Pre-Committed to Evolution (a kind of unintelligent no-designer theory of the design that we see all around us), the Attenborough-Dawkins axis have joined others in a flap about what is natural science, what is liberal education, and how did we all get here. They have been backed-up in this unseemly and illiberal show of obscurantism by the prestigious Royal Society, and the less than prestigious British Humanist Association.

David Attenborough wants primary school children to be schooled in his amoeba-to-ape-to-super-ape theory and the British Humanist Association has described creationism as a "threat", and not accepted by the scientific (sic) community. Dawkins also asserted, once again, that Evolution (a kind of self-creation) is a fact and not simply his belief.

Rev Robert West says:

"Attenborough, Dawkins and their ilk, wherever they are found, are pre-committed in an obscurantist way not to a fact but to a potential fallacy. Self-creation, which is what their view amounts to, could philosophically be deemed a delusion for obvious reasons. Dick Dawkins, in particular, is like a Highwayman with the facts - they simply do not support his dogmatic beliefs; they are, I believe, really in our possession. He surely does not have any decisive or crucial evidence, at all, for what he believes.

For example, if Evolution had taken place then it would have left many transitional forms in the record of the Earth's history, would it not? Where are they? The requisite incremental links truly are missing. So his belief is not proven as a fact and that means his belief may not be a fact, however much he asserts and repeats the opposite. It may or may not be what he believes is the best explanation of the facts; but there is clearly room for other explanations - and that is what they are all panicked about!

The facts that we all agree on can be explained in a number of different ways including the Genesis account of the creation of all things in the space of six days, which were themselves created! There is nothing philosophically or scientifically amiss with that; but neither philosophy nor natural science can decisively prove that either. Even History cannot because it is in the nature of pre-History. A certain amount of humility is very much needed on both sides. For me Genesis is paramount but there are other explanations out there which are at least well worth debating in schools and elsewhere."