Skip to main content
article icon

Fundamentalist exams on a par with A-levels

News | Published in TES Newspaper on 31 July, 2009 | By: Michael Shaw

Evangelical course that treats Nessie as fact endorsed by government agency

Exams for an Evangelical Christian curriculum in which pupils have been taught that the Loch Ness monster disproves evolution and racial segregation is beneficial have been ruled equivalent to international A- levels by a UK government agency.

The National Recognition Information Centre (Naric), which guides universities and employers on the validity of different qualifications, has judged the International Certificate of Christian Education (ICCE) officially comparable to qualifications offered by the Cambridge International exam board.

Hundreds of teenagers at around 50 private Christian schools in Britain study for the certificates, as well as several home-educated students.

The courses are based around the Accelerated Christian Education (ACE) programme, which originated in Texas in the 1970s. Pupils study a range of subjects, including science and English, but spend half their studies learning from Bible-influenced US textbooks, often in isolation from each other, Jonny Scaramanga, a music lecturer who attended an ACE school in Bath as a child, said he was astonished the courses were judged comparable to international A-levels and O-levels.

In a complaint to Naric, he provided examples of the material taught on the courses. These included claims in its science and history textbooks that:

  • the Loch Ness monster, which “appears to be a plesiosaur” from photographs, helps to disprove evolution;
  • apartheid was beneficial to South Africa; reasons include the claim that segregated schools “made it possible for each group to maintain and pass on their culture and heritage to their children”;
  • “unquestionable proofs” and “unarguable evidences” existed for creationism.

Mr Scaramanga said: “Those who challenge the explanations given in the materials are described as ‘godless’, ‘anti-biblical’, and ‘foolish’. There needs to be greater public awareness of what these schools tell students.”

The evangelical content of ACE courses taught in Britain and the US have attracted criticism over the past decade. The scientist Professor Richard Dawkins visited a London school which used the curriculum in 2006. He said he was appalled to learn that pupils were taught that Noah’s Ark was real and that Aids victims were sinners.

But Naric, which is funded by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, nevertheless carried out a “benchmarking exercise” on the ICCE last summer. It ruled that the course’s general certificate, which involves two to three years of study, should be compared to Cambridge International’s O-level at grades C to E; the intermediate certificate to the international O-level at grades A to B; and the advanced certificate to an international A-level.

In a statement on the decision in August 2008, Naric said: “The ICCE are delighted by the results of the project and we feel that this work also helps improve awareness and understanding of such international qualifications.”

Tim Buttress, Naric’s spokesman, told The TES that the agency’s role was to guide universities and employers on the “rigour” of qualifications, but investigating curriculum content was outside its remit.

“It’s like comparing an engineering degree at Luton University and Sheffield Hallam - the degrees are at the same level, but the content may be different,” he said.

However, Brenda Lewis, ICCE chief executive officer in the UK, said tNaric had examined the content. “We were taken aback by how thorough they were,” she said.

British teachers found ACE textbooks useful, she said, but sometimes pointed out comments they regarded as unreasonable to pupils.

Mrs Lewis had not noticed the Loch Ness monster claims, which she suggested may have been a “slip at the typewriter”, adding that the science curriculum had helped a student to gain a place to study natural sciences at Oxford University.

She also said she had never seen the apartheid claims, but stressed that British teachers would strongly challenge them.

Creationist creed

Are dinosaurs alive today? Scientists are becoming more convinced of their existence.

Have you heard of the ‘Loch Ness Monster’ in Scotland? ‘Nessie,’ for short has been recorded on sonar from a small submarine, described by eyewitnesses, and photographed by others. Nessie appears to be a plesiosaur.

Could a fish have developed into a dinosaur? As astonishing as it may seem, many evolutionists theorize that fish evolved into amphibians and amphibians into reptiles. This gradual change from fish to reptiles has no scientific basis. No transitional fossils have been or ever will be discovered because God created each type of fish, amphibian, and reptile as separate, unique animals. Any similarities that exist among them are due to the fact that one Master Craftsmen fashioned them all.”

Extract from Biology 1099, Accelerated Christian Education Inc. (1995).


Subscribe to the magazine

as yet unrated

Comment (198)

  • This simply will not do. The Government must step in and stop this abuse by religious nutjobs. We cannot afford to allow vested interests cripple young minds with such unadulterated nonsense.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    16:57
    31 July, 2009

    jaytee_555

  • I am horrified at the apparent authority that NAIRC appears to have garnered for itself. What outrageous humbug to claim that 'rigour' was the yardstick by which this ridiculous organisation rated the obviously blatantly creationist, fundamentalist religite quasi-educational course material submitted as the International Certificate of Christian Education (ICCE).

    How can Tim Buttress of NAIRC claim that his organisation doesn't rate content but only applies ‘rigour’ to the course content? What on earth does that mean? Words fail me - I am livid with anger. That unsuspecting people can take the findings and ratings of this obviously intellectually-challenged NAIRC and attempt to rely on them is awful in the extreme. For NAIRC to assess the ICCE on a par with international A-levels and the qualifications offered by the Cambridge International exam board is totally insulting to every educator who hasn’t got his/her head up some creationist back door.

    It is an intolerable situation and cannot be ignored any longer. It is time to mount a campaign to eradicate organisations like NAIRC from foisting utterly false assessments of so-called educational course materials on the public. There appears to be nothing anyone can do to eradicate the ridiculous religite creationist course content that passes for ‘education’ amongst the un- and under- educated.

    If people rely on this NAIRC rubbish then the UK educational standards will sink lower than they already are and the fundamentalists will have taken over the asylum that is this nation. That must not happen. Teaching tripe will not solve anything except to turn young brains to mush. It appears to be easier and easier to achieve this. Disgraceful!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    17:14
    31 July, 2009

    VeroniqueD

  • Why shouldn't evangelical Christians have the same rights as everyone else? Those who oppose what Christian schools are teaching are showing a spirit of persecution - shame on them!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    18:01
    31 July, 2009

    BobHutton

  • @BobHuttonI think better examples of persecution can be found in the "curriculumi" itself, don

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    19:00
    31 July, 2009

    bobbypates

  • Bob - if you cannot see that equating biblical fiction with scientifically evidenced education and calling it a science curriculum then you are one of the intellectually challenged people to whom I am referring.

    The Loch Ness monster is a fiction and cannot discredit a scientific theory that has an enormous and continuing growth in evidence to attest to the fact of evolution. The criticism here is to do with an apparent accrediting agency giving credence to a religious curriculum that purports to be educational rather than fictional.

    Creationism, in all its various frock coats, is no more than un-evidenced fantasy. It will never have any evidence to support it except for people's desire for it to be true. No one with a modicum of scientific education can reconcile religious fantasy with real science. It is just not possible.

    So, in answer to your implied if not rhetorical question, evangelicals, like the rest of us, can put up or shut up, especially in the field of education as distinct from indoctrination. They can't put up so they can shut up. No shame, no persecution, just intellectual honesty. Got it??

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    19:00
    31 July, 2009

    VeroniqueD

  • @BobHutton

    I think better examples of persecution can be found in the "curriculumi" itself, don't you? Or do you think that teaching children "people with AIDS are sinners" is reasonable?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    19:01
    31 July, 2009

    bobbypates

  • "Why shouldn't evangelical Christians have the same rights as everyone else?"

    You think that "everyone else" has the right to infiltrate our education system with their delusions, presented as fact to the young and largely gullible, and have such education placed on a par with PROPER education? I think not.

    Of course, you yourself would be perfectly fine should the Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists start campaigning for bits in the science curriculum on reincarnation - or the Muslims trying to get bits in textbooks attesting to Mohammad's prophethood, or whatever.

    This would be farce except that it is missing a crucial component: It's not at all funny.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    20:26
    31 July, 2009

    lordpasternack

  • Bob Hutton - Read "The Crucible" my friend.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    22:07
    31 July, 2009

    berniebarclay

  • The extreme reaction to my comments is evidence that persecution of evangelical Christians is on the increase; but God's word will prevail - people have tried before to eradicate the truth but to no avail. As far as the fact of creationism is concerned I would suggest a study of the "Answers in Genesis" web site.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    22:13
    31 July, 2009

    BobHutton

  • Bob - I might have guessed that you yourself was a religite and, obviously from your latest comment, a YEC. That is, you have traded rationality and your intelligence for unquestioning 'faith'. Well done. There is no point talking to you. You have sequestered your brain somewhere where the sun don't shine.

    The reactions to your comments were not so much extreme and persecutory as unbelieving that anyone in the 21st century could adhere to a doctrine written by un-educated and primitive desert dwellers without the knowledge available today. I am in utter amazement that people like you still exist in a post-modern society. That's all.

    The only way to address the tales that are written, changed, re-written and translated and then re-translated and held to be real in the bible is to ridicule the disingenuous belief espoused by its unthinking adherents.

    Answers in Genesis??? You have to be joking!! Ken Ham is one of the biggest charlatans Australia has ever produced and he had to get out of Queensland quick smart. He couldn't make enough money there because the Aussies aren't as gullible as he would have liked. The yanks are though, hahahahaha. As are you, Bob. I think you are all a very sad bunch. Try growing up and thinking for yourself. It's a very satisfying way to live and it's real, not based on fantasy and desire.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    22:58
    31 July, 2009

    VeroniqueD

  • Unfortunately comparing things with 'universities' such as Luton (now Bedfordshire) is no good not all universities are good and not all degrees are equal - despite what some dishonest vice chancellors say.

    Whilst I know nothing about the value of courses at the institutions slated above I do know that some exams that I invigilated whilst I was a manager at Luton would make A’levels seem far to hard!

    Successive governments over the last 20 years have all but destroyed the excellent higher education that was restricted to the few and replaced it with a watered down experience ‘on the cheap’.

    If you want to find out what university courses are like take a look at their examinations, mark schemes and preferably real scripts.

    As a life long educator who has taught on both sides of the still existing ‘binary divide’ I know some of the tricks that the likes of Luton got up to, to improve their standing in the league tables.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    0:12
    1 August, 2009

    alfred_vella

  • @ Bob Hutton

    "people have tried before to eradicate the truth but to no avail."

    You're absolutely right, Bob. There will always be those so blinded by their own prejudices that they will seek to discredit and destroy the truth. Just look what they did to Galileo . . .

    Here's the deal - and I'll try not to use too many big words because I know you fundamentalist types don't appreciate learning - the argument is not about belief. You CAN believe what you want, however demonstrably false, ridiculous, archaic and/or ethically abhorrent. What you CAN'T do is to present those beliefs as scientific fact to be held in the same respect as the empirically-backed learning it has take the human race thousands of years of observation, experimentation and critical thinking to develop.

    Oh dear. I seem to have lapsed into polysyllables - my apologies; it's almost inevitable when one has an intellect (you'll need to take that on faith, obviously). Let me see if I can boil this down to a sound byte for you:

    If your religion decrees that you must believe that 2 + 2 = 5, then you are free to believe that and live your life by it. I wouldn't like to have to do your tax, but I hope it works for you. However, if you attempt to take that rubbish into our children's maths class, then we have a problem - and THIS is what the outage is about. Not your beliefs, but the attempt to have them accorded the same level of scientific respect as REAL education.

    Here endeth the lesson.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    8:53
    1 August, 2009

    Nashmeister

  • I know people who are scientists and have a strong belief in creation and so on - for example Professor Andy Macintosh. This man has a briliant mind and can argue scientifically for creation. On another note - the evidence for the resurrection of Christ is stronger than that often accepted in court for a verdict. However, despite the clear evidence for creation and the truths of the Christian faith you will not believe unless God, in His mercy, decides to open your eyes. If He choses to leave you in your blindness then you will face the eternal consequences of your rebellion against Him when you die.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    9:05
    1 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • So who decides what our children should be taught? In a multicultural society with beliefs based on many different presuppositions perhaps we should have a kind of "soup" of education - some based on your belief, some on mine, some on my neightbour's, some on yours neighbour's, or is it best if we all accept our utter ignorance with regard to education and unquestioningly and gratefully leave the education of our children to the experts. After all they must know better than we what is the right thing to teach our children - they are the elect few who have been endowed with common sense while the rest of us flounder in ignorance and after giving birth to our children should take upon ourselves no more responsibility for our children excpept to feed them, clothe them, shelter them and make sure they get to the right place at the right time to be taught what the experts deem necessary.
    I confess to being astounded at the suggestion that your belief in the reliability of "science" (whose science?) is of a much higher order than the belief of someone whose studies would lead them to a different conclusion. Even more astounding to me is the arrogance which would go so much further than ensuring one's own children were taught what one believed to be the truth, to considering anyone who would fall into a different category of belief and taught their children accordingly and idiot from the stone age............ unbelievable - if we're talking about apartheid.......!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    10:07
    1 August, 2009

    hapoth

  • Bob Hutton claims the following about Andy McIntosh " This man has a briliant mind and can argue scientifically for creation. " He can't. He's an engineer and in the key disciplines of geology and biology has not qualificatiosn whatsoever, not even O levels (his CV is on the Answers in Genesis web site). I've "debated with McIntosh on BBC local radio and he's basically a pushover.

    So, if the creationists have an alternative scienctific explanation of the differences between species, as they claim (repeatedly and in the courts), show us it and how can it be tested by the scientific method. Or were they just lying under oath?

    Quite frankly, Andy McIntosh's position on geolology and theology is risible.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    10:46
    1 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • Bob Hutton suggests "As far as the fact of creationism is concerned I would suggest a study of the "Answers in Genesis" web site."

    So would I. It is a devastating indictment of just how dishonest young reath creationists are.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    10:48
    1 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • BobHutton, Professor Andy Macintosh is a chemical engineer and Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory, NOT a biologist in any way.

    Being a professor does not make you any less gullible and he is commenting outside his field of expertise.

    BobHutton, if you think you require surgery do you go and see a plumber for advice?

    The good professor is entitled to his opinion but without evidence, and there is none for YEC, opinion is all he has - It's not science.

    Show a rabbit to 100 people and 80 may think it's female and 10 think it's male. Popular opinion would indicate it is female. Evidence will show it to be male.

    Science isn't a popularity contest based on opinion nor is it a court. Evidence is all that is important.

    The opinion of Professor Andy Macintosh, or BobHutton for that matter, is of no value to science.

    I hope BobHutton is equally diligent about his opinion when considering anti-biotics and vaccines developed using the very theories he wishes to attack and not a hypocrite, like so many of his ilk.

