4thought.tv

NO!
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!
Definitely not!
Never!
NO NO NO NO NO!

No

God is not real

Most certainly not, school is a place for learning and understanding the universe through questioning and reason, myths and superstitions have no place in school and teaching children to ignore evidence, facts and rationality is irresponsible at best and child abuse at worst.

Oooh man get this crap off tv. Love how this is on just b4 brave new world haha

Just reading Charles Darwin. This should be standard text at school. Creationism just causes confusion and is totally unfounded. It should be mentioned if only to discredit religion. It should otherwise be banned. Can't beleive it's taught in USA. It's like sending us back 100 years!

OMG. People believe this utter rubbish ie that what the bible says is true! It's just a story book for goodness sake. Just hope this kid is not doing anything linked to science as a profession.

Nothing to see here, move along please. There was NO argument for teaching what has been proved, both by science and in the courts, to be a religious agenda. Creationism is not science.

No, religion should not be enforced in schools at all. Creationism, which contradicts many common subjects (Biology, chemistry, physics, history, geography etc.) should not be taught. It is insulting to teach such a ignorant and ridiculous, incomprehensible theory in a place of education.

Man and Dinosaurs lived together from the 6th day of creation.
It's true!
I have the video footage to prove it!
Laughable.
His last point was hat creationism isn't tight because it's the thin end of the wedge and if it's true, then the rest of the Bible must be too.
Hmmmmm...
Does the converse hold? If we can show its not true, is that proof that the rest of the Bible can't be true?
So sad to see such a bright man in the next generation of thinkers actively choosing to turn off his mental faculties.
I would laugh if it weren't so sad.

This pernicious nonsense should be kept well away from young minds. A bronze age book is no substitute for properly researched science.

No deffinitely not !! Creationism is completely unscientific and has been completely refuted by modern science. In medieval times people were taught about Alchemy, but we know today that it's basis was completely wrong..in the same way that we should not be teaching alchemy in school, similarly we should not teach creationism , but should teach our children evolution which is based on undisputeable scientific evidence. Read Richard Dawkins' the Greatest Show on Earth, which outlines the argument so eloquently and also gives examples of evolution which is taking place here and now

Creationism is not science, it is a religious dogma. It should only be taught in the context of a religious studies lesson, as should all other religious beliefs. The problem with teaching it as a scientific theory is that you lend it legitimacy when it has none. It concerns me that Sam Scott Perry is intelligent enough to get 3 A levels i science and a biology degree, but (perhaps because of his own faith) is unable to make this distinction.

No, it shouldn't be, there is no evidence for the ''creationist theory'' and children tend to be the same religion as their parents, to teach religion in a science class is ridiculous. It just shouldn't happen, also people in my opinion are coming to their senses.. Realising the lack of evidence, i'm not out to annoy believers, I just think that noone should be taught this in a science lesson.. there are RS lessons specified to be taught about ''gods''annyway.

Absolutley not !
This 18 year old guy comes on purporting to know something about biology ("I'm an expert") because I've studied it, then trashes it saying well you don't have to believe in to get through the exams - why did he bother ?. He seems to want to borrow the kudos of having a biology qualification as if that then gives him reason to want to introduce creationist nonsense into our skills. Stop this one in its tracks!
Why is it these people need to promote this crap. I'm an atheist but I don't ram it down peoples throats.

For someone who has apparently achieved A* in biology he shows remarkably little understanding of the scientific process. Creationism is not science you don't come to understand by having a preconceived idea and fitting the facts to suit a belief system. There is no objective evidence to support creationism and a literalistic biblical view point of creation. Leave creationism in churches and don't try to infect objective scientific study with this fantasist circular logic

creationism is one belief of the origins of the world, every major world religion, of which there are several, also has a view on the origins on the earth and man. there is not time in the curriculum due to sheer amount of material to cover these competing beliefs. all of these different theories could be taught to get a balanced view on some peoples opinions, but not just one should be taught i.e creationism. because of the limited teaching time and the amount of material this is something that should not be done in science lessons. These theories and beliefs are not science and following the letter of the bible is not logical. creationism should be covered in philosophy or RS. it is important to know that people have these beliefs but it should not be taught as an alternative or alongside conventional science.

Science isn't about accepting popular opinions. Evolution is true and backed up by overwhelming evidence. So why would you teach children creationism that you know has no proof and to be false? Would you present school children with the theory of gravity and also the theory that the earth is flat and moving upwards at a rate of 9.8ms^2 so that keeps you grounded, and then let the children decide what they want to believe? No? Then why do this with evolution (fact) and creationism (myth)?

Yes in a way I think that it should be taught - but solely to illustrate the difference between 'scientific research' and 'belief'. You can choose to opt for the idea of a world created in 7 days (based on a book with selected, biased input and precious little else), or you can opt for a scientific approach to what actually happened (based on an ongoing critical analysis). I think it is important to differentiate between the two and this can be very educational.

NO just NO creationism is not a science, science works on the pretense that it comes up with a hypothesis and constantly tries to disprove said hypothesis, creationism on the other hand works on the pretext its an idea they are constantly trying to prove right often against the greater part of scientific theory and evidence. Creationism should be taught in schools but not as a science but as a religion, this is not alabama this is Great Britain we punch so far above our weight academically we gave the world the industrial revelation and the world of modern sicence dont let it get dragged back down by the bible belt way of thinking.

Reppin' Heythrop College! Woop woop! P.S. I do not speak like this.

Why not teach how to think not what to think. Stick to the factual as proven. The natural world is far more fascinating, perhaps you should also read up on carbon dating and radioactive decay before making any statements regarding evolution of our planet. I only hope you do open your mind to learning as I hope my children do.

Nothing should be taught out of context. Teaching creationism as part of religious studies is ok, teaching it as an alternative to evolution is certainly not. Science is evidence based and there is absolutely no independent evidence for creationism whilst there is overwhelming evidence that contradicts it. Claiming that it should be included to be fair or to maintain balance is ridiculous.

Creationism should be taught in schools, as not to teach children creationism robs kids of the ability to see an alternative view that has been held for thousands of years, the question is in fact, does most of the worlds population not believe that God created the planet the universe and us any way?

We don't teach Creationism in schools because there is No evidence for it.

We teach Evolution in schools, because it Has been proven. The evidence is overwhelming and those who deny it fall into at least one of four categories:

1) Those who are ignorant of the evidence.
2) Those too stupid to understand that evidence.
3) Those who are brainwashed.
4) Those who stand to gain something, for example, televangelists and the occasional scientist (0.15% of scientists in the US with expertise in relevant subjects are Creationists)who realises that amount of money that can be made by selling books, etc, to a scientifically illiterate audience who they know won't bother to find out the truth and won't understand the poor "science" in their books, anyway.

