This person has a right to his opinion. And a right to full participation in the marketplace of ideas. Just as I, a practicing Christian does. People, either aethiest or Christian that think some should should be treated differently because they believe or do not believe are on that first step on the road to tyranny, and should be subject to all kinds of ridicule.

Also, too many people on the aetheist side treat theories (i.e. evolution) as fact and push it with the vehemence of a "true believer". No heretics allowed.

"I am an atheist because I think there is no good evidence that suggests God exists, and a lot of evidence that suggests he does not."

I would like to know what that evidence is. I suspect what he means is "my interpretation of evidence suggests he does not," just as theists would say, "my interpretation of evidence suggests that he does."

-Jut

I wonder what kind of evidence an atheist would need to change his or her mind. It would probably be different for everybody, I guess.

Amy, some things exist outside science and proof. Belief is one. The vast majority of people throughout existence have believed in God-and all luj's protestations aside, those beliefs are remarkably similar. You simply can't prove some things. You can't prove love. You can't prove God. You just believe. I hurt for those who don't believe. For those of us that do, God is a constant comforting and wonderful presence. It enriches us.

When my heart stops beating and my brain stops functioning, that's the end of my body. It would then rot, were I not going to be cremated. For the rest of me, it's merely another passage in existence. I don't find the idea of oblivion scary-if death were to be the absolute end, I'd have no reason to fear because I'd know nothing afterwards! But it's not the end.

Nah Amy, evolution isn't proven, much as many would like it to be settled. There are infinite questions about it still, and I say that as one who believes it, as far as it goes. In fat we don't know more about it than we do know.

The problem with deities is proof of their existance isn't scientific. It is given to individuals, it can't be reproduced in a large-scale study with a control group. If you are one of those individuals, you believe or think you are crazy. If you are not, you either believe the individuals or think they are crazy or lying.

Deities and their interactions with people are so intensely personal that to discuss them on a large scale becomes very difficult.

Maybe not worth 61 bucks, but this was a good movie.

> No heretics allowed.

Science is all about competing opinions. When one supercedes, there are always good reasons.

> There are infinite questions about it still, and I
> say that as one who believes it, as far as it
> goes. In fat we don't know more about
> it than we do know.

Horseshit.

It's always a surprise to log on in second decade of the twenty-first century and realize that you're surrounded by horse-and-buggy (maybe horse-and-cart) people who nonetheless enjoy all the comfort and safety that modern thinking can bring to their lives.

"Science should be all about competing opinions. When one supercedes, there are always good reasons."

Don't mention it, Crid. Glad to help.

Don't pussyfoot. Science, correctly pursued, works. With religion, we can never be sure.

Science is subject to all the same human failings religion is -- greed, pride, asshattery, etc. Look at nutrition "science." The advantage of science, though, as others before me have pointed out, is that there's a mechanism for correction. I gave up on Catholicism when I was old enough to realize the ramifications of "the pope is infallible."

For those of us that do, God is a constant comforting and wonderful presence. It enriches us.

Which is why I'm not as hard on religion as I sometimes want to be. Life is hard enough, and people should get their comfort where they can.

It's really perplexing as to why athiests spend so much time and energy arguing over and trying to disprove the existence of God, particularly using scientific means.

The idea of God, in a Judeo-Christian sense, is so far beyond the realm of being scientifically provable that the thought of doing so is laughable.

You either believe, or you don't. Trying to find scientific evidence for God existence is pretty dumb.

Science cleans up religion's scandals much better than religion cleans up those of science.

> I'm not as hard on religion as I sometimes
> want to be. Life is hard enough, and people
> should get their comfort where they can.

I swing to and fro that way too, especially in blog comments. Great satisfaction comes from punishing the misbehavior of each magisterium.

"Horseshit"

Enlighten me then. Because while I can find plenty of lay people stating we know all about evolution and that's it's proven and laid to rest, I've yet to find a well respected biologist who thinks so. They have no problem saying we don't know x, y, or z about it, even though we do know A, B, and C thus far.

I think the best way to form beliefs about the world is through experimentation, observation and logical interpretation of data--the process called science, not through deference to authority and reference to an ancient mythological text.

His explanation of science omits a key step: building upon the work of others. Life's too short to discover it all yourself.

Referring to the Bible as "ancient mythological text" indicates that he has not seriously investigated it. The New Testament is historically credible. If those writings were made up after the fact, they would be very different. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the NT constitutes extraordinary evidence. It's exactly what we'd expect to see if its main themes were true.