    BTW, AnswersInGenesis presents no reliable evidence for its opinions as it has none. Each and every wild claim made on AnswersInGenesis is shown to be the nonsense it is on www.TalkOrigins.org with reliable citations and that inconvienient evidence, so noticeably absent on AiG, easy to find.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    10:53
    1 August, 2009

    Fidgaf

  • stanyardroger, yes, lying would be normal.

    The Dover trial, (dealing with the teaching of Intelligent Design, one of the many evolving disguises of Creationism) presided over by a judge sympathetic to their cause stated in his conclusion:

    "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."

    YEC/ID, even embarrassing to other Christian organisations, is lying in the gutter throwing stones at the windows of the mansion of evolution.

    YEC/ID seem to delight in attempting to tear down the foundations of science while fully benefiting from both science and technology.

    Search the web for "Wedge Strategy" and you will see very clearly exactly what the YEC and ID crowd are intending to do. It's not pretty.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    11:10
    1 August, 2009

    Fidgaf

  • Bob Hutton states "However, despite the clear evidence for creation and the truths of the Christian faith you will not believe unless God, in His mercy, decides to open your eyes. If He choses to leave you in your blindness then you will face the eternal consequences of your rebellion against Him when you die."

    this is standard practice of creationists - to start preaching when they are losing a debate.

    he's also rolled out the other creationist "trick" - bringing on the martyrdom complex. In this case its about how hard done by evangelicals are.

    Alas, his position won't wash. many evengelicals (and most christians) are not young earth creationists and I completly fail to see how Bob Hutton speaks for either groups.

    I't's also worth pointing out that Andy McIntish is on record as saying that nobody is a Christian unless they accept his opinions on creationism. The arrogance is truely astonishing. McIntosh is a member of a tiny evengelical church in the backstreets of Leeds, probably with a congeration of well under 100. It's unaffiltated to any sect or denomination. How he claims to speak for anyone outside of his church astonishes me.

    McIntosh is also not noted for his understanding of theology. I'm told he is as out of his depth on the matter as he is on geology.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    11:17
    1 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • Fidgaf is pointing in the right direction. the creationists are not basically interested in their own creation "science" It's just part of a smokescreen to discredit anything/everything and everyone who disagrees with their ideological extremism.

    Their real motivation is to establish a theocracy, with them in control. It will probably be an exceedingly murdurous theocracy as well given where the money is coming from for the creationist movement.

    If it als sounds like the horros of Stalin's Russia or Hitler's Europe, it us. Underneath the creationists are the same ideologically driven uncompromising extermists as Marxist-Leninists, Hitlerites, Pol Poters, Maoists, etc.. All birds of a feather that screech to the same tune.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    11:23
    1 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • Bob - Some points to make: Andy McIntosh has no authority to comment against the scientific theory of evolution. He knows nothing about evolutionary biology and is a fundamental Christian and a YEC. That disables his opinion for serious consideration right away. His area is chemical engineering. So what? His opinion on topics he knows nothing about is not considered by any other scientist to be worth debate. Every time he makes a public comment his opinion is torn to shreds by other scientists. As it should be. He cannot, under any circumstances argue ‘scientifically’ for ‘creation’. Utter codswallop!! There is no, I repeat no!, science involved in ‘creation’ as you are using the word.

    So, no, Bob – you do not know scientists worthy of the name who can argue for the fantastical tall tales espoused in the bible. I would call you out on that one. It is good to read Roger Stanyard’s comment here as he has ‘debated’ McIntosh and his response puts paid to your small and imprecise line about McIntosh. It is an obvious ploy to try and garner authority for your own comments about religion. It fell, and will always fall, flat. Then there are others who know more about McIntosh than you appear to know and are able to assess McIntosh’s credibility, or obvious lack thereof.

    Hapoth – you really need to compose your comment so it is more easily readable. In any case, it is full of logical errors. Here goes: People have the right to expose their children to all manner of belief systems and indoctrinate them into whatever system takes their (the parents’) fancy. It doesn’t make it right and I, for one, am dead against religious indoctrination of any and all kinds except in the context of quaint and deadly customs previously held by members of the human species attempting control over other members of the species.

    But any such indoctrination comes under the heading of Religious ‘Education’ not to be subsumed stealthily into a proper education curriculum.

    You talk about the ‘education experts’ – and who might they be? Educators are a serious bunch who have a high regard for sound logic, evidenced science and a thorough study of the humanities. They do not talk of a ‘belief’ in science. There is no belief needed when confronted with evidence. The fact that you are astounded is of no consequence. Science is the study of what is, not a belief in what is desired.
    You need to look back on your comment and separate evidenced statements from what you would like to believe, something that appears not to come naturally to you. To discount so disparagingly the hard-won knowledge gleaned from observation of the world, tested so that results are replicable and the understanding that has come from the dedication to finding out the truth of the way of the world is, is breathtakingly arrogant.

    The next time you turn on the electric light, use your computer, hop on a bus or shield yourself from rain with a plastic cover or ask the doctor to vaccinate you against known ‘flu viruses just take a moment to recall where this knowledge came from.
    We have indeed come a long way from the stone age and to try to put forward an apologist’s argument that we should take seriously the ‘revealed truths’ of a stone-age book is appalling. You ought to be ashamed of yourself; go and live in the middle-east’s deserts for that is the genesis of the bible. Nothing to do with the 21st century in post-industrial Britain or wherever your computer is housed and, of course, where you live. I get so intensely cross with people like you who take the benefits and decry the methods. Ungrateful ingrate!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    12:46
    1 August, 2009

    VeroniqueD

  • I have little doubt that in his own field Andy McIntosh is highly talented. However, it my be a bit off to describe him as a chemical engineer. His first degree is in maths and his PhD is in aeronautics (I was a contemporary of his at Cranfield Institute of Technology).

    What I (and others) do have some doubts about is that whilst he is professor of thermodynamics, it is not clear that he understands the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. He seems to have let his religious opinions define what he thinks it is.

    See Derek Potter's comments at http://www.bcseweb.org.uk/index.php/Main/McIntoshsLaw - Potter, incidentally, is a practising evangelical. I gather Richard Dawkins has also questioned whether McIntosh understands 2LOT.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    12:59
    1 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • Do you know what cracks me up? It's not like the secular system doesn't have faults, yet that's ok?! Whatever you think about some of the issues discussed here, it doesn't take away from the fact that the vast majority of the curriculum provides an excellent base of education, whatever you perspective on these other issues. It think that is what NARIC is there is assess?

    Is it that horrific that a christian education could provide a good educational basis even if it presents different views on some subjects?! Was all education prior to Darwin pitiful?!

    It's classic - how many of the critics have actually reviewed the curriculum or seen the standard of education achieved by the schools that use it? I have and in most cases I've seen the academic results are superior to my local schools. I'd also ask you to compare the achievement of our 'secular school' in terms of providing our children with a sound basis for living in and contributing to society.

    I know which choice I'd make for my children because I weighed up these issues a long time ago! Do I go with an imperfect Christian education system based on core principles I know can be trusted or do I take a chance with a education system that will give my children nothing to base their life upon and ,taking science as an example, may prove entirely untrue in 30 years time anyway(certainly if my experience with evolutionary 'facts' I was taught at school is anything to go by).

    I too may have differing views on some of these peripheral issues (i.e. lochness monster) just as evolutionist have strong disagreements about views of the same evidence.

    The way some of these comments are written seem to indicate that all scientists agree and that is simple not true. We all have to take a view on which theories we wish to support. Most of them have plenty of things that are still to be answered. Most of them have gapping holes. Don't pretend you have it all sewn up!

    Just as christians view the world based on their set of presumptions, so do secular scientists - no-one is neutral in all this! I'm afraid as a free thinking person I just don't agree with many secular scientists, but hey it's a free society isn't it?

    Please don't tell me I have to go along with everything you tell me is right and that my children have to be educated in your way of thinking - now what would you call that kind of society?

    Ben

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    16:19
    1 August, 2009

    benjaminpike

  • Oh dear, it seems I've ruffled a few feathers here! The reason people argue so strongly for the evolution fraud is because the alternative is too disturbning to contemplate. What is the alternative to evolution? A God to whom we must give account. No wonder people don't want to believe in creation!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    17:16
    1 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • "The reason people argue so strongly for the evolution fraud is because the alternative is too disturbning to contemplate."

    Reason? Since when has that formed part of the creationist argument?

    I repeat: believe what you want to believe but keep it out of the science class because IT'S SUPERSTITION, NOT SCIENCE. Really can't make it any clearer than that.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    0:21
    2 August, 2009

    Nashmeister

  • Veronique, can you be sure your science is not based on a belief system? After all you don't seem to admit anyone as a scientist unless they agree with you on certain fundamental precepts, and you appear to defend these with a vehemence not unlike religious fervour...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    2:03
    2 August, 2009

    hapoth

  • Quoting VeronicaD: "Andy McIntosh has no authority to comment against the scientific theory of evolution. He knows nothing about evolutionary biology and is a fundamental Christian and a YEC. That disables his opinion for serious consideration right away. His area is chemical engineering. So what? His opinion on topics he knows nothing about is not considered by any other scientist to be worth debate."

    So fundamental Christians disqualify themselves in your eyes do they? Any thinking person with an open mind and desire for truth (Christian or not) will be reflecting on the vehemence and intolerance of your postings, together with the inevitable abuse of anyone not holding to your belief system.

    Regarding who is or is not qualified to expound on the question of origins, I seem to remember Charles, the archbishop of evolution, being somewhat light on scientific qualifications.... in fact, wasn't he..... a.... theologian?!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    2:41
    2 August, 2009

    sactivity

  • Quoting VeronicaD: "Andy McIntosh has no authority to comment against the scientific theory of evolution. He knows nothing about evolutionary biology and is a fundamental Christian and a YEC. That disables his opinion for serious consideration right away. His area is chemical engineering. So what? His opinion on topics he knows nothing about is not considered by any other scientist to be worth debate."

    So fundamental Christians disqualify themselves in your eyes do they? Any thinking person with an open mind and desire for truth (Christian or not) will be reflecting on the vehemence and intolerance of your postings, together with the inevitable abuse of anyone not holding to your belief system.

    Regarding who is or is not qualified to expound on the question of origins, I seem to remember Charles, the archbishop of evolution, being somewhat light on scientific qualifications.... in fact, wasn't he..... a.... theologian?!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    4:45
    2 August, 2009

    sactivity

  • To Nashmeister: Creation is not simply a belief system. Creationists can advance scientific arguments but you have closed your mind to them. Perhaps you are a "fundamentalist evolutionist" in that you vehemently argue for evolution and reject out of hand anyone who dares to disgagree with you!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    9:16
    2 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • Bob Hutton claims (without a shred of evidence to back himeself up) that "Creationists can advance scientific arguments but you have closed your mind to them. "

    As far as I am aware, creationism has never ever contributed one iota to the scientific world.

    Why don't you back up your bogus claim and show us the peer reviewed "creation science" papers that have "contributed?

    For the rest ofthe readers here I'll provide a list of them as follows:




    Long isn't it?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    12:51
    2 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • sactivity asks "So fundamental Christians disqualify themselves in your eyes do they?"

    In my eyes, utterly, repeatedly and completely. In fact they are ultra brilliant at disqualifying themselves to talk about science.

    Few have any even basic knowledge of science or their own "creation science" and most of them are also and equally exceedingly dim when it comes to a knowledge of theology,

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    12:54
    2 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • Hapoth says "Veronique, can you be sure your science is not based on a belief system? "

    Science is not a belief system. It's a methodology.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    12:56
    2 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • Bob Hutton fraudlently claims "The reason people argue so strongly for the evolution fraud is because the alternative is too disturbning to contemplate."

    Nope. Why don't you bother asking why some of us accept it without telling everyone you know what other people's opinions are. because you don't.

    I accept the theory of eveolution as teh best available explanation of the differences between species. That is not a belief position.

    If the evidence were to suggest it was wrong, then I would not accept it.

    However, when it comes to an alternative explanation that stands up, I'm not aware of one.

    I've spent some four years looking at the creationist alternative and seen that every argument put forward by the creationists has been pulled to pieces in excrutiating detail.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    13:01
    2 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • To stanyardroger: you have fulfilled the verse from the Bible that says "Professing themselves to be wise they became fools" !

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    13:04
    2 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • Benjamin Pike claims "We all have to take a view on which theories we wish to support. "

    It's not a matter of supporting "theories" as if they were some kind of football teams.

    Do you actually know what a theory is?

    Are you aware that most of what we learn in our youth is out of date thirty years later? Do you really think that spelling doesn't change, or history is static, or that using a slide rule is a valuable skill? Do you really think if you qualify with a degree in engineering (or any other subject) that what you have learned doesn't rapidly become out of date?

    Some, by the way, with our understanding of religion.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    13:07
    2 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • bob Huttion "To stanyardroger: you have fulfilled the verse from the Bible that says "Professing themselves to be wise they became fools" ! "

    Why don't you actually say something intelligent rather than shouting off utter banalities?

    Are you so idiotically stupid to think that most religious believers find your position on science to be close to heretical?

    The one group of people you do not speak for is the religious.


    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    13:10
    2 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • Um, there's a couple of typos or so in my last 2 posts. They need correcting so here is what I meant to say:

    "Are you so idiotically stupid to not realise that most religious believers find your position on science to be close to heretical?"

    "Same, by the way, with our understanding of religion."



    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    13:51
    2 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • To stanyardroger: Calm down! It seems that my comments are upsetting you; could it be that you can't cope with someone challenging your evolutionist fundamentalism? As far as being religious is concerned, I am not "religious" but one who believes in Jesus as a personal Saviour - the two are not the same.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    13:57
    2 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • Bob Hutton - you've utterly failed to present any challenge to me whatsoever. In fact you seem utterly unable to respond to any points or questions put to you. Indeed, you ignore what has been spelled out to you in the simplest terms possible. All you seem to do is to offer banalities.

    I am openly questioning your personal integrity here, in front of everyone.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    14:01
    2 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • By accusing me of dishonesty you have shown yourself to have lost the argument.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    14:28
    2 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • I find Bob Hutton´s responses typical from Creationists or other religious fundamentalists. Bob you have cited some authors here who have been discredited by other readers of this thread (who gave facts to support their responses). Once you´ve seen that your arguments have been succesfuly refuted you start saying things like:
    "However, despite the clear evidence for creation and the truths of the Christian faith you will not believe unless God, in His mercy, decides to open your eyes. If He choses to leave you in your blindness then you will face the eternal consequences of your rebellion against Him when you die".
    Well...that´s an argument!
    Is the Earth flat? Does the sun revolve around the earth? Well Bob, a few hundred years ago the church was defending that idea using the same sort of arguments that you have been using: "you can´t see the truth because you´re blinded by the devil, some of our scholars have discredited this theory, etc..."

