Comments on: Family First announce candidate

By: Pyrrho

Pyrrho — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 01:19:18 +0000

Craig, you might liker to go back and read post number 5.
You might be happy with someone who wants to be elected to public office who would turn the education clock back to the middle ages, but I certainly am not

By: Craig

Craig — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 23:21:43 +0000

Im sorry but obviously Pyrrho has an alternate agenda and is simply looking for a Evolution/Creation debate in a political newspaper article comment page? The reference made to Henk Bruins being somewwhat of an independant would be acurate because the party would be lucky to hold more than a few seats, making him basically independant but with a modest party that can still have some influence, exactly what we need to get things happening in Mt Gambier which has too long been on the back burner. The last thing we need is a Liberal/Labour member who will fall into line with large party dirrection (big city).
He has hit the nail on the headwith this one.

By: Pyrrho

Pyrrho — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 01:30:48 +0000

Ill informed clones???
Strangely, i do see evidence that the education system has indeed failed some people. i also see evidence that some folk choose their own brand of ignorance.
let me put it simply, H.
There is no balance debate between YEC (young earth creationism) and the theory of evolution by natural selection.
You say “god did it”.
science says
” Well perhaps, wheres your evidence? Here we have an alternative explanation for how species have arrived here and now, and we have a vast mountain of evidence in the fossil record, geologic record, and genetics.

To describe YEC as being of equal value as an alternative is like saying that a gram weighs the same as a tonne.

Did you get a chance to find out what a scientific theory actually is?

“I do not see evolution as rational and logical either.“
This is called the “argumentum ad ignorantiam “
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

By: H

Tue, 01 Dec 2009 23:53:56 +0000

Lets be clear about the debate — science can prove that things evolve, adapt to their environment.. But the leaps needed to prove that we evolved from single cell organisms into the complex homo sapiens we are now are mere theory with sketchy manipulation of data to support it.

As a Christian, I believe the Bible at it’s word, but not blindly. My belief does requrie faith, and I’m not even close to pretending that it is rational and logical. But then, I do not see evolution as rational and logical either.

Family First, even if this is their policy, like I said earlier.. Just want the opportunity to present a fair, balanced choice of options.. Instead of creating the ill-informed clones the education system has been spitting out for decades now.

By: Wayne Stapleton

Wayne Stapleton — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 23:21:35 +0000

Thanks Adam for your comment, I completely agree. As a Christian my self, I find it difficult to support those passionate about creationism. I would like to add that I believe that science revels the working of Gods hand.
Evolution stand up to the rigor of scientific evaluation and creationism does not. We can be emotional as we like but science is simply a method of evaluating and testing.
I would like to bring the debate back on topic to say that in reading the FF party line, there seems and under tone of strong right wing views with out directly stating so. This may be a bit sneaky?

By: H

Tue, 01 Dec 2009 20:57:37 +0000

Theory is a hypothesis with unproven fact.

Evolution is lacking a final piece of evidence that Darwin himself in the Origin of Species said if it wasn’t found within 20 years of his work, then his work is just a theory and should be discarded.

Yes, Creationism remains a theory that does require faith to believe in, but no more so than believing somehow pond scum formed out of nothing and started walking on land.

But that’s not what this is about. There are many other things that form part of Family First policy that would go a long way to fix up the messes made by successive government screw ups.

And Henk won’t let Mount Gambier continue to suffer from being overlooked!

By: Pyrrho

Pyrrho — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 11:44:59 +0000

@Jeremy Ashton
Thank-you for providing excellent reasons for not voting FF. You seem to be following the party line quite nicely.

@H
You should endevour to learn what the word “theory ” means when used to describe a scientific concept.
Allow me to help.
http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html
http://physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/theory_vs__hypothesis_vs__law

By: Adam Naiova

Adam Naiova — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 10:54:14 +0000

Jeremy Aston said: ‘So it’s okay to teach evolution as science? I think not!’

H said: ‘And yet evolution can be taught, despite very large flaws in the THEORY?’.

This issue of creationism versus evolution was discussed elsewhere on TBW website (http://www.borderwatch.com.au/archives/4785), which lead to some very passionate exchanges of views.

Comments there are now closed, however there is a topic on the Forum to discuss these issues in more detail(http://www.borderwatch.com.au/talk/topic/58); so this is probably not the place to get into a lengthy discussion regarding the merits of creationism versus evolution.

However, that being said, I feel it is necessary to point out that the VAST majority of scientists support evolution and are opposed to the teaching of creationism.

Of course there are some scientists who are creationists, but they are far outnumbered by scientists who support evolution.

Evolution-supporting scientists are not just atheists or agnostics, but are also adherents of various religions, including Christianity.

It is also worth noting for the purposes of discussions on creationism that most of the sensible, mainstream Christian denominations, such as the Catholic, Anglican and Uniting Churches all have official positions of supporting evolution as the explanation for how life on Earth formed.

This position is I believe called ‘theistic evolution’; ie it has a religious underpinning to it, but the science is exactly the same; the religious angle is left to theology lessons not the science laboratory.

Senior figures in the Church of England in the UK have also recently spoken out strongly against the teaching of creationism alongside evolution.

Support for the teaching of creationism alongside evolution in Australia largely comes from the more extreme evangelical/Pentecostal denominations, which co-incidentally are in many ways the ‘political nursery’ for Family First.

By: Wayne Stapleton

Wayne Stapleton — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 09:01:43 +0000

I cannot see anywhere in your reference about teaching creationism over evolution. I believe they are a right wing party, but their ideas seem as reasonable as any other. I agree that Family First is not an alternative for a true independent.

By: H

Tue, 01 Dec 2009 07:45:26 +0000

And yet evolution can be taught, despite very large flaws in the THEORY? I think it’s beyond time that there was a little honesty in the debate.

For starters, there was nothing on that page that said anything about teaching creationism. And even if there was, it would be to only provide a balanced view, allowing students to make up their own mind.

Lies, fear, ignorance and superstition? Not just the domain of the religious right.