Thursday, September 18, 2008

Rev Professor Michael Reiss sacked by Royal Society over 'creationism'

Cranmer has received a request to provide space to discuss this incident, and he is pleased to do so.

Last week, the Rev Professor Michael Reiss called for ‘creationism’ (the belief in a literal 6-day creation) to be debated in the classroom if the subject was raised by pupils. Not, as was widely reported, to be ‘taught in science classes’.

Yesterday, he was forced to resign as director of education of the Royal Society, for bringing it into disrepute. The action followed a campaign by high-profile ‘militant atheists’, and some intolerant – one might almost say ‘bigoted’ - religious bloggers.

The Professor did not call for creationism to be taught in schools. Indeed, he stressed the belief had no 'scientific validity'. And with sensitivity to religious and ethnic diversity in schools, he observed that banning all discussion of an 'alternative world view' at a time of growing religious fundamentalism could backfire.

The Royal Society is of the opinion that these comments had damaged the body's reputation.
In a statement, it said: 'As a result, Professor Reiss and the Royal Society have agreed that, in the best interests of the Society, he will step down immediately as director of education.’

While the rabid atheists and obsessively-narrow religionists demanded Professor Reiss’s dismissal, Lord Winston supported him throughout the furore. He said: ‘This individual was arguing that we should engage with and address public misconceptions about science.... Something that the Royal Society should applaud.’


If the theory of evolution is so self-evident, it ought to have no problem standing up to a classroom discussion. Science is about enquring, the prerequisite of which is an open mind. The Royal Society has manifest the antithesis; indeed, it has displayed intolerance and the enforcement of personal prejudice.

No wonder science is dying in Britain.

Incidentally, the Vatican has said the theory of evolution is compatible with the Bible and does not therefore plan to apologise to Charles Darwin. It advocates 'theistic evolution,' which sees no reason why God could not have used an evolutionary process to create humans.

Why can the Church of England, with its genius for the via media, not see the common-sense position of that?


Blogger The Heresiarch said...

The problem with Reiss goes way beyond his "misinterpreted"(?) comments about discussing creationism in schools. He had to go, not because he thought that a science class might want to discuss creationism, but rather because he is partly responsible for such a discussion becoming even a possibility. He was involved in re-writing the GCSE curriculum a couple of years ago; one of his aims, he said at the time, was to introduce quasi-philosophical discussions about the nature of science, its social role, etc, into courses which previously confined themselves to learning the basic facts of physics, chemistry, biology, doing experiments, and so on. Mary Warnock likened his approach to "pub philosophy" rather than proper science.

18 September 2008 at 09:08  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's a great shame and reflects very badly on the Royal Society.

Discussion of creationism in a science class is essential to show why its not true.
This seems elementary.

18 September 2008 at 10:37  
Blogger Holy Smoke said...

Where might a discussion of creationism fit into the normal science curriculum? I think most children want to learn enough to pass a test. A discussion is a good way of getting the teacher off topic and wasting valuable class time. A major problem with educational bureaucrats and the Rev Professor Michael Reissis sounds like one is they try to have education cover to many non-essential topics while failing to ensure the students know the basics.

18 September 2008 at 13:12  
Anonymous Charles Darwin said...

You grace, science is not about simple enquiring, it is a specific method of enquiry - testing hypothesis against data. Creationism and intelligent design have positions, but no experimental or observational data to support them. Their positions, crudely are: 'the bible tells me God did it so God did it', or 'I do not how understand how cillia/evolution/ genetics/mutation/antibiotic resistance/dna works orcould have evolved and can notbe boethered to find out, so I will invoke a designer.

As such, they do not belong in science classes. Rev Reiss was misguided, butudid not deserve to be hounded out of his job. That he was is partly as a result of scintists' suspicions of those on the more fundamentalist wing of Christianity trying to force the 'teach the controversy' in America and trying the same entryism here in Britain. It is scientists defending their intellectual turf against what recent history has shown us is a mendacious, ill-informed and well-funded enemy who will lie to and deliberately ill-educate our children.