    Please check this link:
    http://www.boingboing.net/2008/03/27/iraqi-astronomer-goe.html
    (An iraqui astronomer defends geocentrism and other theories based on the Qur’an)
    I thought it was sort of funny-freakish until I read this article / thread...

    And Bob, remember Marx: "religion is the opium of the masses". ;)

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    17:58
    2 August, 2009

    amares

  • Creationist scientists have not been discredited, that is simply a smokescreen put up by peole like yourself becasue you cannot cope with being challenged concerning your evolutionist fundamentalism.

    It is not religion that I believe in but knowing Jesus as a personal Saviour.

    No matter how much evidence is presented to you, you will not believe unless God, in His mercy, opens your eyes.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    21:01
    2 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • I forget how many times I have seen this sort of comment thread. After the defenders of reason, science, proper education and critical thinking have stated for the umpteenth time the case for excoriating religion in education, public policy making and society at large (and small), the religites come in with no argument, no logic, no reason, no anything except their utterly indefensible ‘faith’ position. After all that’s all they have to fall back on.
    The evangelicals and the charismatics and other fundamental Christians are the worst offenders in this world of illogic and unreason. Normal, cultural and standard churchgoers are embarrassed by this growth in fundamentalism and distance themselves as best they can. It is unfortunate that this religious pervasiveness in our so-called culutural Christian societies has provided the springboard of polite acceptance to the more rabid members of the more loopy religious fringes to attempt to wreak their will on educational and societal standards. The creationists devolve into stupid re-iterations of:
    ‘It’s my personal relationship with Jesus – you have to believe, abject yourself and be saved by him, then he will come into your soul. Because of this personal relationship, I now know everything about everything but have studied nothing because secular and scientific study and critical thinking is beyond me – I shine with the light of MY god and MY Jesus and that’s enough for me.
    ‘I do not check the sources of my knowledge beyond what the bible states because I just know that the bible is the inerrant truth of everything and the real and utter word of god. Well, the New Testament is, that’s what I mean about my own personal relationship with Jesus. It doesn’t involve the Old Testament because Jesus came and over-rode the Old Testament by dying for my sins after letting me know that if I am saved personally all the sins in the Old Testament are lost to antiquity. So there!!! My fear of living in this world without a safety blanketled me to accept Jesus into my life and now I am saved I don’t have be confused and think my way logically out of conundrums.
    ‘So don’t try to tell me anything because you are not saved therefore you are caught up by the devil and are full or darkness. You poor thing, just read your bible, submit to a higher authority called Jesus, give up thinking for yourself because you can never know enough until you have felt the light of the Lord within you.’ Blah, blah, blah.
    How am I going??
    To Benjamin who mentions the non-inerrantness of scientific endeavour – well, of course. What on earth would you expect when research, observation and new information is brought into the equation?? Whoever said that things wouldn’t change as new light is shed on older research?? Is there something wrong with that? It is, after all, how humankind has discovered things that work and discarded things that don’t work. What did you think science was about?? I can’t be bothered with any more of your comment. Sorry.
    To sactivity:
    Did you read your comment before posting it (twice)? Firstly fundamental Christians, having forgone logic and the scientific method have indeed disqualified themselves from any meaningful input to any debate regarding logic and science. Bother debating with them politely? Why would I bother with un-educated drips who refuse to see any point of view that isn’t based on the sky daddy and his magic????
    The desire for truth requires an open mind with skills to assess information and evidence, not a closed mind trying to stuff information and evidence into an already small, dark bag with drawstrings to keep it closed. It is typical of creationists to not be able to assess the argument they are trying to win. My vehemence and intolerance of religites of all flavours (as pointed out by you and others) extends only so far as they attempt to affect my world. I couldn’t care less about their personal delusional state so long as they keep it to themselves.
    Come to my door with your shiny, pink cheeks and your ingenuous smile while thrusting some religite pamphlet at me and trying to engage me in stupid chatter about fairytales and you will get extremely short shrift. Try to infiltrate your beliefs into educational curricula, medical health, politics and legislation or single issue lobby groups and I will fight you on every corner. Believe whatever you want to but keep out of the rest of societal life.
    Don’t talk to me about a ‘belief’ in science. Read about the scientific method and stop using theory in the vernacular to equate with scientific theory. It’s bad form and shows a lack of essential education – but then, I have come to expect that from you lot.
    Charles Darwin in the early 1800s was taking an education within the church which was fairly normal in those days. The trip on the Beagle and his musings over the discoveries of species he found ended up with his having to reject the church view and religion (to the distress of his wife) and realising that the purported god had zilch to do with anything. He was not and never was a theologian. Again, people like you state things as though they were true without ever checking your sources. And you expect me to take cognisance of your posts? I have had enough of you as well.
    The arrogance that it takes for you religite people to think you have been created specifically by some sky god in its own image is an arrogance I can’t be bothered with, especially when such arrogance is coupled with such breathless dimwittedness. I prefer other animals – no bloated idea of their own self-importance or ‘special’ place in the universe.
    You creationists have been taken to task by Roger Stanyard and others and your responses are patent drivel. There is no intellectual content to any of your posts; nothing to engage any normal mind in reasoned discourse and therefore, unless you can post something of interest, from me it’s bye-bye. There are bigger, more dangerous fish to fry elsewhere. As I pointed out in my second post to Bob – there is no ability to talk with minds that have closed themselves to everything except their own self-feeding nonsense. Believe what you will. Just stay out of public life; never expect anything except derision and ridicule from me. Practice your woo-woo in private amongst consenting adults and leave the kiddies alone.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    21:27
    2 August, 2009

    VeroniqueD

  • Quoting Veronique "The desire for truth requires an open mind..."

    The thing is, there is not much difference in the degree of prejudice between you and a creationist, just in the honesty. A creationist will normally admit his prejudice, but you will not admit yours.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    23:01
    2 August, 2009

    hapoth

  • hapoth - codswallop!!! I will change my mind upon the advent of new evidence (it has to be good and evidenced and able to be replicated as an hypothesis with rigorous testing). The creationist won't change his mind because his bible is the inerrant word of his fairy god and nothing else will enter his mind let alone change it.

    My prejudice has to do with continually stated balderdash by people who won't address reality as she is or lack the intellectual capacity or desire for honesty. The creationist does not admit his prejudice at all. All he does is smirk from behind his arras (that is, BTW transparent) and assert he is correct. Assertion means nothing. Proof is far more telling.

    So what was your pathetic point? I must have missed it.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    0:02
    3 August, 2009

    VeroniqueD

  • Replicable?!? Haha!!! How does your view on the existence of something from nothing require any less faith than a creationist's?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    1:25
    3 August, 2009

    hapoth

  • VeroniqueD - I was scrolling over your portrait, and i saw an "Add as a friend" button,
    it looks brand new, has anyone used it yet?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    1:57
    3 August, 2009

    AmoebanAncient.

  • hapoth - In the event of something I don't know, I have a reasonable tendency to suspend judgement while still contemplating the possibilities.

    I certainly don't take the intellectually poverty-striken and lazy approach of trying to squeeze the fairy god into the ever decreasing gaps in knowledge. And that's why you guys will continue to come unstuck. Look at what has been learnt since the tall tale book was written by so many people trying to get their stories right?

    The more that human intelligence and rational observation and unbiased but enthusiastic research discovers what is going on and how it all works, the less room there is for the sky daddy. He is shrinking in stature by the minute, hahaha. Soon he will become the dwarf that he always was hiding behind an impossible fantasy made up by people who weren't patient enough to find things out, but had to have immediate answers whether they were right or fabricated.

    Instant gratification - always been a problem with humans, hasn't it? Even when you add the total fiction of dying and ascending to some woo-woo place to live forever in some form or another in the presence of a fairytale, it still has to do with instant gratification.

    I can't believe I am writing this stuff to people like you. It makes me smile and shake my head at the same time.

    And no, Amoeba, it hasn't been used. I only joined this comment thread when I came across the article and couldn't resist making a comment or three. Hahahah

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    10:58
    3 August, 2009

    VeroniqueD

  • Hapoth says "A creationist will normally admit his prejudice, but you will not admit yours. "

    I've never ever come across a creationist who admits their prejudices or admits that they are wrong.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    13:27
    3 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • Bob Hutton's latest dishonest balony reads . "Creationist scientists have not been discredited, that is simply a smokescreen put up by peole like yourself becasue you cannot cope with being challenged concerning your evolutionist fundamentalism. "

    Alas, even with expert witnesses and right up to the Supreme Court in the USA the creationists have been shown to be wrong time and tiome again. You've lost eight legal cases in a row!!

    "It is not religion that I believe in but knowing Jesus as a personal Saviour. "

    An utterly idiotic statement. You do believe in religion so why are you lying? The statement says you believe in religion or can't you string two ideas together?

    "No matter how much evidence is presented to you, you will not believe unless God, in His mercy, opens your eyes. "

    As with nearly all creationists who show themselves up to be clueless in a debate, you resort to preaching.

    Why don't you do something honest and address some of the issues we have presented to you.

    Quite blithering with rubbish like this "By accusing me of dishonesty you have shown yourself to have lost the argument."

    You have amply demionstrated that you have no knowledge of science, creation science or religion.








    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    13:35
    3 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • One minor point from Bob Hutton's ignorant abalony, he's come up with the term "evolutionist fundamentalism"

    There is no such thing as an evolutionist. The term is never used in science. Moreover, if you had one iota of integrity you have have absorbed that I am far from a "believer in evolution". All I do is accept it as the bestcurrently available explanation of the differences between species.

    If you want to convince me otherwise, show me a fossil rabbit from the Cambrian strata or, as I have asked, the scientific theory of creationism and how it can be tested with the scientific method. Show me the evidence for Intelligent Design.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    13:39
    3 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • Bob Hutton,

    One question: Why are you criticising rational thinkers for something that, in your words, is totally the responsibility of your god? You have stated that we will continue to think wrongly that evolution is scientific fact and go to hell when we die because your god has not chosen to 'open our eyes'. Is this the fairness your ever-loving god shows to people? Demanding to be worshipped but disabling our capacity so to do? Please tell your daddy in the sky to either 'open my eyes' (ie present some evidence of his own existence) or get the hell out of the way of real science and education!

    Thanks.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    16:29
    3 August, 2009

    isherwood77

  • Comment for Isherwood77. Bob Hutton fits the standard web fundamentalist practice to a T.

    he gets into a "debate" launching with a nebulous comment.
    He then ignores everything every says.
    He ignores every question put to him.
    He starts preaching.
    He claims that everyone who doesn't agree with him is a fool.

    It's bog standard practice by creationists. I've seen it hundreds of times.

    He appears to be doing it elsewhere on the web.

    I'll leave it to your and everyone else here what your judgement is about creationists in the light of his dismal performance.

    Not very.bright is mine

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    18:05
    3 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • To: Stanyardroger: Re your comment @ 13.35 today - of course creationists have lost court cases; most judges do not know Jesus as their personal Saviour, that means they are spiritually blind. Consequently in most cases they will find against evangelical Christians. There have been rare instances when an unsaved judge finds in favour of an evangelical Christian because not all judges are biased against us, but mosts are.

    Secondly, you accuse me of lying. I wil not respond by making a similarly slanderous attack upon you. I will rather pray that God will open your eyes to the error of your ways and grant you the gift of repentance unto life.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    18:17
    3 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • To Isherwood: You question the "fairness" or otherwise of God. My friend let's get this straight - someone is only unfair if they don't give you what you deserve. If, eg, your employer won't pay your wages that is unfair. However, when it comes to eternal salvation in Heaven God does not owe it to you, or anyone else. What he owes to us is justice and His justice demands that we suffer eternal damnation for our sins. However, in HIs kindness and grace He has sent Jesus to pay for our sins on the cross. He then uses His servants (evangelical Christians) to spread the Gospel, He then sends His Holy Spirit to grant the gift of repentance and faith to the elect. That is grace and you have no right to question God. As the Bible says "Who are you, o man, to reply against God?" Romans 9 v 20.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    18:24
    3 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • Thanks for the preaching, Bob. Now why don't you reply to the questions instead of BS.

    Judge John Jones who presided over the last court case (Dover) was and is a practising Christian. I suspect that most of not all of the others were practising Christians.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    18:43
    3 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • It depends what you mean by "Christian". There are many who say they are Christians, perhaps they go to church, but they are not necessarily Born again of the Holy Spirit.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    19:45
    3 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • What puzzles me about these supposed Christians is their complete neglect of their own commandments. "Thou shalt not lie" ....and they say there are no transitional fossils! Being discovered all the time.

    They also never give a satisfactory answer as to which creation story we should go for, and why we should choose the Chinese / Sumerian /Judaic version over say the Aztec.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    19:58
    3 August, 2009

    scilady

  • We're forgetting the science here. Evolutionary theory has it that a single-celled creature evolved eventually into multi-celled man. This would mean that all the time the amoeba is carrying enough genetic information to become a man - so why doesn't it?

    There is no known natural mechanism which can add genetic information to DNA. Amoeba have amoebic DNA, man has human DNA. It's claimed that mutations provide information but they are distored or lost information and never provide new information.

    Molecules to man evolution is a fairytale for adults

    Augusta

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    20:18
    3 August, 2009

    Augustaaida

  • To Bob Hutton

    Again, any evidence for any of these claims? References to scripture are not evidence as they are, essentially, what is in dispute, as is the nonsense about grace. As for relying on human sacrifice to absolve me of my sins, I find the notion abhorrent and totally immoral. You should be ashamed of yourself to heap all your 'sins' on a poor scape-goat and not take responsibility for your own actions. Who am I to question god? Just an average bloke, meaning a damn sight more moral, honest, fair-minded, rational, peaceable, loving, caring and decent than your fictitious tyrant-lord. Serve that? I'd rather burn in hell, have you even read the bible? Do you know what it is you bow and scrape before? A grotesque fantasy dreamt up from the fears and insecurities of ignorant bronze-age nomads with a massive inferiority complex.

