Family First- An Analysis (part 1)

In 2004 and 2005 I wrote about the new and Federally untested political party, Family First. Family First, as a party with niche appeal but larger ambitions, instinctively knew that the only path to parliamentary success was to cultivate preference deals with the major parties. The perception among the Conservative parties at the time was that they had natural "fellow travellers" in the shape of Family First. Mutually beneficial deals were struck with them in a majority of seats for an exchange of preferences. Family First were cocky enough of the support they assumed the Coalition would provide to ask their suitors to sign up to a raft of policy positions in exchange for their preferences. Labor, more wary, still felt that a deal with FF had strategic merit in the Victorian Senate contest, assuming that FF would drop out well before other players and that the flow of preferences would deliver Labor an extra seat ahead of the Greens. In a stunning miscalculation, Labor preferences ensured that Family First's Steven Fielding secured the party its first Federal win, despite a primary vote of only 1.77%. Until recently, I would have said that Labor's post-election embarrassment at helping to elect Fielding would have ensured that such a preference deal would never be struck again. However, with Kevin Rudd at now at the helm of the party, perfectly happy to play the religion card if it greases his path to the Lodge, anything is possible. Mark Latham's bile must be rising still.

However Family First protest their political independence, it remains true that they overwhelmingly gave preference to, and received preference from, the Liberal and National parties. Family First did not preference a single Labor candidate anywhere in Australia in 2004 (correction: FF preferenced Labor ahead of the Liberals in the seats of Brisbane and Leichhardt because the candidate Ingrid Tall is a Lesbian and Warren Entsch is in favour of gay marriage). Similarly, their efforts to claim independence from their churchish origins, their founders and sponsors in the Assemblies of God Church movement, were singularly unsuccessful, a subject I have written much on (and at much personal cost). Their progress since 2004 (if any) in establishing a party structure worthy of a mainstream political force will be the subject of part two of this article.

The Coalition, having struck this deal in 2004, should be asking themselves how the deal has panned out. Now Family First have had nearly three years to show their disposition towards the Government, what has their grace and favour have gained them?

An Analysis of Family First's Performance:

This article seeks to present an analysis which will bring some facts to bear on this question. I have analysed all Senate divisions since 2001 to assess the overall behaviour of independent Senators in general, to see if Senator Fielding has been as good a performer as others in similar circumstances. Additionally, I have analysed all the Senate divisions since Family First took their seat to see how they have disposed themselves to the major parties. The source data I have used is freely available at the Parliamentary web site.

It should be admitted that any Senator sitting as an independent or for a micro-party takes on a disproportionate workload, seeing as they must act in some capacity as a spokesperson in every portfolio imaginable, as well as participating in votes and debate in the Senate chamber, and receive delegations from lobby groups, constituents and colleagues.

Senator Steve Fielding took office in July 2005 having been elected in October 2004. From that time until the end of June 2007 there have been 588 divisions in the Senate, divided between the Senate sitting as the full chamber and the Senate in Committee.

In comparison, there were 443 Senate divisions in the preceding four and a half years, between February 2001 and June 2005. This suggests an interesting observation in and of itself: The tempo of senate divisions in the two years of the current parliament is very nearly triple (x 2.98) than that of the preceding four and a half years. This is no doubt a direct reflection of the Coalition's wish to maximise its rare majority in both houses.

Attendance:

The next relevant statistic regards attendance. Since taking office, Senator Steve Fielding has been absent for 148 divisions, yielding an attendance rate of 75%. How does this stack up? Should one could be forgiving of such absences, considering a party with only one sitting member would find it difficult to be in the Senate chamber for every division? Let's look for a reasonable parallel.

There have been four independent senators in recent history to whom we can look for a comparison.

Senator Brian Harradine served as an independant Senator for Tasmania between 1975 and his retirement in 2005.
Analysis of the Parliamentary records between February 2001 and June 2005 showed Senator Harradine was present and voted in 216 of these divisions, or 48% of the time.

One Nation had Senator Len Harris representing them as the party's sole Senator over the same period. He was present for 180 divisions, a relatively disappointing 40% attendance rate. I am among those who supported One Nation for their ideals but became profoundly disenchanted by their lazy, undisciplined approach. This is one reason why.

Senator Shayne Murphy sat as an independent from February 2002 after resigning from the Labor party. While he sat as an independent, there were a total of 377 divisions. Murphy voted in 163, or 43% of the time.

Senator Meg Lees sat as an independent after Feb 2003 after resigning from the Australian Democrats. She formed the unsuccessful Australian Progressive Alliance party and lost her seat in 2005. Over this time there were 339 divisions, and she voted in 233 of them, an average of 69%, making her a diligent legislator in comparison. Lees broke away from the Democrats after concluding they had drifted too far to the left. Her concern seems amply justified, considering the Democrats sided with the ALP in 91% of divisions between 2001-2005 and an astonishing 99.3% of the time (4 votes from 588) since 2005. So much for the "party of balance" the Democrats claimed to be.

Voting Patterns:

It must be remembered that there are many Senate divisions that are of a purely procedural nature and both the major parties vote the same way. This was true a surprising 59% of the time from 2001-2005, but dropped sharply to 32% of the time after 2005.

However, if one excludes these times and only counts the times that Family First voted with one major party and against the other (that is, on votes of substance where the major parties disagreed) then Family First favoured the Opposition 175 times (30% of all votes) as opposed to the Coalition 119 times (20% of all votes).

Even more extraordinarily, Family First voted with the Greens on no fewer than 198 occasions, when both were voting in concert to oppose the Government, a significant 34% of the time. The natural antipathy between Family First and the Greens makes this revelation of more than passing interest.

Family First saw fit to oppose both major parties on 87 occasions, or 15% of the time.

Conclusion:

One could look at the above results in a number of ways.
Firstly, Steve Fielding's attendance in the Senate chamber reflects well on his diligence as a parliamentarian, equalling that of ex-Democrat Meg Lees, and greatly exceeding that of other independent Senators of recent time.

Secondly, Family First have distinguished themselves by not slavishly following the voting pattern of either major party. However, this should cause the Coalition to totally re-assess whether Family First deserve their preferences in the unqualified way they have been dispensed previously. Family First voted with Labour 50% more often than the Coalition when real differences of opinion (not just procedural matters) were at stake. The Coalition should be very cautious about giving Family First any endorsement when they now have a track record like this.

I approached this article with a measure of scepticism concerning Family First's motives and predispositions as a new political party, and I am on the record as being highly critical of them in the past. In assessing their Federal parliamentary performance, I was surprised with what I found. Much was done in 2004 that was badly planned, ineptly executed and caused many Christians a deal of grief because of the way in which the entanglements between Church and State were mishandled, especially in NSW. My concerns in this area remain, but at least Senator Fielding has given a balanced and applied face to the party in the Senate, even if it is at variance with what the Coalition had been led to expect from it.

