1. Memo: Stop teaching evolution

Comment #22818 by Hoddlwood on February 23, 2007 at 8:32 am

Yes Billy, but Old Gimpy also thinks that Dinosaurs 'walked' with people.

2. Memo: Stop teaching evolution

Comment #22723 by Hoddlwood on February 21, 2007 at 11:38 am

epeeist: trust me, he'll come back with something to explain 'fire-breathing monsters' as fact.

The man is like some sort of Biblical Terminator, he is relentess...

...and utterly insane , of course.

3. Memo: Stop teaching evolution

Comment #22715 by Hoddlwood on February 21, 2007 at 5:46 am

TeapotTheist (Comment #22624): "Scientism", "Evolutionism"...what's next?
How about "Reasonism" or "Mental Sanitism".


May I suggest "Truthism" or "Objective Realism".

Although, secretly, I quite like Scientism; if the incurably ignorant are going to saddle me with an 'ism' they could do a lot worse.

PS Can anyone explain what the Kabbalah have to do with it? I have a Copernican world view but I don't spend silly money on red string and tap water.


PPS Don't talk to gimlibengloin, he is a proper nutjob (young earth, 6 day creationist) who'll badger you incessantly until you've lost the will to live.

Although, if you ask him nicely he will show you pictures of dinosaurs carved in rocks that is CLEAR PROOF that they once 'walked' with man.

4. The Only One in Step

Comment #22626 by Hoddlwood on February 20, 2007 at 6:10 am

NoLongerHaveBelief does not speak for me, we 'athiests' are not part of a team. We think for ourselves, rather than follow an old, dusty, work of fiction...sorry, I mean Word of God.

Regardless Gim, it's over. For the sake of sanity I concede. You win, you're right. The world is 6,000 years old, dinosaurs walked with humans, God created light from darkness (contrary to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics) and gays will rot in hell. May I also add that women should know their place as well? Actually, don't answer that as I don't care.

You can now go and tell all your friends (do you actually have any?) that you 'beat' the Athiests in 'debate'.

5. The Only One in Step

Comment #22552 by Hoddlwood on February 19, 2007 at 2:57 pm

Gim,
It was Packer who mentioned intolerance towards homosexuality first, not me (I know not why). I was insulted by his homophobia, and general bigotry. You were quick to chip in that homosexuality is a perversion. Look back at the earlier posts and see. I find that, and virtually everything you say, offensive.

Good bye.

6. The Only One in Step

Comment #22493 by Hoddlwood on February 19, 2007 at 2:11 pm

You're right Gimwhateverurcalled, I am bored.

Nothing you have said is representative of the evidence. Indeed the sheer volume and frequency of your posts implies an obsessive nature (e.g. your interest in 'homosexual genital acts') on your part. I can therefore not win a 'debate' with you as you can only 'see' that which you want to.

I don't wish you a happy life.

7. The Only One in Step

Comment #22473 by Hoddlwood on February 19, 2007 at 6:26 am

You are absolutely right, Gim. We must not let the fact that no one on has ever replicated Austin's work on Mt St Helens distract us from its obvious certainty. Just because Austin's paper is a single piece of work contradicted by all other scientific research should not allow us to miss the truth. After all, Austin agrees with God's Word, so it must be true.

I see also that we have another piece of evidence to support us: the wood buried in the basalt lava flow. Again, the lack of any replicated measurements on the same area by other scientists should not distract from its obvious congruence with God's Word.

These two anomalies are clear evidence that something is wrong with current theory, and to think they try and pass this off as experimental error, due for example to contamination, that is an inevitable consequence of any complex measurements.

Also I am happy you have brought Russell Humphreys to my attention as many people have said he is an insane, rambling fool for thinking that decay rates were faster during creation week, but have remained constant ever since. Just because the equations that describe the decay have a predictive accuracy of many millions of decimal places should not distract us from the fact the God may have altered them in the beginning to do His Great Work. After all, God can do anything, can't he?*

*(by the way, I won't use the Hourglass analogy when I attempt to convert heathens as they might just laugh at me.)

Additionally we must not allow the possibility that man has occasionally made up fictional creatures blind us to the truth of Angkor. There is just no way a man could have invented such a creature (or even just carved an elephant badly enough for some people to think it looks like a dinosaur). These possibilities contradict the Word of God, so they must be false.

