or maybe not so

I rather fear that Greg Nelson has a point, at least where evolution theory is concerned. A definite air of sanctity hangs over popular pronouncements on evolution, the ghost of Objective Truth lurks behind it, taken directly from Christianity. When people say, "evolution is a fact" they invest far more emotional imput than when they say, "conservation of energy is a fact", for example.

It is unfortunate that when Darwin proposed his theory in public it happened in the context of a debate with the Church, a debate in which T.H. Huxley used Darwin as a platform for his own atheism (Darwin was not an atheist). Ever since, evoluton theory has been saddled with this anti-Church association, and atheists have used evolution theory to fight their battles, just as Huxley did.

This is sad, because it is perfectly possible to be sceptical of evolution theory - especially of the overly preachy form in which we generally learn it - without invoking gods of any kind.

To be clear about theory - there are facts, such as things-falling-down, and there is theory, such as the force of gravity, curved space, or graviton particles, offered to explain the fact. In biology, the fact is the diversity of living forms. Darwin's theory is really two theories, one on top of the other. One is that these forms evolved gradually over millions of years - this was already accepted when Darwin came along and did not necessarily contradict a God-driven world. The other is that of "natural selection", by which Darwin meant no active selection whatsoever: what happens happens. His genius lay in seeing that this action, combined with constant random variation, really could account for evolutionary change.

On this point I must bow to the scientists. However, the populist version of evolution theory - "evolutionism" - has invested these theories with an implausible value, even moral worth, which they do not support. Thus the circular reasoning involved in concluding that our existing qualities have 'evolutionary value', and the intellectual dubiousness of sociobiology, not to mention the reification of "natural selection" and notions of evolutionary advance.

Scientific theories get superseded when more information and better understanding make the old ones implausible. No doubt this will eventually happen to Darwinism, but not just yet. Nevertheless, we must maintain scientific detachment and look for weaknesses in the theory, aware that such a stance does NOT imply any support for ID or for any other form of supernatural activity.

Cos we live in a material world...

Life started as a random biochemical chain-reaction (we don't know how), but it has continued for millions of years. One of the more recent developments in this chain reaction is the human type of biochemical formation.

This is fact and therefore there is no place for God or his morality in a scientific world or in the what we teach our children.

Our brains and thus thoughts are just a part of this random biochemistry and its reactions with other equally random human-type biochemical formations.

Our thoughts of what we want for dinner, our work, our love or hate, thoughts about children, partners, enemies are all just random bits of this vast, random, chain-reaction. It isn't possible to create meaning out of them any more than it is possible to create meaning out of random numbers.

The acting out of our (random) thoughts is also just part of this chain reaction. Do I buy chocolate or vanilla ice-cream? Do I eat at McD or BK? Do I have sex or not? Do I gun down my classmates at school or not? Do I instigate genocide or get myself a drink?

Certainly the human-type biochemical chain-reactions often destroy each other (or themselves), slightly before they would naturally terminate, but this doesn't matter - they are just a chance association of atoms with no more value than a rock. Those that are destroyed are obviously not "the fittest" and those that do the destroying are also naturally terminated within a few years anyway.

In fact, the whole bio-chemical chain-reaction we call life will definitely terminate when the universe cools down (subject to the laws of thermodynamics), but probably long before then, as it destroys the local planetary environment which sustains it.

Some parts of the biochemical chain-reaction react strongly against other parts of the chain-reaction who say that the origins of the chain-reaction are not what is currently believed. This was declared heresy and to protect critical thinking, politicians were called upon to suppress it. The State intervened to do so and replaced Science in its rightful place as Supreme Authority and there was great rejoicing.

Actually, given that the whole event was just a random part of the random chain-reaction, it doesn't mean anything. In fact, given that everything we think and do is a result of a random process, absolutely nothing matters.

...which leads to the natural conclusion that its very important for our children to know this.

Dotted tees and crossed eyes

To the anonymous grammar critic: everyone has their favourite grammar peeve. Mine is the use of "less" for countable nouns.

Yes, indeed, writing should express clear meaning but unfortunately language is not as precise as we imagine. The modal system, for example, is very fluid and has modified its meanings in recent years. "May" does indeed express probability, as does "might" (with little or no distinction). The act of requesting is a use that is made of that meaning, and both words can be used that way. Might I suggest you confer with a recent grammar book on the matter?

Words such as "couple", though grammatically singular, can be thought of as referring to two people, just as "family can be singular or plural. I wouldn't get too worried about it if I were you.

Judging by the name, Abdulghani may not (sic) be a native English speaker (apologies if that is not the case), but I would be far, far more concerned with the silliness he/she expresses, very clearly, despite the quality of the language.