In the next instalment of my analysis, I will focus on the party structure Family First promised would be constructed at the time of the 2004 Federal Election, and what (if any) progress has been made since. I will ask what evidence there is concerning whose views have been represented by Family First in their voting patterns detailed here, and whether they show signs of growing into a genuinely broad-based political movement.

-Nathan Zamprogno

Random questions: Spiders and what they eat

Just occasionally, I think I'll just throw out to you some of the random questions that have cluttered up my brain for years.

Here's todays:

"If a spider bit another spider it would probably die. But if a spider bites a fly and then eats it, why doesn't it poison itself?"

When you can't convince unreason

(Update: July 6th with additional quotations)
Flamewars are unbecoming. Mostly. Sometimes I just can't help myself.

I feel torn. In my twenties I used to think that "boots and all" was the best debating tactic when closely held principles were at stake. Now, in my thirties, I wonder if my debating reserve is now more a function of my mortgage, my more-than-full-time job, or a little more life-experience. Could it be a loss of idealism and a lack of care? That last prospect gives me the shudders. God save me from a lack of care.

But sometimes you just have to throw the towel in. Sometimes, the degree of ignorance you encounter in a debate makes progress impossible. Perhaps this is the lesson I am now slowly learning in my thirties: When to leave people to their own delusions. As Edith Sitwell once said "I am patient with stupidity, but not with those who are proud of it." Perhaps I should be more mindful of the question of whether giving vacuous ideas oxygen by arguing against them does more harm than good.

I refer, in this instance, to my enduring, horrified fascination with Young Earth Creationism. This vein of Creationism is, in fact, more than just the logically broken, medievally minded, simplistic, bibliolatrous notion that the Earth is 6000 years old. No, what is worse is its deeply offensive claim that those who do not support Young Earth Creationism (and their advocates) are apostates; less enlightened and less effective as Christians than the "true" Church that remains faithful to a literal reading of Scripture; even that opponents are "tools of Satan". Oh, and those in the tent of Deceived Christianity include Anglicans, Catholics, and those in the Salvation Army. No wonder that many questing and intelligent seekers are permanently put off believing in Jesus! In this age, Young Earth Creationism is the primary engine causing Christianity to be rejected among those who are seeking spiritual truth, and yet who can plainly see through Science that Creationist claims about the natural world are patently false.

I maintain a strong position in opposing those who tarnish Christianity with such casuistry, and without apology. Perhaps worst in this field is Kent Hovind, who pushed all kinds of Creationist quackery until he was finally sentenced to ten years prison for tax fraud earlier this year. His wife will now also be sent to prison for the same offences.

Well, Kent maintains a blog, even from prison. And what a magnet it has become to people who share his views! When I read it, my palms itch. It's a tragic circus of the absurd, the credulous and the angry.

Thus, I belatedly arrive at my purpose for this essay. I have trawled the gibbering insanity so you don't have to. What do Creationists really believe? What do they believe when they apply the same degree of skepticism to other propositions as they do to their basis in their belief in the age of the Earth?

What I present below is a quick and non-exhaustive snapshot of who believers in Young Earth Creationism find themselves as fellow travellers with. It's scary, and it's sad.

All the quotes I present below (including spelling mistakes) are quoted verbatim from the comments to the various postings on Kent Hovind's blog. Where links are included I am using Google's index to present the URLs where that phrase is used. So...

What do a lot of people who believe in Young Earth Creationism also believe?

1. That The United States Government does not exist.
• "It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933. The receivers of the United States Bankruptcy are the International Bankers, via the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The receivers of the Bankruptcy have adopted a new form of government for the United States. This new form of government is known as a Democracy, being an established Socialist/Communist order under a new governor for America"
• "Since the dropping or the gold and silver standards and the complete floating of the dollar 'lawful money' has ceased to exist".

2. The IRS is an illegal entity and no one has to pay tax! Yay!
• "So has Dr. Hovind commited any wrong? YES! He is serving Jesus and that royally disses the devil (the god of this world) off ...He has done no evil becuase the IRS is 100% illegal anyways!"
(Oh, and the IRS are demonically inspired.)
• "Don’t we have enough against us with satan and his demons which include certain irs agents?"

3. The U.S Government was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, as part of a sinister plot to create a despotic state, just like Pearl Harbour (which was, of course, also a conspiracy).
• "The gov’t’s story of 9/11 is impossible according to the laws of physics, and therefore was likely an inside job a la Hitler and the Reichstag fire."
• "I’m guessing you are one of those scoffers that the Bible told us about that would pop up in the last days, the type that doesn’t allow himself to be so confused like the rest of us Christians, with the facts. As for 9/11 there are only 400 physicists and engineers that all say that it was impossible for a building to pulverize itself by the damage done by the planes and the puny fires. How do you explain building 7 being reported as collapsed 1/2 hour before it fell and the testimonies of all the eyewitnesses who heard explosions prior to the collapse? How about the picture of a melted core column that looks like it wa cut at a perfect 60 degree angle with luke skywalkers laser sword? Yeah the planes did it.Forget the eyewitnesses cause they were there and you weren’t so you know more than those who were there. OK so good is evil to you?"

4. The U.S Government are involved in a conspiracy to keep Hovind in jail, or worse, simply because he is a Christian. His theft of $600,000 in taxes had nothing to do with his conviction.
• "You know why he’s REALLY in prison. It has nothing to do with taxes! This is not a political free feral. As Christians we are at war with all those who want us silenced. My family finally found out the status of Dr. Hovind. He’s in solitary confinement and the government is trying to put him in prison overseas. There is only one reason for this, THEY WANT HIM DEAD!"
• "I heard of your arrest. And as I had suspected, it was for the unconstitutional non-law of the Federal Income Tax. And as I had also suspected, many disinformers would use that to discredit you and your works. On wikipedia, youtube, or just any where that you are mentioned, they keep using the lie that you had broke a law."
• "(Hovind) has taken a stand for the work of God to not be a tax collector"

5. Don't vaccinate your kids. The Government is trying to kill them.
• "They will try to kill your kids through vaccinations and if that doesn’t work, they have other ways."

6. The Government is poisoning your food. With soy. Don't eat the soy!
• "They poison our food with chemicals, give us soy to drink and eat. They put it in most of our packaged foods."

7. The Government has a cure for Cancer but hush it up because of "big money".
• "Cancer is being cured all over the world. There is a cure today yet in America there are those who are doing their “research” to find a “cure” and it has already been found. But it is a big money making project for them NOT to find a cure for cancer in America."

8. The Government is poisoning your drinking water. Don't drink the water!
• "They contaminate our drinking water with flouride and clorine. Even our toothpaste has flouride and it has been outlawed in many parts of the world."
• "there is a poison warning on all flouride toothpaste tubes that has only shown harm rather than benefits."
• "other countries refuse to use flouride or treat with that well known poison"

9. Canola oil is toxic. Don't eat Canola oil!
• "Many places are using Canola Oil to cook the foods that we eat. Canola oil is toxic."

