FILM: Mr. And Mrs. Smith

My wife thought it was appalling but maybe that’s because she isn’t a man!From the first moment the two main stars appeared on the screen I couldn’t help but grin at the whole idea of it (which of course I already knew about) … two very good looking, obviously sophisticated, people hooked up with each other for 5 (or 6) years of marriage and they still had no idea what each other did or that what each did was essentially the same as the other. Dumb! Worse than dumb! Fundamentalistically dumb!

But with Pitt looking every bit the suave secret agent playing at happy families and Jolie, the same (and looking damned hot to boot) I simply couldn’t help but enjoy most of it. I don’t know what it is about these two but there was definitely a certain chemistry going on … they sizzled

To cut a long story short they each find out the other is an agent and then (I’ll keep the why’s to myself) set about trying to wipe each other out, kicking, punching, attempting knife and shoot each other etc. etc. Up to about halfway the film is (assuming you aren’t my wife) quite acceptable entertainment but at that point whatever grasp on reality the director/writer had seems to vanish and the film disintegrates into a series of (admittedly good in their own right) set pieces that have no appreciable link with the one before or after. I’m not sure if that’s because the writing was truly awful or whether the relevant bits ended up on the cutting room floor.

At the end the film seems to recover itself a little and give the audience the ending they wanted (though weren’t expecting) and I managed to go away felling fairly satisfied.

The film relies on special effects (it sure as hell didn’t make it on the acting) and these do grow repetitive by the end but at the end of the day I wanted to be entertained and it did so even if it was a little bit over the top in many respects.

My wife, as I say above, thought it was appalling and perhaps she’s right because the film is essentially pointless but I’m afraid I couldn’t help but like it. I only give it a 6 out of 10 but yes I will buy it on TV if only to watch Jolie amateurishly smoulder her way around the screen but also because I KNOW my oldest daughter will love it and because the extras (if any) should reveal why it ended up the way it did.

FILM: Sahara

FILM: Sahara Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
With Matthew McConaughey, Stephen Zahn & Penélope Cruz great visuals, no obvious digital FX this is a straight forward good guys (American obviously) vs. bad guys Indiana Jones style (though perhaps a modern, no magic version of “The Mummy” might be more accurate) action/adventure/comedy film with not much story and lots of action. As one might expect the main strength of the film is in the relationship between the two lead characters Dirk Pitt (McConaughey) and Al Giordino (Zahn) with the “love interest” (a fairly well handled, positive role for a change) in Dr. Eva Rojas (Cruz). What little lot exists (concerning a mythical US Civil War Ironclad that no one except the hero, Pitt, believes in and the uncovering of a soon-to-happen eco-disaster that seriously could screw the world) doesn’t really faze the film (though apparently the writer, Clive Cussler, was none too impressed).Obviously everything that can go wrong does go wrong and the heroes, naturally enough, conspire to turn several situations from near death experiences (spooky) into victory (and usually involving lots of gunfire and explosions), do so in such dumbass, unexplainable ways it defies any kind of logic & manage to save the girl, solve the mystery, screw the bad guys and save the world that you simply have to laugh. There is no doubt in my mind that it isn’t that good a film but, if you can leave your brain switch mostly off for a couple of hours, it is simply great fun and you’ll leave the cinema feeling entertained!

If you’re not the kind of person who can take your head out of your arse for a couple of hours you’ll hate it! Me? I enjoy being entertained and I was, indeed, entertained!

Oh yeah, apparently Clive Cussler had agreed some kind of editorial screenplay rights to the film, was denied them and is now suing for the profits and damage to his reputation as an author.

6/10 and yes, I will buy it on DVD!

Science And Truth

Science is an ongoing attempt to explain the universe and in this respect has explained or is attempting to explain all that is observable. Science is not absolute and no one in their right mind claims it is so or has the absolute answer to anything … apart from creationists! But then that’s not true science but the fundamentalist cartoon version of science.

So what is science? Science is, as I say above, an ongoing and self-correcting attempt to understand the universe around us. And what is truth? Truth is something which implies absolute correctness, no doubt whatsoever, a logical concept the opposite of which is something that is not true (by which I mean anything logically the opposite of that which is true AND everything which is not entirely true). To give a simple example:

The statement, “the bath is full” would be true if the water in said bath were lapping at the very top, that no more water could enter that bath without a change of conditions affecting the observation. Conversely the statement would not be true if there were no water in the bath at all or if there were any amount of water in the bath between empty and full … if any amount of water could be added subsequently to that bath without spilling water over the side then the bath would not be full even though it may appear to be so.

