Tony Benett

sayonara wrote: "What we consider to be 'bad' about Creationism as a verb (in the sense that it is the one thing we all agree on as a scientific community; obviously individuals will have additional criticisms) is that in its worst form it has several negative effects on the way in which its supporters think: - It actively seeks to prevent critical thought, - It seeks to undermine the education of an entirely valid branch of science, - It is ludicrously selective in its attacks, - It passes lies as facts, - It passes fallacious arguments as reasoning and logic, - It prevents minds from questioning the world". ----------------------------------------------------------------------- REPLIES: These are interleaved below: What we consider to be 'bad' about Creationism as a verb... REPLY: Que? It's a noun - It actively seeks to prevent critical thought... REPLY: Au contraire. It is those who for one reason or another support the theory of evolution that seek to stifle all questioning of it, often simply by abuse of their opponents rather than actually engaging with the known facts and the surrounding arguments. Let the theory of evolution be tested against other explanations for origins, as would be the case with any other unproven theory - It seeks to undermine the education of an entirely valid branch of science... REPLY: Wait a minute, the 'education'? Isn't that more than a touch loaded? Yes, creationsists seek to undermine a theory which we say cannot be supported by the scientific facts. Any theory worthy of the name should be able to withstand criticisms of it. If I asked you, for example, to give me even a rough approximation of the genealogical line that took us from the original inanimate cells - that somehow came to life 4.5 billion years ago, and from the earliest 'simple' amoeba, right down to homo sapiens, coud you do so? If not, you don't have a very good theory - It is ludicrously selective in its attacks... REPLY: Is it? No, we bring evidence from biology, from the rocks, from the fossils, from physics, from genetics, and it supports our case. Then we look at the weaknesses of the bases of evolution theory, like the ludicrously inexact and contradictory 'science' of radiometric dating, to give but one example. How precisely are we 'selective'? - It passes lies as facts... REPLY: Isn't that a bit rich coming from a group of 'scientists' who invented false drawings of embryos (Haeckel), constructed the fake Piltdown Man, and falsified the evidence relating to peppered moths? Yes, some creationists have been wrong in some of their claims, and that has been admitted and frankly discussed on the ever-growing number of creationist websites. Can you name just one creationist 'lie' on a similar scale as Haeckel's blatant forgeries and the 50-year shame of so-called 'missing link' Piltdown Man? - It passes fallacious arguments as reasoning and logic... REPLY: Let us have one specific example and I will respond - It prevents minds from questioning the world... REPLY: Virtually the same point as "It actively seeks to prevent critical thought" above. Has it occurred to you that in order to become Christians and young earth creationists, after being brought up on a staple diet of 'evolution is a fact - just accept it', have very much had to use 'critical thought' to reach the place they have reached? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

sayonara wrote: [part snipped] "(2) In an interview with the BBC last year, Vardy stated that he 'would be concerned if creationism was taught as fact in [his] schools'. So either you are wrong, or he is a liar". REPLY: Excuse me? Look carefully once more at what I actually wrote: "A recent OFSTED report found that Sir Peter Vardy's academy schools in the north of England, where pupils learn 'creation science' alongside (note, not instead of) the theory of evolution, produced excellent results - a very high academic standard and students of good character". I spoke the truth. In Sir Peter Vardy's schools, 'creationism' is not taught as a fact; it is presented as an explanation of origins alongside the theory of evolution. Students in his schools can make up their own minds on which explanation better fits the known scientific facts. And what can possibly be wrong about presenting two rival explanations for origins and asking students to use their brains, and processes of logic and reasoning, to work out for themselves which explanation better fits the facts? If creationism is as inconsistent with known scientific facts as you suggest, why not teach the two alongside each other and let people see for themselves just how good a theory evolution is? Trouble is, recent advances in science are coming ever closer to esxposing evolution as an unsustainable theory, which is no doubt why getting on for 50% of Britons and Americans no longer subscribe to the theory, according to a raft of recent opinion polls on the subject ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

sayonara wrote: "There is no scientific reason why homosexual activity per se should be considered "more dangerous" to your health than heterosexual activity". ---------- ANSWER: Compare the way God designed [or, for the purposes of this board, let us say how science has discovered] the linings of vagina - for specific purposes - together with the inbuilt capacity for the vagina to be lubricated when the woman is in a state of sexual arousal (all of this pre-programmed into our DNA), with what we know from science about lining [singular] of the anal canal. Which was designed with just one specific purpose in mind ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've registered on SFN purely to respond to the question: "What is worse, creationism or homophobia?' - which popped up under a Google Alert I have on 'creationism'. What is 'bad' about creationism? The Bible's account of a 6-day creation followed by a world-wide Flood is fully consistent with known scientific facts e.g, in biology, palaeontology, geology etc. A recent OFSTED report found that Sir Peter Vardy's academy schools in the north of England, where pupils learn 'creation science' alongside (note, not instead of) the theory of evoluition, produced excellent results - a very high academic standard and students of good character. Most of the attacks on creationists are by those who have an unshakeable faith in the theory of evolution and are unwilling to debate alternatives. Is there one scientific fact which disproves a 6-day creation or a world-wide Flood? As for 'homophobia', what is the precise definition of this neologism coined recently by the gay community? It should, logically, mean 'fear (or hatred) of homosexuals'. But in practice the word is frequently used to attack anyone who does not wholeheartedly support the gay agenda - that is, people like me who oppose e.g. 'gay marriage', and 'gay adoption' and who do not want to see homosexuality portrayed in schools as an equally valid lifestyle to marriage. And for good reason, since 'science' reveals to us the adverse health consequences of the gay lifestyle for so many who adopt it. I do not hate or fear homosexuals and in my career have never treated them adversely in any way. But the God revealed in the Bible created us male and female - and ordained a committed marriage as the institution for raising children. He also said that sex should take place only within a committed (heterosexual) marriage. If believing that makes one 'homophobic', then you have defined the word incorrectly. What harm has been committed by those, sometimes called 'homophobic', whi have pointed out the dangers of the 'gay lifestyle'? P.S. If anyone feels inclined to attack the Bible, fisrt give me one - just one - historical fact in the Bible that has ever been disproved ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------