10. Actually, everything, everywhere is a conspiracy. Do you need proof? Look out! behind you!
• "Kent Hovind knew about this information" (and is in prison because of this)
"This nation is being run by a CRIME SYNDICATE, of which the Bushes and Clintons are part and parcel"
• "G.W. Bush drunk blood out of a skull, sat in a coffin naked, and swore occultic oaths to an extremely powerful secret society which he has continued to rely upon for favors up until this day"
• "The Bush clan got their family fortune from the Opium Trade back in the 1800s"
• "The Bush clan is one of the world’s ranking Illuminati bloodlines."
Apparently, the Clintons are just as bad:
• "The Clinton clan is partners in crime with the Bushes. When Clinton was Arkansas’s governor, and Daddy Bush was president, TONS of cocaine was being smuggled in nightly into the Mena, Arkansas Airport by CIA black operatives."
• "I admit to being slow, dull, and dumbed down by western institutions to which I have been exposed: but it only just really occurred to me that the reason a lot of people come here is because they have sold their very own moral souls to a beast of biblical proportions and they want submissive Y.E.C. to come to them cowering, begging to lick the blood from their very own Gestapo issue knee high black boots and swell their faltering confidence in their shameful decision to sell all that they have and ever will have to a foreign faceless and alien power."

11. Hovind was right to ignore all letters demanding payment of taxes because (silly IRS), they wrote his name in UPPER CASE. Everyone knows that if your name is written in UPPER CASE it's not actually referring to you, but a legal fiction involving the same sequence of letters. (BTW: Cheques sent to Hovind spelling his name in UPPER CASE were always summarily banked.)
• "...alternatively, he might have simply tendered a affidavit declaring that he is not the PERSON named on the documents before the court but that he was there to represent that entity."
(to which one response was, seriously: "I want to faint. How can Kent Hovind stand alone against our entire country’s misunderstanding? Somebody needs to write a book. This is HUGE!")

12. And yes, so we have the complete set: The moon landings were fake.
• "I found this video on whether we really even went to the moon at all. What a deception it could be."
• "I have finally sat down and watched a serious documentary about the photos and film/ video evidence of the moon landings - and you can now put me down as one who believes there are questions to answer - many photos / video was filmed on earth [maybe all of it] - there is no doubt some filming was a mock up made on earth - the question is why? it is the same question dave von kleist asks about 911"

13. People opposing Kent Hovind without question are children of Satan, apostate deceivers, Jesus denying mockers and God-haters. Your sincerity as a Christian is irrelevent and void if you take a Christian brother to task over faulty doctrine, regardless of how damaging it is to the Body of Christ.
• "You’ve taken Satan’s number"
• "You are spiritually blinded and a child of Satan."
• "It IS the time of the Apostate church folks. The End is getting near."
• "Most of the persecution meeted out on Gods People in the bible was done by the so called religious rulers. Many reasons for this,but afew I can think of-/ Hatered of God word/ Shows up their evil deeds" (spelling mistakes in original)
• "Remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit."
• "Just remember when it is time to receive your mark on your right hand or forehead, we tried to warn you. Jesus Christ is the truth and we have tried to show you the truth to wake you up from your demonic stupor, but I’m thinking the real reason behind your scoffing is your love of sin. Forsake it before it is too late for you, it is a delusion, and does not last forever but life in Christ does. Hell awaits all you scoffers... God is angry at the wicked every day Ps. 7:11b and you are but a breath and a heartbeat away from his eternal wrath."
• "You are again calling Jesus a liar, yet you claim to follow him. Further, you again publicly ridicule your “fellow brethren,” whether some are strong or weak in the faith."

14. Spelling. Creationists Don't believe in spelling. Or Logic. Or Reality.
Take, as one small example, one random but representative example of Creationist Logic:
• (speaking of the plain meaning of a phrase)
"Is the question “Do you understand the charges?” the same as “Do you comprehend these accusations?” I suggest that there is a profound difference between these two simple questions"
(tortured logic excised, but this poster eventually "interprets" this phrase as actually meaning)
"Do you presume to take a maritime commercial material liability onto your trading vessel in the form of the persona you are presuming to take possession of?".
This, then being a partial justification for Hovind to regard the Court's authority as null and void. I think "yes" would have been perfectly sufficient an answer to the original question.

And the spelling mistakes? Far, far too many to list.
• “Jesus made this sacrafice so that we, as sinners, could have eternal life… Jesus didn’t sound all that humble when he turned the tables over in the sancuary. The biggest problem in America today is our 'sancuaries'”
• “The catechism of the catholict church they give it to children.”
• “I am apalled at this convinction…”
• “flouride” (a lot of people are concerned about this dangerous chemical. Must remember not to bake with it)
“…There is no constition right not to be”
• "A couple manage to mis-spell Hovind. (Hoving, Howind)"
Lastly, I especially regard it as telling when people describe themselves as “Christions”. Hallelluyah!

15. Guns. Yep. Lots of guns.
• "PS. I’m big on the second amendment too. I carried to church this morning, and I’ve got a loaded gun in my back pocket as I’m typing this!"

This list is a sample, and I believe a fair one, of the tenor of support for Young Earth Creationists. Well, these quotes are drawn from a longer narrative involving impenetrable quantities of doublespeak and an assumption of greater knowledge of constitutional and taxation law than two centuries of polity.

From my reading, there is a substantial overlap between these views and those of Hovind himself. Hovind believes, for example:

• The pyramids were not built by the Egyptians.
• The notion that UFO's were "Satan's transport" should not be dismissed out of hand.
• The 666-barcode argument is valid and a concern.
• The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is worth endorsing and selling at Hovind's seminars. (quote: "Be sure to read PROTOCOLS OF ZION [sic] call [sic] my office if you cannot find a copy."
  
  
  
  
  
• Sonar is part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
• A fighter pilot "escorted" the second plane into the twin towers on 9/11. (reference: Hovind DVD Seminar, #5 I think)
  

(Update: July 7. As I've been Pharyngulated, I thought I'd enhance this article with a few Hovind quotes. This article started as an analysis of Hovind's supporters. Let's hear from the man himself!)

• "Four people have called me from Arkansas and Missouri, to report seeing customers at the grocery store pay for purchases by scanning their hand."
• 
  
  "There is much empirical data that conclusively proves vaccinations can be harmful, and in many cases fatal, and should therefore be avoided. [.....] There is also a book available through CSE which provides in-depth information concerning the dangers of vaccinations and how they destroy our God-given immune system. "
  
  
  
  
• "Democracy is evil and contrary to God's law."
• "CALLER: You think the 9/11 conspiracy has bigger implications as to it relates to a One World Government? HOVIND: Absolutely. That's the whole purpose."
• "I think when somebody does study this and realises that a ball falling from the top of the Twin Towers would fall in nine and a half seconds and the Towers came down in ten and a half seconds. Something's wrong."
  
