Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse on the Cross Rhythms website.

Name
Email address
Article Title:	Creationism In Schools Isn't Science - Part 1
Author of reported comment:	Stephen Howell
Comment Date:	16:04 on Jul 11 2011
Comment:	Alistair Noble of the UK Centre for Intelligent Design seems a little confused as to what exactly he is trying to claim. He says: "The existence of natural laws that make our world predictable and intelligible are highly suggestive of design." OK, so this is the anthropic principle. Similar to stating that the fact my legs are exactly long enough to reach the ground is suggestive of design. "The fact that these natural laws and constants that govern the universe are just right for the existence of life suggests something other than an accident." OK, so he's saying that God must have created the laws of physics. This is completely different to suggesting that God designed the living things on Earth. Which does he believe, I wonder? Dr. Moretonson apparently states: "The fossil records do not support the idea that one kind of creature changes into another, such as a reptile changing into a bird, or a fish changing into an amphibian." The trouble is, they do! I think some people expect to see something that is half modern fish and half modern amphibian in the fossil record. It doesn't work like that. There is not a division between "transitional" and "non-transitional" species. All species are transitional. They will all eventually evolve into something else or die out. Personally I have no objection to the idea of creation mythologies being taught and discussed in schools. They're an interesting part of our culture. But they have nothing to do with science. There's nothing wrong with that. Science isn't everything. But it is everything in science lessons.

Tell us the details of your complaint:
	For verification, please type the word shown above in the box below [try a different word]