Comments:Royal Society education chief forced out in creation row

I know I'm not the most worldly person, but why should his comments brought discredit/shame or whatever they say it does to the Society? Creationism is a matter of Faith and Belief, and while I'm not a strong supporter of evolution/Darwinism...Nor am I a deep believer in Creationism, I'm sort of a middle of the road, since no where in the world does it say that God's (and we are talking the King James God, not all the other ones out there) day is only 24 hours, if he is omni-everything, a day to him (or her if you prefer) could very well be several billion of our years, and he might have tinkered with the genetics's of creatures until he got it right, so all those fossil's out there are his experiments in creating the creature that most closely represented himself in a physical/spiritual form. But that's my two cents on the subject, been wanting to put that out there for a long long long time LOL....(ever since I had the disagreement with the deacon's at my southern baptist church as a teenager).--TXbrn LArasd (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

^^The fact that there are people in the world who still think like this terrifies me on a daily basis. What reason do you have to believe that the God of the Bible is real, and that the other (clearly fictitious) gods of history are not, other than you where brought up as a Southern Baptist? Please realize that the Bible is one of many creation myths, and that the only reason that we still carry them around is because death is too terrifying for some people to accept. Also, I hope you realize that you are not the first person to try to stretch the words of the Bible (or Koran) to try to make them fit with facts about the world. This is not an attack on you or your religion. There is a reason we base ideas about reality on confirmable theories and not tradition and inner feelings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.242.75.191 (talk) 05:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it is sad that The Times has degenerated so much that they could cause this problem. Check the article carefully, the reverend was saying that if creationism is raised in class it should be addressed as any respectable scientist would wish it to be. I.e. explain "theory" and differentiate it from unsubstantiated "belief". --Brian McNeil / talk 08:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that I believe that there's something more than science at work in this world worries you? I'm sorry that you have no belief in something greater than yourself, but, as it were I was just "stretching" an explanation, and as Brian as so eloquently put it, the Rev, was saying to guide the mind back to it. Far to many people can't except that there are alternative view's of the world and must make everyone "Conform or die" (as a mentality that is). I believe in evolution, but I believe in it as a guided purpose. But as this is titled Opinions, everyone has one, and if all you can do is parrot the establishment, then we've not come as far as I would have hoped in this day an age of enlightenment. You have Theory...scientific...that gives step by step proof...which for me explains that evolution and time exists, Darwin was a genius, to see beyond what all children/people of the time were raised with. Then you have belief, and in the end, you have that or nothing, and Darwin in the histories, developed faith in the end, but he did NOT discount his work, he still believed he was right. Once again, my two cents...--TXbrn LArasd (talk) 11:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * so dude has to resign because some idiot reporter misquoted him? unbelievable.  and as to you, TXbrn, the irony of you commenting on someone "parroting the establishment" is humorous, given your beliefs.  evolution has empirical data to back it, while religion has nothing but tradition.  who is parroting, again?  - Imind (talk) 22:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

if you wish to view it that way so be it, but, I'm not trying to convert anyone, I was just trying to foster an alternative view for open discussion, but that's not going to happen I believe. so I will leave off this unless someone says something worthy of discussion. Other than Brianmc just statement that there should be a good explanation presented to students to make them understand the difference between learned science, and the belief of one's own religion (and the fact each and everyone has to make up their own minds what they will believe and not follow the flock over the cliff)...and of course yours Imind, about the fact that a misquote by a published reporter should cause such fall out...everything else has been (including my responses unfortunately) rhetoric to support positions that are nothing more that personal belief systems.--TXbrn LArasd (talk) 12:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)