Evolution and Christianity are hardly mutually exclusive, and believing or proving one does not disprove the other.

If one believes in the idea of an all-powerful God who created the universe and everything in it, it's hardly a great leap to believe that He designed the world in such a way that His creations would evolve to fit their environment.

The only facet of the generally-accepted theory of evolution that does not fit with Christianity is the idea of humans evolving from apes. But when you find the missing link, let me know, and we'll discuss it.

I admit I'd like to see his evidence that suggests there is not a God. I've seen plenty of evidence that is neutral on the subject of God. I've seen some that may suggest the existence of an outside agency on the universe**. But I've never seen any evidence that suggests, to me at least, that there is no God (or invisible unicorns for that matter).

**The mathematics of astrophysics turns up some truly mindbogglingly infinitesimal odds that the universe could achieve stability on it's own.I'm not saying "Math proves god exists" but odds like 1:10^10^29 . . . .well, for me it takes more faith to believe that something that remote happened by chance than by outside agency. (I don't buy multiple universe theory). And that's just the stability of the universe. Throw in the existence of complex life happening so incredibly early in the history of the universe (life nearly as soon as the Earth cooled) and the numbers get even more mind-shattering. This is not proof by any stretch, but to me it is evidence that something is screwing with the odds. (I'm a Theistic Evolutionist.)

@Richard Cook - Evolution is a theory, but so is gravity. We're still stuck to the surface of the planet despite that however.

As Michael Shermer just tweeted:

We notice the 1,000 "miracles" and discount the 99.99% who prayed but were not "healed", so miracle talk is unfair to faithful who died.

Nobody's found any,(? I know, that's my point)yet.

So, go ahead and believe in god and astrology and giant purple unicorns in your backyard, but don't use this belief in the public sphere as if it's rational and makes sense.

It actually makes perfect sense to me, and a whole lot of other people (the God part, not the astrology and giant purple unicorn part, but I understand that was just you being insulting).

You are in the minority on this, by A LOT. If people believe wholeheartedly in something, why should we not use it in the public sphere? If we do not use it, that equates to your belief in the lack of a god being used in the public sphere, which can negatively affects my life and well-being. How is that any more fair?

Amy still does not grasp. It is still a theory.

"As I said on the filter last night, about the massive multinational corporation (tax-free in the USA!) that is the church: Imagine if some big company did as they’re doing ... Do you think the company would still be in business?"

Like Union Carbide, for example?

"...but don't use this belief in the public sphere as if it's rational and makes sense."

That's an easy standard to hold other people to. I'll assume you're attempting to be ironic or something.

Thanks for cleaning that up rpm. I was going to mention climate science but you saved me from the effort.

We notice the 1,000 "miracles" and discount the 99.99% who prayed but were not "healed", so miracle talk is unfair to faithful who died.

Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of Christianity knows that God does not always answer prayer, and certainly not in the way the prayer would wish.

Simplistic, ignorant points like this should be beneath you, Amy.

> I can find plenty of lay people stating we
> know all about evolution and that's it's
> proven and laid to rest

Science isn't about laying things to rest, religion is. Golda Meir: "Don't be so humble; you're not that great."

I'd really like to beat up Richard Cook but it's a work day. Outline— He's like the Islamic terrorists who fly planes into buildings... His culture never put anyone in the sky. When he gets sick, he'll go to the doctor and demand antibiotics, the refinement of which requires Darwin insight of great refinement; and then –in cowardice but good health– he'll return home and say evolution means nothing. He ought to be ashamed... Meanwhile, I'm plenty ashamed of him.

>>Like when everybody believed the world was flat?

And, when was that? Thousands of years ago, the educated people understood the earth was not flat. The belief that until fairly modern times educated people thought the Earth was flat is just another hoax. You lose points when you even mention it.

I studied well, and in high school, I bought all the bogus evidence which allegedly proved evolution. Later on in life, I guess when the evolutionists admitted all the "proof" I was taught was wrong, and presented more "absolute facts" as proof, and expected me to also accept it without thought, I realized I had been lied to. I hate being lied to.

So, I looked and discovered there is not one molecule of evidence which actually "proves" evolution. That is, actual evidence that one species has ever changed into another species, which is the basic definition of evolution.

I am not going to say evolution did not happen.