If there was a god that created organisms, why would this deity put a mammal with vestigial hips in the middle of the ocean? Why would it design the Laryngeal Nerve so that, in a giraffe, for example, it covers 20 feet rather than less than 1 foot?

How would one explain the GULO pseudogene, or endogenous retroviruses?

What about the centromere in one of our Chromosomes, where we have 2 fused chromosomes, meaning that we have 46 chromosomes whereas other apes have 48?

What about Ring Species, like the Ensatina Salamander? What is the scientific definition of the biblical description of "kind" and what is the biological mechanism that would limit creatures from evolving and crossing this invisible (and, let's be honest, non existent)barrier and go from Micro-Evolution (something creationists Have to admit to) to Macro-Evolution.

Denyiny Macro-Evolution is like finding sections of curved line and denying that there could be any such thing as a circle!

We have 2 options; a designer who is incompetent and/or a liar, or Evolution is real!

If we taught Creationism in schools, which version would we teach?

That in Hindu or Egyptian mythology? That in the Gospel of the Gargantuan Frog of Despair? None of them have Any evidence for them.

Of course we should teach creationism in schools. But only when there is one scrap of evidence to suggest even a hint of truth in what is a laughable 3000 year old theory invented to explain the unexplainable to the un-inquisitive.
Creationism diminishes thousands of years of human endeavour and learning in favour of the redundant views of a noisy yet ignorant minority.

Having spent some 20 years reading the variuos arguments for and against creationism, it is clear that it is neither science, nor defensable at any level, and in any context. One only has to read the book Monkey Girl by Edward Humes to see how poor the creationist argument is when put to the test, even when presented by some of its 'stars'. Only by degrading the definition of science to a a level that, a leading creationsit had to admit would include magic, could it possibly be regarded a science. To inlcude it in any form of teaching other than religion would be a major mistake in this counytry. When you read creationsists books you soon discover that they are engaged in the technique of mixing legitmate science with theirt own ideas so that, those who read it cannot distinguish between the two and therefore fall in to the deliberate trap of thinking that everything they have read is equally true - this is a very unsubtle form of lying and misleading people who do not have an adequate understanding of what they are reading, and does a very big disfavour to those with faith who search for truth and understanding.

interesting little film about creationism. Though I have to disagree with all of Sam Perry's points... the bible is hardly scientific

for example:

The earth isnt the centre of the universe - *Galileo proves this*
The earth isnt flat - *Columbus, NASA, etc have proved this*
Humans werent alive when dinosaurs were - *evolutionary science proves this*
The earth wasnt made in 7 days and is actually billions of years old - *numerous branches of science prove this, astronomy, physics, biology etc*

Now those were a few examples of a great number of biblical "facts" that modern day science can dispell and to most peoples suprise i'm not an atheist, the bible has to be taken literally!

Yes, creationism should be taught in schools to give children of other faiths or no faith a chance to learn what chritisianity believes in, the same with all religions - more knowledge cannot be a bad thing and will/should open peoples eyes up properly to these faiths.

Some day soon Master Perry is going to be allowed to vote. I hope he doesn't believe so blindly the politicians that will be telling him blatant lies like his priests are telling him.

Science is based on fact. Creationism is based on belief. You do not have to pick one or the other. If Creationism is taught then surely Scientology should be too, or Mormonism or Jedi. The fact Creationists only want Creationism to be taught makes it glaringly obvious they want it to be preached to children, not taught.

Blind belief like this is what's causing division and grief throughout the world.

Mr Law has been sucked into the modernist view believing the evolution theory to be fact. His defence of this theory is not scientific, it is simply a tirade of abuse hurled at those who have a different viewpoint from him.

Of course not! This is no science! You're saying the world was created within six days, do you think women come off a man's rib, too? No, no, no. By the way, I hope everyone saying this wasn't wearing mixed-fabric clothes because the Bible says you can't mix two different kinds of fabric to make clothes.

oh dear sam, i feel very sorry for you. i thought this creation rubbish was confined to the US. god forbid if it gets a foothold here. keep this suff out of our schools.

So sad to see the young still being indoctrinated by the church - it is an abuse just as serious as their more well known crimes
this poor lad thinks that there is such a thing as "bible science" and seems quite unable to see the difference between that and real science
To quote an old Athiest saying...
"dont preach in our classrooms
and I won't think in your church"

Sam Perry shot himself in the foot in his first line in saying not teaching creationism isn't fair... science isn't fair because the universe does not care about our whims and fancies... It is a certain way and won't change because we want it to... Creationism was soundly DISproved well over a century and yet creationism has nothing but the Bible to show, no physical evdience at all in all that time... Why does he think creationism deserves special treatment science doesn't get? Creationism HAS been given fair treatment... in courts of law, and consistently and utterly failed to provide ANY supporting evidence. It is not and never has been the default alternative. It's not taught because it's wrong and provably so, end of...

Well said Stephen Law. Agree completely. It promotes blinkered, non-critical thinking.

This is the single most ridiculous thing i have ever heard. Why dont we teach the tooth fairy as fact in schools? It is because it is rubbish.

To quote someone who has written on this forum in the defence of creationism "there is no need to jaw drop as if creationism was a crime" I think it should be a crime. Its a form of brain washing and can do seious harm to childern who are unforunate enough to be born in to a creationist family. In Richard Dawkins the god delusion he writes about how people who have grown up with a stong belif in hell even in to adulthood and have had psychological issues because of it. Its irresponsible to even entertain the idea. Just stupid!

Ignore majority who shout loudest, doe'snt make em right; does it. They have no conscience above themselves. Carry on lad examing all alternatives in a biased self-society- eventually you.ll get to the hardest truth to find, God

What a naive lad. Someone has taught him a lot of porkies at his "church". There is zero truth in creationism , it is bad science and full of nonsense and also misquotes other scientists.

Note that all sensible Christians do not beleive that kind of nonsense

Man lived with dinosaurs and while the rest of creation gets a mention in the Bible but there was collective amnesia about the largest land animals - c'mon! Teach about religion by all means but read Darwin if you want to understand the natural world.

At the end he says that if the bible can be trusted scientifically, then it can also be trusted in other areas. But, the bible can't be trusted scientifically and is incredibly inaccurate with its supernatural stuff. So, using his same logic, nothing in the bible can be trusted.

In my experience, it is the evolutionists who tend to have the closed minds and to refuse to even consider that they might be wrong. Creationists are typically the ones who wish to discuss the evidence in detail and they do not usually resort to the name-calling and personal abuse which unfortunately often forms part of the evolutionist debating style.