Now, the essential nature of science is that it derives its confidence from accumulated observations and a rational interpretation of the same. Science has little to do with truth (certainty) because nothing in science is above challenge (though it may seem so at times) and therefore cannot be considered absolute. Something can be considered to be correct for decades and can be confirmed by thousands (perhaps millions) of observations but it only takes one verified challenge to bring that theory to its knees and force its removal or change. I am not denying that science (and scientists) can be extremely stubborn at times … as a philosophy it (was) created and (is) administered by scientists, scientists are human and humans can be hard to shift from a given point of view, we can see examples of that even now and in historical terms one has only to look at the great debate over the atom between established scientist Einstein and upstart new-physicist Bohr to see how tenaciously a given scientist or group of scientists will cling to an idea, but in principle the above is correct.

Evolution (for example) is now considered so safe that nothing could shake it as a theory but all it would take (to use a theistic example) would be one piece of verified evidence that the hand of deity were involved in the process and evolution as a theory would die … granted it would stumble on for a while not realising it had been beheaded but it would, if that observation were confirmed, ultimately die. However no such evidence has been uncovered and more and more confirmatory evidence continues to be uncovered in support of it and since its birth the Theory of Evolution, though it has changed in fine, has remained unfazed by all comers for 140 years.

Science doesn’t deal with truths or absolutes, it deals with facts, theories and hypotheses, is wholly open to challenge and, in this light, science represents our best current attempt to understand the nature of the universe around us.

Science is the recognised method of discovering things about the universe and it does it not by deductive reasoning but inductive. The inductive method, instead of building conclusions on a set of assumptions deductively, builds on a set of observations and derives generalisations from them and the modern scientist looks on induction as the essential process of gaining knowledge, the only way of justifying a generalisation. Moreover the modern scientist recognises that that no generalisation can be allowed to stand unless it is continually challenged (by newer methods & techniques). The upshot is that no amount of inductive testing can make a generalisation absolute hence the scientific necessity that all of science is tentative hence the fact that I argue that truth (the absolute) & fact bear no relationship to each other. As a result modern natural philosophy makes no attempt to attain ultimate truth because there can never be sufficient observations to achieve such a status.

This is also the reason why modern science CANNOT investigate claims such as god, spirit & soul as it is not possible to build a generalisation without observation and observations of these things have not yet been gained and the more we progress the less likely they appear.

And finally, the piece-de-résistance of science, the peer-review process – peer review does not, as some (notably creationists) would have us believe hobble the search for knowledge but in fact opens up the whole of modern natural philosophy to all of the scientists all of the time, for by the very fact of publishing ones work others are made aware of it and a given generalisation is brought into an arena where it can be tested by them. Peer-review is a formalised version of scientific challenge and the difference that process makes is immense … everything every scientist does (or group of scientists do) is checked (peer-reviewed) by others. That doesn’t mean mistakes can’t happen, frauds can’t be perpetrated but it does mean that such mistakes (purposeful or otherwise) will one day, almost certainly, be uncovered and reversed. Creationists are so very fond of highlighting what they see as the mistakes of science (Piltdown man, Nebraska Man etc.) but in fact such examples are more notable for the fact that it wasn’t some numbskull creationist that uncovered the fraud or flaw but science and such events are, in reality, examples of science doing exactly what science should … self-correct. It is also the reason why creationists dare not publish their garbage in reputable scientific journals preferring to appeal to like minded theistic individuals and the lowest forms of reasoning in the general public … because they know that if they did so their claims would be ripped to shreds so quickly that it would hardly have been worth applying their twisted reasoning to paper. That the AIG has launched is own “peer-reviewed” journal recently is also irrelevant because that journal is NOT open to all of science, all of the time and is therefore teleological in it’s inception.

But back to science … as a consequence of the nature of science, the very fact that it is capable of admitting to and correcting its errors and claims only tentative knowledge, whilst I cannot say with absolute confidence that any or all of science is correct, what I can say is that science represents our best current understanding of the universe around us.