I have no need to converse with you further, as I am now certain of the veracity of the young earth paradigm. To think I once believed that an empirical method generating an immense web of interconnected, mutually dependent, peer-reviewed evidence, providing us with such wonders as medical science or the computer was more reliable than the ancient Word of God?!?!?!

I must have been crazy.

Thanks for your guidance Gim, I shall now go and convert heretics and apostates to the Word of God, preaching hatred for gays (and any other sexual perverts we're not keen on) and love for Jesus!!!

8. The Only One in Step

Comment #22020 by Hoddlwood on February 12, 2007 at 11:06 am

gimlibengloin, you must help me.

I have told my science friends of my conversion and they just laughed at me. When I show them our irrefutable evidence they dismiss it.

How do I respond to those that say the drawings at Angkor and Carlisle Cathedral are merely FICTIONAL creatures borne of an artist's IMAGINATION?

One of them even said that just because we see pictures of UNICORNS in ancient books does not mean they actually EXISTED! Can you believe that? Next they'll be saying that even The Bible could be fictional, imagine that!

Also, my science friends say that Dr Austin's work at Mt. St. Helens could just be an ERROR; some of them have even suggested that he may be BIASED and has deliberately FABRICATED his data! Surely a man of God would never knowingly lie?

How do I respond to these so-called rationalists?

9. The Only One in Step

Comment #21792 by Hoddlwood on February 11, 2007 at 5:37 am

Evidence and reason are the tools of the devil, opposablethumbs.

10. The Only One in Step

Comment #21778 by Hoddlwood on February 11, 2007 at 4:29 am

A heathen that I know questions whether Dr Austin's work has ever been repeated by an independent researcher. I assumed that it has not, but as I am new to Creationism I may just be unable to find an example, can you help me convert the Unbeliever, gimlibengloin?

11. The Only One in Step

Comment #21777 by Hoddlwood on February 11, 2007 at 4:25 am

gimlibengloin –

I agree with you now. Why do you continue to doubt my conversion to the Light?

It is obvious that the reason why no one else has managed to repeat the findings of Dr Austin is that they seek to suppress the Truth. I am in total agreement with you that this single result is clear evidence of the flaws in the method. After all we know that scientific evidence never produces anomalies attributed to poor methodology or the bias of the researcher.

12. The Only One in Step

Comment #21489 by Hoddlwood on February 9, 2007 at 12:28 pm

"Hmmm, something tells me your(sic) not serious. Pity.
Still have a careful read of this short article and tell us what you think"

I am dismayed that you doubt my conversion, Gimlibengloin. I have read your article with interest and I see clearly now that this single anomaly is overwhelming evidence that the thousands of contradictory results must be wrong. The clear explanation is that this result is the truth and all other radiometric analyses are false. Obviously all the thousands of geo-physicists are conspiring to hide their mistakes because they know what a grave error they have made. How foolish these evolutionists are, eh?

Besides, and as it says on the site, the old-earth data "contradicts the clear eyewitness chronology of the Word of God".

It amazes me that I once thought that God was fictional and not the glorious Creator I now know Him to be.

13. The Only One in Step

Comment #21470 by Hoddlwood on February 9, 2007 at 10:12 am

Yes, I did go to Simon's link and it has signalled a damascian conversion.

I had no idea that the evidence for congruity between man and dinosaurs was so overwhelming. Obviously I must have been wrong all along, as these carvings clearly override all the tens of thousands of peer-reviewed papers outlining the evidence for an old earth, based as they are on equations with a proven track record of outstanding predictive value.

I've also had another look at the Angkor carving and I realise that it is ridiculous to assume that this figure is in anyway ambiguous and open to interpretation. It is now clear to me that there is no way that this creature represents anything other than a stegosaurus and that such a carving is clear evidence that these creatures walked with man.

It is clear to me that all I previously thought is a lie and that God must have done it all. I shall now go forth and persecute gays.

14. The Only One in Step

Comment #21454 by Hoddlwood on February 9, 2007 at 8:49 am

Simon,
Glad to hear you are both happy and confident of your correctness. As ever I disagree with everything you say but I'm now bored with going over the same arguments ad nauseum. Believe what you like, it is still bollox and you are still a bigot.

Oh, and being a young earther you are clearly as mad as McIntosh and...


gimlibengloin, who asks,

"What, short of finding humans and dino's buries together would be "evidence", Hoddlwood?"