• "There is about four or five [feathered dinosaurs] that have been found. They're all fake. They're coming from China. These Chinese guys who make 40 cents a year. [...] They're faking them. They spend years forging these things."
• "We just had a report from a missionary. I talked to him today for 45 minutes. He's going over and I'm going over with him for sure this time. They have located a pterodactyl, several pterodactyls, a apatosaurous and a plesiosaur. All on the north-east side of the island of Indonesia."
• (advice to the mother of a cancer patient): "If you do nothing with cancer your life expectancy is somewhere between 6 and 10 years. If you take chemo your life expectancy is between 1 and 2 years... I think the last thing I would do would be to take the medical profession's approach."
• "The Bird Flu is mostly hoax."
• "Satan is going to work towards reduction of the population and lowering cholesterol is good way of doing that."
• "AIDS was purposefully developed in a Maryland laboratory to wipe out population."

With thanks to this site for the above info.

Oh, how I could go on. I want to pose this question: If these are the kinds of beliefs, and the kinds of supporters, that stubbornly refuse to be separated from Young Earth Creationism, then what does that say about the rigour of Young Earth Creationism itself? Is it, on this analysis, likely to be based on a genuine search for truth, or merely on the reinforcement of benighted prejudice?

It is these people- the scared, hayseed conspiratorialists that provide the backbone, the funding, and the moral support for Young Earth Creationism, and the Creationists are happy to take their money and their devotion without ever challenging them on the more fringe beliefs they hold. Apparently it is more important to convince infidels to believe in your model of radioactive decay than it is to convince your Christian brother to get his kids inoculated against the measles. This willful blindness has made corrupt organisations like Answers in Genesis rich. Christians should do more to expel these teachings from their midst. As a Christian, who has seen this kind of rubbish preached in my own Church (although not to the extent seen here), I just can't apologise to those who think we should be "softly, softly" with nitwits like these. Anyone who supports a Young Earth Creationist ministry such as AiG or CMI, or ICR is damaging the cause of Christ by encouraging people to base their faith in Jesus on demonstrable lies.

So, do we continue to argue with such people? A quote I read years ago sticks with me:
"Reason's weakness is its belief that it can convince unreason". Is there any point in wading into such debates and enduring the ignorant flack that follows? Is there any benefit to be gained?

I'd like to think so, but I'm no longer sure. Your views are invited (as indeed are additions if I have missed any of the stranger beliefs that Creationists share).

-Nathan Zamprogno

What does Church/ State Separation really mean?

The Sydney Daily Telegraph June 26th carried an opinion piece from Jim Wallace, the leader of the Australian Christian Lobby. I have personally heard Mr Wallace speak on several occasions and generally support his views. However, on this occasion he invoked what I regard as an incorrect definition of what the separation between the Church and the State really means. The text of the piece is below, followed by my response.

Silent church answers no prayer
By Jim Wallace

"IN my SAS days we used the term "flat, dumb and happy" for people who were not prepared to take a chance. It's derived from military parachuting and refers to those who are effectively freefalling and not making a difference.

Some people would like the church to be "flat, dumb and happy" – it's all right for the church to be there, provided it doesn't influence our lives or the way we are governed.

In the controversy over Cardinal George Pell's comments on the embryonic cloning Bill, this message rang out loud and clear. The over-the-top reaction to Cardinal Pell putting forward the Catholic Church's view was concerning to say the least.

Surely, in a democratic society, Cardinal Pell had the right to reinforce the Catholic Church's teaching with those parliamentarians who have identified themselves with his faith? So too did the Anglicans, the Baptists and other church groups.

One phrase which is bandied about on these occasions is "the separation of church and state". Those seeking to advance the cause of secularism tend to trumpet it as a reason why the church should have nothing to do with politics.

They conveniently forget that this phrase means nothing of the kind. What it means is that the state shouldn't run the church and the church shouldn't run the state. It is meant to guarantee freedom of religion, something which Christians are in hearty agreement with!

The notion that the church should stay out of politics is not only misinformed but would be highly detrimental for society. Who plead the cause of the poor and the needy? Where would the moral voice be to rally against pornography, violence and the undermining of family values?

According to the 2001 ABS Census, nearly 13 million people – or 68 per cent of Australians – declared themselves as Christians. If the clear majority identify with Christian values, isn't it only right that the Christian voice should influence our government and society?

Some people mistake the desire to influence governments with theocracy, where religion rules the nation. Such a concept is not on the Christian agenda.

There are no countries in the world which are Christian theocratic states. There are, however, theocratic Islamic states in which Christians are often persecuted. This is not an example we would want to follow in Australia.

Australia's government and society has benefited much from its Christian heritage. From social services to education, the church has played a vital role.

There are many competing agendas that would love to see the church silenced in an election year – history and commonsense say that wouldn't be for the best."

My response:

The Constitutional Divide that Protects our Democracy.

Jim Wallace is correct in his observation that our political processes are enriched by the religious faith of politicians when it informs their decision making. He implies the doctrine of “the separation of Church and State” is a cudgel only wielded by those seeking to “advance the cause of secularism”. This claim reveals how wrong-headed a lot of religiously motivated forays into politics are, however well motivated they may be.

The doctrine Mr Wallace espouses is most famously enshrined in the constitution of the U.S.A. The drafters of our constitution saw fit to borrow the wording of this section whole when our Federators made their deliberations. The ambiguity Australia inherited about the position of the dividing line between the two sides has become a mixed blessing, if you’ll excuse the pun.

For example, much is made on the fact that the Coalition has doubled funding to private (largely Christian) schools during its tenure. In reality, the Government and the taxpayer get an enormous bargain from this arrangement, since the parents of privately educated students massively subsidise the cost of their education; expenses our public treasuries do not then have to meet. Far from being state sponsored dogma, it’s an arrangement where Parents gain choice and everyone wins.

But for every such fillip, a darker side exists. The political party Family First made every effort to smooth over their Church connections at the last Federal election. However, many instances came to light of Pastors in the Family First fold exhorting their parishioners to support the party as an act of piety. One recorded instance of a Pastor closely linked to a Family First Senate candidate told his congregation prior to the 2004 election that their votes “belonged to God” and that failing to remember that fact would make them “an anger magnet for God”. At other Churches, Family First openly recruited funds and workers. When does such activism cross the line into coercion?

It is in such cases that Mr Wallace completely misses the real concerns people have over the meaning of Church and State separation. The concern is that such disingenuous attempts to inject the Christian message into public discourse do more harm than good. Cardinal Pell, or anyone with an axe to grind on stem-cell research, abortion or euthanasia feel compelled by their convictions to speak up, and good on them. People like Cardinal Pell are indeed entitled to their own opinions; but they’re just not entitled to their own facts. Good politicians make decisions based on facts.