So, returning again to my opening statement, science is an ongoing and self-correcting attempt to understand the observable universe the key points being that it is ongoing (there is more to discover) and it is self-correcting (it holds no absolutes and EVERYTHING is up for challenge). In that light science can be seen to be no more (or less) than our best current understanding of the universe and no part of science, as evidenced by the huge number of scientific ideas that have been modified, overturned and dismissed as not worthy of consideration, is beyond challenge and therefore simple logic dictates that no part of it can be considered absolute.

It seems to me that people have a choice … learn what science truly is i.e. not inerrant (nor claiming to be), not possessing an answer to every question (nor claiming to), and recognising no absolutes (nor claiming to) but representing our best current understanding of the universe around us or join the hordes of fundamentalist religious dimwits, placing their faith before cold hard logic & reason.

Then of coursed to the usual fundamentalist question … how do we know that science works? As one engineer famously put it, “because the bridges stay up!”

That is why science is not absolute and why it has little to do with truth!

Kyuuketsuki

FILM: Hitch Hiker’s Guide To The Galaxy 2005 …

… and how it compares to the BBC series!As I understand it the radio version was the original guide … that was good. From that came the books the first two of which were simply excellent but the sequels, whilst still entertaining, progressively less so. From the first two books, in 1981, came the BBC version of The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy and it is to that version that I am comparing the 2005 film that I saw today.

The BBC series, even though it missed a lot of the books material (it would have to to cram it in to the 6 x 30 minute episodes it comprised), was reasonably faithful to the books in a way that the film, quite simply, isn’t. Just changing a film from it’s original script, however, does not make a film a bad thing as long as the changes can be justified.

So what’s sorely missing from the new version ? There’s no mention of Eccentrica Galumbits (the triple-breasted whore of Eroticon Six), Marvin the Paranoid Android (still depressed) makes no mention the pain in all the diodes down his left side, some marvelous script (such as where the plans for the demolition of Arthur’s house were), Peter Jones as the book, much of the material involving Deep thought, the Restaurant at the end of the universe, Zaphod’s two (simultaneous) heads, fear sensitive sunglasses, much about the starship Heart of Gold, the uber depressive Marvin the Paranoid Android and a magnificent buddy ending to the accompaniment of Louis Armstrong’s “It’s A Wonderful World.

What’s new in the new version … singing dolphins, Zaphod’s (alternative) heads, a completely revamped storyline featuring much more about the Vogons, a new villain, some excellent new effects, a shed-load of slapstick humour and a new happy, happy ending with Earth recreated, everybody happy and Arthur & Trillian falling for each other.

Some of the characters were quite well done … I did like Bill Nighy’s Slartibartfast, I quite liked the new Ford Prefect and I definitely approved of the new Trillian over the originals Sandra Dickinson but I found the new Arthur Dent, whilst competent, somehow diminished, the new Zaphod Beeblebrox irritating and Marvin simply not depressed enough.

My gut feeling is that the film, though British, has been reoriented at a less-than-sharp US mass market and has followed recent trends which seem to act under the assumption that if enough effects are thrown into a film it will make up for it’s shortcomings. I think, but am not sure, that I would have liked the film more if it was my first exposure to HHGTTG but ultimately consider the film to be somewhat uninspiring and nowhere near the kind of quality of the original.

In many ways it was a wasted opportunity (5/10) … indeed after seeing this film, with a birthday coming up, I asked for the BBC series on DVD (and got it … thx Mum)

Scientific Method And Creationism

Scientific Method And Creationism
Kyuuketsuki

Introduction
One of the biggest charges laid at the door of science by creationists is that the Theory of Evolution requires as much faith as a belief in a god and, as such, the “theory” of creation should be taught in schools alongside evolution as a science.

In this article I will demonstrate that the Theory of Evolution fully adheres to scientific principles and that creation, and particularly, creation “science” cannot be considered as a science at all.

Creationist Questions and Assertions

• Creationism/Creation “Science” does not oppose modern science but is simply science working under the assumption (and acknowledgement) that there is a creator.
• The Theory of Evolution (Darwin, 1859), unlike other scientific disciplines, does not fit the required scientific model i.e. observation, repeatability and falsifiability.
• Many evolutionists disagree with each other, many doubt that spontaneous evolution can have occurred, many do not know and many believe that if evolution did occur then God started it.
• Unsupported speculation is not an acceptable scientific method, as it cannot be reproduced.
• Evolutionists present unproven theory as fact and thus attempt to discredit creationism!
• The Theory of Evolution is a religion just like creation in that it requires faith to believe.
• Creation is a science just like evolution.
• Proof/disproof of God is within the scope of science