An ambiguous carving and a subjective description in a fictitious text is not evidence. The evidence I would need to believe your crazy ranting would be fossils of humans and fossils of dinosaurs in rocks of similar ages. It does not even have to be at the same location, just the same age. We've found no dinosaurs in rocks younger than 60 million years or so and we find no hominids in rocks dated over 2/3 millions years old.

Obviously this is going to be ignored by you because you think the earth is 6,000 years old and humans were 'created' in their present form and not evolved from hominids...hence you are a nutter,


"Surely, an engraving of a creature that resembles a known dinosaur ie stegasaurous (sic) is evidence that ancient humans knew of dinosaurs. If not why not?"

Is it not beyond the wit of man to IMAGINE such a creature? Alternatively the picture may be of a known animal (e.g. an elephant), but misinterpreted by credulous nutcases like you? Either of these hypotheses is more likely than your fanciful proposal.


"I didn't claim Job 40 and Angkor was proof but I do claim it is evidence."

Yes, but no one else does. In science evidence is in part defined by consensus. It is the consensus amongst scientists (and most of sane society) that the bible is not evidence for anything.

The only consensus you have is that located amongst the inmates of the Asylum for the Terminally Bewildered...an institution that I believe you call the church.


"You have resorted to insults not out of a desire to be accurate but because you are incapable of refuting the evidence put forward."

Actually it is because I don't care what you think, but I do have fun trying to wind you up. Additionally, I genuinely think you are a loon. I have no other hypothesis that explains your ignorance of the facts, and your misinterpretation of evidence.

15. The Only One in Step

Comment #21421 by Hoddlwood on February 9, 2007 at 6:09 am

gimlibengloin says,

"I have provided you with clear evidence that dinosaurs and humans coexisted which you have failed to refute."

"Job 40 clearly refers to genuine creatures which cannot describe any organism alive today but which clearly describe large creatures that fit with what we know of dinosaurs from the fossils"

The stone relief and a quote from the bible is clear evidence? Really?
Whatever was carved in that stone, it is not evidence that dinosaurs walked with humans. It is a drawing. If a future civilisation finds a copy of Jurassic Park on DVD will they think it is evidence of a Dino-park? Or will they just assume it is a work of fiction? Whatever they do think, it is apparent that the truth can be misconstrued by the clinically credulous.

RE: Insults - I think you are insane because of your fatuous definition of evidence. I did not intend to insult, just accurately describe your position. The same is true of McIntosh who believes in a young earth despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This is the very essence of foolishness, ergo McIntosh is a fool.

To preserve both your feelings I could have couched it in euphemism but "what's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet". Or in your case, that which we call an idiot would gush as much gibberish.


PS in a similar vein to my post script to Simon Packer: I am not a mental health professional so I think it is best I do not continue to 'debate' with you for fear of exacerbating your condition.

16. The Only One in Step

Comment #21417 by Hoddlwood on February 9, 2007 at 5:34 am

Simon,
I have decided to address your post point by point, riddled as it is with erroneous nonsense.


"You are right in that numerical models are not physical reality in themselves. They do however provide extremely accurate predictions of behavior, when used within their appropriate juristiction (sic)."
Indeed they do. Unfortunately you appear to have a narrow view of what constitutes a prediction that I often hear from religious, dogmatic physicists. For instance, evolutionary theory has made some very accurate predictions of genetic relatedness, based on the fossil record.


"Now theories about the fossil record are qualitatively different from most physics theories."
Thanks for pointing this out as I was under the labouring under the misconception that physics was exactly the same as biology. Seriously though, just because biology is different from physics does not make it less scientific. You appear to define science as that which is like physics and reject anything that does not fit this bill as automatically unscientific. You are wrong.
Evolutionary theory relies on evidence in a way a detective would instantly recognise. It is perfectly scientific to piece together evidence from the past to draw up a picture of how the past occurred. From that we can then predict the kinds of observations we will see if we look in new areas.


"You are looking at high level organisation of matter into organisms. You cannot realistically model things here comprehensively at the organisational level of physics or chemistry."
Are you suggesting that because evolution cannot model the behaviour of organisms at a molecular level it is therefore not a proper science? What about if it predicts the type of fossils found in the future? What if it predicts the nature of genetic relatedness between organisms thought to be related from the fossil record? What about the predictions it makes about bacterial response to antibiotics?
Just because the predictions of physics are more accurate does not mean that those of evolution are inaccurate. Remember that physics is the science of the simple and inanimate: by definition its predictions will be more accurate as the thing it measures is simple, inanimate matter. As you yourself have hinted, organisms are very complex, and consequently our model of their origin is looser than our model of the quantum world.