Flipwise, Wallis’s putative “secularists” are not, as he would claim, devoid of moral sensibility, unable to reason out an opposition to violence or pornography.

Mr Wallis fears that for the Church to be “silenced” in important debates would be unwise. Rather, he should exhort Christians to be aware that their method of expressing convictions can backfire, and even damage the integrity of the Church and the political process. Overt or covert religious parties represent too great a temptation to violate the right of Christians to feel their political allegiance is a private matter unrelated to their fellowship. A French word, sadly untranslatable, laïcité, expresses the concept perfectly.

Politically interested Christians should join either of the mainstream parties, where more good can be done than on the fringes of politics. Not so they can then become pawns of a faction, but to be the Salt and Light Jesus exhorted His followers to be.

The distinction between a Christian nation and a secular nation with a majority of Christians may seem fine, but it is an important one; one we are in danger of blurring. The former would indeed be a Theocracy. Although Mr Wallis claim none now exist, History is replete with them. The latter, however, is a proven prescription for prosperity, tolerance and peace.

This Made My Year And It's Only April

At the suggestion of me-ol-matey John, the ADHD Librarian (I was about to use the term "spoon-friend" but there are those out there who just wouldn't get that), I went to the MyHeritage site to waste a few minutes on the entertaining distraction of uploading a photo of myself and seeing which celebrity the computer thought I looked like.
Well, am I well-pleased...

I am my childhood hero Carl Sagan, and my son is, as those who know him well can attest, a walking wardrobe malfunction.
Now that's artificial intelligence research at work.

Google spake it, but it was not so

A story in today's Sydney Morning Herald shows how Google's latest maps offering leaves a little to be desired. In the example quoted, Google's suggestion on how to literally cross Sussex street in Sydney's CBD involves crossing the Harbour bridge twice and travelling over 10km (plus toll).

I can top that. I bought up the mapping information for my home suburb (Richmond in NW Sydney) and immediately noted something interesting...

That long road linking William Cox Drive with Chapel Street does not exist! (Click here for the Google Maps URL) There is a private driveway for a small portion of that length, but the rest is pure imagination. These road overlays are not yet incorporated into Google Earth yet, as they are in other locations, so for now you've got to go to the browser-based site to see this.

I think what has happened is that they must be creating their mapping data from aerial photography and where a line of trees may or may not obscure a road, they've just put the line in. It also shows that Google aren't just copying copyrighted information from the Gregory's or UBD guide, because it's well known that such cartographers put deliberate mistakes into their maps to catch copiers.


If an error like this became apparent on the first thing I looked at, then I can only assume that such errors are endemic. What's missing of course is a mechanism for correction. How do people with greater local knowledge get such bugs fixed?

The gene for L33tness is isolated

We often look at the younger generation and nervously ascribe their innate proficiency with technology to something genetic. (I for one welcome our new preschooler overlords). Just occasionally, they let their guard down and we see the proof that this ability is truly, frighteningly, fundamental to their very being.



...Without any tuition, or indeed knowledge of the Internet subculture, my son Liam speaks fluent l33t with his fridge magnets.

Stupidity is not soluble

Memorandum.

TO: Valued colleagues.
FROM: The IT Department.

Dear colleagues,
When you give me brand new installation CD's with important software that must be installed on our computers...

...kindly remember to not write your name on the data side of the disk in big black texta. Call me pedantic if you must, but it helps the little elves inside the computers do their job.

Some people shouldn't be let near anything more complicated than a fork. With a cork on it.

However, not to be put off, I saw this as an opportunity to do an experiment. I love working where I do. They give me my own fully equipped woodwork, metalwork and chemistry labs, full of wonderful and dangerous objects.
Do you want 18 molar sulfuric acid in a hurry? Solid Sodium? An arc welder? Try getting those from your 9-5 Dilbert-style cubicle farm in the CBD. Tomorrow, I get to spend the whole day at Jenolan Caves on an excursion. It's a great job, apart from our... "special" staff.

Task: What solvents remove texta from a CD without, say, eating through the CD and the floor beneath?
Here, I offer my totally scientific findings as a gift to the corpus of human knowledge.
I went to the Science lab and assembled a list of anything that looked cool.

Results:

• Methanol (Methylated spirits), Ethanol (regular alcohol, but don't drink it unless you've really run out of everything else), and Propan-2-ol (Isopropyl Alcohol) all work satisfactorily in removing texta without damaging the surface or data on the disk itself.
• Acetone (propanone, "nail polish remover") is immediately corrosive to the disk and eats deeply into the plastic.
• I thought the blue bottle in the picture above was equivalent to Windex and would include Ammonia, but further inspection showed it was an Aldi cleaner named "Power Force" and by the smell of it, contains no ammonia at all. "Power Force"? Who invents these crazy product names? Besides, that's so redundant. Power = Watts = Newtons x Average velocity. Also, Force = Newtons. Thus this cleaning product would properly be called (Newtons-squared meters) per second. Sadly, this is probably lost on most Aldi customers.
• Unperturbed, I also tried a 0.5 molar Ammonia solution, and finally, 18 molar Sulfuric acid. Bizarrely, neither had any effect on either the texta or the plastic, although the acid was not on there for long. Perhaps I should have tried a Piranha Bath. That would have been cool.

My sacrificial disk. The Acetone scar is leftmost.

However, my primary conclusion is that stupidity is insoluble in a range of organic solvents.

The Australian Census

Tonight is Australian Census night, and I felt moved to post this comment as I fill out the Census form for my family.

Recently I got a letter from my Church denomination, requesting that under "religion" I remember to put the particular designation for our denomination.

I got to thinking: My religion is not my denomination. Indeed I may be a member of a particular denomination, and I may even subscribe to its doctrine, but that is not what the Census form is asking me and my family.

Now cautious, I re-read the Census question closely: "What is the person's religion".

I answered "Christian", and believe that to be not only the simplest but also the only conscionable answer. I belong to Him before I belong to anything else.

Is Nathan a Heretic?

Thankfully not, according to this online quiz, which asks you some finely shaded questions about what you believe (about sin and the divinity of Jesus) and then compares it to the creed of the Council of Chalcedon, held in 451. I passed!

You scored as Chalcedon compliant. You are Chalcedon compliant. Congratulations, you're not a heretic. You believe that Jesus is truly God and truly man and like us in every respect, apart from sin. Officially approved in 451. Pelagianism 100% Chalcedon compliant 100% Monophysitism 75% Modalism 58% Nestorianism 58% Socinianism 50% Adoptionist 50% Apollanarian 25% Monarchianism 25% Gnosticism 17% Donatism 17% Albigensianism 8% Arianism 0% Docetism 0%

Young Earth Creationism - Kaput

I’d like to welcome all the visitors who are here because of my essay “The Evolution of Creationism” which has aired on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s Radio National segment, Perspectives, and subsequently worldwide on Radio Australia and the Internet. Thanks are due to Sue Clark at the ABC for help in its production.