Abstract

• Science determines how the observable universe around us works and scientific method is the process by which we observe, hypothesise, test and confirm those findings. Any scientific theory must be observable, reproducible and falsifiable.
• For the past 100 years or more Darwinian Evolution has been the theory generally considered as explaining how life of Earth evolved.
• Creation “science” rests on the dogmatic proposal that the universe around us was formed “by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis.”
• Faith is the ‘belief, or the acceptance of something, in the absence of evidence’” i.e. a belief in the supernatural.
• There is significant evidence to indicate that the universe & Earth evolved over vast time-scales (many billions of years) and, as such, the scientific community can no longer seriously entertain the claim of divine creation as per Genesis.
• That evolution occurs is fact … it is observable in the universe around us and demonstrable in the laboratory.
• The Theory of Evolution lies within the purview of science and is supported by evidence the vast majority of which has been derived by scientific method.
• Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is now so firmly established it is generally regarded as fact.
• Creation “science” is not true science because of its basic teleological nature i.e. it starts and ends with the dogmatic proposal that the universe around us was formed “by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis.”
• Creation “science” is opposed to everything that true science stands for because it works under the assumption (and acknowledgement) that there is a creator.
• Creation “science” fails to meet the essential requirements for it to be considered in any scientific.
• Creation “science” leaders re-interpret the evidence (observed by true scientists), distort the truth and lie to their followers: ‘There is no observational fact imaginable, which cannot, one way or another, be made to fit the creation model’ (Henry Morris, ICR).
• Science does not generally accept supernatural hypotheses on the basis that there is no evidence to refute them and that it is not possible to define or execute a test for the same.
• Despite creationist claims to the contrary The Theory of Evolution is not currently considered to be under threat and it is the nature of science to be subject to peer-review and of scientists to disagree.
• Adherence to evolution does not require faith, but creationism does.

Discussion
Is a given discipline science or religion? To decide that it is necessary, first and foremost, to define science, scientific method and faith.

Science determines how the observable universe around us works by using scientific method (VonRoeschlaub, 1998). Scientific method is the process of observing (though not necessarily directly), hypothesising, testing and confirming data and theories within that universe. In other words, to adhere to scientific methodology, we:

• Look to the universe around us to provide the phenomena to explain
• Suggest something to explain why that might be so.
• Test our hypothesis with new experiments from which we gain additional data (reproduce it) i.e. looking again to the universe around us to supply the answers.
• Assuming our data confirms our hypothesis accept that hypothesis as a working theory.
• A valid scientific theory must be observable, reproducible and falsifiable. The last point is particularly important … it means that we must be able to define a test that will, if true, disprove our theory … this last is typified by the question “what piece of evidence would make this theory untrue?”

A definition of faith is more difficult. To quote Ken Harding, one of the more active members of the Talk Origins web site, “for the purposes of this argument, faith is defined as: ‘belief, or the acceptance of something, in the absence of evidence’”. Harding goes further to say that “much of the time it (faith) is belief in spite of evidence to the contrary.”

Evolution (accepted as fact long before Darwin published “The Origin of the Species), like any scientific theory, is not guesswork or an approximation but an extensive explanation developed from well-documented and reproducible sets of data derived from experiments that repeatedly observe natural processes. From such data models are developed and it is important to note that these models (and their subsequent outcomes) are not decided in advance but can be modified and improved, as new empirical evidence is uncovered. Science is constantly subject to peer-review and is a self-correcting attempt to understand nature and the observable universe. Science is not teleological — that is to say theories do not start with conclusions, refuse to change and acknowledge only data that the initial conclusions support. Further, science does not base theories on untestable collections of dogmatic proposals but is characterised by questions, hypothetical proposals, design of empirical models and conceptual frameworks with the aim of researching natural events.

So is creation “science” a true science? To understand the nature of creation research it is necessary to examine one of their leading organisations more closely … The Creation Research Society (CRS). The following is quoted from original CRS material:

The Creation Research Society is one of the leading organisations researching special creation and claim to have founded their membership from members who are committed to full belief in the Biblical record of creation and early history. All of it’s members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:

• The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.
• All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have been accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
• The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.
• We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Saviour for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Saviour.
• The society publishes a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal which emphasizes original research and the reinterpretation of existing scientific data within the creationist framework. The journal carries both technical and popular articles in most major scientific and allied disciplines, and thus is of interest to individuals from a wide range of backgrounds. CRS encourages a broad spectrum of research to develop and test a creation model, and administers a research grant program whereby modest funds are distributed to qualified researchers for the conduct of creation-related research.

