Moreover, it can now readily be shown that there exists both physical laws and a substantial body of empirical data, especially the intrinsic irreducible complexity possessed by all living organisms which are incompatible with, or else fundamentally defy, a doctrinaire naturalistic explanation. Johnson and others have fought hard academically and politically. Presently, his 'Intelligent Design (ID)' group are urging the US Government & Legislature to wake up and realise the social and moral implications of adopting unquestioningly naturalistic scientism in the classroom. It remains to be seen how successful they will be. The recent machinations of the Kansas Board of Education show clearly that there exists a powerful body of ideological proponents who are keen to retain the falsehoods inherent in the present status quo.

Although this first quote alludes to the Americans, it hints at what is already occurring here (in 2005) and Layfield's clear implied agenda. What precisely can be shown as "incompatible with, or else fundamentally defy, a doctrinaire naturalistic explanation" isn't discussed. The "irreducible complexity possessed by all living organisms" has been adequately demonstrated by proper scientists to be all smoke and mirrors. True, getting your head around the idea that our bodies evolved from "primordial slime" is quite difficult, but to recognise a common ancestry in the apes is comparably kindergarten science. Perhaps a more difficult question to answer is this: what was this "intelligent designer" thinking giving male whales, dolphins and all the other 80+ cetaceans lungs and a penis? These same beautiful and graceful creatures - while outwardly having flippers - have finger bones not unlike our own. Clearly, this has more in common with a shared mammalian ancestry that any notion of intelligent design.

Clearly as we have seen before, Layfield connects moral decline with increased scientific understanding. What he sees as moral decline isn't clear since we are not able to peer into his mind and discover what moral highground he compares today's attitudes to. It may be fair to say that some societal groups are on a downward spiral, particularly in deprived areas; this can hardly be blamed on proper science. The problem is one of evolution - the evolution of our society. Problems arise much faster than they can be properly addressed by politicians; one notable example might be the knee-jerk Prevention of Terrorism Bill developed by Charles Clarke.

Religious extremism is perhaps the biggest problem ever faced by a society: unlike the laws that must pass through moderation and substantative test, religious leaders grab an idea and run with it: even when that means people dying. Just look at what happens when the Roman Catholic Church pokes its pious nose into the poorest countries. "Contraception is wrong," they preach, "children are the precious gifts of God."

OK. Because the Catholic Church preaches condoms are sinful, effective protection against HIV isn't even given a passing thought. Run with that and the result is millions of people infected and dying in the horrific aftermath of AIDS. HIV doesn't care who it kills - children are infected by their mothers and exactly what sin did they commit? They didn't have sex, they didn't share needles and weren't even given a transplant - but sure enough, they are sentenced to a certain, painful and protracted death. Even if they don't get HIV, the are also sentenced to suffer the ignominy of starvation through overpopulation. It took the Catholics centuries to apologise for the Spanish Inquisition; how long will they take to accept some responsibility for this 21st century holocaust and stop killing by proxy.

Here in the UK the situation is regrettably worse. Successive recent Governments have formulated policy statements which describe explicitly if not implicitly what mainstream Schools are to understand by the term 'Science'. However, though much ground has been lost over the past 200 years or so, it is heartening to read in the latest revision of the National Curriculum that Scientific Enquiry should, at Key Stage 4, include reference to the controversial character of the Darwinian Theory of Evolution and the limitations of scientific knowledge in certain inaccessible contexts.

There he goes again, banging on about the definition of science. Get a dictionary Steven, a real dictionary, not some arcane text. We've already been there though; but you'll notice he mentions mainstream schools as if to say that non-mainstream schools have some insane right to redefine the meaning of clearly defined English into whatever they decide.

It seems to me, this is precisely what Nigel McQuoid believes when he promises to "teach science as described in the National Curriculum."

Johnson's charges are most important because the Bible calls us to recognise in all our thinking the totality of reality. This includes the unseen, spiritual realm as well as the material, spatial and temporal dimensions. St Paul explicitly warns us, 'See to it that no-one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ' (Col 2:8).

This quote from Colossians is notable because it can be equally applied to the Bible itself; remove the reference to Christ and the writer could equally be saying that religious leaders are preaching crap and you have to be careful not to listen to it. (Colossians is also one place in the Old Testament that alludes to that most butcherous of Biblical tortures, the circumcision of children.) Then Layfield loses the plot a little and starts to sound like the Christian incarnation of Abu Hamza:

Scripture reliably informs us that an omnipotent, eternal and all-wise God supernaturally created the Universe (matter, space and time) ex nihilo (from nothing), presently superintends His creation; hears and answers prayer; directs legions of angels to do His will; moves in the hearts and minds of all men; turns slowly but surely the great wheels of providence; upholds all things by the power of His word and consigns to heaven and hell those who are respectively obedient or disobedient to His revealed will. This supreme Being is the great Architect, Creator and Sustainer of all and exists simultaneously within and without His creation . Despite the complete absence from the current mainstream Science national curriculum, He is, in the words of Francis Schaeffer, 'The God who is there'.

"Scripture reliably..." Hold on - reliably? This is the same scripture that contradicts itself, makes outrageous claims that don't stand up to observation and was written by, well, men. What measure of reliability can we draw from such a book? Very little, if any, as far as I can tell. Placing our lives in the hands of such reliability is like sharing a needle with an HIV+ heroin addict.

I'll close this section with a truly outrageous quote which probably demonstrates, better than most, Layfield's complete bastardisation of the wordscience.

It is apparent then that Theology and not Physics or Mathematics that is properly 'Queen of the Sciences'. It is in this sense of the fullness of knowledge which God alone possesses that 'the science of God must be perfect' as our first definition plainly stated.

Theology is the study of god - not the science of it because all science must be demonstrable, repeatable and, above all, observable.

To Part 2 To Part 4

6