Below is a transcript and audio of the piece. This is, of course, also available at the ABC website, but this content tends to disappear after a fortnight and the audio is “streaming only”, whereas I can offer you an MP3 (Click HERE for the MP3 of the essay [4.3Mb] or HERE for the streaming version from the ABC website via RealPlayer).

Your feedback is welcome. Please do so by clicking on the “comments” link below. If you feel you want to communicate directly then email me, but generally, unless this is to offer me money, then I’d rather you comment publicly.

Just a couple of quick things:

Perspectives is a challenging show to write for, because complex issues have to be cut down to the pith to fit into the 5 minute format. Much that is relevant to a full understanding of an issue is of necessity left out. I will be developing some of these themes on this site over the next few weeks and my invitation to you is to bookmark this site and come back periodically for new posts, or email me and I'll happily inform you when updates on this subject are published. There’s always something interesting here!

Second, my piece was written and broadcast with the full knowledge of my employer, although on the understanding that it represents my own view and not that of the School. I quote briefly from my School’s policy on “The Teaching of Origins” because of my belief is that there is significant congruence between the School’s stated view on Young Earth Creationism and my own (except for tone, in which I take sole responsibility for being blunt). If however you object to my view, my radio piece or what I write here, please direct criticism to me on the basis of my piece and feedback to the School on the basis of its stated policy, and not the other way around. Conflating the two will be seen as deliberately vexatious.

Transcript of the Radio Essay [annotation not appearing in the radio piece in square brackets]:

The Evolution of Creationism

“The debate about humanity’s Origins is resurgent. Our Federal Education minister has given qualified endorsement [since withdrawn] to the teaching of Intelligent Design. In the United States, (where else?), Intelligent Design is back in the Courts, and the Vatican has come out strongly to attack Intelligent Design as being both bad science and bad theology. What’s going on?

Some say Intelligent Design merely peddles old arguments with a new vocabulary, or that they abuse a sense of “fair play” by insisting on “teaching the controversy”. So is “Intelligent Design”, Intelligently Designed?

I work in an environment that is a crucible for such questions, at a large Christian, non-denominational school west of Sydney. We do not teach literal 6-day, 6-thousand year ago Creationism, although our acceptance of an “intelligent designer” in the Universe is axiomatic. Our school policy says, in part
“The balance of physical evidence does not appear to support a young earth. We do not believe that scripture helps us to decide how old the earth is”. Unquote.

At first glance, Intelligent Design, without the stigmas and inconsistencies of Young Earth Creationism, seems like a good fit for what we and many other Christian Schools teach. So what’s the problem?

Intelligent Design advocates claim they have proof that certain mechanisms could never evolve into the form we see today if only undirected, natural processes were at work, even if given millions of years. Common examples quoted include the bacterial flagellum, the immune system, or the vertebrate eye. In pure “ID”, Natural Selection and billion-year timescales are readily accepted, although the identity of the putative “Intelligent Designer” is left for the listener to speculate. There are a lot of people who start winking and nudging at you with their Bibles when that point comes up.

Young Earth Creationism holds that not only was the Judeo-Christian God Yahweh responsible for the Universe, but that it all happened in six days, 6000 years ago. It also asserts there were vegetarian Tyrannosaurs and funnelweb spiders in the Garden of Eden, and that once, two Koalas swam to Australia from Turkey, without eating along the way, to establish Australia’s breeding population.

Such Young Earth Creationists have done a lot of harm to the Christian cause when they torture both the Bible and Science to evangelise. Smart, spiritually questing people who might respond to the message of the Gospel tend to get the giggles when they’re told that most of modern biology, geology and astronomy is a monstrous humanist conspiracy that leads to homosexuality, communism, terrorism and dancing.

And it’s not a new problem. St Augustine had the gist 1600 years ago when he said “Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth … But it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.”

Young Earthers are the big losers in the emergence of Intelligent Design because sensible debate has moved beyond their specious arguments forever. Intelligent Design has eaten their demographic whole. But although Intelligent Design is comparatively benign, to see its danger, consider history, replete with pitfalls when we misuse Science as a pillar for Faith.

The geocentricity of the universe was once held as proof of our special place in creation. Then came Galileo. The notion of biological "vitalism" has yielded to Biochemistry. Calvinists who found solace in Newton's description of a clockwork, deterministic universe, blanched at the revelations of Quantum theory.

These theories were regarded as self-evident, even Scriptural in their day. The temptation, then as now, is to invoke the “God of the Gaps” as a proof for faith. But when Scientific knowledge advances, those counselled into such a foundation, founder.

Perhaps the last word belongs to old Charlie Darwin himself, who confided to a supporter: "I cannot be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance."”

Commentary:

Intelligent Design will swallow Young Earth Creationism

In the rise of the Intelligent Design movement, an important development that has been overlooked is the degree to which it has eaten its “parent”, Young Earth Creationism, and confirmed its place as an embarrassing anachronism. This is ironic, considering Intelligent Design advocates like the Discovery Institute hold as their chief goal to drive a “wedge” between creationists and those whom they see as pushing a secular worldview. Instead, what has happened is they have split Christians with Creationist sympathies into two camps: those happy to accept the findings of Science as neutral, and even enriching to their faith, and those who mistrust much of what non-Christian academics say as driven by an anti-Christian agenda. The fact that the majority of Christians are coming down increasingly on the side of the former rather than the latter must cause Young Earth advocates night sweats. Their support, their finance, their relevance and their credibility are all being seriously assailed from within, as their demographic migrates to the comparatively less paranoid and less specious options ID presents them. Young Earthers have for some time proclaimed themselves as the guardians of the authority of the Scriptures, and as the only group able to harmonise what we see in the world around us with what is “plainly written” in the Bible through their “research” (remember that Answers in Genesis went by the name “The Creation Science Foundation” until only a decade ago for precisely this purpose). However, much of the debate about the interface between Science and Christian Faith is now conducted in terms of “Intelligent Design”, and Young Earthers are left presenting their overhead projection slides of Native American Indian rock-art depicting dinosaurs (rebuttal), the plausibility of vegetarian sharks or lions before the Fall or the amount of Salt in the Ocean (rebuttal) to increasingly informed, and therefore embarrassed, audiences.

