should the history that Darwinism teaches, because science is continuing to demonstrate the impossibility of it. I'm not sure which part of science Rev Canon Rosie Harper thinks is in conflict with a literal understanding of the Bible, but I've never seen anything presented in science that conflicts with its account. I would have hoped that she would be more specific about the details. She has a problem with creationism but, is it that fossils are found in the sedimentary layers, and that you can only date igneous rocks that don't contain fossils?
Is it that C14 and helium are still found in rocks that are supposed much older than their half lives allow? Is it the teleological or the complexity argument? what about the recent news showing 75 whale fossils found in the middle of the desert in Chile miles in land away from the cost. There are many topics in all areas of science that question the theory of evolution. Why does she feel that creation needs to compromise with this dying theory?

Creationism has been attacked, without justification by people like Rosie Harper. I'm glad I've read for myself about creationism and its conflict with Darwinism (not with science) and I'm convinced that the better argument falls on the side of the creationist.

Rosie, Have you ever looked at the factS - or do you just talk withouy proper knowledge? Furthermore, IF evolution were true, it makes God a liar (and also refutes the fact of the Fall of man as death would have been present before man had 'arrived'. I suggest that you actually make an objective study of the comparative facts before arriving at any opinion. Presumably you have knowledge of evolutionary THEORY (note - not Fact) - can I suggest http://creation.com/ or http://www.creationworldview.org/ as useful websites to explore to that end.

Rosie, Have you ever looked at the factS - or do you just talk withouy proper knowledge? Furthermore, IF evolution were true, it makes God a liar (and also refutes the fact of the Fall of man as death would have been present before man had 'arrived'. I suggest that you actually make an objective study of the comparative facts before arriving at any opinion. Presumably you have knowledge of evolutionary THEORY (note - not Fact) - can I suggest http://creation.com/ or http://www.creationworldview.org/ as useful websites to explore to that end.

This is a great video by Rosie Harper that clearly presents the Christian view of creation that doesn’t need to rely on the account in Genesis that was written down in this form about 2,500 years ago and seems based on a number of pagan earlier creation myths. It seems she agrees with Matt Santos of West Wing.

This week I have been reading about the case presented by creationists and I haven’t been convinced that their “evidence” is worthy of that term.

I would dispute with some evolutionists who state that their position is fact and is truth. I believe that evolution is a theory and that the evidence supports this as the mostly likely way things happened.

Some Christians are taught everything must be either true or false, but this isn’t true. Some things are true, some things are false and some things we don’t know if they are true or false, but on the evidence we conclude what is most likely. We have the ability to decide on the evidence and not just believe something because we were told it.

Definitions are all important so everybody knows what we are talkinh about.
Creationism:- "The doctrine ascribing the origin of all matter and living forms as they now exist to distinct acts of creation by God."
Evolutionism :- "Any belief in an evolutionary process."
Evolution is a process and requires something to have been created in the first place which it can then act upon.
The real debate therefore surely is, was that created something, primordial soup or whatever, the result of a chance event in time or something that was deliberately engineered.
Now we have the foundation of a really useful philosophical/scientific debate which every 5th and 6th former can join in, providing the evidence for whatever argument they wish to present to support their case.Now that's what I call a really useful educational exercise.

Canon Rosie Harper is a great example of the double- mindedness that is prevelent in todays society. I dont know if she has ever read the Bible but if she did she would know that Genesis, which was written bt Moses, says God created the universe and everything in it in 6 literal days, we know this by looking at the translation for "day" from the Hebrew means a 24 hour period. By doubting the very beginning of Gods Word how can she trust the rest of th Bible? You cannot pick and choose what to believe in the Bible. Paul wrote in 2 Timothy 3:16 that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God". Jesus referred to Moses in John 5:46/47 saying: "for if you believed Moses you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me, but if you do not believe his writings how will you believe My words?" If Moses lied about the creation account how could Jesus trust Him for any other account, especially about Himself? The Bible says God created the world perfect and without death. If long age, evolution and death were true then God is a liar and Jesus died on a cross for nothing. 1 Cor. 15:21 says that "since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." As for those people commenting on the "wealth" of info supporting evolution I would refer you to some sites such as :Creation Worldview Ministries, Answers In Genesis, Creation Ministries, Creation Research.net. These websites are run by highly qualifed scientists, many of whom have Ph.Ds in their fields of study. I would strongly recommend everyone, including Rev. Rosie Harper, to have a look at these sites and then honestly decide for themselves what is true. Also read Proverbs to learn how to raise children, remembering the warning Jesus gave to those who stop children coming to Him.

Mr Suade typifies the response frequently offered in creation debates, and makes points which really do deserve an answer - which is why I am replying in the main discussion rather than privately.

1. The account of the Creation covers 6 (six) days, not 7 (seven). It is useful to stick to an accurate representation of the biblical, even if you don't agree with it.

2. The text of Genesis that we have does not use a word that can only be translated as "days". The word in question is "yom", which can be translated in a number of ways, including "days", "years" or even "(unspecified) periods of time".
So in that respect at least, the Genesis account can indeed be harmonised with the evolutionist perspective.

3. In fact the question of 6 days, 6,000 years, 4 billion years, or whatever is nothing but a red herring. What is really at stake is the question of whether the universe(s) that we are aware of got here through an event scientists call "The Big Bang" (unless neutrinos really can travel faster than the speed of light), or by divine fiat (the "will of God").

Since science only provides "most likely explanations" rather than absolute truths, in the final analysis the origins of life, the universe and everything will always be - in this life, at least - matters of faith rather than matters of certain knowledge.

How interesting that Ms Harper and like-minded people apparently think that the opposite is true.

How any reasonably intelligent person living in the 21st century could beleive this absurd, puerile creationist nonsense defies understanding.

