One of the wonderful things about free-thought – we can read a book, and not have to believe it’s infallible!

And personally, while I’d accept the title of this post as potentially humorous – if you DO mean it seriously, then it is an insult.

Thanks Nathan for helping to make my point. Phelps and their crew are just crazy having nothing to do with general Christianity.

Liberals and atheists alike have put Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter in with the “religious right.” There you have it when you saw Sean denounce this nut. So would you label Sean and Ann as part of the religious right now?

Nathan, biologial and natural sciences are indeed 100% true. Any scientific subject in school should be to require the use of my tax dollars.

Lastly, how about atheists like Hithens that claim religion is poison and that anyone is dangerous that believes in it. Rather “extreme” wouldn’t you say?

If Sean Hannity (someone already labeled as a religious-righty) can dismiss Shirley Phelps, certainly we can get one atheist to dismiss the extremism of Hitchens, right?

How about the atheists who debate Christians that never smile and throw out insults. They call God a “sky fairy” & purposely throw out these epithets to intentionally hurt the feelings of loyal Christians.

Christians haven’t done that to them — and it’s worth noting that, too.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=YnG0eFwlmgI

There are in fact religious extremist that balance out Hitchens alive today.

“All I ask is you keep out of my pocket for pseudo-scientific funding and teaching children these incomplete theories in public classrooms.” Second, science class is about the history of science. Darwin, although not 100% true is very important to the progress of science, and his tributes should be learned. Evolution and natural selection are widely accepted as scientifically true. SCience class should be intended to educate kids who are potential scientists, and biology isn’t a psuedo-science and to be a biologist one will have to know about evolution and Darwin. Yes, science also believes that it may be found out to be wrong years down the road, but that’s no reason to not teach the science we think true now.

On the other side, the word of God does preach pretty much all good virtues, and there isn’t really any justification for people like Hitchens saying otherwise. God isn’t needed for someone to have principals, true but people use the word of God for their own evil agenda, God’s words are not the evil.

But I do have one question for the religious parties potentially reading this:

Why is it so much more unlikely that energy and matter and space and time are infinite (in the case of no creator) than it is that God, Himself, is actually infinite? If God could have always been, why couldn’t something else?

Last time I checked, biology IS a natural science.

Secondly, if you want to quote someone reputable about evolutionary biology, an ex-Berkley law professor is not my idea of a credible source… Find me a reputable biologist (or even a reputable scientist in a related field), and I might take more notice…

Kinda cute you tried to sneak it in with natural science. Sorry Richard, it is not a true natural/biological science without much evidence to support and as a matter of fact, a lot of evidence contradicts it.

Phillip E. Johnson, Professor at Berkeley had an interesting take –

“Evolutionary biologists are not content merely to explain how variation occurs within limits, however. They aspire to answer a much broader question-which is how complex organisms like birds, and flowers, and human beings came into existence in the first place. The Darwinian answer to this second question is that the creative force that produced complex plants and animals from single-celled predecessors over long stretches of geological time is essentially the same as the mechanism that produces variations in flowers, insects, and domestic animals before our very eyes. In the words of Ernst Mayr, the dean of living Darwinists, “transspecific evolution [i.e., macroevolution] is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species.” Neo-Darwinian evolution in this broad sense is a philosophical doctrine so lacking in empirical support that Mayr’s successor at Harvard, Stephen Jay Gould, once pronounced it in a reckless moment to be “effectively dead.” Yet neo-Darwinism is far from dead; on the contrary, it is continually proclaimed in the textbooks and the media as unchallengeable fact. How does it happen that so many scientists and intellectuals, who pride themselves on their empiricism and open-mindedness, continue to accept an unempirical theory as scientific fact?”

You can read more at: http://www.origins.org/articles/johnson_whatisdarwinism.html

He explains why Darwinism continues to be passed off as scientific fact when indeed it is not. It also explains the difference between Evolution and Darwinism (somewhat.)

I found it pretty fascinating.

Secondly, it’s not MY tax dollars, because in my country, this stupid anti-darwinism thing isn’t even an issue! Thank the almost-certainly-non-existant God…

Next time I’m using a hammer and chisel on your head……….

I was not promoting religion by stating that I believe in God – I am not suggesting that your tax dollars support Intelligent Design or any alternative-theory to Darwinism. As you clearly state your position (and as Blue did) I clearly state mine.

What Blue insinuated is that my pointing out Dawkin’s admission of not knowing where it all started had something to do with religion, and it does not, it has to do with fact — thus leading to the argument of why it is I’m expected to pay for its teaching.

One more time with the hammer and chisel — I am not against bonafide biological and natural sciences! I do not mind educating on true science. Darwinism and Dawkinsland do not qualify.

Understand yet?