I am sick and tired of it, and the fact that religion may have “led to” science or “preserved” scientific advancement is no longer relevant today. Thunder is NOT caused by angels, or any god. Neither is death. Period.

Science is a way of saying, we have some answers, maybe not all of them, but we’re working on it. Science has a right to be wrong in this respect.

Religion is never wrong, making it inherintely so. It presupposes that it has all the answers, and even if individuals do not, “someone” else does. It’s a fact you just have to have faith in.

Not good enough.

Why this should not be the final word on religion in modern society is a testament to the fact that yes, many people are weak, both of mind and “spirit” and need to be told what is real, instead of agreeing upon it with their own conciousness, and willing to feel wrong at some point. And to those, I say that I hope you believe in hell, cuz not only do I curse you to such a fate, but I’m renting the bus! Stop screwing it up for everyone else already. Religion isn’t a genetic trait of humanity, no matter what thousands of years of trends might lead you to believe. A curious nature is, however; in fact we are not a unique example of this. This should in no way be construed as a structure of “divine intervention”, it is a fact of nature.

It is a basic underlying principle of life, chemistry, and even the universe itself, this tendancy to “try everything at least once” and see what works. Yes, it seems there really could be someone in the driver’s seat at times, but does there REALLY need to be? Or is this just your own insecurity talking? These are questions everyone really needs to ask themselves. And keep in mind that there’s no one but yourself waiting for the answer, and you’ve got the rest of your life to grapple with it.

It is poor practice to increasingly blur the line between fact and fiction, one that tomorrow’s generation is already far too adept at.

The fact is, you are here. This one is inalienable until you’re not here.

The fact is, evidence is a real, tangible thing. This isn’t open to debate. It’s as real as anything can be, much more so than faith.

The fact is, science is a balance of evidence and, hopefully, a progressive faith; science in its proper form also leaves the door wide open to being wrong in the face of further evidence.

The fact is, religion is a retrograde path at best, and a dangerous tool of the sinister and malevolent at worst, and willingly devoid of any evidence or rational thinking at its core. Always. No matter what color tint your glasses may cary. It goes to the old addage of absolute power. No matter what entity such power is designated to, it will corrupt absolutely. And no, true evidence is not something so simple as an entity, unless such entitity could be named as “truth”.

It doesn’t, unless said scientist believes in said Supreme Overlord. What scientists and science advocates are upset about is religious believers distorting and misrepresenting science results and statements by scientists in order to further a religious agenda, an agenda that includes discounting the best results of science.

What many people are concerned about is the pushing of a particular religious viewpoint via a government sponsored and sanctioned venue, in direct violation of the principle of Freedom of Conscience that was so dear to the founders of the Constitution that they enshrined it in the First Amendment. It makes no difference to me if you wish to believe in an anthropomorphic God, or a pantheistic “universe is God”, or even in Holy Flying Monkeys that took a poo and thus created the Earth. But there’s no evidence for flying monkeys, much less a flying monkey that predates the Earth, and there’s no indication that the Earth is actually monkey poo, so the idea that the world may have been formed by a big Flying Monkey taking a dump does not merit equal footing with Evolution. The same applies to supernatural deities feeling lonely and speaking the world into existence.

>*I don’t mind which theory is taught in school as long as the students know it’s a “theory” I was taught the big bang was a fact and the only fact. If it wasn’t for the Discovery Channel I might not have ever learned otherwise.

You’re chasing the “theory” red herring again. A theory is an explanation. Scientific theories are scientific, because they are based upon evidence and because they can be tested by falsification, and they are subjected to scrutiny with deliberate effort to disprove them. The Big Bang model is strongly supported by the evidence, so it is an considered an accurate representation of events.

Perhaps there is a lesson that too many people take away from school the idea that science is a specific collection of results, and not that science is a method of examining and evaluating.

>*If science is not your major most schools just brush past the facts like a history course. –maybe that is what they were trying to change in Kansas.

Yes, that’s what I mean by taking science as a set of facts and not as a process. But if the Kansas school board was seeking to improve science education, advocating Intelligent Design was a fundamentally flawed and poorly chosen method. Improving teaching methods does not include equating religious beliefs with science.

>*Judges also have agenda’s.

Now you’re just making an indirect accusation about this judge’s impartiality and conduct. If you actually read the court’s findings, it becomes explicitly clear that this judge was evaluating the case on the merits and arguments directly presented to the court and interpreting the laws based upon accepted legal methods. The only agenda of this judge was to thoroughly evaluate the case in front of him and reach as solid a conclusion as he could provide so that no future judicial reviews could find any grounds for overturning the verdict. That’s why he went beyond the minimum required to establish the conclusion and analyzed not just one basis for the conclusion, but all lines of legal evaluation to show they were all in agreement and reach the same conclusion.

No, it’s not hypocritical, because the topic is not biblical interpretation, the topic is science, and the bible is just not relevant, any more than The Origin of Species is relevant to designing an automobile, or a hymnbook is relevant to treating a broken arm.

Well, while I’m not able to quote the Bible chapter and verse, I think I have a pretty good working knowledge of the themes behind each of the “books” of the Old and New Testaments. And I fondly recall being rather fascinated, when I was a youngster, by the story of Creation as set forth in Genesis.

For me, the Bible provides is with a moral and ethical framework within which we might conduct our lives with greater decency and humility. But the Bible is NOT a science textbook. If God truly dictated the story of Creation to Moses, couldn’t He have gotten His facts straight? According to Genesis, the seed-bearing plants were created BEFORE the Sun, Moon, and stars; and while that might sound somewhat poetic, it’s scientifically meaningless.

Biblical literalists might say, “Well, if that’s the way God wanted to do things, who are we to question it?” To which I would say, “Fine, let’s just dispense with scientific inquiry altogether.”

to show you vast knowledge of the bible as you claim maybe you should read again because the heaven and earth were created, then the light and dark divided, meaning there was already a light in the day for the seeds that were there, then the sun, moon, and stars were only difined in their roles not created at this point.

Chris’s point well made by you