We are told by evolutionists that science is tentative, ths is true, but only up to a certain point. Evolutionist confuse, who or what with how and why. A scientists starts out with an idea of whether something is made by someone or arose by natural processes, i.e. chance. These are the only 2 ways anything can come into being.

Evolutionists want to keep God out of science, but they don't live according to their beliefs. They recognise that a fridge is a fridge and put food in it to keep it.

To stop creation being taught in schools is tantamount to brainwashing. It shoudld be taught and children can make up their own mind which to believe. No one has seen evolution happen, so it is as much a religion or belief system as creationism.

The story of creation as depicted in the Bible has nothing to do with this physical world; the story of Genesis refers to the formation of the spiritual creation, i.e., the FIRST creation. The physical world we see about us came into existence much later as a subsequent creation. It was not formed, however, by any 'Big Bang' but through a process of radiation which emanates from God Himself. "Let there be Light, and there was Light".

With those momentous Words the Light Radiations of God shot forth over the boundary of the Divine sphere into what then was an empty void; this was the beginning of creation. All in creation is radiation or comes out of radiation - this is something science should by now have grasped; all is made up of atoms. There are many gradations (or species) of radiation.

It requires intelligence to create intelligence. Cells (complex or otherwise) do not just animate themselves; there has to be something at their very core to stimulate them into activity - and indeed there is.

I feel sorry for those narrow-minded individuals who truly believe that all they survey came about by chance. In a billion years from now chance could not 'create' a coffee mug and fill it with hot coffee complete with milk and one sugar! Could it? A simple cell is far more complex than that, is it not?

So why the denial? Are you so afraid that the edifice with which you have so carefully built up around your intellectual prowess might suddenly waver and fall into ruin? How can you believe in something you cannot even prove for yourselves? You lazily accept theories thought up by others without subjecting them to the most careful scrutiny, and thoughtlessly cast aside anything at all that might bring you closer to the Truth. Until science recognises the spiritual in creation its work will always remain piecemeal.

Also, creationists too must recognise their own limitations and realise that not everything in the Bible is literally God's Word! This holds true for all religious teachings. It is often forgotten that the Bible is referring to spiritual things and not earthly.

Creationism as taught by the various religions is wrong because it has never been understood by those who attempt to further it. The story of Genesis, however, is correct; it simply does NOT refer to this part of creation we are permitted to exist in!

At the time of Jesus' sojourn on this earth nothing was written down until many years following His vile murder on the cross of suffering. And it was murder; be in no doubt about this! Memory is all too often unreliable a few weeks following any event; how much more so when many years have passed?

Also, many things were attributed to the Son of God which are simply untrue or misunderstood. The disciples themselves very often did not fully understand all they were taught. Jesus even lamented this: There is much that I would say unto you but you would not understand me now, but when He the Son of Man cometh, he will guide you unto all Truth (this I have written from memory and recognise that it is not a literal excerpt from the Bible). Incidentally, how many Christians out there still await this momentous happening? What if it has already taken place? How would you know?

The Son of God and the Son of Man are two distinct personalities who issue from God Himself. The Bible does not refer to Jesus ever calling Himself the Son of Man, does it? The Son of Man is the first born Son of God - His name is Immanuel; He is the Holy Spirit! Only Christians might be able to follow me here so let us now return to the topic of creation.

Subsequent Creation is not an immediate Creation, but the product of an evolution in accordance with the Laws of Creation, lasting millions of years, as science has correctly recorded, and in exactly the same sequence as quoted in the Biblical account of the first Creation: grasses, plants, aquatic animals, birds, land animals and men. Here in Subsequent Creation these are no longer created instantly, but formed in the course of a long-lasting evolution according to the original images of Creation. Therefore it is logical that the Creation which God made in the beginning (Genesis 1, 1) cannot mean the earth, which is furthest removed from God, and hence has undergone a long process of evolution to its present state.

Also, man did not evolve directly from the ape as is unthinkingly believed. This is going too far. The separation of man from animal (the missing link) came when long ago the first spirits incarnated into the the most highly-developed animal at that time (which was already walking upright).

Only following the entry of the spirit into the animal body can it be truly said that the separation between man and animal took place, but not before.

Science already recognises that there is a very definite difference between the blood of an ape to that of a human being. The spirit forms the blood composition in man, wheras the soul of an animal forms its blood compositon. Each species possesses its own particular blood radiations. They are and will always remain different because the animating cores within each species is entirely different in nature and origin.

And the spirit core which animates the physical body has its origin in Paradise - the spiritual realm of the FIRST creation (Paradise - the last ramifications of the FIRST creation to be more precise). The animating core for an animal is 'soul' which has its origin in a different part of creation, a long way below the spiritual.

With entry of the spirit into the most highly evolved animal at that time it slowly evolved over a long period of time into modern man. Sadly, man's wisdom did not evolve with him! He allowed his intellect (the tree of knowledge) to wilfully and completely subjugate the spirit within him, with the resultant effect of completely losing sight and knowledge of his spiritual origin and, thereby, tragically, connection with his origin.

Mans' self-created ego and pseudo-knowledge will now shipwreck and destroy him unless he quickly changes course and steers his ship clear of the rocks in time.

But the cosmic clock is now approaching twelve!

Adapting the bible or its intentions to suit the current thoughts of the day has a long tradition. Religion is inextricably linked to community and community is constantly changing. The conflicting techtonic plates of religious opinion rub along but occasionally the world is shaken up by huge changes in opinion - I believe that is happening now and the shift to science and reason will not be stopped.

I agree to a point with Rev Harper but I'm not sure she represents any religion and I'd question whether she believes in God, especially after the criticism recently to Archbishop Carey. It appears that anything goes with Harper, maybe should have chosen another vocation