Whose version of creationism? This is the problem with "teaching" creationism....which version? Who answers all the follow up questions? Would the parents agree with a Hindu teaching their version, or a Muslim? If we go with the Christian version, which sect of Christianity? Mormon? Evangelical, Prodistant? It should be obvious that we should just stick to science in science class.

creationism has no supporting evidence of any kind. evolution has been tested and retesed over and over again, evolution is a fact, creationism is nothing more than wishful thinking as religious people try to fit a square peg into a round hole.

if evolution wasn't a fact, their would be no reason to fear a new pandemic as a virus jumps the species barrier, because that can only happen through the virus being able to adapt and evolve in a host in order to be able to do so.

in the video, he claims that creationism has to be true because dinosaurs are land animals and we're created on the 6th day as adam and eve. firstly, their were and still are sea based dinosaurs. if man and dinosaurs existed at the same time, they would have been mentioned given the fact that the biggest (Argentinosaurus) 120 feet from head to tail. the reason for them never being mentioned is that their existence was discovered by the christian world until well after man wrote the bible.

also, for man and dinosaurs to exist at the same time would make pretty much all other sciences, Geology, cosmology, etc, all false. in short, for creationism to be true, everything we rely on in the modern world couldn't exist because the science behind it would't work, so no concept of: carbon dating, nuclear half life (radioactive decay), and as a result, no nuclear power plants of concepts of how the sun and all stars work. not to mention the fact that a lot of modern medicine wouldn't exist, especially immunisation.

school's are for learning the truth, or the best truth that we can offer with the worlds present knowledge, and that can only be achieved, especially in science, through rigorous testing of hypothesis, which can be reproduced and tested by anyone with the right skill sets.

in the world of science, the word theory means something completely different to what religious people perceive to be a "theory". making up something that has no evidence supporting it, based on no facts, hasn't or can't be tested, and is just the words of some random person, cannot be considered a "theory" just because you use the word theory, just like: i can call myself a bottle of coke, but just because i say that, doesn't make it true.

however, i do believe everything should be questioned, and nothing taken at face value. but it takes little effort to see for yourself that evolution is true, and creationism is nothing more than a story that has been badly mixed together with someones limited understanding of the real world in order to make something greatly outdated fit with undisputed facts of the universe.

in short, to believe creationism is a fact, is to believe that the world we live in isn't real, and to teach it in schools is to raise a new generation of people with the incorrect mental tools to look at, and better the world, in which we live in. and speaking as someone raised by a religious parent, i can see how such thinking like creationism being some how factual just cause a book wrote by a group of men, which has been rewritten many times to suit each new generation and social circumstances, can do great harm, and i wouldn't wish that on any child in this world.

religion has had it's time, now we have the ability to explain the explainable, and as we've done so, we've freed ourselves from the shackles of religion and the dark ages it kept us in. all that's needed now is the final nail is the coffin of religion to be placed so we can move on in a more enlightened world, where we don't get told everyday that we'll burn in hell for not worshiping the one true god, a god of love who for some reason gets pleasure out of the fact we're either a slave to him, or we suffer forever, but that rant is for another occasion ha ha ha ha

Science classes are for science, angry jealous magic man in the sky making everything by magic isn't science, so NO....

Such drivel, along with all religious doctrine, is extremley dangerous and leads to wars. It's a man made myth with no scientific evidence to support it whatsoever.

What the world needs, in my humble opinion and what should be taught in schools is a simple moral code, acknowledgement there may a higher order and a promotion of spirtuality so sadly lacking in society.

Rubbish!!!!! Dangerous and right wing rubbish!!!!

Creationism is christianity trying to look intelligent, and failing miserable. The Bible is not a science book,and to treat it as such shows how much grip American fundamentalist thinking is having in England now.
Stamp it out, while we can still think freely and intelligently.

Creationism should be taught as part of a religious education syllabus and kept separate from the science one.

As both a practising scientist and Christian, I recognise the story of creation to be allegorical, and find that religious belief in no way conflicts with my work as a scientist. The same can be applied for the institute for which I work, where there is a small but significant group of religious individuals. We apply the same degree of scientific rigour as our non-faith colleagues, and at no point does scientific belief clash with religious belief, and neither should it.

What concerns me is the increasing level of dogma and growing intolerance shown by humanists, as exemplified by a some of the posts on this panel.

I do not know why the first chapter of Genesis seems to cause so much difficulty. Psalm 90 interprets it: “A thousand ages in Thy sight are like an evening gone…”. This also makes logical sense. If God created the Universe, the length of His days can hardly be measured by one revolution of a rather small planet.

Whilst I agree with Mr. Law that Creationism is not credible, I also agree with Sam Scott Perry that it should be discussed, but NOT taught as a science, within the school curriculum, alongside other global beliefs like the aboriginal dreamtime & other asiatic ones like reincarnation & the Japanese Kuniumi & Kamiumi - freedom of speech & all that. We should leave it to the individual to make up his/her mind about which rationale is the most probable. Come to think of it, why not include the classical Greek & Viking gods as well.

The pope and most of 'Christendom' reject Creationism, true, but then they reject most of the Bible anyway [as prophesied]! But to insist that random Big Bangs, chance chemical soup and trillions of genetic mistakes could produce amything, let alone life and our transcendent [& troubled!] consciousness, could be produced by what is virtually undirected blind chance, is clearly not science, either! Real, observable, testable science [as produced for centuries by mostly Bible believing pioneers, or, like basic genetics, owing nothing to 'evolutionary theory']] easily disproves that sort of quasi-sci nonsense, and reveals a obviously Designed Universe; where Life only comes from Life; Unevolvable, transcendent Information had to precede any life; the Fossil/Geolly Record is overwhelmingly catastrophic; Life 'Only reproduces after its Kind' as Genesis says; Millions of life forms need Millions of 'Transistionals/Missing Links'; and No Cell = No DNA, and No DNA = No Cell, etc = Biblical Creationism. Choose your Miracle!

Totally agree regarding that creationism should only be taught as an example of a conspiracy theory. Denialism, to use its technical term, is a very dangerous mental condition to be trapped by, leading to ignorance, distrust of the authorities, paranoia and a weak grip on reality causing irrational and occasionally dangerous behaviour. It also leads to people going with what they feel instead of what the evidence shows, which has devastating consequences not just in science, but in law enforcement, medical diagnosis, and every other situation where a decision needs to be made on known facts.

I am a secondary school science teacher. Teaching children something that isn't true is something that happens all the time...the peppered moths fact is in fact a complete lie, as are many of the 'factual' evidence used to support the theory of evolution. Nobody should be teaching any theory as fact and that is what creationism is...a theory not fact, but so is evolution...it is a theory not a fact. Maybe we should all actually start teaching things as they really are instead of twisting evidence to suit our own cause

I have just heard Sam Scott Perry - how absolutely wonderful to hear a voice speaking truth for a change - pure, simple, unadulterated truth. If only more of us had such revalation and foundations, the world would be clear in its beliefs and not tossed about by every wind of doctrine. Altogether a far better place.