"You are looking at a non-repeatable scenario, and one where people are not expecting you to make extrapolations into the future, or if they are, no-one is expecting to be around long enough to find out if you were right."
I'm not sure that the geneticists who work on the fruit fly would agree with you. The predictive power of evolutionary theory is there to see if one works on organisms with short generation spans.
Oh, and please don't mention the creationist macro/microevolution nonsense again unless you can provide evidence of a mechanism that prevents what you call macro evolution, but allows micro-evolution. Microevolution plus time will inevitably lead to large (macro) changes in organisms. If you disagree with this then provide the evidence of a mechanism that prevents it. I've put this question to many creationists and they always ignore it, I wonder why?
Evolutionists of course, don't make this fatuous distinction because there is no real difference between micro and macro except the passage of time.


"The complexity of the evidence is such that you cannot numerically model it unless you are making huge assumptions and simplifications."
All models make assumptions. That is what makes them models. Additionally there is plenty of mathematical modelling in evolution/genetics. Does Hardy-Weinberg mean nothing to you? Your ignorance of a topic you criticise is astounding.


"I agree that evolution would indeed be falsified if there was a huge proven anomaly in the fossil record. One possible one is that fossilised trees have been found vertically through supposed millions of years of rock strata."
You what? I've not heard of this before so I can't comment unless I see the evidence. Please provide evidence for this and, while you are at it, provide evidence for the 'unreasonableness' of the current explanations of this phenomenon.


"There are attempts to explain these. I find the obvious explanation the most likely."
And what is the obvious explanation, that the bible is literally correct? The earth is only 6,000 years old? Yes, this is very 'obvious'...to the clinically stupid.


"Of course the whole fossil record as far as it relates to evolution hinges on the reliability of dating techniques."
It certainly does. These techniques, incidentally, rely on the same equations that you trumpet so loudly as an example of 'real' science. The equations of quantum mechanics explain the decay of radioactive materials to an extraordinary degree of accuracy. It is simply impossible for them to be wrong when it comes to the dating of the earth and yet correct in all other regards.


"Taking the accepted ages of the rock strata leaves evolution doing next to nothing for the first 3000 million years, then in the next 10-100 million years, the Cambrian explosion produces virtually all animal phyla. Above this we find other sudden diversifications happening over relatively brief time periods. For evolution to have produced the sophistication of life today with 4.6 billion years to work is difficult enough to believe, but with a few million to develop diversifed (sic) elaborate lifeforms seems profoundly unlikely."
Profoundly unlikely is it? Have you calculated the mutation rates coupled with the number of generations required to allow this and compared them with the available time span? Seriously, if you have any research that shows that such changes could not occur in the available time I'd publish them if I were you. If you do you'll surely win a Nobel Prize! I await with baited breath the fruits of your groundbreaking labours.


"It is for these and other reasons I reject the precept that evolution is the ultimate conclusion of reason applied to the question of origins."
The 'other reasons' being that it does not tie in with your religious views, presumably? That is fine as long as you are honest about it. Trying to pretend that it is a scientific objection is not going to wash with anyone but those people who are ignorant of the evidence.


"I also reject the precept that Christianity is all about blind faith."
Really? What 'evidence' takes your belief in a supernatural all-powerful being that we can't see, hear, touch, smell or taste beyond that of a blind faith position?


"Those who liken Dawkins' belief in Darwinism to blind religious faith are merely pointing this out sucinctly (sic)"
Dawkins, like all proper scientists, would be happy to admit that Evolutionary theory is wrong if contradictory evidence is found. He is on record saying this many times. He's even, on occasion defined what such evidence looks like. What evidence would you need to reject the god hypothesis? None I reckon.
Ours is not a 'blind religious faith', but yours is.



PS – because there is so much nonsense in what you say Simon, and because you are an ethnically bigoted homophobe this will be my last response to you. The sheer quantity of rubbish you speak takes too much time to disseminate and refute.

I also, to be honest, could not care less what you think. Evolution will stand and fall on the evidence and its predictive power, not on whatever bollox you lot come up with to fit your faith beliefs.