If the attention Intelligent Design has received in the media and on Education Boards across the United States is any indication, Young Earth Creationism has been dealt a fatal blow. It may not seem that way at the moment, but look closer. How has the debate surrounding Creationism evolved? What we see constantly are headlines like “Intelligent Design – Science or Religion?” and mealy-mouthed appeals to fairness from ID'ers like “Intelligent Design – Teach the Controversy”. Most science-based commentators then crank up the "Intelligent Design is Creationism” line, which is a valid argument to have when so much of what ID proposes is untestable metaphysics. But look what has happened! We now have an environment where the debate proper over origins (as opposed to the political and ideological manoeuvring involved in that debate) now focuses on things like “irreducible complexity” and “specified complexity”. None of the current debate dwells at all on “flood geology”, or "C-Decay", or the packing order of animals aboard Noah’s Ark. Intelligent Design, for all its faults, accepts the weight of evidence from cosmology, geology and biology supporting the great age of the Universe and the reality of macroscopic evolution as a mechanism (although “directed”) to explain the common ancestry among living forms.

Some people, both Young Earthers and ID advocates alike, fearfully believe Science is seeking to destroy faith. Rather, Science exposes incorrect thinking, and for me it has been a doorway to a deeper sense of the numinous in His creation. I believe God is the Creator, and the study of His Creation is Science. They are linked, whether scientists and theologians like it or not. But much of what we term Creationism is specious nonsense, and its latest incarnation, Intelligent Design is still a deeply unsatisfying answer to the issue of reconciling the what we know with our senses and what we believe by Faith from God's Word. Young Earthers answer this dilemma with simplistic Bibliolatry; Intelligent Design advocates with hand waving pseudoscience in the direction of a the “God of the Gaps”. As arrogant as Dawkins is, he sums it up beautifully:

“Gaps, by default, are filled by God. You don’t know how the nerve impulse works? Good! You don’t understand how memories are laid down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis a bafflingly complex process? Wonderful! Please don’t go to work on the problem, just give up, and appeal to God. Dear scientist, don’t work on your mysteries. Bring us your mysteries for we can use them. Don’t squander precious ignorance by researching it away.”

This contrasts nicely with what passes for Science in the Young Earth Creation camp. This is John Hinton writing at the website of Creationist Kent Hovind (who, by the way is also an AiG un-Person) incisively deducing the sedimentary structure of the Grand Canyon:

“Standing at the bottom of the Grand Canyon and concluding that the multiple bands that line the canyon walls are products of millions of years of sedimentation is just plain stupid… Years later, after coming to Christ and asking the Holy Spirit to guide me in all that I do, I understood why they insisted on following such a nonsensical theory. I then understood that they were not just morons, but they were morons with an agenda that guided all of their science falsely so called.”

Young Earth Creationists are equally hostile to fellow Christians.

The stock trade of groups like Answers In Genesis is to preach itinerantly to Churches around Australia, the US and the UK, with a surprisingly invariant refrain of “dinosaurs on the ark”, “no fossil evidence for evolution”, “radiometric dating is a sham” and copious obfuscation about the information content of genetic material via what can only be described as “argument by technobabble”. Having attended a number of such presentations, the operating principle I can only descibe as “get a fool to ask more questions in an hour than a wise man can answer in a lifetime”. At the end of such a presentation, rarely are Christians properly edified in their spirits in the same way as effective preaching of the Word has the capacity to do, but rather their heads are filled with muddy conglomerates of solar comet distribution [rebuttal], the half life of polonium [rebuttal], the effect of the second law of thermodynamics on the information content of their genes [rebuttal], the fact that "some lions eat grass and not meat", the fact that no, Noah's Ark can't be found yet because the people claiming as much have been declared as Creationist un-Persons (although AiG are free to spruik their own theories), and the fact that if your children attend a School that does not teach Young Earth Creationism then it's because they have been compromised by secular pressures and, if they turn out to be Satanists then, well, you know why. How long would it take for a diligent, gifted teacher to unpack all those issues and give his listeners a full understanding of all the misinformation they have just heard? Weeks, months, years! And so, the Creationist's job is done. He walks, smiling, out of the Church, past his own merchandise table full of discredited books and pamphlets, for his next speaking engagement with a mire of confusion and destruction behind him. Maybe the minister will buy him lunch?

Meanwhile, the real work of making the message of the Gospel relevant in the world of the quantum, the gene and the byte we now inhabit has marched on, and is being done by both Scientists of Faith, and Christians with a respect for the faculty of reason alike. Young Earthers have been slow to realise they are now by themselves, spurned by the major Christian denominations, rejected in Christian seminaries and colleges, scorned in most Christian Schools (including mine), and are left to now preach largely (but not exclusively, to judge from their ministry calendar) to Charismatics and Seventh Day Adventists (and here's some analysis of the problems that poses).

One assumes AiG's ability to preach in any given congregation is more a function of the dispensation or harried inattentiveness of a particular minister rather than due to the endorsement of the denomination, and in some cases, occurs despite the reasonable expectation that they should not be permitted to speak because of the condemnation their denominational leaders have made about Young Earth Creationism.

As an example from my own denomination (Assemblies of God), take Pastor Phil Baker, Australian President of the Australian Christian Churches, which is an umbrella group folding in all Assemblies of God Churches, half a dozen other denominations and groups, and a number of independent Churches. In a discussion on Intelligent Design versus Young Earth Creationism, he has said

“Intelligent Design (advocates) are all Old Earthers as are most of the leading evangelical scholars. ‘Young Earthers’ are a dying breed whose main ecosystem is Queensland. They may go extinct in the next few decades. Certainly I agree with you re the harm they can cause to seeking people. Intelligent Design, Hugh Ross etc have had the exact opposite effect. I hosted a meeting of top physicists with Hugh a few years ago and they were impressed with his manner, his honesty and his science.”

If this is his view, why isn't more pressure applied to exclude organisations like AiG from speaking in any ACC member churches? The ACC, like the AOG is not an authoritarian umbrella, but surely some common sense can be made to prevail?

As an interesting contrast, Hugh Ross, held up by Baker as a mediating figure of some honesty and intelligence, comes in for a particular serve from Answers in Genesis ("The dubious apologetics of Hugh Ross" by Danny Faulkner and "Hugh Ross lays down the gauntlet!" by Jonathan Sarfati) where they accuse Ross of “outrageous biblical assertions”, “poor scholarship”, an “inability to correctly handle factual information”, “total disregard for the truth”, “no accountability”, “questions about his scientific competence”, “riddled with errors”, and finally posing the question “Dishonesty or incompetence? It is difficult to say.”

The above quotes were taken from a single paragraph of AiG's writings describing Ross, while simultaneously they make the claim (and it beggars belief, really, I couldn’t make this up if I tried), “We make these public comments with a heavy heart, and with the overriding emphasis that our intention is not personal attack.”
Yeah, right. Poor Hugh, you, like me have become a Creationist un-Person. In the Young Earth Creationist worldview, it is not only un-Good and impossible to believe that differing views can be welcomed into the brotherhood of faith, but fundamentally, if we oppose fundamentalist Creationism, we are apostate, dangerous puppets of a diabolical plot, and quite possibly unsaved to boot.