    Good luck with that, buddy!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    21:36
    3 August, 2009

    isherwood77

  • Reply to Isherwood:
    1, Grace is not nonesense, without grace (God's Riches At Christ's Expense) none of us will go to Heaven.
    2. Of course you find Christ's sacrifice abhorrent, you have been blinded by satan and unless God opens your eyes you will not change your mind.
    3. "Fictitious tyrant Lord"? You won't believe He is fictitious when you face Him!
    4. "I'd rather burn in Hell" you write - be careful what you wish for, God may yet grant that request and withold from you the gift of faith you need to believe in Jesus.
    5. I don't believe in luck, I believe in providence.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    23:45
    3 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • Oh, and by the way - read and re-read the post from Augusta @20-18

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    23:46
    3 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • @BobHutton
    Here's the quote from the Old testament that I read and what stopped me calling myself a Christian
    Numbers Chapter 31
    31:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
    31:2 Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people.
    31:3 And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the LORD of Midian.
    31:4 Of every tribe a thousand, throughout all the tribes of Israel, shall ye send to the war.
    31:5 So there were delivered out of the thousands of Israel, a thousand of every tribe, twelve thousand armed for war.
    31:6 And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the holy instruments, and the trumpets to blow in his hand.
    31:7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.

    31:8 And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.
    31:9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.

    So in conclusion that's a real compassionate god you pray too.
    Verse 9 real nice.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    0:03
    4 August, 2009

    HeavyEcho

  • @BobHutton

    "A God to whom we must give account"

    How utterly pathetic is that? How stunningly demeaning of humankind! What a completely useless waste of time life would be if what you say was so!

    If I thought for one moment that I'd have to give account for my actions in life, I would want to get hold of your "God" so I could tell him what an incompetent self-obsessed plonker he was!

    However, I don't think that will happen since I'm almost certain your god is non-existent. I say "almost" because like most sane people I cannot be 100% sure he doesn't exist, if overwhelming evidence of God emerged then I would obviously have to change my mind.

    Therein lies the difference between you religites and us sane people, we are willing to admit we may be wrong, you are unable to and that's why your kind cannot be reasoned with; you are unreasonable, making debate a pointless waste of time.

    We need evidence, all you offer is dogma and "personal" stories meaningless to anyone else.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    0:40
    4 August, 2009

    GeorgeD

  • @Augustaaida

    "We're forgetting the science here"

    No, we are not, you just haven't learned it yet!

    This is a silly creationist attempt to discredit evolution. It's silly because it was made just at the time we became able to see indisputable evidence for human evolution in DNA!

    "Molecules to man evolution is a fairytale for adults"

    What nonsense! Which is more likely, evolution by natural selection for which overwhelming evidence exists, or the religite notion for which zero evidence exists?

    Get a grip!

    Your "Little man on Earth made by Big Man living in sky" sounds much more like a fairy tale to me and one that even a child can see through! People like you are either unwilling or unable to accept evidence staring them in the face because it doesn't fit with your cosy dream of another life to come, or are simply stupid!

    I don't know which you are.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    6:23
    4 August, 2009

    GeorgeD

  • To Heavy Echo: Who are you, puny person, to question God?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    7:41
    4 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • To George D: I note you say "almost certain". There is a doubt in your mind, suppose there is a God after all? Where does that leave you then?

    I also note in your posts so much hatred and bitterness - clearly you need Jesus in your life.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    7:45
    4 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • @BobHutton

    Do you understand English? I explained why I used the word "almost"; read my post again and try harder this time! Anyone who has an understanding of this world and the Universe knows that it's not possible to be 100% sure of anything!

    That's where you religites are full of crap, you have the arrogance to claim that you KNOW things you cannot possibly know, furthermore, you have the audacity to foist your nonsensical beliefs onto others! What you take for hatred and bitterness is my annoyance at having to deal with people like you who want me to become as deluded as you are!

    I am a happy man who lives in the real world who is "almost" certain that this is the only life I'm ever going to have and that's fine with me, I have no need for anything else; I know there is no meaning to life other than that the meaning I give it. Unlike you, I don't fear having to report to some vengeful god at the end, death will mean the cessation of my existence but my atoms will return to the stars from whence they came; that is enough immortality for me.

    Now Bob, please don't be silly enough to ask why I used "almost" again, indeed, don't even reply unless you can give me evidence of your claims, I will ignore you as a waste of my time and admittedly waning, brain-power.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    9:11
    4 August, 2009

    GeorgeD

  • To BobHutton

    I'm sorry but that list of utterly baseless assertions is laughable and you once again confirm that it is the moronic god withholding from me the faith that he himself demands! It is your god who is puny. Nothing in the bible indicates any greatness whatsoever to me, compared to our current knowledge of the Universe. All the little miracles which so impressed the ignorant Israelites? How sad and pathetic do they seem if god is supposed to be all-powerful? As I say, he was dreamt up from their imagination and is a depressingly unimpressive figure as a result. And as for getting into heaven, why do you think you could even be one of the elect when Jesus was actually speaking only for the Jews, not Christians, who, of course did not exist at the time? You're heading the same way as the rest of us: straight to... nothingness, the same state we were in prior to our birth, so I'm not particularly worried about 'facing god'.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    9:22
    4 August, 2009

    isherwood77

  • Bob Hutton preaching again over the last few hours, utterly unable to substantiate his position on creationism and with a full blast of smearing all in sundry because he thinks they are, somehow, inadequate, because they don't accept his banalities and opinions

    Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a raging fundamentalist pulpit bully in our midst.

    What do expect from fundamentalists?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    11:53
    4 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • Scilady says "What puzzles me about these supposed Christians is their complete neglect of their own commandments. "Thou shalt not lie" ....and they say there are no transitional fossils! Being discovered all the time. "

    Dunno about Christians in general but my experience of creationists and fundamentalists is that they don't believe in the 9th commandment (see Bob Hutton's crude attempts at smearing all in sundry).

    There's a reason for this.

    They are out to preach and save souls (see Bob Hutton's postings) and anything that stands in the way of that can safely, in their eyes, be ignored.

    Moreover, as creationism does not stack up, they only way they can defend it is by systematically, habitually and repeatedly lying.

    There is no difference between the fundamentalism practice by the likes of Bob Hutton and extereme islamic fundamentalism. They are ideological birds of a feather that screech to the same tune. They think they are right and everyone who disagrees with them are wrong.

    Alas nobody is that clever.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    11:59
    4 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • Bob Hutton resorts to rhetoric "There is a doubt in your mind, suppose there is a God after all? Where does that leave you then? "

    Well, why don't you answer that question. Or are you not capable of doing so?

    If there were a god or gods, I doubt it would make much difference to me as I strongly suspect that what would be found would have no resemeblence whatsoever to the venal man made "god" that fundamentalists such as Bob Hutton thinks exists.


    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    12:04
    4 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • Bob Hutton states "It depends what you mean by "Christian". There are many who say they are Christians, perhaps they go to church, but they are not necessarily Born again of the Holy Spirit."

    What, precisely what do you mean by "Christian"? What makes you think you are both judge and jury in deciding who is a "proper" Christian and who is not. Why do you have such a monopoly on this wisdom?

    Or do we yet again see the fundamentlist bigotry - that only fundamentalists have the "truth".

    [See him run away from the questions, again]

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    12:09
    4 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • Dunno about the others here, but I'm getting tired of Bob Hutton dribling diarrhoea all over this debate.

    Let's get back on topic. I've just looked back to the original article where it states:

    "Are dinosaurs alive today? Scientists are becoming more convinced of their existence.

    Have you heard of the ‘Loch Ness Monster’ in Scotland? ‘Nessie,’ for short has been recorded on sonar from a small submarine, described by eyewitnesses, and photographed by others. Nessie appears to be a plesiosaur."

    There's some really brilliant stupidity here. The cretinists seem to think that a plesiosaur was a dinosaur!

    Moreover, even if we found a dinosaur alive today (indeed, debatably there are millions of them alive today, they are called birds) it would not make the slightest difference to evolutionary biology. Nor would it provide any evidence the world is only 6,000 years old, nor would it prove Noah's Ark to have existed.

    The crapola put forward by the likes of Bob Hutton and Andy McIntosh would remain just that.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    12:29
    4 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • @Bobhutton

    Did they use an industrial washing machine on your brain?? No room for compromise or understanding is totaly un christian.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    12:43
    4 August, 2009

    MrPommesFrites

  • The eyewitness ‘accounts’ of the Loch Ness monster have been recorded over the generations and as the Scots around the Loch will attest that such ‘accounts’ are usual after the consumption of alcohol and, of course, egged on by all and sundry for a laugh. Scientists are not, in any way, becoming convinced that dinosaurs are alive today as they were 65 million years ago. And as Roger Stanyard has pointed out, the creationists don’t even know what constitutes dinosaurs. Certainly not plesiosaurs!! For the creationists to try to claim this is one horrendous lie and should be enough to sink their claims forever.

    If the creationists want to claim ‘Nessie’ is real, then evidence must be forthcoming. It is not and never has come forth. That’s an end to it. Speculation fuelled by whatever can go on for ages; doesn’t make it true. But then, that’s the way of creationism. It lies its way through and into whatever it can. Any purported photographs of ‘Nessie’ are of the same ilk as those photos doctored to depict flying saucers. They are a spoof and the gullible creationists lap it all up lock, stock and barrel with no substantiation required. There is no sonar recording that is ‘proof’ of the Loch Ness monster. Why don’t creationists lap up the flying saucer spoof but do lap up the ‘Nessie’ spoof? This should further sink the creationists claims.

    “Proof? What’s that and who cares? It sounds good and it backs up our claim so we’ll use it.” This is the way Ken Ham and his lying cohorts have built their creation museum and display Homo sapiens with dinosaurs while claiming the world in 6,000 years old. Yet there is no evidence for these claims whatsoever and no geologist who sought credibility could ever align himself with YECs. Once again, McIntosh lost any credibility when he tried to sound like a geologist. That should the idiots as well.

    What is concerning is the way these creationists have played the education game and passed examinations that qualify them and then add on education degrees and teaching diplomas and weasel their way into educational establishments. Then they come out of the creationist closet. Then their careers in mainstream science just die and they have to align themselves with places like the Discovery Institute. Anyone reading the literature that comes out of that place knows the lies told. I recall Harvard University taking them to court for using a Harvard-funded video of the cell and changing the voice-over to reflect creationist rubbish. Discovery Institute backed down. I think the settlement was quite large and hurt the Institute. Good!! They lied and tried to pass off others’ work as their own. Charlatans!!! A further sinking of creationist idiocy and a total and everlasting distrust of their lying methods.

    Creationists cite Francis Collins as one of their own and it worried me for a while that anyone who has intimate knowledge of genetics could harbour such idiocy. Then I realised that Collins was basically an administrator and that those who actually did the work sequencing the human genome were real scientists. And real scientists don’t bother with Collins now anyway. His team did the work and others have taken up the baton; he can be put back in the drawer in an administrative post with National Health. I object to this sort of sop to the religites but he can’t do too much harm there. The bureaucracy is and has been in place for a while. He will get short shrift if he tries much funny business.

    Augusta, you drip, why don’t you actually study something before opening your trap. Try evolutionary biology since that is what you want to dribble on about. Try understanding what genetics and DNA are actually describing. Try understanding what junk DNA is. Try using your brain and not filtering objective information through your tiny subjective needs.

    “This would mean that all the time the amoeba is carrying enough genetic information to become a man - so why doesn't it?” What!!!! “There is no known natural mechanism which can add genetic information to DNA.” Are you bullshitting me or what! Don’t you know how illiterate you sound???

    You show your ignorance appallingly. Or did someone dictate your post for you and you have no idea about anything? In which case, you have been suckered by someone else who hasn’t got a clue. What an idiot.

    Anyway, my worries still stand as do the worries of others. Our educational standards are in grave danger of being hijacked by the loopy religites. Culturally there has always been some religious content in state school educational establishments and, of course, to a larger degree in the sectarian schools. But this new thrust with the Peter Vardys of the world injecting millions into creationist-flavoured colleges with the approval and financial aid of that died-in-the-wool Catholic pretty-boy Tony Blair is a different thing all together. If these proliferate, it will be a matter of the lunatics running the asylum and scientific advancement will suffer. And we cannot afford that.

    So we keep on highlighting creationist idiocy wherever it crops up and joining in the fight to keep education out of the slimy hands of the religites.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    16:02
    4 August, 2009

    VeroniqueD

  • I wrote to NARIC and received a reply. They defend themselves by distancing themselves from any of the comments made in the article above and in The Guardian. Their criteria for assessment are stated as follows:

    “The benchmarking study, commissioned by Morning Star School in Mauritius in 2008, examines the Accelerated Christian Education (ACE) curricula and the qualifications offered by the International Christian Certificate of Education examination board (ICCE). This study considered subjects of English, maths, chemistry and history of ICCE General Certificate, ICCE Intermediate Certificate and ICCE Advanced Certificate through a close examination of three key elements:

    • A comparative analysis of the CIE and ICCE qualifications in terms of their content and learning outcomes
    • An analysis of the programme delivery offered by Morning Star School in Mauritius
    • An examination of the quality assurance processes in place and an assessment of their relative effectiveness.

    UK NARIC findings clearly demonstrate that despite the acknowledged differences in mode of learning, the ICCE qualifications compare broadly to the O and A Levels with regard to their learning outcomes and content. The programme delivery offered by Morning Star School has been found to be effective in developing students’ abilities across a wide range of subjects and preparing them for the ICCE qualifications. Furthermore, the quality assurance mechanisms which underpin ACE delivery and assessment can be considered to be rigorous and robust.

    However, the units of Loch Ness monster and the reference to Apartheid were not part of the process of UK NARIC’s study. These units were not shown to or examined by NARIC.”

    This excerpt from the email sent to me may go some way to clear things up. However, I am still not happy and will be contacting their funding body with some questions as to NARIC’s remit and suggested revisions needed in NARIC’s criteria for assessment. NARIC is, after all a publicly funded body and the public has a consultative input into such an agency’s procedures.

    I also contacted the National Secular Society and they have been onto NARIC since 2008. Vigilance is good and, unfortunately, necessary to keep tabs on all this. Humanist Society of Scotland has an education seminar in Glasgow this weekend. All worthy of support.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    16:16
    4 August, 2009

    VeroniqueD

  • Augusta claims "We're forgetting the science here. Evolutionary theory has it that a single-celled creature evolved eventually into multi-celled man. This would mean that all the time the amoeba is carrying enough genetic information to become a man - so why doesn't it?