18 September 2008 at 13:26  
Blogger Frugal Dougal said...

Your Grace,

I agree with you about science dyig in Great Britain. However, there's an atheist agenda to teach only those parts of science which are compatible with their particular views, which are not shared by all scientists, regardless of their faith or lack of such.

An atheist blogger called Homo Econimicus has made some very interesting remarks on the issue:

I remain

Your obedient servant

Frugal Dougal
Happy yellow dog of the fens (by appointment)

18 September 2008 at 13:31  
Anonymous len said...

The theory of evolution is precisely that, a theory.
Darwin was not there at the creation of the world so he is theorising!
The evolutionists will not debate because their ideas will not stand testing!
It is interesting how agressively they protect their cherished ideas!.

18 September 2008 at 13:35  
Blogger Dave said...

I agree with len.

When you hear "The science has been proven", whether it be creationism/evolution or global warming/climate change you know someone's about to tell a whopping porky.

It worries me that so-called wise men or educated can be so foolish.
Only 150 years ago the was accepted amongst the scientific fraternity that the space between the planets was filled with a jelly like substance that they called ether. It was the only way that they could explain their observations.
We all know that they were wrong. And time usually proves man wrong -except it things eternal.
Once upon a time a scientist made observations and then proposed a theory that attempted to explain what he saw.
Then it all changed. Scientists proposed a theory and then went looking for the evidence to back it up.
Nowadays it's far worse.
Theories are held as immutable facts. Any evidedence that disproves the "facts" is rubbished, ignored or explained away. Anyone who objects is shipped off to the Gulags.

It amazes me how much faith the atheists have. It's easily the equal of the believers. One believes that there is a god and will stake everything on a place in the afterlife. The other believes that there is no god, no eternity. That requires a lot of faith.

18 September 2008 at 14:03  
Anonymous Alcuin said...

One reason for all this confusion is the common misconception that Evolution is "just a theory". It is in fact two things: a fact - evolution happens, we see it in superbugs and in clines or ring species; and a theory - the explanation of how it happens.

One reason Darwin took so long to publish is that he could not prove his proposed mechanism - natural selection from a pool of random mutations. Such a theory can never be proved, it can only be disproved.

However, in nearly 150 years, no challenge has stood, and the Theory of evolution remains the best, indeed the only explanation for the multitude of biological forms we see today, the fossil record, and some rather obvious design flaws in our own bodies (blood vessels in front of the retina, the knee joint, inefficient lungs, etc.).

18 September 2008 at 14:33  
Anonymous narcissa said...

Does it really matter what any science teacher says to pupils? Half of them won't be listening. Half of the rest won't understand. Most of the remainder will automatically disbelieve anything he tells them on the grounds that he is wearing the wrong sort of shoes.

18 September 2008 at 14:43  
Anonymous martin sewell said...

I think the discussion needs to go deeper. I am no 6 day literal creationist; I have had no difficulty in living most of my life, comfortable that evolution was compatible with a creator God. if that's how he want to do it - who am I to argue?

But John Maynard Keynes said, when the facts change i change my mind- what exactly do you do? and the development of DNA science has added complexity to the discussion that random mutation can explain the world of life we see.

When we limited our speculation to chemistry with ideas that the right chance mix of chemicals explained life it was possible to go with the random chance approach ( as opposed to the Intelligent Design model).

The new DNA/Genome science has opened up a different perspective that it is not only philosophically interesting to consider but scientifically intelligent to re-think.

We have moved from having to think in terms of a random chain of molecules enabling life, to thinking in terms of complex DATA having to assemble itself and remain stable ( NB -not equally randomly evolving away from a life producing event).

Bill Gates himself has described the human genome as resembling nothing more than highly complex computer code. Now, most of our experience is that when computer code randomly mutates it moves away from functionality. Has anyone heard of a programme that randomly mutated in a positive and sustained manner?

There are other interesting areas.

Some query if there is enough time for so much complex evolution to have occurred randomly, given what we know of the rate of change from studying fruit flies and viruses.