Thank you Mr Scott Perry.

Stephen I agree once people believe in Creationism nothing will dissuade them.
At times it's hard to believe that the vast majority of people who hold those views are Christians.

No, definitely not.

No creationist should be allowed anywhere near a school, nor should anyone else with ridiculous, extreme and patently untrue ideas to peddle.

A BIG NO from me!

No.....and neither should Darwinism!

As long as religion is taught in schools creationism should be taught.

No, not unless it's taught as a 'story' alongside other stories such as creation myths from around the world. It's funny how when one person suffers delusion it's called madness, but when lots of people do it's called religion!

I would say No even though I am not a believer, the Bible was written thousands of years ago using what was at the time probably the latest theory for how the world was created. Now the big bang theory is cutting edge science, so surely the creationists should simply accept that, God could still have a choice but ultimately faith cannot be taught.

Creationism, as well as evolutionism, is based on beliefs. So YES, creationism should be taught in school and parents should chose whether their child should attend a "creationism" or "evolutionism" based science class.

Kids should not be taught :-

1) Creationism
2) That their parents religion is the best and all others are evil.
3) 2 + 2 = 5
4) The capital of France is Timbuktoo

I find Stephen Law's comments rather disturbing. If believing in creationism is akin to displaying the symptoms of mental illness, does he think creationists should be prescribed drugs to treat their aberrant thoughts or locked up for public safety? There is a totalitarian flavour to secularism that is really quite alarming for those of us who value freedom and tolerance.

I believe that Religious Education should be taught in school, because everybody should be taught about other ideas/ opinions and ways of life. It is then up to the individual whether they believe the knowledge or not.

just in case anyone, as i'm sure they where, offended by Stephen law saying that anyone holding a religious view of creation holds symptoms of a mental illness- it seems to be based on Freud's theories and we too know many of them to be just as ridiculous. I'm a atheist and i still found it a little annoying. creationism should not be taught in science lessons because science is based on rationalism( demanding logical explanations) and religion is not. creationism should be taught by priests! NOT teachers. But let us not condemn religion as he has.

Shocking, that a philosopher could be so closed minded! Ok, it's not science, but delusional and a mental health issue... really?? -watch out, serious arrogance about! This is a dangerous mentality akin with anti Semitism! As a teacher i'd never ever disrepect my pupils and their families by saying that!

What!And he teaches evolution as fact ? Now there is a lie ! Evolution has been proved wrong on every available angle and yet it is still taught as fact, now that is very wrong. True science will always prove creation not dissprove it. I said true science, not this kind of psudeo science that denies the facts that creation is written into the very fabric of the universe.

Of course they should, the big big is just a theory. they can't prove it really happened.

I completely agree with all that was said. I have no issue with individuals having whatever views they wish, and even expressing them. I draw the line at teaching those views to our youngsters as fact when they clearly are untrue. I would even worry if a science teacher held such views. I guess its ok provided s/he never taught those views and the curriculum never has such untruths.

Not just creationism but religion. Teaching schoolchildren religion is a form of brainwashing and should be banned, children tend to take what they are told at school as the truth. Religion could be introduced when they are old enough to form their own opinion.

The creationism that Stephen Law briefly describes to us is not the only theory held by creationists. If science and maths is so obvious in nature, then why cant God be a brilliant scientist and mathematician! What God can do in 6 days can still be perfect scientisfic evolution from a hydrogen particle to man and beyond. It's God after all!

No, most definitely not. Historically, Creationism was a reaction amongst a small minority of Christians as a reaction to Darwin's works. We should take the Bible's description of the Creation of the World no more literally than we should "take an eye for an eye". It should, therefore, have no place in education as it preaches blind literal acceptance over scholarly interpretation, analysis and thought.

this guy's lived to long in books.....no real life then,,,,,

so my ansestor is a piece of sludge... give my life a new sense of purpose

Interesting. I believe in creation and I am certainly not closed minded. I find it rather strange that 'Creationist's' believe the earth is only 6000 years old. The bible does not say this. The creation of the earth and the universe happen at the beginning of the book of Genesis... which happen before the creative days start (Gen 1:1,2 - 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. - NIV).. The universe is billions of years old... our earth is certainly billions of years old... where did this idea of 6000 years come from? Even the creative days don't have to be 24 hours... it's an expression... "in my grandfathers day"... your grandfather lived for more than one day... it was a period of time... a period of activity. Why do people take things so literally and so out of context?

Stephen, you're a ledge. You eloquently put the facts on the table for the socially insecure masses, who can not handle the fact that we are mere microbes & organisms in time (very short space in time). And that is that! I do subscribe to the British Humanist Association, I'm not anti god, I'm a realist. Many Thanks, Luke.

Evolution is not fact, it is a theory, most scientists would agree that themself. It is a set of beliefs based in interpretation of evidence, but the same evidence can be interpreted differently, wake up and actually look into it yourself rather than re gurgitating what you were taught at school and the crap on the tv!

Oh my goodness there are a lot of brain washed people making comments on this one! I challenge each one of you to examine your own beliefs on the origins of the world. Evolution and millions of years is also a belief system, almost a religion in itself. Think about what science is, the observation and testing of a theory to prove or disprove it, no one was there at the start so it cannot be observed neither can it be replicated, although amazingly people seem to be trying, I will eat my bible if they succeed. There are scientists world wide who believe in a young earth and there is evidence to support it it just isn't given air time unlike the opposing views which frustrates me. I am not a scientist but if you are actually interested in seeking the truth to weigh up both sides which most intellectuals would allow themselves to do look up the answers in genesis to see what scientists say.
I am in my thirties and was taught millions of years and ape to man at school, but in my twenties, looked into the scientific evidence for both sides of the debate and now truly believe the earth to be young and am confirmed that god created us - I have a reason to live, a hope for the future and when I die and for my children do you?

Why not teach several creation myths? They are great stories after all. Perhaps teachers should have their sanity tested before they teach, but isn't any form of belief which lacks, or contradicts, evidence a symptom of insanity?

I object to Stephen Laws anti catholic introduction to this programme.
I would call it veiled sectarianism. His presentation was particularly
Pompous but lacked authenticity. Back to the drawing board Stephen.

If only people could examine this issue in an unbiased way. If they could bring themselves to and understand what real science is they will find themselves very disappointed by Stephen Law's film. Unfortunately we're brainwashed from birth with evolution and to question this theory makes you mentally ill!! Utterly unbelievable. Shame on him. Don't listen to this man or anyone else; do the research and go on the journey I did. You'll find the actual scientific evidence directs an intellectually honest person to, at the very least, accept evolution is impossible.