CRS claims to be a scientific society and it was deemed at the outset that its government should be in the hands of scientists. The highest levels of membership of the society (voting members) are required to hold at least one earned post-graduate degree in a recognized area of science.

From the above it can be seen that creation “science” is not true science because of its basic teleological nature i.e. it starts and ends with the dogmatic proposal that the universe around us was formed “by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis.” Since science does not work in this manner it can be seen that creation “science” is, effectively, opposed to everything that true science stands for because it works under the assumption (and acknowledgement) that there is a supernatural creator.

From the US Legal system the following definitions of “creation-science” and “evolution-science” were necessarily established (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 1996):

“Creation-science” means the scientific evidences for creation and inferences from those scientific evidences. Creation science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate:

• Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing;
• The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism;
• Changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals;
• Separate ancestry for man and apes;
• Explanation of the earth’s geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a world-wide flood; and
• A relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds.

“Evolution-science” means the scientific evidences for evolution and inferences from those scientific evidences. Evolution-science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate:

• Emergence by naturalistic processes of the universe from disordered matter and emergence of life from non-life;
• The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds;
• Emergence by mutation and natural selection of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds;
• Emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes;
• Explanation of the earth’s geology and the evolutionary sequence by uniformitarianism; and
• An inception several billion years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life.
• However, caution should be exercised when using these definitions … the trial notes make it clear that every theologian who testified, including defence witnesses, believed that “creation” referred to a supernatural creation which was performed by the Christian God.

During the trial the essential characteristics of science were established:

• It is guided by natural law;
• It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;
• It is testable against the empirical world;
• Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
• It is falsifiable.
• It was found that creation “science” failed to meet these essential characteristics in all respects.

Creationists sometimes tell us “There is no reason to disbelieve the biblical claim (Genesis) that God created our universe, earth, plants, animals, and people.” Even assuming claims of a “disinterested creation” (creation prior to the beginning of the current universe/big-bang) there is no evidence to support such a claim. Science does not generally accept hypotheses on the basis that there is no evidence to refute them. Whilst there has been speculative research concerning events prior to the “big-bang” it is not currently known what did occur. The claim that a god may or may not have instigated the “big bang” is irrelevant … it is generally assumed that the lack of evidence to support any form of divine creation means it did not happen.

The theory of evolution (which is supported by many scientific disciplines e.g. biology, biochemistry, zoology, geology, cosmology and physics to name but a few) is now so firmly established it is generally regarded as fact. There is, in fact has been for a very long time, a significant amount of evidence to indicate that the universe, Earth, plants, animal & people evolved over vast time-scales i.e. 4.5 billion years for the Earth and 13 billion for the universe. Nowadays there is little tolerance for claims of divine creation (as per Genesis) within the serious scientific community.

It is also important to understand that Darwin’s theory is not dogmatic (like the Bible) as creationists claim nor has it persisted 140 years unscathed. Darwin believed in a non-Lamarckian version of use & disuse that has since been discarded i.e. there are aspects of Darwin’s original theory that have changed or been discarded. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution has been subject to change within itself in other respects and since it was first defined in 1859 has absorbed punctuated equilibrium, kin selection, and most of our current knowledge of DNA and genetics (including Mendel’s work then unknown to Darwin). Darwinian evolution has changed so significantly that some scientists now refer to it as neo-Darwinism.

Neo or modern Darwinism can be looked upon as having two facets. Firstly it deals with explaining the origin of life under primitive earth conditions and occurring within a strictly physico-chemical framework. Secondly it encompasses neo-biogenesis (speciation) which explains the production of new species from pre-existing species.

As a direct result of this the leaders of creationism, fully aware that Darwinian evolution is so heavily supported by the available evidence resulting in it being (effectively) proven, are forced to re-interpret the evidence, distort the truth and lie to their followers. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution has existed for 140 years and, though it has itself evolved, has resisted all attempts to destroy or displace it.