Darwin himself predicted that paleontolgy would soon throw up examples in the fossil record of life forms in transition - something which nature has stubbornly refused to do.

He also accepted that it was difficult to identify what evolutionary advantage would accrue to a life form with an eye as a "work in progress". There is no evolutionary advantage that would" lock in" a partial step on the path to a lens connecting to a retina,nerves, and brain, or for the latter to evolve an ability to receive and interpret the signals arriving. That problem still remains.

None of the above proves evolution is untrue, however militant secularists who simply believe that evolution is beyond question are showing either an ignorance of the developing sciences or a complete lack of open mindedness - something which young minds do sometimes have and which may enable them to engage with science more productively if they can see the fascination that lies in constantly challenging the assumptions of the previous generation

18 September 2008 at 14:46  
Blogger McKenzie said...




18 September 2008 at 17:14  
Blogger McKenzie said...

You with the sad eyes Charlie Darwin)
Don’t be discouraged
Oh, I realize it’s hard to take
In a world full of people you can
Lose sight of it all
The darkness inside you
Makes you feel so small

But I see your true colors
Shining through
I see your true colors and that’s
Why I love You
So don’t be afraid to let them show
Your true colors
True colors are beautiful, like a

Show me a smile then
Don’t be unhappy, can’t remember
I last saw you laughing
If this world makes you crazy
And you’ve taken all you can bear
Just call me up cause you know I’ll be there

And I see your true colors
Shining through
I see your true colors
That’s why I love you
So don’t be afraid to let them show
Your true colors, true colors are
Beautiful like rainbow

18 September 2008 at 17:21  
Blogger Tor Hershman said...

What happens when an Atheist puts all religions and Atheism on a totally equal plane?

Why, this film happens if the Atheist is moi.

This is an audio-visual presentation
[But what the fudge and/or ain’t? Not much.]
soooooo I only had room, aesthetically speaking, for eleven of the major cults but you’ll notice
(Pause the film to properly investigate – Well, unless you have total recall)
that Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Satanism and other religions are on a 100% equal strata with Atheism.

Stay on groovin’ (DNA) safari,
Rev. Dr. Tor

18 September 2008 at 17:26  
Blogger Tor Hershman said...

McKenzie, here are my parody lyrics to the tune of George Harrison’s “Awaiting On You All”
“Chanting The Name Of The Lord”

“Chanting The Name Of The Turd”
“Chanting The Name Of Old Tor”

You may have a smooth grin/
Your lies come out deadpan/
great communicator, mental masturbator/
spent a decade vegetatin’/

If you open up your heart/
blood will gush right out/
your emotions are in your brain/
not in replaceable chest spout/

By chantin’ the name of old Tor and you will see/
it’s worthless as chanting the name of any ole deity/
when earthquakes or giant storms come from the sea/
its as helpful as if you spent your whole life chantin’ Gumby/

You need to cut a fart/
all life needs to make gas/
if you’re an instigator or alligator/
you’re gonna get recycled/

If you open up your heart/
blood will gush right out/
charge gnomes in you chest rent/
`cause they’ll never help you out/

By chantin’ the name of old Tor and you will see/
it’s worthless as chanting the name of any ole deity/
`god speed` or Lennon songs in space shuttles ain’t worth a pee/
when they go boom you’re toast regardless of your theology/

You do need some shelter/
reporters love helter skelter /
Invest in Mardi Gras beads, not flood wall needs,/
and churches go a floatin’

If you open up your heart/
there’ll be a blood stream/
don’t let the creeps con you/
with their minds so freakin’ mean/

George sang, “Pope owns 51% of General Motors.”/
Harrison was pissed, he only owned 49% of GM stores./
Chant Jehovah, Krishna, Allah, Satan or Tor/
They’re equally worthless to help you, that’s for sure/

18 September 2008 at 17:31  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why do McKenzie's citations make smile and feel calm - while the rest irritates the life out of me?

I think I thought this rubbish was confined to ignorant bigots in the Southern America - and can't believe that the British have now descended to this level of stupid, half-informed, contentious, claptrap.