There is EVIDENCE aplenty to prove countless conspiracies - erm, Richard Nixon, anyone - d'oh.

Anti-conspiracy theorists might as well JOIN creationists.

Both believe nonsense unquestioningly.

I disagree with everyone here, i believe that the stories of genesis have a place in our schools. After all, do we not tell our children about Santa and how in the middle of the night he will visit our home and leave gifts under the tree? Do we now have to get rid of that warming tale so as not to confuse our children about facts? Tell you what, lets get rid of all fictional stories just so kids grow up knowing nothing about fantasy and fill them with facts. What a boring childhood they will have.Please, give our kids some credit. It's not a question of weather we should teach them about creation, but when, how, why, and most of all, add all the different theories of how we were made, and add all the other religions as well. After all, that's what this is really about, the guy was putting down religion. If people chose to believe in a religion then that's ok, it's fine to believe in something that makes your life a little brighter. If it makes you feel good inside and doesn't hurt anyone else then whats the harm in it? At the same time it's good to teach modern theories on evolution and how the universe was made. The bottom line is that we should give our children all the information available to give THEM the chance to make their own decisions on creationism, religion and modern science. Not to do so would be to brainwash them to believe in what YOU believe in without giving them the freedom of choice to make their own decisions, and as a responsible father that wants the best for my children, i refuse to suppress that one given right that we all have.

Stephen, like so many others on his side of the argument do little to help their cause by using extreme and basically offensive language. Harsh words used not in order not to advance the correctness of their own views, but to denigrate and demean the intellect of the opposition. Such tactics I'm afraid, are the resort of someone not entirely convinced that the other side may have no validity, but fearful of the implications should such opinions, indeed, prove to contain some scientific integrity. To introduce the concept of 'mental illness' to the argument was not simply a cheap shot, it was a statement laced with pathetic vitriol and a very obvious own goal.

How can people think creationism should be taught in schools when it isn't even possible to hold an educated conversation with people with these beliefs? It isn't bordering on sic-fi or fiction, it is fiction. It is completley ludicrous to me that anybody who can block out fact from their life, not question their beliefs or seek out answers to questions are allowed anywhere near the education system.
We are suppose to be Intelligent life forms, we have incredible technology at our finger tips but yet for the sake of 'equal opportunities' or whatever it is, the terrifying thought of pissing some people off, we are to bow down to a group of uneducated people with their fingers in their ears singing "la la la la" and let them have an impact on our children to try and brain wash their minds into believing that if you say something over and over that it becomes true!
If we don't take a hold on our education system and nip this ridiculous idea in the bud now, then who knows what 'theories' people will be debating a out including in our schools in the future.
Maybe I will start insisting the Easter bunny is real and if anyone tries to tell me different "la la la la la la"

Is it Creation Or Evolution? Does Science and Faith co-exist? Does Science explain everything? Could Science have been Created? Can Faith be disproved? Is it easier to explain to a child that we came from monkeys? Does Creationism deny Evolution? Why not teach both theories objectively and let the child decide?

I agree with what Stephen says. My view is that Creationism should NOT be taught in schools as it is quite simply just NOT TRUE. It could be examined as an example of a thought system that we know to be false but that some people do believe in - like astrology, flat earth, voodoo etc. I also believe that religion should not be taught in schools. It is a personal choice to believe in a god - but is not based on fact. We should only teaching children and young peple what we know to be true, based on evidence.

I agree with what Stephen says. My view is that Creationism should NOT be taught in schools as it is quite simply just NOT TRUE. It could be examined as an example of a thought system that we know to be false but that some people do believe in - like astrology, flat earth, voodoo etc. I also believe that religion should not be taught in schools. It is a personal choice to believe in a god - but is not based on fact. We should only teaching children and young peple what we know to be true, based on evidence.

I am in agreement with Stephen Law. Creationism should not be taught in our schools as a 'scientific theory'. However, I do feel it should be mentioned in religious studies, philosophy or politics/social studies, alongside other 'belief systems/indoctrinations' that are taught by many religions. The danger of engaging with 'religious' sects should also be addressed, so that children are aware of how society can be manipulated by religious doctrine. This should not be limited to minority 'sects' but studies should include the devastation that popular religions have brought to this world, which is rarely addressed. Tribal/mythic 'Gods', fairies, and Father Christmas etc. will always have an appeal to some, but we live in the 21st Century, lets give our children the 'facts', about myths, legends and religious rhetoric, so that they may make informed choices for their future, and the peaceful evolution of our world.
JCB - Teacher/Social Worker

Creationism should be taught in schools if proven by evidence and the scientific method.

Stephen Laws comments were insulting. How dare he say that people who don't believe in evolution are mentally ill. This would have to include thousands of scientists who now reject the theory, which, incidentally, has not been proved. It's evolutionists like him who are so locked into their belief system that they can't escape!
What a difference between Sam Scott Perry's calm unemotional presentation and Stephen Laws' illogical tirade!

Well this is an interesting debate, but it seems some people are just putting forward narrow minded views. For me personally, I am a Christian but I also believe in evolution. I perceive it as a process guided by design. This some of you may claim is contradictory, but every opinion is open to scrutiny.

However to the crux of the matter, surely is it not possible for both theories to be taught in schools? Yes they are both in direct confliction with one another, but is not possible for the issue to be dealt, well at Primary school level at least, with the discretion of the parent. If a parent desires their child to be brought up under the creationist theory, then so be and vice versa for the evolutionist theory.

Ultimately, unless the child has a brain no different to a cabbage, I am sure they will have their own opinions on the matter eventually. If they were taught both theories, leave it to them to decide for themselves. Why is it so criminal for a child to believe in creationism? Surely for an atheist it is no more than academic? Perhaps some may disagree with that, as I have often been faced with the argument that Christianity leads to production of dogmatic bigots. In some cases this is true, but this is no different to the way some atheists approach Christians. I feel this is now turning into a rant so will conclude briefly, surely both theories can be taught in schools and I pledge that it should be the child’s choice to decide for themselves. As statistics demonstrate, despite creationism being currently taught in schools, atheism is still the more popular choice. Therefore, in one’s opinion, any change to the current system is unnecessary and this is no more than an academic debate, which is interesting, but irrelevant.

To put it another way, if I went to court to fight a case with absolutely no evidence It would not be thrown out.

I agree with those who are unhappy about Stephen Law’s comment about those who believe in Young Earth Creationism being like those suffering from mental illness. However to talk about them being intellectual prisoners is better because once someone believes something as part of their faith it is almost impossible for them not to believe it while keeping their faith.

