So Auntie Beeb now has an updated article clarifying the dear professor's comments:
"He also added a clarification on his position regarding creationism in schools.
"Some of my comments about the teaching of creationism have been misinterpreted as suggesting that creationism should be taught in science classes. Creationism has no scientific basis.
"However, when young people ask questions about creationism in science classes, teachers need to be able to explain to them why evolution and the Big Bang are scientific theories but they should also take the time to explain how science works and why creationism has no scientific basis.
"I have referred to science teachers discussing creationism as a worldview'; this is not the same as lending it any scientific credibility.""
Well that's alright then isn't it? Not (sad but I used it).
I want to update my article, when I said that the number three was a type of tomato and should be taught in Biology I was misunderstood, what I meant was that the number three is not a tomato in a biological sense but if asked why random integers are not covered we should teach in biology the principle of number-fruits, how this differs and why numbers are not biologically fruits.
Sorry, but you are sir, still an idiot. But I like the way you moved out of that argument, were you misquoted or misinterpreted? The jury remains out until the Beeb updates the article with further revision.