I'm not a Catholic, but have shared the Pope's approach to the problem ever since I learned about evolution and read "Origin of the Species" at grammar school. There, in Physics, Chemistry, and Biology we learned that scientists build their knowledge by forming Theories and hypotheses for which they gathered supporting evidence. Once a theory was proved beyond question it became a Law.

Since we also studied English Language and Literature, and Scripture, and participated in the 'symbolic mindset' that was part and parcel of that ancient tradition - we didn't have to be bored out of our gourds with discussion after discussion about non-facts!

18 September 2008 at 17:46  
Blogger McKenzie said...

I will treasure it for the rest of my life.


18 September 2008 at 17:48  
Blogger Tor Hershman said...

Hey Len, the theory of god/satan is precisely that, a theory.....and one with NO evidence.

If you take the satan character out of The Bible that book would end with, "...and so god created Eve for Adam and they lived happily ever after. The End"

Fictional Satan is WHY, according to The Bible, you exist and from most of your actions.....the one you REALLY worship.

But, worship away.....all are worthlessness and awash in a sea of vanity.

Stay on groovin'
(though as moi - vain)

18 September 2008 at 18:00  
Anonymous len said...

Tor Hershman
I have more evidence of GOd than I have of you,
Vanity of vanity , all is vanity,
blowing thro the windmills of your mind!

18 September 2008 at 18:51  
Anonymous len said...

there are none so blind as those who will not see,
there are none so deaf as those who will no hear,
Creation shouts out there is a designer!.
But wait a minute I have a theory,Remove God from the situation and then=

18 September 2008 at 19:02  
Blogger Miss Snuffleupagus said...

Your Grace
You mean that '6 days' is a kind of metaphor? I was wondering why you didn't blog about this... I'm glad you came through in the end...

18 September 2008 at 19:23  
Anonymous The Preacher said...

For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe!
1 corinthians 1:21

18 September 2008 at 20:20  
Blogger Botogol said...

"The Vatican has said the theory of evolution is compatible with the Bible"


Does Your Grace have a reference for this?

18 September 2008 at 22:19  
Anonymous Rebel Saint said...

I am creationist. I am proud to be a creationist. This week I have taught over 300 children from state schools that God created them and that at his command the Heavens & the Earth were formed.

"evolution happens, we see it in superbugs and in clines or ring species - Alcuin. Unfortunately, the evidence you state as irrefutable evidence of evolution is very far from being so. In none of these cases does a more complex, "higher order" species come into being. Bugs stay as bugs. Gulls stay gulls (often the eg of ring species & clines). Back to the drawing board if that is the best you can come up with.

18 September 2008 at 22:19  
Blogger McKenzie said...

rebel saint

God bless you sir! I thank God for your life.

18 September 2008 at 22:27  
Anonymous TomJ said...

@martin sewel

"Has anyone heard of a programme that randomly mutated in a positive and sustained manner?"

Err, yes. Ever heard of genetic algorithms? If not have a glance at

18 September 2008 at 22:46  
Blogger McKenzie said...

I have received a lovely email from my local Catholic church, and I have decided to give it a bash. The inner voice tells me it is time to shut my blabbering foul mouth on here for a while, but I will be reading. like His Grace has once said "it is addictive".

18 September 2008 at 23:14  
Anonymous Rebel Saint said...

Genetic Algorithm's ... nope they're not evolution either. The actual program code that runs the "genetic algorithm" and makes it functional/operational isn't changed one iota. Actually, this seems quite a good demonstration of Intelligent Design though : who programmed the algorithm, who set the constraints of the algorithm and determined it's rules ... that's right, some intelligent, creative entity called a human programmer.

18 September 2008 at 23:47  
Blogger Homophobic Horse said...

The intelligent designers often cite that mutation doesn't create new information, mutation specifically refers to the destruction of genetic data thus bringing out new traits, but this is not the same as speciation. Speciation has not been observed, not in nature nor in selective breeding.