I think there is a difference between questioning evolution theory and teaching Young Earth Creationism or a literal Genesis Creationism. I don’t think anything about God should be taught in science lessons because I don’t believe anyone believes there is proof that God exists (it is a matter of faith not scientific method). If a case can be made out that evolution is wrong then that case could be taught and tested in science lessons.

Proponents of creationism are not engaging in a scientific debate, but a theological debate, so there is no room for creationsism in a science curriculum at schools and people should not engage them on scietific terms. It is devoid of any intellectual content so I don't think it should even be included in comparative religion or philosophy.
However I would also like to challenge science being taught as a religious belief in schools. While I believe that evolution is a purely natural phenomenon, I don't for one moment believe that we have a solid scientific basis for teaching Darwinism any more than we have a basis for teaching the multiple universe theory of quantum mechanics or the existence of dark matter as an established scientific fact. If we don't know the ultimate mechanism and we have not proven it consistent with the requirements of the scientific method, then it is not a FACT. That little ditty seems to have been overlooked after Newton and Einstein and other great scientists.

Stephen Law refers to teaching creationism as the problem of "teaching facts but knowing them not to be true". This suggest he is making a fundamental mistake about the creationist approach to science and also about the nature of science education. In brief, creationists are not setting out to brainwash children with dogma, but are seeking to show that the evidences of biology, geology and astronomy need to be analysed and evaluated critically using different conceptual models. What Stephen calls "facts" are uncontroversial - the differences come in the interpretations given to those facts. The first thing students should be able to do is to critically analyse the dominant interpretative framework - which is the Darwinian version of Earth history. Far too often, students are brainwashed into thinking that Darwinism is vindicated as the explanation of the origin of biological complexity and the key to understanding common descent from the first cell. The evidence that education about evolution is not in a healthy state is that very few students appear to be able to give reasoned objections to Darwinism. The merit of creationism in science classrooms is that it provides an informed, reasoned alternative set of hypotheses against which the evidence can be assessed. This is called "Teaching the controversy" - and just like in physics and chemistry, the teacher is not required to uphold any or all of the alternatives. The task of the teacher is to help students learn by testing hypotheses and drawing conclusions. This should be done in a non-confrontational way - so talk of creationism being "pernicious scientific nonsense" is completely out of place in any educational setting.

I personally believe that science and religion should work together. Look around you - do you really think all this appeared accidentally? Can you not see the amazing harmony and balance of nature? What about our feelings and creative nature? Why are we different than animals, why are we not just like any other animal? The mere fact that we wonder where do we come from is already a sign that we haven't just evolved out of monkeys. Why do we care where do we come from? If science and religion worked alongside, we would have had many more logical answers to our questions. As you can tell, I am a Christian and I believe in creation. I want to teach my children in creationism. Therefore I do not want the school to reinforce any other beliefs on them. Evolutionism is just another belief.

Stephen Law said that no-one gets out of being a creationist but I am delighted to say that I did! Being forced to believe things that I didn't agree with made me as miserable as ell and I felt like a prisoner in a system that didn't work for me and felt like an insult to not only my intellect and artistic mind (I'm a writer), but also my spirituality. I left a fundamentalist church a year ago and for the first six months was terrified I had condemned myself to hell for doing so; but the peace, freedom and enlightenment I've been feeling in the last few months feels to me the way God is supposed to feel and I cannot argue more about just how WRONG fundamentalist religion is. No, it most definitely NOT should be taught in schools as it is a blatant lie, completely false and encourages nothing but closed minded blindness and dark fear. If I could press a button to rid the world of religious fundamentalism, I would.
Yours in freedom, Katie Ridley. x

Creationists need to understand that their claims are regarded as utter nonsense by almost everyone, including most religious people. When they continually make easily disproven claims and worse, blatantly lie, they not only sully their own reputations, they call their entire belief system into question - the entire religion.

I can't believe people would even consider teaching this in england... what next, that the earth is flat?

There is nothing wrong with having questions about the universe, admitting we don't have all the answers yet, especially to moral issues and feelings and even sometimes being open to ideas of things beyond our perception.

But creationism has no evidence to support it beyond testimony. It would be unethical to teach it as if it had as much weight as evolution. Evolution is a theory yes in the sense nothing can be totally proved 100% we could all be head's in jars halluncinating but as far as we can investigate into this world evolution is very very close to brute fact. The evidence is overwhelming at it grows and grows and grows.

Creationism has had nothing more to support to teach it would be motivated simply by those wishing to market religious views which is really unethical. I don't think lying to convert is something any truly good being would approve of. If you need to brainwash others to justify your faith you must had very little trust in it yourself.

Evolution and science does not need negate god or gods so why be so petty. To teach it would be ridiculous and a lie. Its also not far you would have to tecah every theory of creation why just a christian one. If we were to teach just a christian one surely that is religious propaganda not letting people make up their own minds, the motives are clear and selfish.

ALso th ethics of the bible are highly suspect in places you can have the core principles of love thy neighbour and treat each other with respect without teaching the science of the bible and you cannot trust the science of the bible why the hell would that make the morality more appealing. This kind of logic doesn't work for a science student you are very stupid and frankly thats a level science its just parroting back facts at university i hope your mind is opened. Perhaps just a philosophy and logic course and see how warped your premises are.

I must admit I feel very threatened by this.

Dear Channel 4

In relation to the Stephen Law 4 Thought online production...

Can you please remove 1 count of 'thumbs-down' and add it to the 'thumbs-up' as I clicked on this by mistake, I was under the belief that the link from Google was about the current 4 Thought programme - Mon 21 Nov 2011 - Sam Scott Perry's view that creationism should be taught in schools...

We might as well teach children the complete Harry Potter stories as fact, as this creationist idea is also based on a work of fiction, namely the bible, with no factual scientific grounding.

I firmly agree with the views of Stephen Law.

P.S Channel 4 web developers - maybe you could create your feedback/voting buttons like the old html radio buttons - i.e. selection choice on/off - an oversight on your part to get a true voting system ;)

How can someone, clearly with some intelligence, studying biology with the indisputable FACTS in front of them be so outrageously shortsighted as to believe the bibles theory on the creation of life? Personally I think that is an education wasted. It worried me immensely that creationism is so widely taught in the USA. It is a total disrespect to the geniuses who, rather than accepted the tripe, written by man in an age of very limited knowledge/ intelligence, had the enterprise to ask why, how and when? I think this guy should have his degree annulled.