    There is no known natural mechanism which can add genetic information to DNA. Amoeba have amoebic DNA, man has human DNA. It's claimed that mutations provide information but they are distored or lost information and never provide new information. "

    Where on earth did you get this fantasy crap from? Both paragraphs are hopelessly wrong.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    17:42
    4 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • To: George D: You say it is not possible to be certain of anything. It is possible to be certain of one's belief and to have assurance of Heaven, not based upon one's own good works but upon Christ's work of atonement on the cross.

    I will not be provoked into responding to your hate fillled comments that make a personal attack upon me; instead I will pray for you, that God will be pleased to open your eyes and grant you the esire to repent and accept Christ as your personal Saviour.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    19:50
    4 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • To Isherwood: Of course you believe we are all headed for nothingness; the devil has enslaved and blinded you. God is sovereign, if He is pleased to open your eyes you will believe; if not then you wil die in your sins and face eternal damnation.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    19:53
    4 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • To Stanyardroger:
    1. I am not a buly, bullies force people to listen to them; you don't have to read my posts, you choose to read them.
    2. I have not "smeared" anybody.
    3. Islamic fundamentalism is not the same as evangelical Christianity; for a start we do not use violence to spread our beliefs.
    4. You say I am out to save your soul; I cannot actually do the saving, all I can do is spread the truth and then God does the saving by granting the desire to people to repent and accept Christ.
    5. A Christian is one who has repented of his/her sins and accepted Jesus as a personal Saviour, not merely a churchgoer.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    20:00
    4 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • To BobHutton

    Still no proper response to any substantial point put to you. I'd heard that trying to engage evangie-mentalists like yourself in debate is always destined to fail due to the inability you guys seem to suffer in terms of replying to any challenge without simply relying on scripture and personal stuff made up in your heads but I thought I'd have a go myself, just to see. So thanks for proving the point for me, I won't waste my time in future. It's great to know that people like you are out there making religion look as ridiculous, dishonest and petty as it actually is, because some, more politically savvy types, are doing quite a good job of hiding these characteristics and increasing religion's influence once again, so well done for helping us damage their chances of success. I'm off to commit a few more of my favourite sins now. Tell god to stick them on my tab. I truly hope you find a cure for your delusion soon and manage to find a genuinely satisfying and enjoyable way to spend the rest of your precious, single chance at life, but fare well, whatever the eventuality.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    21:55
    4 August, 2009

    isherwood77

  • God will "stick your sins on your tab" and you will give account for them on the judgement day.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    22:24
    4 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • V....."Humanist Society of Scotland has an education seminar in Glasgow this weekend. All worthy of support."
    Thanks for notice of the upcoming religious meeting. I had no idea you too were a religite. To say there is no god is a religious statement, is it not?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    22:28
    4 August, 2009

    sactivity

  • Anyone interested in truth uncluttered by bile and extremism, might like to browse some of Darwin's thoughts. The last few pages are particularly interesting :-)
    http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=A142&pageseq=1
    Wait for the onslaught everyone......

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    4:09
    5 August, 2009

    sactivity

  • And of course the above link is to Palley's thoughts and of interest only in the light that Darwin greatly respected this man. So unhelpful here. Now wait for the onslaught...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    4:57
    5 August, 2009

    sactivity

  • To quote from quite a good book (but not telling which) - Evolutionary biology, a very well-established set of models founded in the fossil record, chromosomes and DNA, which explains similaries and differences among today's living creatres much more elegantly and effectively than its creationist or intelligent-design rivals. Nevertheless, a very large proprtion of people - especially Christians in the American Mid-West, Muslims in fanatically Islamic cultures, and fundamentalist believers in general - deny that humans evolved. To them, their own brand of authority trumps the scientific evidence or their 'common sense' renders the whole concept laughable. "I ain't kin to no ape!" was the explanation given by a young schoolgirl at a "Life on Other Planets" lecture, when the teacher asked her why she didn't believe in evolution.

    Bob and Augustaaida are, in their opinion, completely in the right irrespective of any argument against their view. You cannot have a logical debate with them. Best to accept they have a different view from the majority and leave it at that.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    11:29
    5 August, 2009

    GBPCG

  • Hutton's ultimate banality - if someone doesn't agree with Bob Hutton then they are in deep shit and will be punished severly "God will "stick your sins on your tab" and you will give account for them on the judgement day."

    Anyone get the feeling that Bob Hutton is an unmitigated pulpit bully? Would anyone here trust this man with their children's education?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    11:48
    5 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • Bob Hutton screams "...Of course you believe we are all headed for nothingness; the devil has enslaved and blinded you. God is sovereign, if He is pleased to open your eyes you will believe; if not then you wil die in your sins and face eternal damnation."

    Good grief! What a vile person and what a vile religious position!

    Pity he doesn't appear to actually know anything.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    13:19
    5 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • It seems clear to me, that any course on any subject should be given some sort of peer review by specialists in that subject. So a course in biology should be reviewed for content by a panel of biologists, a course in physics by a panel of physicists, a course in French by a panel of linguists... That would be at least appropriate. The panel should NOT be nominated by the body submitting the course.

    If it doesn't happen now, this article is one huge argument for introducing such a system.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    13:44
    5 August, 2009

    marcusbailius

  • How many of you are teachers?

    I'm a prospective PGCE student and, through pre-course reading, have read a bit about things like 'community of enquiry', and its advantages to a young person's self-esteem and respect for the views of others.

    So will they grow up to do so, or will they grow up to be like their teachers (assuming you guys are teachers)?

    I haven't even started the course and already feel disillusioned by the thought of a principled teacher, given the lack of respect in most of the above comments. The trading of insults has made me care less about the TES article.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    13:45
    5 August, 2009

    tewingveale

  • ////// Hutton's ultimate banality - if someone doesn't agree with Bob Hutton then they are in deep shit and will be punished severly "God will "stick your sins on your tab" and you will give account for them on the judgement day."

    Anyone get the feeling that Bob Hutton is an unmitigated pulpit bully? Would anyone here trust this man with their children's education? /////

    //
    Good grief! What a vile person and what a vile religious position!

    Pity he doesn't appear to actually know anything. //

    //What, precisely what do you mean by "Christian"? What makes you think you are both judge and jury in deciding who is a "proper" Christian and who is not. Why do you have such a monopoly on this wisdom?

    Or do we yet again see the fundamentlist bigotry - that only fundamentalists have the "truth". //



    Ladies and gentlemen, Roger Stanyard of the British Centre for Science Education remaining neutral on his religious views as always.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    17:36
    5 August, 2009

    RoseOfSharon

  • To stanyardroger:
    1. It is not a question of agreeing or disagreeing with me, it is a question of agreeing or disagreeing with God's infallible word - The Bible. All I have done is outlined what it says.
    2. I am not a bully for one obvious reason - I am not forcing anyone to read/listen to me; you are free to ignore my posts.
    3. I am not "screaming" anything.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    18:10
    5 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • To rose of sharon:

    If you carefully read through the New Testament you will see what constitutes a true Christian. It is not the outward form - eg church atendance, the keeping of certain religious rules etc., but the receiving of Jesus as a personal Saviour.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    18:12
    5 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • Bob, I don't think you picked up what I was saying. Roger Stanyard is a fundamentalist atheist bigot and a proven liar. Its all documented and well denied by him. I wouldn't eveb bother if I was you. :)

    http://www.bcse-revealed.info

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    19:39
    5 August, 2009

    RoseOfSharon

  • Bob Hutton is simply a troll and a simple troll at that.

    He yearns for attention and responses so he can keep spouting his god at those who don't agree with him, it's a measure of his stupidity that he thinks that threatening us with his imaginary boss might have some effect; childlike I think, is the best way to put it.

    Experience has taught me that trolls not addressed directly starve and leave; best approach is to talk ABOUT them, not TO them, let Hutton see that we think but don't treat him as if he deserves a response.

    He accuses me of hatred and other nonsense; hatred is something I never feel but if I did it would be toward someone worthy of it! I find Bob Hutton despicable, not because he's fallen for the god tale that someone sold him but because he thinks he can convince those who think for themselves that they are wrong. He's also pitiable; he seems unable to see that incessant bleating about his shepherd is boring and demeaning to sane persons.

    Bob Hutton simply renders himself unworthy of reasoned human discourse.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    20:05
    5 August, 2009

    GeorgeD

  • Where to start and why bother anyway.

    One of my biggest fears about three to four years ago was the apparent growth in the evangelical/Charismatic Christian and Muslim religite industries (I wasn’t really cognisant of extreme Judaism until a wee bit later). There seemed to be a great tide starting to swarm over the enlightened reason that had tormented its way, fomented, grown and come of age in the 18th century, first in Scotland and then exported to the rest of Europe which was undergoing its own rational enlightenment anyway.

    It was a prodigious effort to overthrow the superstitious and religious stranglehold the powerful political, religious and moneyed elite had over the uneducated and controlled masses throughout Europe. The internecine wars that were the result of this battle for reason over superstition were extraordinary. Countless thousands of people died over the thirty-odd year period. It was, by all accounts, an appalling division between people who did (or had to) live on opposite sides of the religious divide (a fantasy to start with let alone the cost to humanity, to families and to social development within our human population).

    However, reason did prevail. Thought blossomed, so did scientific endeavour, so did everything that set man’s minds and thoughts free to imagine what may be rather than stay limited to an age-old and antiquated mental corset. It was very costly; people were stoned and burned to death by so-called Christian societies who couldn’t extend any brain-power to think outside their own square and were terrified at losing control over the ‘masses’. Of course, their behaviour was constrained by the cardinals and the pope – the poor policemen were the masses – they just didn’t understand it then. Poor blighters – sucked in by the elites (as always!). Some things seem not to change – greed is the biggest of these.

    What we have now is the death throes of that antiquated thought and dogma espoused by fundamental religites, of Christian and Muslim and Zion religite persuasions that are trying to seqeuester rational thought into some dungeon or another and spread a blanket of darkness over scientific and logical thought, invention and description of the world the way she is. What is happening has been called the new dark-age and not just by me

    I was very lucky. I was born in 1943 to parents who never dreamt of inflicting any belief system on my mind. I was able when I was 11 to ask my father to write excusing me from the school’s RE lessons. He had no problem doing that. I consider that the education I received was of a top-notch quality. I have yet to see it replicated in today’s educational curricula. That’s another story and will take a long essay to discuss.

    I taught high school from 1971 to 1975 and was appalled at the change that had happened from 1960 when I had left school. Sure, I remember, from my student days, fellow students who believed in god and all that stuff but it didn’t ever get in the way of normal school relationships. Now it seems to get in the way. All I can blame is the extremists and that includes the rabid BobHuttons of this world. | have enormous problems with people who live in the clouds. I don’t want them anywhere near my grandchildren. Fortunately my two sons are safe. No religite bullshit for either of them although both of them married cultural Catholics. So my resulting grand-kids suffer from being aligned with a moniker they never knew existed. It shouldn’t be a problem. My sons can handle that crapola.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    20:18
    5 August, 2009

    VeroniqueD

  • Reply to GeorgD: I will not be provoked by your hate filled comments, instead I am praying for you that God will be pleased to open your eyes. I cannot convince you to change your mind, to repent and accept Christ, but if God is pleased to grant you the gift of faith then you will believe (and the same goes for VeroniqueD).

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    21:46
    5 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • Show me your evidence that prayer is a medium that has any results. Come on dear BobHutton, surely in the midst of your haranguing you have something with which to back up your claims.

    Prayer?? Prayer?? What a crock!!! There are studies that resulted in the ineffiicacy of 'prayer'. Maybe you should look for them. They are on the net. They are studies that have followed normal, acceptable methodology. Ah well, you won't accept them because they won't 'fit' with what you want to believe.

    How stupendous to believe in something that requires no proof. How wonderful to believe that some magical concept will waft you to 'heaven' while consigning the others to a firy hereafter. How marvellous to believe that you, out of all others (6.7 billion at last count) have become the apple of something's eye and will live forever because you licked imaginary boots.

    You poor, bloody sod. What a waste of a brain, all 3 odd kilos of it. All the evolutionary effort of all the DNA developed painstakingly through trial and error to do the best it could to survive and what does it come up with?? - BobHutton. S**t - what an enormous disappointment.

    No one grants anything Boblet - you make the best you can in the short time you have on this planet. Stop wasting your time. Unless you have nothing better to do in which case you have wasted it already, you poor drip. Life is what you make of it. Try harder!!! Whew.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    22:26
    5 August, 2009

    VeroniqueD

  • "All the evolutionary effort of all the DNA developed painstakingly through trial and error to do the best it could to survive and what does it come up with??"

    Evolution's best joke?... To come up with someone who believes in God!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    11:16
    6 August, 2009

    sactivity

  • Bob Hutton claims "1. It is not a question of agreeing or disagreeing with me, it is a question of agreeing or disagreeing with God's infallible word - The Bible. All I have done is outlined what it says. "

    That is a stunning cowardly reply, a total opt out from personal responsibility and itegrity. All your saying is that your personal opinions are absoultely right because you believe them to be so. It's a completly and utterly simple minded circular argument.


    2. I am not a bully for one obvious reason - I am not forcing anyone to read/listen to me; you are free to ignore my posts.

    But you've just been preaching again and claiming that nobody is right unless they accept your presonal opinions. It's also another cowardly reply - to the effect that nobody should argue with you because they can ignore your posts.

    "3. I am not "screaming" anything."

    I beg to differ,. You're screaming you roligious opinions through a high power megaphone (and still refusing to answer any questions, because you can't).

    "Reply to GeorgD: I will not be provoked by your hate filled comments, instead I am praying for you that God will be pleased to open your eyes."

    Oh dear, the martyrdom complex again - coupled to preaching.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    14:23
    6 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • Rose of Sharon says "//What, precisely what do you mean by "Christian"? "

    Someone with some humility, integrity and openess of mind, amongst other qualities.

    From my understanding of Christianity, which is moderate (as is the understanding of most Christians), Bob Hutton does not fit the bill. He appears to be openly willing to repeatedly breach the ninth commandment.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    14:28
    6 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • Rose of Sharon herself breaches the ninth commandment.

    Tell me Rose of Sharon, why have you not said who produced this libelous crapola, who paid for it and who is funding its current presence on the Internet.

    What is the connection with Any McIntosh?