I am going to say there is not one molecule of evidence that it exists. If you want to believe it does, fine. Just don't force your unsupported beliefs on to others' kids, except as "one possible explanation believed by some" and let others present their beliefs as well.

The problem is, changing one species to another requires an increase in genetic complexity. Darwin based his theories on examples that modern genetics has proved are actually a loss of genetic materials.

Evolution is like religion and atheism. It is impossible for human beings to ever really know the absolute truth. Micro studies cannot prove macro reality. The person who believes religion is false, is as messed up as the person who says God absolutely exists. It can't be known. Your lack of knowledge of something does not prove it does not exist. And, your belief in something does not by itself prove it exists.

If you want to believe there is no God, no one can prove you are wrong. If the vast majority of the people in the world believe there is a God, no one can prove them wrong.

No one should force his religious beliefs on you, by law, or personally. And, you should not be trying to force your atheism on others, by law or personally. I don't think anyone can say it any simpler than that, but it doesn't seem to soak in.

It is impossible for human beings to ever really know the absolute truth.

This is why I heart Science. You may be right, but scientists won't ever stop trying.

> I am not going to say evolution did not
> happen. I am going to say there is not
> one molecule of evidence that it exists.

Jesus Fuck, this place is full of idiots.

I take it back; idiots can tolerable. These are cowards.

"You know this how?"

Because I do. How do you know that you slept on a hospital floor because you love Gregg, and not for some self-serving reason? I can't explain to you how I know any more than you could explain your dreams to a monkey. I just do.

Why cowards, Crid? Please explain as that didn't make much sense.

I'm not sure why the debate is between fundamentalists who believe in biblical creationism, and there being no God(s) at all. You all DO realize there are hordes of other beliefs out there that don't fall into those two camps?

I can't explain to you how I know any more than you could explain your dreams to a monkey. I just do.

This is why I've yet to see an atheist convince a believer, through logic, that there is no God. (I've seen believers turn away from God on their own, after much personal searching, but that's not quite the same thing.)

Belief in God isn't the result of flawed thinking. It's the result of a need for God. Just like I can't convince my co-worker that she doesn't need oxygen, I can't convince someone that God doesn't exist, which is why I don't bother fighting that fight. Humans have needed God for a very long time, and that's not going to change based on science, which doesn't come close to providing the eternal foundation for understanding the universe that religion does.

For me, it's usually good enough to know that I'm walking across the same land where generations past have farmed, fucked and played Canasta, and that when I die, generations after me will do the same.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the NT constitutes extraordinary evidence.

Uh, no, it doesn't.

Uh, yes, it does.

It constitutes a great business model, however.

Uh, no, it doesn't. There's no business model in the New Testament. Maybe you're thinking of the Catholic Church?

Amy still does not grasp. [Evolution] is still a theory.

And you still do not grasp that a "theory" in science is not a random guess or hypothesis. A "theory" in science is grounded in observation and causal analysis. It is tested again and again in every observation scientists make. It is used to explain or predict outcomes and, if it fails, is called into question.

As stated before, gravity is still only a theory in science.

> that didn't make much sense.

After work— See you this weekend.

There's no business model in the New Testament. Maybe you're thinking of the Catholic Church?

Only the Catholics are in it for the money, eh? 'cause that giant protestant church down the street from me with the stained glass and the prime real estate is just mired in poverty. And Oral Roberts, Jerry Falwell, and Jim Bakker were paragons of piety.

The theory of relativity is also "just a theory", but people aren't quite as quick to sneer at it. Those of you who get your electricity from nuclear power plants have no reason to doubt it, because if E didn't really equal mc squared, your lights would not turn on when you flicked the switch. Theory is not the same as some geek's educated guess, and it's not the same as a hypothesis, which is all that anthropogenic global warming was, even before the Climategate emails came out.

That birds evolved from reptiles was known ever since 1861, when the first Archaeopteryx was dug up in Germany, 2 years after Darwin published The Origin of Species. Since then, evidence has been piling up every day: dinosaurs with feathers, birds with teeth & fingers, bird fossils & dinosaur fossils so close together that it's awfully hard to tell which is which, soft tissues preserved inside 68-million year old T. rex bones that turned out to have protein sequences like those in chickens:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6548719.stm

The details of exactly how birds evolved from reptiles are a matter of contention, and will probably still be argued over millions of years from now. At the moment, most paleontologists agree that birds are the descendants of theropod dinosaurs like T. rex. But some insist that the real ancestors are other dinosaurs, or cousins of dinosaurs called diapsid archosaurs, etc. The yakking over the details may never end, but the fact that birds did evolve from reptiles is not what anyone except creationists is arguing about.