Is this guy for real, "so it's logical" because the bible says so. I wouldn't trust this guy to discover his own hand (was going to use another part of the anatomy) that'll own anything of scientific significance or value. On the other hand I have no qualms with creationism being taught as a religious concept along with Norse, Greek, pagan and other philosophies of religious belief, but the distinction has to be made between that which can be proven by physical evidence and that which cannot, and in actuality can be disproved based on the physical evidence.

So Sam Scott Perry, aged 18, _believes_ that dinosaurs lived at the same time as men, who were created from dust -- because the Bible says so. Was this programme deliberately scheduled before Stephen Hawking? Sam should try asking ANY of the contributors to that programme what they think of his beliefs, which fly in the face of all modern scientific knowledge, backed up not by belief but by solid facts and evidence. . .

Unless an idea has a scientific basis. It should not be taught as a science.
it rminds me of when it was crime not to accept that the sun went round the earth.

The creationists tell us that their god designed and created all living things.

I would be interested to hear their explanation as to why a "loving and forgiving" god would create measles, cholera, malaria, plague, flu, MRSA, C Difficile etc - they are all living organisms too.

I totally disagree with your views. I believe in creation as well as science.God created the world(not in 6 days) and everything in it.God expects mankind to discover all the things that exists in the world that He created and that's where the scientists, the aecheologist and explorers come in.You cannot believe in the created things and not in the creator.Science is not without flaws. I do not believe we came from monkeys and trees. Now that is absurd and foolish.

For those of you still languishing in the fundamental dead-end of what 'theory' actually means...

With regards to evolution (and science in general) a theory is "...a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Pedagogical_definition, http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html)

Compare with atomic theory, heliocentric theory or gravitational theory.

Well put Mr Law. To be fair it should be included in the school curriculum as a part of the RE module of a humanities subject because frankly RE doesn't even deserve it's own subject.

Incoherent tosh.

Science has produced modern medicine, spaceflight, computers, cars, trains, telecommunications, genetic engineering etc. It has allowed us to transplant the heart of one person into another, to send probes to almost every planet in the solar system, to speak to a person on the other side of the world instantaneously, to fly higher and faster than any bird and go deeper into the ocean than any whale.

Creationism has produced... what, exactly?

Stepen Law uses the old argument of ridicule and scorn to promote his view.
I could use exactly the same words to attack evolutionists as, in fact, science cannot 'prove' evolution. Where did the first nano particle come from? Where is the experiment that shows how life began? What mechanism allows something to grow extra pieces, e.g an arm, when there is no information within its genes to allow it to do so.
With more space many other like questions could be asked

Why does neither Mr Law nor any of the other speakers bother to define what they mean by creationism?? One can believe in a God who is the Creator of all that is without this entailing a literal interpretation of the opening chapter of Genesis. Evolution may explain at least in part the development of life, but cannot explain its origin. This demands the existence of God, and schoolchildren should not be denied this information.

everytime mr law mentions creation in the film he should instead say evolution. it is only a theory.

Letitia
"This is the kind of thing that natural selection does; it does not, and cannot, create anything new." That is a faith statement - because you are ignoring mutations when making it.

Many extinctions happened millions or hundreds of thousands of years' ago - before the 'Fall'. The dinosaurs being one example.

"So creationism would predict that eventually coding will be discovered in the cell which sets the boundary which the variation cannot pass. This will not be found at the species level but at a higher level of classification, probably the genus or even the family level."

No doubt the vindicating of this prediction will be widely reported when it happens.

I guess my scepticism about this must result from me wearing the 'wrong' spectacles.

"Only a theory"? Well, yes ALL scientific theories are "only theories", which is why they're called theories. And ALL scientific theories are defeasible, which means that they they can be defeated by a better theory. But note the word "better" - it does not apply to any old rubbish dreamed up by a few religious nutters. Thus Einstein's "only a theory" of gravitation replaced Newton's "only a theory" of gravitation. That is because Einsteins "only a theory" accounts for the facts better than Newton's "only a theory" not because Einstein found it in some supposedly infallible ancient fairy tale.

No. Creationism is a myth, God is a myth, we should not teach creationism in schools. You cannot just say that something is so just by saying it, you must have proof to back it up. Saying that creationism is the origin of life cannot be backed up with anything, it is purely a belief. In today's society, fact is is much stronger that belief. It's not that we can prove that evolution to be correct, but more that we can prove that creationism is incorrect.

No to creationism in schools, its not science. Creationists violates the first rule of science, the rule of methodological materialism, also violating the second rule — that of being willing to change or reject one’s explanation based on good evidence to the contrary. This is most clearly revealed by the creationist treatment of empirical data. Now, the problem is not that creationists sift through the scientific literature to find data that support creationism. Scientists do seek confirming data (in the real world, as well as in the literature). But creationists ignore evidence that disconfirms their view, because they are not willing to change their explanations in the light of new data or theory. Therefore creationists have no concept of science! Its not science, so it has no business in schools.

Interesting that by simply reading these comments every word of Stephen's is confirmed.

If we were designed by a higher intelligence, then why did they give us an appendix and wisdom teeth which can kill us? Why did they give us the back of a quadruped instead of an erect biped, with all the problems that creates? Why are a near majority of men born with hernias which can kill them in the end? Why do we have a vestigial tailbone? Why do we breath and eat throw the same tube, putting us at the risk of choking to death? Why does almost everyone become short-sighted eventually, if they weren't born that way? Why is there a blind spot in the human eye? Why is the knee so fragile?

Sounds like your higher intelligence is either incompetent or malign.

No matter how angry this would make any Christian, G-d is far more angrier and jealous at such actions. Complete rejection of Himself as Creator is one of the things He specifically hates the most. He will hold these people in derision and laugh at them. Fear Him who can kill your soul and forever remove Himself from you.

Biology is science. Evolution is a belief. We all in a belief of the origin of life except the agnostics who cares for nothing. Creationism has been taught from ancient time until evolution theory brain washed our new generations in public schools. This professor needs to see how evolutionist interpreted the theory by faith.

Why does this guy keep showing me video of him staring at me in the middle of his rant? Creepy.

Absurd, pernicious, mentally ill? For those of us that "philosophically" try to grasp that nothing from nowhere, suddenly became something from somewhere, and then began to spin or move to progress over millions of years guided by a non-existent "entity",from the very simple to immensely complex? Absurd to not notice there are 0,none,in-between species(missing links) that would support this grande theory? Absurd, to not notice that the direct opposite is true in nature, the complex break down to the simple? Isaac Newton, did you know you were mentally ill? As Groucho Marx stated, this gentleman asks the same."who you gonna believe, me, or your own baby-blue eyes? "The heavens declare the glory on God: and the firmament sheweth His handiwork, day unto day 'uttereth speech', night unto night 'sheweth knowledge'"Ps.19:1,2.