Some scientists (by this it must be understood that we refer to true scientists … for reasons described above there is no such thing as a “creation scientist”) hold religious beliefs and that is not a problem … despite claims to the contrary faith is not in direct conflict with science. Other scientists, again the vast minority, are willing to speculate that life did not evolve as per Darwin’s theory but as yet no theory has been advanced with evidence significant enough to be accepted. It is unfortunate, however, that creationists attempt to claim that such disagreements within the scientific community are significant and indicative of vast problems with the Theory of Evolution. Despite the claims of creationists the world over Darwinian evolution is not currently considered to be under threat … it is the nature of science to be subject to peer-review and of scientists to disagree.

Evolutionists are scientists and it is wrong to claim that a belief in evolution requires faith. Evolutionary scientists do not require faith to predict events proceed according to theory — they have evidence that allows them to expect it. In philosophical terms the religious amongst us have faith the sun will rise in the East tomorrow but the true scientist, based on past experience, simply expects that it will.

It is important to understand that scientists do not “believe” in evolution so much as accept it as the inevitable and inescapable conclusion which is drawn from the evidence. Religion, according to adherents, is an unchanging and inerrant guide. Evolution, on the other hand, is not a religion and makes no such claim. It is certainly not unchanging (no scientific subject is immune to change) and makes no claims to being inerrant (as our methods and technology improve, so our theories more closely represent reality). Evolution remains as the inference of the currently available evidence, whether creationists accept it or not, and evolution, as a theory, in no danger of being “overturned” by creationism (Harding, 1998).

With regard to the difference between creationism and science or evolution Harding goes on to say “Creationists have their literal biblical interpretation to protect, and are willing to say anything to do so. When Henry Morris (former president of the Institute for Creation Research) says ‘There is no observational fact imaginable, which cannot, one way or another, be made to fit the creation model’ how can anyone trust the ’science’ of creationism?” To further emphasise creationist attitudes with regard to science Dr. Henry Morris (Institute of Creation Research) said ‘It is precisely because Biblical revelation is absolutely authoritative and perspicuous that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the same testimony as that of Scripture’ (‘Scientists Confront Creationism’, Ed. Laurie R. Godfrey). There is not the slightest possibility that the *facts* of science can contradict the Bible”

Finally it is worth noting that evolution and those that support it do not typically care about creation … it is religion and as long as it stays that way then fine. But when creationists try to insist that their ideas are in any way scientific then they have over-stepped the mark. Scientists may well ignore the Christian God … if it exists at all it is supernatural, untestable and irrelevant to science.

Conclusion
Evolution is a science in itself and is supported by most, if not all, major
scientific disciplines, that is to say it is impossible to attack one evolution without attacking them all. It does not require faith to believe evolution — just observation, theory and awareness of what it would take to prove it wrong.

It is important to understand that evolution occurs … it is observable in the universe around us and demonstrable in the laboratory. Evolution is a fact. Whether Darwin’s Theory of Evolution explains the methods by which evolution proceeds and the huge variety of species found on the Earth is more debatable. Aside from punctuated equilibrium (in reality a subset of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution) it’s only plausible contender has been the Lamarckian Theory of Evolution (see glossary) but subsequent experiments failed to support it and added further weight of evidence to the Darwinian version of events.

Creation, on the other hand, is not now and never will be a science. It starts with the unshakeable conclusion that the Christian God exists, it ignores or attempts to destroy that evidence which denies it’s tenets and re-interprets evidence in such a way that it is unjustifiably forced to fit into the ideas in which they have so much faith. The demand that it should be taught as a science alongside evolution is, quite frankly, an insult to rational thinking humans of any kind. Its divine precepts are not testable or falsifiable and, in many cases, not observable. The charges it levies at science and evolution are not only wrong but often reflective of the flaws endemic within the concept of divine creation.

Had it not been for the recent massive rise in interest in creationism and their newfound access to technological media, which has allowed them to spread their lies across the world, they would not be a great danger. But the fact that they are spreading as insidiously and certainly as a plague (1 in 4 Americans believe in a literal creation) and threaten the Freedom of Intellectual and Scientific Thought is no longer tolerable.

References

• The Nature of Faith and the Nature of Science, Ken Harding
• Punctuated Equilibria, Wesley Elsberry (1997)
• Darwin’s Precursors and Influences (Introduction), John Wilkins (1997)
• Talk Origins Feedback, December 1998 (Ken Harding)
• God and Evolution, Warren Kurt VonRoeschlaub (1998)
• The Creation Research Society Creed (1988)
• Chambers Dictionary of Science & Technology
• McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, US Legal System (1996)
• What’s Wrong with These Books, National Center for Science Education (US)