Here are my two clever aphorism's about evolution:

1. Man is the mutant progeny of monkeys, consequently we shall love one and other.

2. From the walkman to the ipod, how the two evolved as a result of random evolution.

19 September 2008 at 00:41  
Blogger Stonemason said...

Well Homophobic Horse, I am glad you are not involved in the teaching of my daughter!

19 September 2008 at 06:10  
Blogger Holy Smoke said...

The day after the Church of England issued an "apology" for having
"misunderstood" the work of Charles Darwin, the Vatican has announced
that it will organise a debate on the thorny question of Christian
belief and the theory of evolution.

Two Cambridge lecturers, the archaeologist Lord Renfrew, and the
paleontologist Simon Conway Morris. will join an international
line-up of scientists, theologians, philosophers debating faith and
evolution at a Vatican-sponsored event in Rome. The five-day
encounter, entitled Biological Evolution, Facts and Theories. A
critical appraisal 150 after "The Origin of Species" has been
timetabled to coincide with the 150th anniversary of the publication
of On the Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin's seminal work on the
theory of evolution. Forty-eight speakers will speak at the
conference, which begins on March 3rd 2009.

19 September 2008 at 06:41  
Anonymous len said...

Rebel Saint,
I am proud to be a creationist, and proud to be a christian!.
May God bless you for making a stand for the truth.

19 September 2008 at 07:33  
Anonymous martin sewell said...

Thank you Rebel Saint for your helpful contribution.

If our friend Tom J answers your point i shall be happy to revisit my current intellectual position. it is however noticeable that so far, nobody appears to have successfully addressed the hard core of what you and I have been challenging in relation to the problems of evolutionary theory.

That said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and that principle applies both to my concerns over the lack of the fossil record predicted by Darwin , and indeed to those who do not accept witness testimony of third parties in relation to the existence of God.

Where we appear to differ from the militant atheists is that we confine our arguments to the evidence whereas too many of our opponents are of the variety who are happy to offer only anonymous abuse. Has anyone noticed that "ignorant bigots in the Southern States of America" appear to be the only people it is politically correct to hate?

My dealings with South State Americans is that they are warm, intelligent , funny , immensely generous people, many of whom left their fathers grandfathers and uncles in the earth of Europe to give the right of the likes of our liberal friends to abuse their descendants in anonymous safety, and whose sons continue to do so today in Iraq and Afghanistan.

19 September 2008 at 08:10  
Blogger Tomrat said...


Isn't it wonderful how techniques such as genetic algorithm's and direct evolution all seem to have 2 salient points associated with both:

1. They use evolution as a form of adaptation... the constraints of a pre-imposed system.
So I have only one question:
Q. Who pre-imposed the system? (clue: Genesis 1)

It should be the scientists job to ascertain the how, the theologians job to ascertain the who.

Your Grace,

I happen to agree with the Heresiarch; Reiss' pursuit of philosophical debate on all scientific aspects have been pounced upon by agents intent on advancing a socialist platform. We are now at the stage where the "death of truth" (outlined in detail by Hayek) is a necessary consequence of keeping the proles in order - that is why climate change and evolutionary theory cannot be challenged; to scuttle these ideas would lead to people asking questions about the other, more firmly accepted "goods" in this world, like the welfare state and socialised medicine.

His attempts at educational liberalism have stepped beyond the rubicon the monopolists thought expedient to their own aims.

19 September 2008 at 08:12  
Blogger Dave said...

Having read the comments I have one further observation to make.

Can you imagine this debate happening if the book that everyone is questioning was the Qu'ran instead of the Bible?

I thank God that Christianity allows debate. Islam will not tolerate dissent or a questioning of the "facts".

Is that why it appears to be the religion of choice for our totalitarian rulers?

19 September 2008 at 09:34  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe Sewell indulges in selecting one possible meaning and then interpreting it according to his whim; or possibly not. I will not slander him as he does me although, doubtless, I should have spent hours proofreading and developing my post, and therefore specified that bigots will only comprise part of any group as large as that in the southern states of America.