There's obviously a huge gulf between human beings & our closest living relatives, or otherwise chimpanzees would be keeping people in zoos & writing books about them, instead of just the other way around. Lots of people think this gulf is too big to be covered by evolution. But they're conveniently forgetting that chimps are not our ancestors - they & we just branched off from common ancestors 5 million years ago or so. The things that make us distinct from chimps - standing & walking upright, big complex brains, using fire, cooking food, and so on - did not just suddenly show up one day in the Garden of Eden. They evolved step by step in Australopithecus & Homo erectus and all the other hominids that came & went in those 5 million years. There were intelligent, reasoning beings on this planet once that were not yet human beings, and they left evidence of themselves behind for all to see. You can't pretend they never existed just because we're here & they're extinct.

The reality of evolution doesn't disprove God. But chanting "it's just a theory" over & over again is not an argument.

> chanting "it's just a theory" over &
> over again is not an argument

Exactly. It isn't logical sophistication, it's childish wordplay. That's kind of what I mean about 'cowardly'— These people are too ashamed or fearful to admit that some things worth knowing are difficult to understand, and may take years (or even just hours) of study. They're afraid of that learning. And they ought to be, if it will depose them from the center of a loving God's creation.

OK, there you go Nicolek, back to work

"These people are too ashamed or fearful to admit that some things worth knowing are difficult to understand, and may take years (or even just hours) of study. They're afraid of that learning."

Was that the believers or the atheists you were talking about? Seems to me it could be read either way.

> I just do.

Doesn't count. Sorry.

> Was that the believers or the atheists
> you were talking about? Seems to me
> it could be read either way.

That "seems to me" is a nice touch. You guys are always very folksy, me point precisely. You never actually have to strain yourself for your understanding. (e.g., "I just do".) Insight is never requires effort, just the 'submission' of utterly bogus humility.

Your problem is not that people don't study the Bible enough... Some of us have studied it for years. We just don't believe. But when presented with the frogwash from Cook, and Irlandes and M4 about "theory", we have no doubt that they haven't done the reading.

geez, it's good friday for god's sake, why do you wish to insult the Christians on one of their holiest days? Also, why does their belief threaten you folks so much? I don't give a shit if you are an atheist, a druid, a christian, or like having sex with donkeys. A person's spirituality is a personal thing. BTW, I am not a super religious person, but I do not concern myself with other people's beliefs as long as they do not infringe on me in any way. Amy for some reason feels the need to provoke Christians on a weekly basis, but Good Friday? Have you no tact? I think the timing of this day was a bit beneath you

There's no business model in the New Testament. Maybe you're thinking of the Catholic Church?

Only the Catholics are in it for the money, eh?

No, obviously lots of people and groups are. But they didn't get that from the New Testament.

But when presented with the frogwash . . . about "theory", we have no doubt that they haven't done the reading.

This is exactly right.

I don't understand why it is called "Good" Friday. If I get executed on a Tuesday, you folks better not start calling it "Good Tuesday". I want it referred to as "Horrible as !#@$!@#$% Tuesday".

"Vendredi Saint" in French makes a bit more sense... Sainted Friday, Holy Friday, ok. But "Good"? The dude got tortured, beaten, and tortured in an agonizingly slow death, that is NOT "Good"!!!

why do you wish to insult the Christians on one of their holiest days?

If questioning a belief structure over the Internet on what just happens to be a religious holiday is insulting, people are too easily insulted and need to stay off the Internet on holy days.

Also, why does their belief threaten you folks so much?

I love this, that the only reason someone could object to a belief system is because they feel threatened by it. And by "love," I mean I think that's silly.

A person's spirituality is a personal thing.

A person's spirituality is not a personal thing when those beliefs bleed into education, politics and science. And they do, all the time.

People don't have to be insulted by the discussion: They can choose not to click on blog entries titled "Life Without An Afterlife" written by an avowed atheist.

I don't understand why it is called "Good" Friday.

I used to ask about this in school. The nuns told me it was because we had Easter Sunday to look forward to. Creeeeeepy.

Jesus is coming. Quick, everybody look busy.

Amy for some reason feels the need to provoke Christians on a weekly basis, but Good Friday? Have you no tact?