17. The Only One in Step

Comment #20427 by Hoddlwood on February 2, 2007 at 10:28 am

gimlibengloin: I went to one of your web references and found this quote that refers to a stone relief that is purported to represent a stegosaurus:

"However, even if the relief is found to be fraudulent, the position that man and dinosaurs lived together just thousands of years ago does not rest on this one evidence—it is based on the unchanging Word of God."

So what you have is an ancient carving that looks a bit like a dinosaur (or an elephant, depending in your credulity) but it does not matter if it is actually true because the word of god is infallible.

You are utterly insane.

18. The Only One in Step

Comment #20424 by Hoddlwood on February 2, 2007 at 10:19 am

I do read your posts, Simon, and all I see is religion, not science. There is a difference.

You say: "I know the difference between a theory which is proveable (sic) and falsifiable and one which is neither. For a theory to be useable in engineering, it must in nearly all cases be proven to adhere to an exact mathematical model."

Science has to be provable does it? Nonsense; give me an example of theory that has been 'proved'?

Exact mathematical models? I was under the impression that all mathematical models are approximations of reality. The maths may be exact, but the model is not exactly like reality. Please provide an example of a mathematical model that exactly describes reality.

Evolution is falsifiable, find me a fossil of a rabbit in the Precambrian (or some such other incongruous fossil) and I'll accept it is rubbish. You have not, so I won't.

As I said, you don't understand the scientific method.


gimlibengloin: if you think dinosaurs 'walked' with humans then you are clearly crazy.

You should both keep posting here though, as every word of insane dogshite you spout just causes us rationalists no end of amusement.

19. The Only One in Step

Comment #20395 by Hoddlwood on February 2, 2007 at 7:10 am

Simon,
You are a racist if you think that the lot of Africans will be 'improved' with a bit of Christian teaching. Regardless of whether you discriminate based on race, you clearly do based on culture. Either way you are a bigot.

"I am not obsessed with sexual immorality and dislike hearing about it. I just know what God thinks about it."

But you are obsessed. Apropos nothing you witter on about homosexuality, why? Clearly you think it immoral; that makes you a bigot. And an arrogant one at that if you think that you can 'know' what God is thinking. Do you actually think a mere mortal can 'know' what an omnipotent being is thinking? What an arrogant man you are (that was a rhetorical question by the way, please don't bore me with your crazy apocalyptic 'logic' for being able to know the mind of your made-up god).

You don't understand evolution and you also don't understand the scientific method and how it interprets evidence. This is illustrated in part by your constant mentioning of the bible in this thread when it is actually supposed to be about the scientific criticisms of evolution (if there are any).

So, as a challenge, please highlight what you understand evolutionary theory to be. Imagine I am a school pupil who is keen to find out what the atheist scientists view actually is. See if you can objectively represent a viewpoint that you disagree with, without mentioning god, the bible or sexuality based bigotry. I bet you can't.

20. The Only One in Step

Comment #20309 by Hoddlwood on February 1, 2007 at 5:19 pm

Simon,
One last thing:

"Most of the major political problems of Africa would probably resolve if Exodus 23v1-9 were embeded (sic) in the moral landscape as they are in the West."

This statement of yours is racist and therefore offensive. Please go away, and if possible, have harm come your way.

21. The Only One in Step

Comment #20308 by Hoddlwood on February 1, 2007 at 5:16 pm

Simon,
I won't enter a debate with you because:

a) you don't understand evolutionary theory, and not do you want to;
b) you have a grasp of the scientific method typical of the clinically deranged;
c) your posts mention the Bible more than the nature of this debate, i.e. the science behind evolution;
d) you are an intolerant homophobe whose obsession with what some members of society get up to in the privacy of their bedrooms is insulting and frankly disturbing;
e) and finally, you are unmistakably, unequivocally unhinged.

I never thought this possible, Simon, but I think you might actually be more insane than gimlibengloin.

22. The Only One in Step

Comment #19507 by Hoddlwood on January 27, 2007 at 5:20 pm

gimlibengloin - 153

Re: Blind Watchmaker - I've already READ it, I've THOUGHT about it and here is my REPLY: you are an idiot if you think that is what it means. Chance is the source of genotypic change; it is not the driving force of phenotypic change. Learn the theory before you critique it.

Re: lack of evidence – as a theist you require an unrealistic burden pf 'proof' for evolution. All that matters is that it makes accurate predictions. It does. What predictions does Intelligent Design 'theory' make?