    I would like very here to take a look at the reference before I throw it straight back in her face.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    14:32
    6 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • Sorry about the typos above;

    Any=Andy
    very=every

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    16:08
    6 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • Roger

    I took a look at the link provided by Rose, I didn't read all of it - I didn't need to - a cursory glance told me all I needed to know. Text overwritten by a large red "Atheist" told me the writer's position was so biased and weak that he needed to make atheism look as if it were a disease! Clearly, the disease is religion and atheism is the cure!

    Notice also that Hutton initially attacked Rose, he didn't even realize she was on his side! Two religites blinded by dogma unable to see each other because both lacked the capability of clear expression! Hilarious! Then Hutton decided to respond to me even after I'd said that I never respond to trolls who are unworthy of
    discussion. This is becoming decidedly comedic :-)

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    16:10
    6 August, 2009

    GeorgeD

  • GeorgeD - let's see exactly what RoseofSharon has to say for herself.

    Well, looks like I am dead right that the only reason why Bob Hutton is in this group is that he is a fundamentalist* who wants to preach and save souls. He's not the slightest bit intersted in science or education.

    He appears to be a junior member of http://www.fundamentalpreaching.com. The name sums it all up.

    See http://www.fundamentalpreaching.com/arminian-doctrine-exposed-t-671-2.html

    *read ideologically driven zealot and extremist. I also note with interest that he is a "junior".

    This is the same Bob Hutton who told us on the 2nd of August when he claimed "It is not religion that I believe in..."

    So, question to Bob Hutton - how old are you?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    16:29
    6 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • Well, let's hit home on some more home truths about Bob Hutton - his claim that his fellow fundamentalists have nothing to do with violence.

    Well it's now emerging that the US fundamentalists have been runing a huge private army at US taxpayers expense which has been murdering people and has planned to murder its own staff. The head of the organisation appears to have been planning to eradicate Islam world-wide with violence.

    See http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090817/scahill

    As I say, Christian fundamentalism is a vile religion backed by vile people.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    17:07
    6 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • I reject all religion as nonsense. Why do I need a label "atheist"? I reject diddly-widdly-boodlums and dinky-donky-do-dah. I don't need lablels for that so why just for having the sense to reject all tales of spooky-wookies? I don't wish to be a "militant atheist". I just want the religious wallahs to keep their carp to themselves and not believe thay have a special right to respect. (It would be a start if Archie C. would keep his trap shut. I'm pleased this pope is old).

    Is this Bob Hutton the one who is at: http://huttonfamily.org/ ?

    Why did "God" give that one hepatitis?

    God works in a mysterious way,
    his wonders to perfom
    He plants His footsteps in the sea
    And rides upon the tsunami.

    (Adapted from William Cowper).

    Explain that one, Bob.



    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    18:10
    6 August, 2009

    RobSlack

  • Some time ago I came across a very dodgy private college boasting some sort of recognition from NARIC. Their web site displayed a genuine certificate from them. I contacted NARIC. It took weeks, if not months, to get an honest answer from them; every time I emailed theyn gave me a story about people off sick or away from the office etc. Eventually they seemed to admit they had approved a very dodgy outfit.

    Alfred Vella's comments stuck a chord. I used to teach at what is now London Met. Uni. I saw things much like Alfred mentions. I remember one law exam. (I invigilated). Students were given a case ahead of time. They were given guides to the types of questions that might be on the exam. They were allowed 3 or 4 sides of handwritten notes in the exam. Sound easy? I read the pre-exam question guides and the actual questions. They were almost identical. I heard (from students) of several cases where lecturers went through exam questions in lectures just before exams. I knew of colleagues who assessed courses by mostly coursework because they knew students would fail exams.

    It seems we will only guarantee standards when they are totally transparent. The external examiner system is inadequate (I've been one). Perhaps if exam papers were made public it would help. Some of the ones I have seen would perplex people!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    18:36
    6 August, 2009

    RobSlack

  • Reply to VeroniqueD: I have seen instances of answered prayer, I know people who used to be atheists before God opened their eyes.

    As far as proof is concerned, the resurrection of Christ is the proof of the truths of the Christian Gospel.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    9:40
    7 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • Reply to stanyardroger: Clearly, you are full of rebellion against God. You will stay in that state unless God opens your eyes and grants you the desire to repent and accept Jesus as your personal Saviour.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    9:43
    7 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • To Bob Hutton - is that all you can do? Preach and threaten people?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    10:19
    7 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • I am not threatening anyone, simply pointing out your need of Jesus as your personal Saviour.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    10:48
    7 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • Bob Hutton's claim is bogus. He's stating as fact his mere opinion on religion. He can't distinguish his opinion (God's allledged infallible word) from the explict threat of his claims.

    The arrogance is breathtaking.

    So, I'll ask again. How old are you?

    Cat got your tongue or something?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    12:48
    7 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • Is Bob Hutton a wind-up merchant? Religion always gets people really riled - I imagine him as a committed atheist with nothing much else to do except sit back -write repetitve rubbish and watch the various respondents explode - a great way to while away the wet August days - thanks for the idea...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    12:51
    7 August, 2009

    malango

  • RoseofSharon's claims: "Bob, I don't think you picked up what I was saying. Roger Stanyard is a fundamentalist atheist bigot and a proven liar."

    Well RoseofSharon, pity you don't have the personal integrity to disclose who you are before making this bogus claim. Instead you hide behind a nom de plum. Is that the typical standard of religious extremists?

    Facts:

    1. You claim I'm a fundamentalist. Wrong. So who's the liar?

    2. You state I'm an atheist. So what. So who's the bigot?

    3. You claim I'm a bigot. Your position is utterly unsubstantiated. Never heard of the ninth commandment?

    3. You claim I'm a liar. Show us in you own words why. Tell us who has proven it.

    Perhaps you would like to show some integrity and balls by disclosing who you are.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    12:55
    7 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • Malango, the term for such a person is a Poe. Hutton doesn't seem bright enough to be a Poe. He's a bog standard fundamentalist.

    BTW, the leading Poe in Britain is Garvan Ellison who runs a blog known as the Garvanian. He'd make a good script writer for a TV comedy.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    13:43
    7 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • With regard to my mention of scientific evaluations on the efficacy of prayer, I remember reading about The Great Prayer Experiment undertaken in 2005 using proper testing conditions with double blinds. I know that Dawkins and Harris both mention the Great Prayer Experiment in their books. The results of the experiment were negative, that is prayer had no effect on hospitalised sick people. Google it and see.

    As Dawkins says ‘The very idea of doing such experiments is open to a generous measure of ridicule and the project duly received it.’ Not that the results, negative as they were, will have any bearing on the needy prayer-mongers of course. I am afraid that those who make such prayerful demands on their god are more likely to be disappointed than not.

    Of course people do claim that they know someone for whom prayer ‘worked’ as if that piece of information validated the whole of the praying community’s endeavours. There are several problems with this: the first is that if the same result cannot be replicated under test conditions, the initial claim is merely individual, unprovable hear-say. It means nothing whatsoever to anyone except the claimant.

    Secondly, that the claimant attempts to extrapolate from one particular piece (or maybe a few) of information (not even observable except maybe by him) to make a global claim that encompasses all untested instances, is an egregious statistical error.

    I have a wonderful little book by a statistician named AK Dewdney called ‘200% of Nothing’. It details ‘the twists and turns of Math Abuse and Innumeracy’. It points out the lies told by those wanting to part people from their money and people who fool themselves that they can win the odds. For people who know nothing about statistics and are considered innumerate, this is a treasure of a book.

    I googled ‘extrapolating from particular to general’ and came up with over 2 million entries. The science is most definitely out there. So are the loopy religites, I am afraid. Not hard to spot the difference however.

    It continually astounds me that where there is so much objective information available in the media that can be chased back to its contemporary sources with all the bells and whistles, that people insist on blinkering themselves to rumour, hear-say and unproven theories of all kinds. It is this kind of lazy acceptance of what one wants to be true that has to be challenged by teaching students how to think critically and how to research properly.

    It is for this reason alone that religion HAS to be removed from ALL educational curricula. Our burgeoning global society cannot afford any more superstitious divisions that erupt into violence and warfare.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    14:13
    7 August, 2009

    VeroniqueD

  • To stanyardroger:
    1. The evangelical Christian position is not an opinion but a fact; the BIble has been shown to be true by such things as fulfilled prophecies and archeoligical discoveries.
    Moreover, the evidence for the resurrection of Christ is overwhelming.
    2. I am not arrogant, it is not arrogant to state facts.
    3. The extremely spiteful comments you make against me show that you need Jesus in your life.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    8:52
    8 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • To Mango: I am not a "wind up merchant" but simply one who is stating facts. The reason you don't accept the BIble is because the devil has blinded you. I pray that God will be pleased to open your eyes and give you the desire to repent and accept Jesus as your personal Saviour.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    8:54
    8 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • To VeroniqueD: You should be aware that Jesus said "you shall not test the Lord your God" Matthew 4 v 7

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    8:57
    8 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • The causes of violence and warfare, as well as all sorts of other injustices are many, and to think that to eradicate religion would solve the world's problems in this regard is naive. In fact it seems to me that a lot of the suffering in the world is caused by the urge some people have to control other people, both in micro and in macro. Yes, some of these people use religion as an excuse, but removing the religion would not remove the fundamental problem of the desire to control, and some other excuse would be found or invented to perpetrate the same injustices.
    One thing perhaps we can agree on is that the truth is impartial; it doesn't favour one person or their opinion over another.
    I've noticed in some of the posts here a certain insecurity; a nervousness in case an idea based on an illusion or a lie should prove stronger than the truth and cause it irreparable damage.
    Surely the history of scientific discovery and of life in general teaches us at least that, though a lie or misconception might continue for a while, yet in general, in the course of time the truth cannot be suppressed, and becomes manifest, to the inevitable demise of everything that turns out to be false in the light of it.
    In short, I think that the truth is far more powerful than we give it credit for, and that those who genuinely want the truth to prevail (rather than their own opinion) can rest secure that ultimately it will.
    In the light of this, perhaps we could relax a bit of the need for control over the content of education, and have the generosity of spirit to allow that each teacher is as well intentioned towards his students and their education as the next, as capable of forming a rational opinion, and teaching his students accordingly.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    10:47
    8 August, 2009

    hapoth

  • Bob Hutton claims "I am not threatening anyone, simply pointing out your need of Jesus as your personal Saviour."

    You've been attempting to browbeat everyone in here for days, ad nauseum, ad infinitum.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    12:29
    8 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • Hapoth - There is basically nothing anyone can do about teaching religion (of any form) in private, including private education. We live in a democracy where everyone has the right to accept and reject (the two go hand in hand) whatever religious beliefs they feel comfortable, or uncomfortable, with.

    The issue is the attempts of the fundamentalists to influence and take control of public education, including the universities. The issue of NARIC is that they appear to be getting in by the back door - by getting approval for education qualifications that include seriously bogus science.

    Indeed, the issue isn't really about either science or religion. It's a political issue. The fundamentalists in the UK have taken their lead (and advice and support from) the Religious Right in the USA - a deeply politicised movement. The aim is to establish a theocracy (with them in charge).

    I think it worthwhile coming back to one of the earlier points in this debate about Andy McIntosh and Truth in Science. The latter has openly threatened to "expose as charlatans" everyone it disgrees with.

    Sinister as it sounds, it pales into insignificance with elements of the Religious Right in the USA who want to ferment both war in the Middle East and establish Biblical law. (dominionists, rapture readyites, reconstructionalists, etc..)

    Truth in Science is too well connected to this to be viewed as somehow part of a reasoned public debate. Truth in Science is pushing te smokesreen of Intelligent Design and, as far as I can make out, has had support in its strategy and tactics from the Discovery Institute (that's why I think it is Truth in Science behind the BCSE Revealed web site and smears).

    Needeless to say, we all know what the Discovery Institute's real objectives are, social re-engineering. Moreover, what looks to tbe its principle backer, Howie Ahmanson, has been advocating (with considerable funding) the imposition of Biblical Law in its most brutal form. (See Rousas Rushdoony.) My estimates are that some 99% or more of the population would be subject to the death sentance if such law was introduced. The sort of laws we are talking about is stoning children to death for being lippy to their parents or execution for rejecting Christianity in its extreme form.

    You've already seen the mentality in this forum with Bob Hutton. They are absolutists. reason is something not only that they can't comprehend but something the reject outright. Indeed, Hutton seems incpable fo even aswering a question let alone putting two reasoned sentances together,

    I notice Roseof Sharon hasn't had the courage to reply.

    (IIRC isn't Rose of Sharon a breed of weed?)

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    12:52
    8 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • Bob Hutton spoust off
    "1. The evangelical Christian position is not an opinion but a fact...
    2. I am not arrogant, it is not arrogant to state facts. "

    Congratulations. You've managed to contradict yourself in the space of two sentences.

    Here indeed, we have a man (boy?) who doesn't know (or want to known) the difference between his opinion and fact. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, nobody is entitled to their own facts.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    12:57
    8 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • To stanyardroger: I have not contradicted myself - you falsely accuse me.

    I am not browbeating anyone, simply stating the truth. If you don't like my posts then don't read them.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    16:20
    8 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • Bob Hutton: Eyes roll. Really?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    11:16
    9 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • Hi Bob
    It's the Almighty here. Thanks for all the prayers - they were great. BTW, don't worry about that particular temptation you mentioned last week - lots of people do it, but I don't make them go blind. Not all of them, anyway.
    Look, I don't really know how to tell you this, but you're on the wrong bus. Backed a loser, if you know what I mean. See, all the Bible stuff was...well, just a little joke on My part. It gets so Medamn boring here, despite all the housekeeping tasks, eg logging the fall of each sparrow, organising wars, tsunamis, earthquakes, new methods of torture and the rest. Jeez, it's pretty dull being a (sorry, THE) deity, I can tell you. So, I thought the Bible stuff would liven things up a little. I didn't think some of you would actually fall for it - heaven knows, I put enough clues/jokes, etc in it to make sure you got the joke. I mean - eating apples, burning bushes, virgin birth, guys being nailed to trees, resurrection?? Come on...I even helped a little by having them cast a blond guy to play Jesus in 'The Greatest Story Ever Told' (clue's in the title). Hilarious, eh? But you still didn't get it.
    Actually, the only people who are following the right path are about 57 Polynesian islanders. I sent one of them a vision ages ago, and he carved my thoughts on a bit of tree bark and told the others. I did suggest that perhaps they might want to go out and tell the wider world, but they never got round to it, what with one thing and another. OK, I can forgive that. So, when the world ends in about 6 months' time ( I do it every couple of millennia just to stave off the ennui), I'm afraid they're the only ones who'll be saved. All the rest - your lot, muslims, buddhists, hindus, jews, mormons (especially the bloody mormons) - are bound for an eternity of unimaginable suffering. Sorry about that, but hey - who said life was fair?
    Oops, better go. My Creator is calling. What? You didn't know there was another one? Look - a being as complicated as me (omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence - all that suff) couldn't possibly have just materialised from nowhere, could I? BTW, if you think I'm a tad heartless, you should see Herself. Destroys universes at the drop of a hat just for a laugh. Whoa, you really don't want to cross Her. Or Her Dad.
    Anyway, keep the prayers coming while you still can.
    PS I just decided - because I'm capricious as hell - that as the only ones of your species who have been using the intellects I bestowed on them in the intended sense - ie making rational decisions based on evidence - I'm going to save the atheists too. That'll be a nice surprise for them, won't it. Jeez, I'm all heart...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    12:33
    9 August, 2009

    AlfieOmega

  • Dear God,

    You're barking mad. What on earth makes you think Bob Hutton will be listening to you? He never has and, what's worse, you created him so you know exactly why.