Well, for an atheist like me, it's just another fuckin' Friday.

And the only thing that makes it Good is that I get to spend time with my Husband - whether or not jesus decides he wants to show up this Sunday.

By the way, did you know it was Passover this past Tuesday? What are you going to personally do to make sure you don't provoke any Jewish people from now until the 5th of April?

just because you do not agree with them doesn't mean you need to disrespect them, that's the point. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with anybody here, just the choice of days for this type of post seems disrespectful. And yes I would say the same for a jewish holiday, but honestly enough to show my double standards, i could give two shits about a muslim holiday. I am far from a religious person but I think religion does serve a valuable purpose in families that are raised with it. Anyway, dead horse.

A lot of popular perception of science is on the same level as superstition. We all "believe in" or at least accept the existence of atoms and molecules, right?

How many of you have ever SEEN an atom? Held one? All we know is that "scientists say" that there are such things. A lot of religion is dismissed because it's a belief in the "Unseen". Well, so is most modern economic theory.

I agree with the commenters here who ask why this debate needs to be an either-or between Christian Fundamentalist and Atheist Fundamentalists. Atheism is as much a religion as any other in that it's still "Us" vs "Them" and infidels need to be driven out, humiliated, and crushed.

Denial is a form of worship.

My parents are atheists with a little "a" but they don't mind if I believe in the lavender easter bunny, as long as I can keep a job and stay out of jail.

"Doesn't count. Sorry"

Sure it does. To me. You don't matter, as nothing would count for you. So, you betcha. Yeppers. What other phrases can I toss in to prove my idiocy to you? Let me know and I'll use them. By the way, whether I call it a theory (along with the rest of the world) or not, I plainly said I believe in evolution. So try not to toss me into your mocking on that particular point, aighty?

And I have done the readin', hon. I majored in the readin'. I can figgger quite well what genetype will come about from parent type A and parent type B. I can also tell you that what we don't know about how animal A came from animal A1 would fill volumes. Scores of 'em, in fact. Hon.

[Alabama college student and atheist Peter Sloan] has a right to his opinion. And a right to full participation in the marketplace of ideas.

Rights to which all religions are hostile to the extent they can implement their hostility.

E.g. Index Prohibitorum.

The idea of God, in a Judeo-Christian sense, is so far beyond the realm of being scientifically provable that the thought of doing so is laughable.

NB: God and religion are not the same thing

You have missed the point. Religious instantiations of god are not scientifically disprovable. Fine, we need not go there. The existence of multiple, exclusive, religious claims about the nature and desires of god mean that the existence of a true god are religiously disproven.

The moment you allow two mutually exclusive statements within a system of axiomatic statements, then that system allows anything, no matter how preposterous.

The simultaneous existence of Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity, Mormonism, Islam, et al constitutes religious proof all of them are nonsense.

When you get down to it, atheism is disbelieving in the existence of any God, not god.

Religions, not god, have plundered humanity.

If people believe wholeheartedly in something, why should we not use it in the public sphere?

So you are okay with killing apostates? In some public spheres, that is believed wholeheartedly.

The belief that until fairly modern times educated people thought the Earth was flat is just another hoax. You lose points when you even mention it.

True, as far as it goes. But not one inch further. Up until Galileo andCopernicus, it was a matter of revealed truth that the Earth was the center of the universe, and asserting otherwise was to risk the stake.

So, long before Darwin, the Church was shown to be comprehensively wrong about a fundamental fact of existence, a fact in which it had asserted complete knowledge.

I bought all the bogus evidence which allegedly proved evolution. Later on in life, I guess when the evolutionists admitted all the "proof" I was taught was wrong, and presented more "absolute facts" as proof, and expected me to also accept it without thought, I realized I had been lied to. I hate being lied to.

The naturalistic theory of evolution, like any scientific theory, carries with it deductive consequences.

By that I mean that in order for the theory to be true, there must be a set of phenomena that must also be true. Now, even if they are, that doesn’t mean the theory itself is true, but if any of them are false, the theory fails.

I could, but won’t burden, Amy’s site with at least 15 deductive consequences of naturalistic evolution. (E.g., inheritance must be particular, not blended.)

So far, they are all true.

There is no other explanation for natural history that has any deductive consequences.

The problem is, changing one species to another requires an increase in genetic complexity.

In what respect is a human more genetically complex than a chimp, or tree?