Before I stop posting on this website (I have other things to do), I would propose that: i) those 'who will not see' (cf Len) either refuse to study evolution before they know what it's about; or they have never studied the Bible; or they have never studied either. Or, like Sewell, they form an incorrigible opinion from a limited view about fossill records

ii) those who 'do not see' - but who would like to - would benefit from advanced courses in Biology and Zoology, and thus from reading relevant and authoritative texts for themselves: including "Origin..."
In any case, I hope such people will, like me, pay close attention to the Vatican's debate - as posted by Holy Smoke.

iii) those who similarly 'do not see' the Judaeo-Christian side, but would like to balance the arguments and arrive as closely as they can at some truth - probably should take Scripture courses: theological, historical, and literary - because many 'agnostics' presently argue from a platform of ignorance about the religion.
Again, the Vatican debates might be useful.

iii) Sewell further misinterprets my post in order to categorize my sentiment as hatred and my religious inclination as marxism ('liberal') aided by 'political correctness' [which I happen to despise]. Clearly, Sewell has never suffered advanced courses on Critical Theory - in which he questioned the way those people plagiarize and twist Christianity. The communist professor in mine (in the southern states of America, though not himself Southern) slapped me down immediately: "Marxists consider Christians to be their enemies."

Which leads me then to Dave - for clearly my experience is different from either his experience or his theory, or both. My own theory is that our marxist/socialist/communist and atheist masters seek to conquer by playing Christianity and Islam against each other. Overall, based on what I've read in Cranmer's blogs, I'd suggest that Islam is more suitable for them because its agenda are as ruthless as their own. How they intend to destroy the winner of the contest remains to be seen.

Finally, I agree with Tomrat: we are at the stage of the 'death of truth' - except that baroness whosit hasn't yet euthanized all us old seekers ... And - of course: TRUTH cannot die; it can only be denied, misunderstood, or misinterpreted. God is Truth.

And in case anyone chooses to misinterpret me again ("meconnaissance" to franco-german prattlers): I am a Christian. I have no problem with the idea that God the Omnipotent created everything - and that he could have done so on earth by means of evolution.

As G. Eagle Esq. might say: Fare you well.

19 September 2008 at 20:54  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

PS: Yes, I know it's 'fossil'.

19 September 2008 at 21:02  
Anonymous Hommer said...


In simple terms, and I mean in simple terms, what the hell is it that you are trying to say? I have no desire to insult you or misinterpret you. The problem lies with me I have no doubt, but I am deeply interested in what you are saying, I just can't fathom the gist of it. Spell it out for a duh brainer like me: please.

19 September 2008 at 21:21  
Anonymous Aldous Huxley said...

I can't understand people who have these fantastic conspiracies about Illuminati type people who have taken over the world, yet they insist on 'evidence' and 'proof' when it comes to all things theological.
I think there are simply too many drugs and stimulants in the world and now the long term consequences are being realised.

19 September 2008 at 21:57  
Anonymous Old Mouse said...

Well, Aldous - mice like me never wanted to take drugs; but you know about those.

I don't see that anyone on this thread demands 'evidence' and 'proof' of theology while holding to a 'fantastic' conspiracy theory. Again, however, at one time you apparently understood about world conspiracies: something led "Brave New World" (1932). The book shows extraordinary prescience about the world order that tightens its control about us - here and now.
Perhaps, then, I'm missing your irony!!

20 September 2008 at 06:32  
Anonymous len said...

It seem to me (in my simple minded way)that evolutionists have a theory
they then try to make the facts fit the theory!.
Is that science?
If that is science then I am glad that I Have Gods Word and I think I will place my trust in that.

20 September 2008 at 07:44  
Anonymous len said...

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances,for admitting different amount of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration could have been formed by natural selection seem,I freely confess,absurd in the highest degree.
Charles Darwin

20 September 2008 at 08:08  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Giles Coren, in todays Times, sums up the problem nicely;

"...if you are a creationist, and believe the theory of evolution to be bunk, then where are you supposed to stand on the Cruft's debate? Presumably, a creationist dog-breeder is a blameless dog-breeder, because if the theory of evolution is a Satanist lie, then your misshapen bulldog that can't give birth must have been made by God."