Writing in the AiG organ “Creation”, John Rendle-Short (whose scientific training is as a Paediatrician) writes
“Evolution provides the scientific orthodoxy for the philosophies of Marxism, fascism, racism, apartheid and unbridled capitalism.”

But why stop there? I can add I have a seen, in Creation magazine alone, a belief in Evolution attributed as the cause of Nazism, homosexuality, abortion, feminism, eugenics, environmentalism, teen pregnancy, AIDS, terrorism, and delinquency.

It’s a mighty powerful theory that can be blamed for Communism and Capitalism simultaneously, with Hitler, Mao and Stalin thrown in for good measure.

Answers in Genesis bring in “misguided” Churches for criticism as well for this state of affairs, declaring “We don’t usually stop to think of how the church itself has aided and abetted this tragedy as it has so often compromised on the authority of God’s Word”. Maybe by this they had the Salvation Army in mind, whom they have also reserved "heretic" status for. Ken Ham writes ("Compromise Kills!" 2001)

"The same compromise that has all but destroyed the church in England is now sweeping through churches, colleges and seminaries in America. Now, many of these institutions might claim they believe God created–but what does that mean? Do they really believe God’s Word as written? Or are they on the way to becoming like Stannard, preaching heretical statements as those above?"

For research into AiG’s writings on the Salvation of non Young Earth Creationists
I am grateful for Brian Baxter for the following.

Russell Grigg of AiG penned 'Do I have to believe in a literal creation to be a Christian?' for Creation magazine in June 2001. ‘It is true,’ Grigg tells us, 'that one can go through the steps of becoming a Christian without accepting or even knowing the Genesis account of Creation and the Fall.' However, this 'minimal belief system' leads to 'a shallow faith that has little root in the Word of God'. So, must one accept the literal Creation to be a Christian? 'The short answer is "No"', says Grigg. 'The long answer is "No, but …''

John Whitcomb of Genesis Flood fame is almost as subtle in an interview with Ken Ham. No, Whitcomb doesn't believe that a true, born-again Christian could lose his salvation by failing to believe the whole Word of God, including the literal Genesis Creation story. But when such a Christian appears before the judgment seat of Christ, he or she could 'suffer great loss - not our soul, but our reward'.

Brian’s other writing on AiG can be found at these links.

Of particular interest is Brian’s reflection on the arguments Young Earth Creationists no longer use. It’s one thing for Creationists to reject previously favoured “proofs” of creation like moon dust, man tracks, or missing days, but what of the harm they have done to the people who credulously accepted these theories as encouragements to believe hold to the truth of the Gospel? I’ve never seen an apology. If their reliance is totally on a "straight" reading of scripture, which by their definition does not change regardless of the culture or prevailing natural wisdom, how do they explain these embarrassing backflips?

Such invective as I have described above is far from uncommon among AiG acolytes. I myself have experienced it personally, but that’s an engaging story for another time.

Young Earthers may not oppose Intelligent Design, but Intelligent Design advocates can’t disown Young Earthers quick enough.

Young Earthers have good cause to be worried. On the one hand they make proclamations like this concerning ID

“AiG CEO Ken Ham says “If those people (Intelligent Design advocates) get themselves on school boards, fine. We don't oppose them. Simply because, for me, and for us in the biblical creation movement, we say, well let them fight the evolutionists, the atheists, and keep fighting issues of naturalism and so on, that's fine."

But then, for their “stockholders” they take a different tack:
“(Intelligent Design,) merely rejecting evolution … in favor of a generic notion of intelligent design, …does not go far enough." (Mark Looy, AiG 2000)

And also: because ID advocates repeatedly distance themselves from previously used Biblical arguments for Creationism they charge that as a result “any of its leaders who might later identify themselves with Genesis belief would lay themselves open to charges of having been publicly deceptive.” (Carl Wieland, AiG 2002)

Answers in Genesis has a stake in co-opting the support of those who support ID, and their associated media coverage, but the sad truth is that Intelligent Design has disowned Young Earth Creationism and takes every opportunity to distance itself from it. Thus, the above quoted Ken Ham news article goes on to say “Intelligent design advocates probably won't thank Australian-born Mr Ham for articulating what many of them try to avoid saying. That is: for some, the intelligent design movement is essentially a stalking horse for religion”. AiG themselves admits “(ID leading light) Dr Michael Denton, was part of a broadcast forum in Australia which recently told a largely Christian audience that belief in literal Genesis was foolish and unscientific.”

Conclusion

The purpose of my radio piece was to illustrate the "evolution" of the Creationist debate and show that Intelligent Design, for all it's own serious flaws, will eventually at least have the beneficial effect of making Young Earth Creationism wither and disappear. It may take the better part of a generation to happen, and I acknowledge that there are many who will not share my optimism. Of course, I know many Young Earthers personally, and delight in both their company and the sincerity of their faith. But I fear for the foundation of their faith greatly, if they have bolstered their faith by reading "Creation" magazine, as the half century of pseudoscientific literature that has accumulated around “Flood Geology”, “Dinosaur/human cohabitation” and “Starlight and Time” is still being goaded in the direction of credulous Christians as as additional reasons to believe- and that Emperor has long since been without clothes. To such people, all I can do is remind you with humility that "goodness without wisdom always accomplishes evil."

Young Earthers like Answers in Genesis have indeed done a great deal of harm to the Christian Cause with their manner of genuflection, which consists of a planting of the hands firmly over each ear, closing their eyes and loudly going “La! La! La! La! La!” until inconvenient facts disappear or can be mocked into submission. Their retreat into the history books to be catalogued alongside flat-earthers is assured, but we (and by we I largely mean Christians) must be vigilant against their nonsense in our Churches and Schools until the last one falls into shamed silence.

I and those who follow the commentary that will follow this and my further writings on this topic should prepare themselves for vacuous vitriol of the first order. Prepare for comments that sedulously avoid the topic but instead focus on ad-hominem attacks, accusations of divisiveness, out-of-context quotation, exhumation of tired old arguments and events, outright dishonesty, and self serving auto-hagiography.

Evolution of Creationism - my upcoming radio piece

This coming Friday (2nd December 2005) I have been invited onto the ABC Radio National program "Perspectives" to deliver an essay on "The Evolution of Creationism".

Perspectives is a short segment appearing each weekday evening at 5:54pm, just before the news (or later, depending on where you are, check the website for air times). Various people, usually eminent in their field expound on every subject imaginable. I feel overwhelmed and privileged to be in their company.

The Perspectives program goes out Nationally and then Internationally via Radio Australia, plus whoever comes in over the Internet or reads the transcript on the ABC site. Listener figures in Australia approach six figures, and overseas even the ABC don't know.

Radio National is AM 576 in Sydney (here for other areas), or alternatively listen to the permanent streaming broadcast.

I will follow this post with a full transcript, additional commentary and audio shortly after the piece airs on the radio on Friday. Please feel free to check back here then.