Hahahaha..... Wow, just thinking as I watch this that it is exactly what they do with evolution...wanting to teach it as fact when in essence it is just a theory. Yet that is acceptable to do. This was tooo funny.

You think young earth is false but we believe that the earth came from a blob or an astroid or the big bang theory.. There is so many myths on how the earth was formed and the only one that truly makes sense is the young earth theory.. How odd that he says it's nonsense but EVERYTHING that is taught in schools is fake. You can petrify a piece of wood in just a few yrs. You don't need billions. THere is no factual proof that the earth is billions of years old, let alone millions. It's all a theory and it's being pumped into our children's heads as facts which it is not!

Evolution of molecules to man and the age of the Earth are not scientific because they can't use the scientific method for them. They can't repeat it or observe it. They can't even test it. Why? Because they can only guess at the conditions in the past. They can't know what they were like.

No evidence for creation? We all have the same evidence. Evidence does not tell us anything. Scientists do and there is a growing amount of evidence pointing to ID being the best conclusion.

Evolution (molecules to man)is an outdated theory that is losing ground every day as we discover more and more about nature. The Big Bang has to be completely redone because what we see does not fit the theory. All these things are stifling real science break throughs because they look at things with a boxed in mindset.

I don't think creation or evolution should be taught in schools. Science can make discoveries and learn facts without any sort of world view presumption clouding new discoveries.

From a personal opinion, all approaches should be considered. There is a constant feud between religions that should be extinguished.Children are not just programmable robots that we can just alter as we please. They are human beings.
Scientists believe the Big Bang is fact, while Christians believe that creationism as fact. The reality is, side by side they are both logical. And who is to truly say either is wrong? Scientists do not have the ability to prove God does not exist by pure facts, and Christians do not have the ability to prove God did not use evolution and the big bang as tools to create the universe as it is today. God has a 50% chance of yes or no, and the chance of evolution even beginning is 1:10^40 (Fred Hoyle), BOTH are scientifically possible, so why aren't BOTH taught on equal levels? What started time and made the perfect force of energy and gravity begin? And how, exactly, did God create the universe (Genesis 2:7)? It is only possible to achieve the truth, whatever it may be, by having an open mind. That is what children need to be taught. to have an understanding of what is out there and their own personal convictions of it. We wouldn't be preaching to the children, we would be making them aware of what is or may be. Opinions should be shared, not taught.
I believe in God, because it scientifically makes more sense to me (I was an atheist most of my life until my realization) but that doesn't mean I would force my children to believe the same thing. The beginning of higher understanding is open ears.
We only ridicule ourselves and display hypocrisy by arguing, then continuing to draw the future generations into it. Religion does not tear society apart, the absence of respect and open minds do. We should replace our daggers with handshakes. However, this is all just my opinion.

Evolution is a theory that has never been proven. People try to push God out of the equation therefore can't accept Creationism. If Creationists are willing for evolution to be presented as well and people make up there own minds, why aren't evolutionists? I propose it's because they are scared not all will see their way of thinking!

What an extraordinary number of ill informed responses. The Biblical account, written many thousands of years ago, places in order the process by which man appeared on earth from the time of stellar dust to the time of man becoming sentient. Chronologically this exactly agrees with the scientific discoveries. Both the Bible and science agree that, at a point in time, two sentient hominids bred true and their offspring were born sentient, thus we name them Adam and Eve. So the only technical argument is about the word "day". The suggestion that Chrisians believe the world is only four and a half thousand years old is wrong, this was simply one Bishop who added up all the "begats" and multiplied by thirty. In that Stephen was so badly wrong in his tirade it begs the question "why"? Maybe his arrogance has made him bitter against the humble? Science does not hold the answer to the yearning of our hearts and never will. It is a fundamental part of our sentient nature to find the answer to "why are we here, who are we and what is our purpose"? We all have a right to explore those questions, the questions that science cannot and will never be able to answer by its very nature. The freedom of thought is essential to the wellbeing of our minds and our children should be given access to alternative views for them to develop their own views. Only in a totalitarian state do you belittle the views of others Stephen, think on that.

Andy wrote in response to me:
"You have no evidence of any kind to back up any story about the Christian god." You're dead wrong, Andy! The life, death and resurrection of Jesus is a fact of history. Many sceptics have tried to disprove it, and some, finding the evidence stacks up, have become Christian believers as a result.
Of course, you are free to investigate the evidence for yourself, including the record of witnesses who were actually there. If you can refute it, then maybe you will become rich and famous! However, it just not good enough to wave your arms and dismiss claims unless you have sound logical reasons for rejecting them. Just saying "it's not true because God doesn't exist" is just a cop-out, and an easy way of avoiding rational debate.

Emotional language, arbitrary asertions, and false premises. If special creation is so patently unscientific, why all the fuss? Truth has nothing to fear - in the end it always prevails. As far as I'm concerned indoctrination is the withholding of information that contridicts (in this case)the state sponsored (if you have your way) worldview of naturalism. Special creation and naturalism are both possible models of origins. They can't both be true and neither can be "proved" scientifically. To adopt one or the other requires faith. For far too long naturalists/evolutionists have gotten a pass when it comes to observations in science that contridict their presuppositions. While both sides can and do come up with rescueing devices to prop up their worldview, establishment academia is heavely biased and isn't interested in acknowledging competing models. Because, in the words of Richard Lewontin, "we cannot allow a devine foot in the door". That's the crux of the matter. It is ultimately a worldview issue and your worldview is shaped by your presuppositions. We all presuppose things like the basic reliability of our senses and memories, the laws of logic, and induction. These are foundational truth claims necessary for reasoning. These things make sence in a Biblical worldview. Even though a creationist must use them in arguing for them, he can justify them after the fact. A naturalist, though, assumes them arbitrarily (without rational justification). For this reason alone, creationist models should be taught in school. Teach it all and teach kids logic and how to think as opposed to what to think.

Surely there must be more to this world than we know to be fact. I am studying philosophy and I have studied this specific case. A school in Dover Pennsylvania had the same issue. But how are we to know and teach our children that evolution is fact and not a theory, we should teach children the truth. There are other theories out there and it is for them to make their own choice in the world of what to believe, whether it is an intellegent designer or evolution. So I feel that we should allow for people to make up their own decisions like you or I.

It is a ridiculous premise on its face. An example of the suspension of reason to support faith based assumptions of reality. It is in essence a nonsensical myth. At least they are not advocating the suppression of the views that are supported by science, and observation, uh....never mind.

This man is incredibly irrational.

Never ever! Those that think evolution is only a theory really need to pick up more books. It is a FACT. Religion or faith has no place in education being no different to cult teachings. Thankfully science is disolving religion as less and less people accept it as truth and factual history.