I think the main reason they oppose it is because it locks the speed of light as a universal constant, and if the speed of light is constant it’s one way of proving the age of the universe. The “God could have created the universe with light already on its way 6000 years ago” argument is easily countered with “and He could have easily done it last Tuesday, or before you started reading this sentence”.

What is it with electrical engineers?!!!

It’s the solder fumes.

When I see conflict between science and what I see as the truth in my faith I take the position that science is giving the best explanation they can at the moment. I could go into a long treatise here, but there isn’t room to try and detail it out.

This is actually quite a simple question.

How do you define “truth”?

In science, something is understood to be true based on the coming-together of evidence and reasoned theory (i.e. if the theory is logically sound and is supported by a large body of data, and contradicted by either no or very little data, it is accepted as being true).

New evidence often leads to modification of a theory and occasionally requires that a previous theory be overturned in favour of a new one. But this latter case only happens when a new theory is shown (by evidence) to be better than the previous one. The motto of the Royal Society is “take nobody’s word for it”. IOW, accept as true only that which can be so demonstrated.

What is the “truth” in your faith? Is it something you can share with someone through reasoned argument? Is it based on a feeling of rightness? Is it based on the teaching of someone you respect and trust? Is it distinguishable from an hallucination?

Here in the U.K., we still have (thankfully) those ‘traditional’ conservatives and liberals; they have formed the current Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government. Can you imagine that ever happening in the U.S.?

Yeah, but several satirists have already pointed out that it’s a bit of an oxymoron.

OtherRob Says:
Even I know that just because someone hasn’t found something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Sheesh.

So Bigfoot could be real!

When there is a groundswell of conservative protests against the liars like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, I will be impressed.

I am sick to death of conservatives saying things like, “Oh, well THAT site doesn’t represent mainstream conservative thinking.” Yeah? Well then get out and start denouncing these idiots!

Yeah! They should go onto popular blogs and denounce those sites rather than hanging out here on a popular blog and publicly saying those sites are wrong.

Wait, what? I think you’re criticizing someone for doing the very thing you want them to do?

There is no doubt in my mind that many of the articles at Conservpædia are spoofs; I think there’s an unofficial competition to see who can write the most ridiculous article that will be accepted.

However, the founders and principals of the site (notably Andy Schlafley) are deadly serious. They’re so focused on combatting “liberalism” (here defined as anything Andy Schlafley doesn’t like) that they’ll swallow just about anything that reinforces their worldview, no matter how ridiculous it sounds to anyone who’s sane.