20 September 2008 at 10:33  
Anonymous len said...

Are you promoting a new theory
"The theory of Unnatural Selection"?
ha , ha, this is a joke, right?

20 September 2008 at 14:05  
Anonymous Adrian Bailey said...

You're right on this one, Tom.

20 September 2008 at 17:12  
Anonymous Churchmouse said...

Len - 20/9 @7:44

At the risk of being ernest -
When I studied science I understood that those who sought truth about the world we live in performed analysis of data before interpreting it and then forming theories. This would be followed by research - for and of other relevant data; re-analysis in light of those data; and then further interpretation. As I recall, Darwin gathered data from a wide sector of the world, and others have continued the process and will do so - I hope ad infinitum! Because: "The more you know, the more you know you don't know."

I remain profoundly grateful to the education I received in this country - it was second to none, and better than anything I see about me now. It included Darwin among the Sciences; there were also Scripture, History, Languages and Literature - all taught by specialists in the subjects. At no point did I ever feel a need to set learning ('science' essentially means 'knowledge') against the Creator or His Creation: rather, I sought only to understand as much as I could. I still do.

The same process of data gathering, analysis, and thesis and argument development has prevailed in many disciplines in the academic world - again without necessarily opposing Christianity. Indeed, the Christian church developed education in this country ever after Augustine and Hadrian set up their schools; and King Alfred reinstated learning in response to the Viking invasions.

The problem, as I perceive it, is not that we search for knowledge, but that we are now invaded by similar barbarians, rapists, pillagers, and ignorami. These post-modern deconstructionists are strangers not only to us, but also to Truth. From here, I rest my case on Cranmer's superb new post (Sept. 21), which is based on an article by Christopher Hitchens.

21 September 2008 at 20:32  
Blogger The Cellarer said...

Radio 4 - Peter Atkins rant on Reiss / Creationism

21 September 2008 at 23:35  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Quote mining and lying for christ have never been admirable.

Shame on you.

23 September 2008 at 12:58  
Anonymous len said...

Don`t get your point!
can you be more specific?
What exactly do I stand accused of?

24 September 2008 at 19:16  
Anonymous len said...

anonymouse 23rd september12:58.
My quote is from
Unlike some evolutionists I have read it!

24 September 2008 at 19:29  
Anonymous len said...

The tragedy of evolutionist theory is that it is presented as an alternative to creation.
Without a knowledge of God, creation , Jesus Christ,there is no apparent need for salvation!.
Thereby many millions of people who could have been saved will , and have been, lost. That is the tragedy of evolutionist theory as presented!.

25 September 2008 at 19:53  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You know full well Len that the Darwin quote regarding the eye is misquoted.

Shameful behavior!

26 September 2008 at 10:29  
Anonymous TheTruthIs... said...

Who gives a flying shxx if the mans aa blxxdy loony!

Let him be - and as for pushing him out of his job, well, that is plain nuts.

If we sacked all the lunatics in office half the ruddy country would be up the river Jordan for sure.

And without a paddle!

26 September 2008 at 16:04  
Anonymous len said...

anonymouse26 sept 10:29.
The quote (chapter 6 theory of evolution)by Charles Darwin is obviously not a refutation of " the theory!"
What Darwin is doing is doing is what the Royal society is not!!DEBATING!`
If you think I am wrong ,stand up as a man (or a woman) and DEBATE. merely to call me a liar is infantile and cowardly, especially as you are hiding behind amonymity!. Science is surely a matter of probing, questioning, exploring, DEBATING,I am not against science, not even against evolution, what I am against is the pig- headed arrogance which says I am right and you are wrong without allowing DEBATE.!.
(signed) creationist len

27 September 2008 at 08:43  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Err no Darwin is not "debating" Len.

29 September 2008 at 13:06  
Anonymous len said...

Err, Yes he is!!!

1 October 2008 at 17:51  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older