    Why don't you just let us return him as he is a falty product of unmerchandisable quality. We expect a full and prompt refund, btw.

    In fact, why can't we return you to your own creator (preumably your misses) as a seriously wonky product?

    What's with all these fundamentalists running around foaming at the mouth? Have you deliberatly passed on rabies to them? You clearly seem to be some kind of wind up merchant.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    14:21
    9 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • I knew you were going to say that, Roger - omniscience, doncha know...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    14:52
    9 August, 2009

    AlfieOmega

  • Re the fundies - it is a kind of rabies, yes. Very astute of you. Got tired of locusts, frogs, boils and all the other stuff I used to visit on poor suffering humankind when I was bored, and thought I'd try something new. Gives us no end of amusement up here, I can tell you, watching them turn themselves inside out trying to resolve all the contradictions I deliberately put in the HB. I can't claim Intelligent Design, though - that was old Stan's idea (Bob probably knows him as Satan, but that was just a typo). Wish I'd thought of it. Heigh ho, you can't think of everything... wait a moment, that's one of my super powers, isn't it?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    20:58
    9 August, 2009

    AlfieOmega

  • Reply to Bob Hutton:

    Bob, you say:

    Reply to VeroniqueD: it is clear that the devil has blinded you. However, if God is pleased to open your eyes you will believe.

    So it's not VeroniqeD's fault. I'm pleased you know your bible, which does, of course, say that there is no such thing as free will.

    God determines who is going to heaven ...

    "And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." -- Acts 13:48

    "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate.... Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." -- Romans 8:29-30

    "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began." -- 2 Timothy 1:9

    "He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will." -- Ephesians 1:4-5

    "God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation." -- 2 Thessalonians 2:13

    and who is going to hell.

    "God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned." -- 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12

    "For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation." -- Jude 4

    There's nothing you can do about it.

    "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth. .... For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction." -- Romans 9:11-22

    So - Bob, why waste your breath trying to convert people to your point of view? Are you some kind of heretic? Still, anyone who can believe in such an immoral god who dooms people without even giving them a chance is capable of anything, perhaps...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    22:22
    9 August, 2009

    hopefultoo

  • I have only one thing to add.Here in Queensland Australia, the Queensland (public) Education Act which started out free and secular in 1875, has since 1910 has contained a clause allowing staff teachers to provide Bible Lessons to children. These Lessons are from a State Government authored Year 1 - Year 7 curriculum and the

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    23:13
    9 August, 2009

    SecularLobby

  • Take 2 (my last post became truncated in crossing the Equator!)

    I have only one thing to add.

    Here in Queensland Australia, the Queensland (public) Education Act which started out free and secular in 1875, has since 1910 has contained a clause allowing staff teachers to provide Bible Lessons to children. These Lessons are from a State Government authored Year 1 - Year 7 curriculum and the 'Good News' Bible.

    Within the past decade, the Pentecostal/Charismatic/Evangelical churches and Education Queensland executives of the same ilk have harnessed this loophole and used it as a mandate to practically usurp the Queensland public education system. Please, someone in the enlightened world help us! Pollies left, right or centre all the way up to our Creationist Prime Minister are too terrified to touch it.

    Please Google ‘Australian Secular Lobby’ for the facts or visit http://www.australiansecularlobby.com

    Please consider this a 'message in a bottle' to the enlightened world.

    Ronnie Williams
    Director
    Australian Secular Lobby

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    23:19
    9 August, 2009

    SecularLobby

  • The kind of backward exam-based "curriculum" outlined in this article is nothing less than an abuse of children's credulousness; an exploitation of innocence designed to perpetuate the kind of ignorance and prejudice by which the "flock" is easily husbanded.
    Children are already prey to corporate exploitation and other abuses that thrive on their limited ability to think critically. Schools should be the one haven in a child's life where they are insulated from vested interests, where they are taught how and encouraged to "think for themselves", to gather their wits before they throw them away.
    This kind of infiltration of the education system is worryingly common and cannot be allowed to pass!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    1:20
    10 August, 2009

    thinkingkids

  • Ronnie,

    We've been followig what's been going on with Australian fundamentalists for some years. They are a major driving force behind the religious extremism that is growing here in blighty.

    As you are well aware, Ken Scam (sorry, Ham), head of Answers in Genesis, as well as his on and off pal and former "creationism" salesman, John "Necrophilia" Mackay are exceedingly active in the UK although "Necrophilia" Mackay, long excommunicated from his church for breach of the nonth commandment, is now hiding from the public that he is getting into state schools to deceive children with his crapola.

    We also have Hillsong well established in London so we expect that to start political lobbying sometime.

    The Brtish Centre for Science Education (www.bcseweb.org.uk), of which I'm spokesman, is always interested in what the creationists are up to down under. The recent slagging match between Creation Ministries International and Answers in Genesis clearly shows a movement that is raving bonkers. For what it is worth, it looks as if Creation Ministries International now has the upper hand in Britain over Answers in Genesis UK.

    Stupid - you bet! CMI's UK proselytiser, Phillip Bell, believes that dinosaurs roamed rural Britain until the end of the 15th century. He's been pushing this crapola for years.

    Keep in touch.

    Roger

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    13:10
    10 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • Hello God (again),

    About this Stan bloke, presumably a drinking pal of yours - is he some kind of Baptist?

    As for that alledged contract you have with us? I've been taking a look at it and its full of contradictions, outright fabrications and untruths. It would never stand up in a court of law. No wonder your pal Stan is taking advantage of you.

    Moreover, it's been drawn to my attention that the terms are a de facto breach on anti-monopoly laws just about everywhere, including the right to freely exchange intellectual property rights within the Single European Act (Americans don't count as they are clueless). It's no good arguing that you have stiched up everything through a deal you have with Stan as that constitutes an oligopoly. Clearly your market for morality needs to be opened up to competition as does your and Stan's oligopsony on the hereafter.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    13:24
    10 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • Just some background on Bob Hutton - he has a reputation for trolling on the net and changes his email address frequently. I couldn't quite make him out until I found out that he is yet another American trying to save souls (eyes roll), this time in the Republic of Ireland. He looks to be distinctly hostile towards Catholicism. He runs a church out of his own home and, presumably, isn't aware just how hostile the Irish have traditionally been towards the forms of Protestantism that orginated in the UK. His previous attempts at converting the natives were in Outer Mongolia (I jest not).

    He seems to think that there is something wrong with the Irish for not accepting his fundamentalist Baptist beliefs. Perhaps he should take a visit to Northern Ireland.

    He has no background in science whatsover and appears to have received his undergraduate and postgraduage education solely from Bible Belt fundamentalist bible studies colleges.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    14:23
    10 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • To Hopefulto: I commend you for your knowledge of the Bible. If God is pleased to open your eyes then that knowledge will translate into a personal faith in Christ as your Lord and Saviour.

    You asked why I bother to evangelise; the answer is simple - because Christ as commanded His followers to spread the Gospel. It is through preaching that souls are saved. That preaching may be verbal or by the printed page.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    17:11
    10 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • To stanyardroger: No, you have the wrong Bob Hutton, I am not a yank. Try again.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    17:13
    10 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • OK, apologies to that. Your stilll using this forum to preach, though.
    Moreover, your still failing to answer any questions.

    So who are you?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    17:41
    10 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • Try doing some research old chap!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    20:35
    10 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • Roger and others,

    Try http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/03/14/when-a-troll-comes-calling/ - list of BH quotes - instantly recognisable phraseology.

    http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/1778 - look through the comments; you will recognise the language.

    http://www.jonworth.eu/in-your-face-atheism/ - same through the comments.

    Bob the bookkeeper from Kent appears to be the bloke. Must need some jollies from the tedium. Reiteration of same, same must have addled his brain.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    21:29
    10 August, 2009

    VeroniqueD

  • Why is everyone arguing with this poor zombie? He clearly has no control over his own thoughts. The voices in his head are impervious to reason, logic, evidence or any notion that threatens his superstitious world view. You would be better off arguing metaphysics with a border collie (they apparently have the intelligence of a human 2-year old).

    As a great man once said: "You can't reason with believers; if you could, there wouldn't be any."

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    10:01
    11 August, 2009

    GrantThompson

  • Have another try, there is more than one Bob Hutton on the internet writing "fundamentalist" stuff.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    10:43
    11 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • Bob Hutton refuses to answer any questions again. Well it transpires that the Bob Hutton who has appeared in this forum is a troll from Broadstairs who appears to have been banned from several sites (for trolling).

    Dunno about the others here but I find his endless rantings and lack of honesty to be tedious. he's clearly a troll. who stalks around various web sites, changing his name from time to time.

    My final reply to him is as follows: Hutton: you have every right to evangelise and proselytise your religious opinions. However, the rest of the world also has the right to tell you to push off, not least when you get so arrogant that you refuse to answer any and all questions. So go shove it.



    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    14:21
    11 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • Clearly, you only support free speech when it agrees with you.

    You MUST repent of your unbelief and accept Jesus as your pesonal Saviour. If you don't do this then you WILL end up in Hell.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    21:16
    11 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • Hutton: The Times/TES are upmarket publications for intelligent people. So quit preaching and answer some questions. Otherwise, push off.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    12:42
    12 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • The Bibilical account of creation is not out of step with proven scientific facts. The "unintelligent" are people like yourself and your unbelieving friends who fulfil the teaching of Romans 1 v 22 "Professing themselves to be wise they became fools".

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    14:51
    12 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • Hutton,

    Go on then. Show us, in your own words, what the scientific theory of creationism is and how it can be tested by the scientific method.

    As I have already asked and you haven't replied, I think you are just hot air. Prove me wrong.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    16:01
    12 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • Question - how can you get life out of no life?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    22:14
    12 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • Hutton, answer our questions instead of playing the windbag.

    You already know that it is accepted by professionals that in abiogenesis life came from non-life. Whether it did or didn't does not back your position up. The world isn't 6,000 years old and the Flinstones/Noah's Ark story is fantasy and does not have its orgins in the Bible.

    So quit the BS and show us your scientific explanation of the differences between species. Or can't you?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    13:42
    13 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • Seeing as you don't wish to answer the question I'll do it for you. You get life from no life when you create it, as God did from nothing.

    You must repent of your sins, including the sin of unbelief and accept Jesus as your Lord and Saviour - or face the eternal consequences.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    17:43
    13 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • Hutton: answer the questions.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    10:58
    14 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • Specify exactly what questions you would like answered.

    Please note I am praying for you that God would be pleased to open your eyes and give you a desire to repent and accept Jesus as your personal Saviour.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    12:51
    14 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • In your own words, what is the scientific theory of creationism (or Intelligent Design) and how can it be tested with the scientific method?

    How many times do I have to repeat myself?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    14:50
    14 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • The answer is simple - go into the "Answers in Genesis" web site and examine it carefuly.

    The space on this comments box is too limited to present the overwhelming evidence for the fact of creation.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    15:32
    14 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • Quit bullshitting and answer the questions, in your own words.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    17:50
    14 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • It is not possible in such a short space to list all the evidence for creation. If you really wish to be enlightened on this matter I would suggest that you carefully study the Answers in Genesis web site.

    Your use of profanity suggests to me that you are losing control - you must calm down!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    21:41
    14 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • Hutton - stop talking out of your backside and evading the question. I asked simple question and there is plenty of space to provide it.

    You can't do it because you don't understand your own position.

    I'm not asking for "evidence" from Answers in Genesis's web site crapola (or anywhere else). I'm asking for your scientific explanation of the differences between species and how it can be tested with the scientific method. That is entirely absent from AiG's web site.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    11:32
    15 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • Calm down! You know full well that it is not possible to give detailed evidence for the facts of creation in just a few lines, or even a few paragraphs. The Answers in Genesis site should be examined carefully by all those who really wish to know the truth concerning how the earth and people came into being.

    Evolution is a lie from the devil, and I pray that God will open your eyes to this and grant you the desire to repent and accept Jesus as your personal Saviour.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    15:20
    15 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • Hutton: Rubbish. I know full well that the theory of evolution by natural selection and how it can be tested by the scientific method can be explained in a few sentances.

    That you can't do it for your alledged "alternative" speaks volumes about you and your crapola.

    Stop avoiding the questions and quit your idiotic and patronising preaching and crude attempts at browbeating and smearing people.

    Either you have a straight answer to my questions or you are a world-class fraud and phoney.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    16:33
    15 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • Of course the "evidence" for evolution can be explained in a few sentences because it doesn't amount to much.

    The evidence for creation is so vast it will take more than a few sentences, or even a few paragraphs. If you have an aversion to "Answers in Genesis" I would suggest www.icr.org and/or www.creationresearch.org.

    You falsely accuse me of browbeating and smearing people, a classic tactic used by those who are losing an argument, another tactic is to descend into vituperative attacks as you have done.

    I would also urge you to examine your own heart and attitude. Your lack of humility and your obvious arrogance is a sign that you need Jesus in your life.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    21:13
    15 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • So what are we going to do about this beside baiting fundies?
    How about writing to newspapers, emailing Naric (feedback@naric.org.uk) and the Rt Hon Ed Balls MP, Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families:
    dcsf.ministers@dcsf.gsi.gov.uk, etc, etc

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    11:55
    16 August, 2009

    gray5

  • Hutton: You clearly don't understand the difference between evidence and an explanation. Try again. I'm not asking you for evidence; I'm asking you for an explanation.

