They insist that they are too complex to only be made of chemicals, to which I say:

Instead of de-valueing yourself, doesn't that show how amazing chemicals are?

Science still has a heart to it.

Isn't this video old? I've seen it before.

Richard


That story about the travelling preacher asking people to throw away their insulin would go down well, especially if you do the southern states accent yourself.
You know, the line "Are ya for 'im or agin' 'im" Hilarious comming out of your usually soft english mouth

Also, I've got tickets for the 21st, looking foreward to the show.

There are now "serious tensions" between Christians and secularist society, he says, in which atheists are becoming more "vocal and aggressive".

This is a sad day for logic and reason.

Some guy says that we should explain to students why creationism is wrong, and he loses his job.

Isn't that what we want? He's not saying creationism should be taught as truth, he's saying it should be taught as nonsense.

He refers to his time teaching evolution, and how some students just didn't listen because they where creationists and ignored every word.

Reiss suggests that we explain to these students why science shunns creationism, so they can learn about evolution.

He keeps insisting his was misquoted, and now I agree.

Well, it's a shame this isn't on youtube anymore, I hardly doubt there's anyone on this site who didn't like palin before.

If I may say so, I read an article in today's independant about this, and I must admit the impression of the issue I got was quite different from what many people here are commenting on.

The general idea seems to me is that Reiss want creationism to be mentioned in science class, as it seems 10% of school children are creationists, they need to have the reason creationism isn't being taught explained to them.

This reason, in the eyes of reiss, is that creationism is unscientific and therefore not taught in science class.

I voted no, because there's no point.

Really now, do any atheists out there really care about the "In God we trust" or the pledge of allegence? Making a fuss over these things seems trivial.

Can't we please be the only demograph who isn't offended by everything?

Okay, so we're all in relative agreement AA Gill's article was bull, but how about Hermione Eyre? That was a pretty positive one.

It's funny that Winston id a leading expert on embryo reaserch, if anyone's an atheist, I would of thought it'd be him.

Am I the only one who noticed Richard didn't clap even so much as once throughout the show? I think it was quite funny actually, everyone was swooning over everyone else, and Prof Dawkins was just sitting there with a "..Actually, no" look on his face.

Am I the only one seeing the article twice? The whole thing re-written again as soon as it's finished?

I think these groups are having delusions of granduer about human life.

Edit: Also, this is the Daily Mail, you can't really take it's opinions as fair, it's possibly the worst newspaper in Britian.

I went to a methodist school, almost every student was atheist. Strange how these things work out.