“Yeah, right ... those murderous Creationists!

Hang 'em!

Hang 'em high!”

“I'm a European (half British, half Dutch) temporarily living in the US. I have to say the degree of religiosity in the US is disturbing, but I always believed that Europe and England in particular would never go down this ridiculous creationist route. It breaks my heart to hear that the US evangelical creationist tentacles are spreading throughout England and I believe more than ever, it must be stopped. These evangelicals are far more dangerous than the Taliban.... because they are backed by rich and powerful people and they intend to go global.”

“For the benefit of anyone who stumbles upon the article and subsequent comments now that it has been removed from the"Most Commented" window I would like you to see just what a man, Michael, who applies the title "Reverend" to himself, would not answer. It is the following post by me last Sunday:

"Well, Michael, you prompt me to engage a little more.

Another big day on the Christian calendar has dawned there in Lancaster. Today some people in your congregation will be remembering the resurrection of Jesus Christ. No doubt you will continue your sermon series on the Gospel according to Mark. Perhaps you will even speak on the alleged resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead?

However, a problem exists. You see just about every hour, every day, every month, every year for some centuries while the title has existed, Doctors of Medicine have observed people die. They have also observed that those dead do not rise to life again after 3 days. This is empirical science Michael. It is repeated observation founding a scientific theory i.e. dead people don't come back to life after three days because the elements of the body have commenced decomposition

Michael, you have a dilemma. Some people will gather in your church today believing that something happened nearly 2,000 years ago that science says just couldn't have happened.

This is not philosophical science about origins we are talking about. This is hard core observational science.

Those people in your congregation will believe that Jesus Christ rose to life after being 3 days dead. Not only that, according to other Gospel accounts that same Jesus Christ's body passed through the burial cloths, appeared and disappeared before the eyes of his disciples on the road to Emmaus and in a locked room. And those people will believe that too but this also is just not observed in science.

Michael, what are you to do? Are you to encourage or discourage such a belief?

Please assist me with advice as to how you deal with the situation.

Oh, BTW, what do you believe about that?"

Is Michael's failure to give an answer a representation of the state of the church of England?”

“Michael said: "As for Trent I cannot be bothered to answer someone like you"

This is not the love of Christ Jesus on display.

My questions are genuine. Please address them with genuineness because the Christian faith you have been ordained into depends on a bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.

It is under question by me. Will you defend it here or desert it?”

“Tim,
"Ms. Horner, it is time that you stopped describing St. Peters students as impressionable children."

I realise at 16 when you about to leave school, you may think you have the complete wherewithall to question and debate all that Philip Bell had to offer but since many scientists with far more qualifications than you sometimes struggle to understand his his misquotes, half-truths and distortions, it would not be unreasonable to assume many of your classmates would also be at a loss.
I am arfraid your own post reveals your own discrepancies.
"If you want creationism to be taught about, but not allow WHAT LITTLE EVIDENCE THERE IS SUPPORTING IT" There is NO scientific evidence Tim not a little, not ANY for creationism. It is sad you think there might be, maybe your just being polite, that little phrase gives away a great deal.
That view about it not being based on valid scientific theory is not just my view but the whole of the scientific community, the Archbishop of Canterbury the C o E , the Pope's, The Chief Rabbi, Michael Gove and it because of the last one mentioned and his predecessors' views that Creationism is not allowed to be taught a science in Science lessons. I am very aware that this was an RE lesson. Does it really make it better to misinform students in an RE lesson rather than a science lesson. Is it ok to debunk all the evidence based work in other lessons in that one?
"However, he presented what could be interpreted as scientific evidence for his theory ..... and such evidence showed us reasons why creationists believe what they do" - No Tim not evidence, not even theories, just myths dressed up as a science to justify his beliefs.

Regarding your RE GCSE, everyone else seems to manage to pass it without the need to invite a creationist in, this is the first and hopefully the last time St Peter's will - they've had good RE results before so hardly needed him there. He by the way was very happy to be there he called it on his website "Ministry to School Students". How does it make you feel knowing he was there to convert you not to help you with your GCSE?

Don't worry you won't find a question on the exam paper asking you to explain Catastrophic plate-techtonics, fossil deposition in Floods or how to create diamond in a day. You will be glad to know the Governors did confirm to me that it wasn't actually a revision day after all - so no need to read up on those websites he also promoted to you.