    Your reply is uttely stupid.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    12:59
    16 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • Gray5 - yep, I think you're right there. We could do with some help at BCSE on this. See www.bcseweb.org.uk - community forum.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    13:50
    16 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • Mr Stanyard: you are clearly losing control of yourself. This shows in your abusive manner - calm down! I am praying for you as you need Jesus in your life.

    All the evidence and explanations that you need in order to show the scientific proofs of creation are in the web sites I have given you details of.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    14:12
    16 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • Patronising creep.

    Answer the question.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    10:13
    17 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • Now, now - the fact that you engage in personal abuse is proof you have lost the argument. You really do need Jesus in your life.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    10:50
    19 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • Grow up and answer the question.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    11:25
    19 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • You act of being abusive is proof you have lost the argument. Clearly you need Jesus in your life.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    12:56
    19 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • Answer the question.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    17:23
    19 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • I'm glad you have dropped the abusive comments, things are looking up!

    In answer to your question read my post on 15th August at 21-13.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    18:44
    19 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • Done it. You did not answer the question then, presumably because you can't and are not honest enough to admit it.

    If anyone else in hear remains, apparently Bob Hutton has applied to join the BCSE. He's free, anyway, to post a reply to my question on its public forum. He won't.

    Message to Bob Hutton: Why are you a lying bastard?

    You're message of 1st August reads "Oh dear, it seems I've ruffled a few feathers here!..."

    The feigned "susprise" is as bogus as it gets seeing that you have played the same game elswhere on the net. You deliberately entered this forum to pick a fight and knew the outcome from the very start.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    11:00
    20 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • Oh dear - you have gone back to your abusive ways. I am praying for you as you need Jesus in your life.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    18:09
    20 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • Your a troll. The only reason you came into this site was to tell everyone your religious opinions, preach, smarm and pick a fight. That's why you've been kicked off of other sites.

    You have no integrity whatsoever.

    You don't like it when someone answers you back, so bugger off.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    13:51
    21 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • Hi. I feel I must respond to this article - and in so doing place myself firmly in the firing line of those so quick to snipe on the back of the above report. I attended an ACE school - in fact the very one mentioned in the TES article from which this is drawn - and emerged surprisingly sane and reasonable on the other side. Surprising that is to all of you who are so quick to disparage this education system on the say-so of an author and informant who may very well have their own personal agendas and may have no experience of the sytem in scrutiny.Not surprising, however, to the many parents, teachers and other graduates who have witnessed - and devoted themselves to - the immensely life affirming, and life changing work that happens within these schools - a very central element of their ethos and similarly the subsequent glowing ofsted reports. I now work within many state schools, and can easily recognise the strengths and weaknesses of the gamut of education systems I have encountered - none of which I could ever offer as the definitive model since none are without their failings.As to the specifics of this article, the references to apartheid being represented as

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    23:30
    21 August, 2009

    lothermatt

  • 'beneficial to South Africa' are, to my mind, very misleading. ACE is quite clear that such discrimination is wrong, but that a consequence of such a political climate is that the passing on of the conflicting cultures becomes a central aspect of the respective educational establishments. This is a global sociological truth; it does not condone apartheid. I completed this work as part of my education and that is how I cam away understanding ACE's view of this matter - clearly Mr Scaramanger and I saw things in differing lights.

    Believe me, this is a complex educational model and to fully understand the reasons for NARIC’s decision you would need to give in due attention - as I assure they have - and not merely assess it on scant evidence completely devoid of context.

    I have emerged from this system capable of settling for myself the existence, or sadly otherwise, of ‘Nessie’ and any subsequent impacts on evolution - another field in which my view differs from those of this educational product.

    ACE is not producing mindless, fundamentalist drones to be released upon an unsuspecting world - the graduates from my school alone have successfully attended universities across the country including Oxbridge, Durham and many others often to PHD levels and are now engaged in a wide variety of work environments with exceptional results. These achievements would not be possible without developing powers of critical thinking, reasoning and self-awareness - so the system cannot be as fundamentally flawed as some might choose to portray. As said above - I fully acknowledge that there are areas I would dearly love to address within it, but that is also true for all the educational bodies and systems I have encountered.

    It is far too easy to tag 'faith schools' with the newly perceived terror associated with faith and fundamentalism and neglect the incredibly valuable work they are doing in the lives of many children.

    I could talk for hours about the needs of balance in the way we share matters of our personal faith - always a minefield of a topic on its own! - with children - our own and others entrusted to our care within education - and would gladly do so with anyone that wants to have such a discussion, or any other related to this article and educational set-up, but I just felt a little perspective and perhaps genuine insider-knowledge might benefit this conversation - I am only sorry I came so late to the party!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    23:32
    21 August, 2009

    lothermatt

  • Wow - congratulations to anyone who managed to read my diatribe in its entirity! I should just apologise for the first paragraph reference to a TES article - I copied that para from another blog I replied on and it is not relevant here. Just to avoid any confusion.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    23:36
    21 August, 2009

    lothermatt

  • Roger: I have a blog:

    www.bobhutton1.blogspot.com

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    13:54
    22 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • Bub Hutton: So?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    14:55
    22 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • lothermatt, I can't figure our what you are trying to say. Are you saying that the exams are equivalent to A levels or do you accept the view of one of your alumni that they are not - "Jonny Scaramanga, a music lecturer who attended an ACE school in Bath as a child, said he was astonished the courses were judged comparable to international A-levels and O-levels."?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    13:03
    23 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • Stanyardroger: I think the comparison to A-levels is a very tricky one - principally becuase the ACE system is really modular rather than culminating in final exams. As said above, it is quite a complex set-up but that is a very simplified overview of the structure. I studied English Language and Linguistics at Durham (a premium university for English) and my knowledge (prior to Uni) far exceeded the vast majority of my colleagues - not blowing my own trumpet, but I think the English material in ACE is very strong and that is a classically weak subject in state education. I will very readily concede that certainly scientifically, the material is lacking compared to most available lessons elsewhere. The major factor for this is that all ACE schools here in the UK are small (max circa 70 kids from 5 - 18) and they are self-funded with no government support and the families involved are not abundantly wealthy at all, so the physical provisions are pretty limited due to their cost.To try and answer the question... it is an internationally recognised eductional package (I believe that South Africa adopted it as part of their national curriculum... ironic perhaps!) and there has to be some recognition for students completing their education whatever model they use. The most obvious way I can see to assess its comparative nature is to look at how the alumni have fared in subsequent education - and I can assure you that the track record is very strong in the regard. ACE focuses a lot on the personal and social development of the individual (though admittedly some people don

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    0:36
    24 August, 2009

    lothermatt

  • erghhh it has just deleted a HUGE amount of what I had written!!!!!!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    0:37
    24 August, 2009

    lothermatt

  • don't like the religious angle, but nothing is hidden from prospective parents so that is their choice really), and as a result of this the academics as less the sole focus they tend to be in state education. I would love to see the academics in ACE strengthened - but in the same measure that I would like to see more focus given to developing the character of state education students. That isn't a judgement of the two groups of students at all - I am specifically speaking about the focus of their educational models.

    So yes, I think it is important that there is recognition for all academic models for the sake of the students and their futures - and I think NARIC have made the best comparison they could. Both education models equip their students to excell (in many cases) in further education and vocations... and surely that is objective of any education establishment.

    As for the faith angle - yes, ACE is unashamedly Christian and some of the material IS geared around that (though I think some of the material highlighted in this and other similar articles is somewhat misleading and sensationalised in that respect). But that is a belief system and if parents choose that for their children, then they should be entitled to that. It should never be the case that anyone, child or adult, is forced to believe something - and I don't feel that is the case at ACE schools, though perhaps Jonny felt differently about it. But as parents, you do have to make a decision what grounding you are going to give your children. As I said above, that is in intself a VAST subject for discussion on its own, but that is where I stand.

    As it happens, Jonny and I are in fact very good friends and have been since long before we sat nect to each other at the school mentioned. We don't see eye-to-eye on lots of things, but I respect his right to his own opinion and he to mine.

    As for me, my education has enabled and prepared me to reach my targets both academic and professional, so I am grateful for what I recieved on both an academic and personal level from the school.

    Does that do anything to clarify my position?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    0:54
    24 August, 2009

    lothermatt

  • lothermatt - thanks for the reply.

    Seems to me that the issue is not over English literature within the framework of ACE but that of the hard (natural) sciences.

    Coming out of an ACE based education believing that the Loch Ness monster existed and that the world is 6,000 years old just isn't good enough.

    I talked some time back with a leading university (Royal Holloway, btw) about the issue and their deep concern was that students who believed thus were unteachable. I also suspect that in a number of professions they are also unemployable (ever heard of a practisng geologist who is also a young earth creationist?)

    So there remains a big problem. The ACE exams do not look to be up to the job in a wide number of areas and are thus not the equivalent of A levels. It may be different with English literature but that's part of the humanities, not science.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    15:53
    24 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • Roger: you need Jesus in your life - I am praying for you that God will give you the desire to humble yourself and accept Him as your personal Saviour.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    22:13
    24 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • As I say, patronising creep and all round troll.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    12:42
    25 August, 2009

    stanyardroger

  • As I say, you need Jesus in your life!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    16:18
    25 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • Roger - you know that this twit is being as inflammatory (well, in his tiny mind) as he can to try to jerk some sort of response from you.

    Do you think he will go on forever (that is until he dies, hahaha) repaeating the same stuff over and over again?

    Do you think that he understands that no one is the slightest bit interested in his particular and partisan view of religious fantasy?

    You and I and the rest of us know he is incapable of answering any reasonable question put to him. All he can do is rely on the 'authority' of some stupid text written by people who had (and some, like Ken Ham still don't have) no idea of any sort of physics, biology, chemistry or anything else that takes some inquisitive, searching intelligence.

    All he does is say read AIG or read the bible or listen to some quasi-scientist not even accepted by his own scientific peers.

    Do you thinking his repeating of the same mindless mantra over and over again is because there is nothing else going on in his mind? It appears that way to me - a bit like a drugged-out person who latches onto one simplistic idea and repeats it forever as though it made a difference to the real world. Nothing any more complicated or needing of intelligence is allowed to cross his mental and/or emotional threshold in case it disrupts the monotonous mantra.

    Good luck.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    14:53
    26 August, 2009

    VeroniqueD

  • Of course you are not interested in the truth of the Gospel, you won't be unless the Lord opens your eyes - you are in His hands, and at His mercy. If He is pleased to open your eyes and grant you the gift of faith you will believe, if not then you will stay in your blindness, die in your sins, and end up in Hell.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    18:17
    26 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • I forgot to add, Roger, that I think religion is a drug that veils the perception of the real world from those who use the drug. Those addicted to religion can no more shake its hold on them than a heroin addict can shake the addiction to and need for heroin. Pitiful to see but most of them die still addicted after all.

    I have only ever seen one person come off religion and though I could say it was 'cold turkey', it wasn't really. It was very painful to watch as the scales fell away from his eyes and he started to see what really went on in the world.

    That was about 35 years ago, I haven't seen the fellow for years and I hope he is still okay. He developed the strength to resist the pull of the comforting fantasy when I knew him and I know that once you see the world for what it is you just can't go back to fooling yourself with obvious fantastical rubbish.

    I remember Alistair McGrath talking about his atheist days at Uni and how he became religious afterwards. I didn't believe him. You cannot go back to fantasy after reality. I always thought McGrath was pretending to be fashionably irreligious while at Uni but was always religious from the word go.

    It's amazing what people will do and say while in 'lying for jesus' mode. We saw three fellows on the street proselytising and trying to telling the shoppers they would go to hell unless they were reborn in jesus. Well! Yorker served up some questions none of them to answer, so he told them what he thought of their ridiculous public stance and how stupid they sounded. They were trying to turn the other cheek but you could see they would have loved to hit him. Hahaha. I just told them to piss off and get a life and leave the rest of us alone. They didn't like me either.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    0:37
    27 August, 2009

    VeroniqueD

  • The more contempt you show for the Gospel and for the servants of the Lord, the more severe will be your eternal judgement. You MUST repent and accept Jesus as your Lord and Saviour.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    9:48
    27 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • Stanyard - I was primarily speaking about English Linguistics which is actually a science, but accepted not a natural one.

    As for your appraisal - obviously we are all entitled to make our own minds up on this - but I would urge you to at least pay the full spectrum of study is due attention rather than assume that the informartion in this article is both factual and complete.

    As I said originally, I came through this system and have left believing in evolutionary principles in relation to species' development and earth age. And I am by no means alone in that position. So I feel it is very sweeping to suggest that the 'young earth creationist' is the only product of this educational model - I would suggest it is quite probably the minority view. But I can easily understand that stance in light of the article and the information it offers - but it must be recognised this is offered with a view to making a 'story', and how often have we seen the media misrepresent things to serve that god!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    15:04
    27 August, 2009

    lothermatt

  • www.bobhutton1.blogspot.com

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    10:26
    29 August, 2009

    BobHutton

  • Mrs Lewis is either lying or mistaken; Oxford University does not offer a degree in Natural Sciences.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    16:54
    27 June, 2012

    rfellerman

  • Christians have been using mythological beasts for two millennium. The Jews before them believed in talking snakes. Why not Nessie right? I love her, she's great with kids. :-)

    This BS is about getting children to believe because it's a cute cuddly dinosaur, a Scottish Barney, a kind gentle beast. But never underestimate the Fundamentalists to put facts and reason aside. We already know the lies they believe, why should we be surprised they're making up new ones.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    7:58
    28 June, 2012

    Danny Fidler

  • Jesus Christ is coming soon as lord of lords and king of kings, those who believe in him as saviour and who confess that they are sinners and ask Jesus for redemption of sins he will cleanse them their sins with his precious blood which has been shed for all people of the world and give them eternal life... Hence dear brothers and sisters in christ know the true god and get saved from the hell.. May god bless you abundantly.....<a href="http://www.examsinfo.com" rel="do follow" title="Latest Jobs and Exams info">Exams Info </a> ...http://www.examsinfo.com/

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

    12:53
    8 September, 2013

    examsinfo

Add your comment

Subscribe to the magazine

Related articles

More Articles

Join TES for free now

Join TES for free now

Four great reasons to join today...

1. Be part of the largest network of teachers in the world – over 2m members
2. Download over 600,000 free teaching resources
3. Get a personalized email of the most relevant resources for you delivered to your inbox.
4. Find out first about the latest jobs in education