> it's good friday for god's sake
> why do you wish to insult the
> Christians on one of their
> holiest days?

First of all, in case this isn't clear to you we are (I at least am) not observant, m'kay? I do not believe in that stuff, so it gets very little attention... It wasn't until late in the afternoon that I figured out this was Good Friday. (Friends asked: Dude, you workin' Easter Sunday? Yes, as it happens: No problem.)

Second, the insults –at least on my part– are only offered as return fire for baseless stupidities. I answer these stupidities every time they're presented. If this is how they want to spend their holiday, I'm as good for it today as a week ago Wednesday. It's no extra trouble for me.

Thirdly, I notice you didn't name a corresponding day when a proper student of evolution might expect a little patience from a person who believes in the supernatural, and am certain it didn't occur to you to think of one until you read this sentence.

> A person's spirituality is a
> personal thing.

Then why did they offer it to strangers? Amy's site is not like Chatroullette, where some unknown person might enjoy seeing your genitalia. And how does the smug, witless, baseless rejection of man's highest investigative achievements have to do with anything that we might admire as 'spirituality'?

> Have you no tact?

None for those clucking torpidly, with deliberate foolishness, about the vagaries of "theory".

Ggrrrrrrr.

> just because you do not agree
> with them doesn't mean you need
> to disrespect them, that's the
> point.

No. They deserve disrespect and mockery, by the scenario described above. Wanna read it again?

Here: I'm middle-aged at 51... Before the scientific and medical breakthroughs unleashed by Darwin and Mendel, I'd have been considered a very senior man. And human health has skyrocketed as nutrition and other rational disciplines have protected us from all sorts of disease. We can't even guess how many who (might) read these words would have died in childhood or shortly thereafter if not for these brilliant thinkers who unchained themselves from the constraints of religious ignorance... But it's certain that some of those readers are prattling stupidly today, Good Friday 2010, about the vagaries of "theory". That means they're wickedly ungrateful, and Little Baby Jesus will be peeved, as I am.

> Anyway, dead horse.

The horse lives. He whinnies and brays and deserves our swiftest kick.

> How many of you have ever SEEN
> an atom? Held one? All we know
> is that "scientists say" that
> there are such things.

Nope, that's not true. We also see how much of life can be explained and manipulated and improved by people who understand these things, people who make no claims to magical power or religious authority. It's not blind faith. In fact, it's richly sighted. For example—

Beautiful morning in California today! I wore sunglasses, a habit that came shortly after moving here twenty years ago. It's not just that they make me look cool... Though, yes, they richly enhance the commanding, masculine swoop of my neatly-bearded mandible. If you're going to live here in Lotusland, you're going to face a lot of sunlight, and reducing its intensity over a lifetime can slow your vision's deterioration.

I've always preferred polarized sunglasses. Polarized glass was one of the consumer innovations of the 1960's that really delivered the goods, especially if you spend time around water, where the ability to diminish glare can be amazing.

In a high school science glass, our physics teacher was talking about phase-coherent light and so forth, and someone asked how polarizing optics are made.

And he said, right back, "You take something with a long molecule, and you stretch it."

—CLICK—

It made perfect sense, and explained a small but real miracle which I've enjoyed over a lifetime.

No, I've never "seen" a molecule, M4... But I've never seen anything OTHER than molecules, either. And you haven't either. And it's not that you "just" haven't.

> it's still "Us" vs "Them" and
> infidels need to be driven out,
> humiliated, and crushed.

Well, I'll always do my best to encourage them to keep their imbecility to a quiet minimum... We never know when children might be listening.

> they don't mind if I believe in
> the lavender easter bunny, as
> long as I can keep a job and
> stay out of jail.

Some of us, through the construction of decent and defensible cosmologies, aspire to more.

How many of you have ever SEEN an atom?

I have.

Scan down this page, and you will see atoms, too.

You people want proof of evolution in action?

Look at dogs, horses, and humans.

Now in the case of dogs and horses it guided evoltion as humans breed certin traits for certian purposes. Natural evolution does the same damn thing with a species reacting to changes within its natural enviornment rather than humanitys animal breeding goals.

As for humans take a took at the skeltons and skulls of modern humans from today, a few hundred yrs ago and a few millenia ago.

You see skeltons getting taller, you see skull getting larger, you see jaws getting smaller. Today fewer and fewer people are being born with wisdom teeth.