Re McIntosh being a 'world class scientist' - Believing in a 6,000 year old Earth under the present evidence is mutually exclusive with being a 'world class' scientist. It is like saying that an atheist can be a 'world class' priest. You believe him because he says what you want to hear.

Frankly gimlibengloin, you are clearly a bit of a nutter so there no point in continuing. Bye bye.

23. The Only One in Step

Comment #19287 by Hoddlwood on January 26, 2007 at 5:16 am

gimlibengloin - 149

Your post implies an absence of acumen on your part

You say: "The engineer is in a position to determine design as opposed to chance when he sees it"

This is typical creationist nonsense. Firstly no one suggests that chance creates organisms. If you think evolution is a chance process you are a fool. Much like McIntosh. Secondly, the characteristics of design that you mention is just the twisted incredulous illusion of the religious. Just because your mind is too limited to imagine a cause of complexity other than intelligent design does not mean such a cause is impossible, or even without evidence. We have the evidence, it is overwhelming.

My mention of McIntosh's lack of an O-level in biology was just light hearted way of saying that he lacks the understanding, at even the most basic level, of the evidence for evolution. Additionally, like you, he thinks it is a chance process. If he sat an exam in a school today and displayed this kind of 'knowledge' he'd fail. As he would if he said that the 'evidence' from the bible is infallible, even when contradicted by peer reviewed scientific consensus. Which brings me to...

Highlighting his belief in a 6,000 year old earth is an entirely appropriate criticism. Anyone who claims to be a scientist cannot, not for even a second, deny the evidence for a very very very old earth. To suggest that the evidence is wrong and it is actually only a matter of a few millennia in age is just plain stupid. There is no other word for it. If you believe this too you are merely making the same idiotic error. It is not bias that I demonstrate it is knowledge of the evidence. It is McIntosh who is biased (and you I assume) because he lets the Bible be the ultimate source of evidence for his beliefs. How scientific is that?

Intelligent atheists (is there any other sort?) don't deny evolution because there is too much evidence for it to be false. I don't believe in evolution because I am an atheist. I am an atheist because of evolution. You have got this the wrong way round entirely. Just because YOU start with the premise of a god and infer all from that does not mean we do the same with a premise that god does not exist. If evolution was false and intelligent design was supported by the evidence then I would believe in a god. Evolution has evidence; ID does not, so I don't. If you can't describe my position correctly then don't bother at all.


Re: 1% of fossils. By the way, 1% is perfectly ok to make judgements from, providing the sample is representative of the population of as a whole. Political pollsters make pretty accurate predictions of voting intentions with a far smaller sample than this. Additionally the sheer amount of organisms that have ever lived is staggering, so 1% of this number is still a very large amount. 1% of plenty is still plenty.

24. The Only One in Step

Comment #17601 by Hoddlwood on January 15, 2007 at 4:40 am

gimlibengloin (101)

This example you cite is irrelevant. Firstly because studying a beetle from a design perspective is not the same as studying how it might have evolved. McIntosh is simply engaging in reverse engineering, this has nothing to do with biology as such.

Secondly, it does not take away the fact that McIntosh does not hold an O-level in a subject he criticises. I mentioned it simply because you seem to think we should defer to his credentials as a scientist rather than judge him on what he actually says (although both of these are evidence enough of his dogmatic stupidity on matters concerning evolution).

Thirdly, McIntosh thinks that the world is 6,000 years old and he believes the "word of God (i.e. the bible) is infallible" (his words) therefore his credentials as a scientist have to be doubted, keen as he is to let the bible cloud his interpretation of the evidence. No one, except for theologically inspired idiots, thinks that the world is this young. Everything Mcintosh says about science must be doubted because of this; that is why he is considered to be such a fool by other scientists.

Think what you like about evolution, but accept this one thing – its opponents are, to a man, critical purely because it conflicts with their faith. Where are the atheist deniers of evolutionary evidence? Nowhere. Those that doubt it do so because of their faith not because of a supposed lack of evidence. This is not science, and it should not be taught in schools as such.

25. The Only One in Step

Comment #17019 by Hoddlwood on January 10, 2007 at 5:50 am

gimlibengloin - McIntosh's credentials are irrelevent if his grasp of the evidence is so weak. Indeed one wonders how he came to occupy his 'Chair in Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory at Leeds' with such an inept understanding of the basics.

Interestingly his 'credentials' do not involve even an O-level in biology, so even by your ludicrous reasoning he is not entitled to have his views on evolution taken seriously.