Sadly your school governors also believe he is a scientist - that is why I complained and why I continue to be concerned about the ethos of the school.”

“Andrew Sibley wrote:
"A CPT model would also require activation energy, a comet impact being one possibility. But why is it acceptable for you to teach that a comet wiped out the dinosaurs, but not to ask what else a massive comet impact might do to the surface of Earth?"
Let me get this right: Noah had his flood, but it was caused by a comet messing with the tectonic plates, Not divine rain, then. And you seem to be accepting that it wiped out the dinosaurs, which didn't find a place on the Ark after all, let alone on Tudor dinner tables.
Remind me: are you and Philip Bell of the same school of Creationism? If not, will the school be expected to give you equal time, next term?”

“Michael - one may wonder what mockery has to do with rational arguments, surely when discussing science we can leave the playground bullying behind.
Now for your point Michael - all scientific models have problems, which is why people still do science. The CPT model requires the sea to boil in places, the model has flashing along the mid ocean ridges. But it is wrong to say the water would boil off the planet, it would return as cooling rain as it wouldn't have enough energy to go off into space, just the upper atmosphere. Secondly, turbidity flows would have sealed in a lot of the heat quite rapidly.
A CPT model would also require activation energy, a comet impact being one possibility. But why is it acceptable for you to teach that a comet wiped out the dinosaurs, but not to ask what else a massive comet impact might do to the surface of Earth? Incidentally, NASA part funded Buamgarder's work in the development of his model TERRA that was designed to model rapid planetary changes due to massive asteroid impacts.”

“Ms. Horner, it is time that you stopped describing St. Peters students as impressionable children. Phil Bell was questioned, and argued against, on a variety of points including plate tectonics and radioactive dating methods (by year 11 students). Students, including me, thought of him as a backward thinking fundamentalist. However, he presented what could be interpreted as scientific evidence for his theory (he talked about this island that formed incredibly fast, and told me about catastrophic plate tectonics when I questioned him about the issue, among other things) and such evidence showed us reasons why creationists believe what they do. For my R.E. education (and this was an R.E. day, not a science class by the way) I would rather have a genuine creationist tell me why he believes what he does (and scientific evidence, if it exists, is of course very important here), than have someone else tell me about creationism, failing to explain why people believe it. If you want creationism to be taught about, but not allow what little scientific evidence there is supporting it (i.e. what Phil Bell talked about) to be presented, then you are denying pupils the knowledge of why people like him think there is reason to believe in it. I know there is so much scientific evidence against young Earth creationism, and this is why I do not believe it in the slightest, but if there is real evidence to support it, I want to hear about this evidence. If Phil Bell thinks he has scientific evidence to support creationism, then for my R.E. education, I want to hear it. If this evidence isn't very good, then I will dispute it, as the students of St. Peters did very effectively. Why do you want school to protect me from fundamentalists like Phil Bell in a world where their views will not be hidden from me? Political correctness perhaps, views too ungrounded to be presented to children, when actually they were capable of disputing these views? Worried that your son will be mislead?We were not being brainwashed, and the school science department has taught us about plenty of evidence against creationism. Please, allow me a good education.”

“Michael ,You and I would agree on most things, here we must differ. Some kids would have gone home giggling others I am afraid to say would have believed it as a plausible explanation for plate -techtonics not having the know how to correct Andrew's and Philip Bells basic mistakes themselves.
What Andrew and his colleagues have illustrated so well is that they are quite prepared to back up their belief with semi- plausible utterly wrong science speak here and in the classroom, misleading children, undermining other evidence based, subjects, polarising opinions and faith.
It is utterly wrong and unforgivable to present Young Earth Creationism as a having any basis in science to impressionable children.”

“Andrew

catastrophic Plate Tectonics are simply risible, wtih paltes whizzing around the earth at 30 mph during the flood. The heat generated would have boiled away all the flood waters and then fried Noah and his menagerie

It is utter absurdity and perhaps st peters school should have been told about it. The kids would have gone home in giggles and any creationist kid would be tormented to death - not to mention staff

Get real Andrew you are spouting nonsense not dissenting science.

As for Trent I cannot be bothered to answer someone like you”