"No, I've never "seen" a molecule, M4... But I've never seen anything OTHER than molecules, either. And you haven't either. And it's not that you "just" haven't."

That wasn't my post. Read better, please.

Are we getting back to the Science versus Religion argument again? Does anybody know how tiresome and pointless that is? Most people (meaning, most people I know, to the extent we've ever talked about it) don't seem to have a problem having both in their lives.

But not all. I knew one fellow who insisted that since the Bible doesn't mention rainbows until the end of the Noah story in Genesis, light refraction did not exist prior to that moment. I don't think he was joking! But that's the kind of trouble you can get into when you try to treat the Bible as a science book. That, and museums showing cavemen and dinosaurs living side by side.

I've said this before, but as for me, scientific discovery gives me a greater appreciation of the Almighty's creation. To me, a world coming into existence over billions of years is more awe-inspiring than 144 hours (plus a rest period), although both scientists and the Bible speak of a world coming into existence over a period of time. Every now and then, astronomers announce the discovery of new planets orbiting distant stars, and that's amazing. Pictures of atoms, as Hey Skipper pointed us to a few comments back fill me with wonder, too (I take it the bright spots are the NaCl molecules. What are the dark spaces in between? Nothing At All?). As far as I know, the Bible has little to say about astronomy, and nothing at all about molecular structure, but we've got these minds for a reason.

Where I'm going with this is, the religious world has to be able to embrace the accumulation of knowledge gathered through science. If it can't, it's in no position to profess its beliefs. Both the religious and scientific worlds should also understand that they're usually pursuing different types of knowledge and wisdom, and they're better off not sneering at one another.

One last thing: We've seen plainly how flawed, greedy, dishonest, and sometimes malevolent religious institutions can be. Humanity can be flawed, greedy, dishonest, and sometimes malevolent, and religions are human institutions. They look worse because of the moral claims they make, especially when they try to rationalize or conceal their crimes. For that reason, I'd rather not live under a theocracy. Having said that, the scientific world is not immune to humanity's flaws either. One can't deny that prevailing theories are sometimes influenced by political aims. I wouldn't want scientists running the world, either.

I sure wish people making broad statements about "science" actually knew something about it.

You should go learn something first. Be sure to follow the links, because a complete constellation of discovery connects the formula for the paint in your house to the nuclear weapons at your airbase to the processor in your computer.

Only the ignorant are sure. Never mistake confidence for being correct. As is apparent here, it only makes the petty more abusive.

What science needs is a threat to withdraw benefits, like the churchies do. "Believe with all your hearts or we'll turn off your phone, electricity, cable tv, disable your car, prevent you from accessing modern processed foods and medicine and medical techniques, etc" much like the churchies threaten to withdraw the grace of a loving god if you break the wrong rule.

Science doesn't have a flaming pit into which you can be thrown for eternity and I find that awfully unfair.

Still, if Preacherman can threaten the quality of our afterlife, Scienceman should be able to threaten the quality of the current life. No leavened bread for you until you've accepted the theory of gravity, young man!

Of course, no church or preacher has the power to do a dang thing to you in this world, or the hereafter, without you going along with it. That (among other reasons) is why we have Protestants.

The thought of Science (however one personifies it) having a flaming pit to throw heretics into is just as scary as the preachers having one. So off to the dogma pound with you!

> That wasn't my post. Read better, please.

You all look the same when you're pissing me off.

> The thought of Science (however one personifies
> it) having a flaming pit to throw heretics into is
> just as scary as the preachers having one.

It has such a pit, called "the natural world". Doesn't sound that scary, does it? And yet none of these people clucking about "theory" has the courage to live there.

"Go ahead and believe in god and astrology and giant purple unicorns in your backyard, but don't use this belief in the public sphere as if it's rational and makes sense."

Jumping in way late, but I'll totally take Amy up on this offer. Provided, of course, that people with unjustified and irrational beliefs in such things as economics ("taxes are always dumb and bad"), history (oh where to begin) and politics ("the president immigrated illegally from a terrorist training camp in cuba") also commit to keeping their ignorant ramblings out of the public sphere.

Do I have a deal?

So, scott, are you advocating a life lived by the "two wrongs" fallacy, where every idiocy by someone else excuses you for something else?

I guess not. Glad that's settled.

I thought I was for the cancelling out of absurdities but perhaps you've read something else. Are you suggesting we'd be better in a world where faith-based assertions form the basis of policy decisions?