Over at the Intersection, Chris Mooney is concerned that we haven’t had a science/religion tiff in what, days? So he wants to offer a defense of organizations like the National Center for Science Education, who choose to promote science by downplaying any conflicts between science and religion. For example, the NCSE sponsors a Faith Project, where you can be reassured that scientists aren’t nearly as godless as the newspapers would have you believe.
In the real world, scientists have different stances toward religion. Some of us think that science and religion are (for conventional definitions of science and religion) incompatible. Others find them perfectly consistent with each other. (It’s worth pointing out that “X is true” and “People exist who believe X is true” are not actually the same statement, despite what Chad and Chris and others would have you believe. I’ve tried to emphasize that distinction over and over, to little avail.)
In response to this situation, we uncompromising atheists have a typically strident and trouble-making idea: organizations that bill themselves as “centers for science education” and “associations for science” and “academies of science” should not take stances on matters of religion. Outlandish, I know. But we think that organizations dedicated to science should not wander off into theology, even with the best of intentions. Stick with talking about science, and everyone should be happy.
But they’re not happy; Chris and others (Josh Rosenau at Thoughts from Kansas is a thoughtful example) think that the NCSE can be more effective if it proactively tries to convince people that science and religion need not be incompatible. As an argument toward this conclusion, Chris attempts to horrify us by offering the following hypothetical conversation between a religious believer and an NCSE representative:
Religious believer: I know you say that evolution is good science, but I’m afraid of what my pastor says–that accepting it is the road to damnation.
NCSE: As a policy, we only talk about science and to not take any stance on religion. So we couldn’t comment on that.
Religious believer: I do have one friend who accepts evolution, but he stopped going to church too and that worries me.
NCSE: All we can really tell you is that evolution is the bedrock of modern biology, and universally accepted within the scientific community.
Religious believer: And I’m worried about my children. If I let them learn about evolution in school, will they come home one day and tell me that we’re all nothing but matter in motion?
NCSE: ….
To which I can only reply … um, yeah? That doesn’t seem very bad at all to me. Do we seriously want representatives of the NCSE saying “No, the claim that accepting evolution is the road to damnation is based on a misreading of Scripture and is pretty bad theology. If we go back to Saint Augustine, we see that the Church has a long tradition of…” Gag me with a spoon, as I understand the kids say these days.
Of course, we could also imagine something like this:
Religious believer: I know you say that evolution is good science, but I’m afraid of what my pastor says–that accepting it is the road to damnation.
NCSE: Oh, don’t worry. There’s no such thing as “damnation,” your pastor has just been misleading you.
Religious believer: I do have one friend who accepts evolution, but he stopped going to church too and that worries me.
NCSE: Well, that will happen. Prolonged exposure to scientific ways of thinking can lead people to abandon their religious beliefs. But don’t worry, you’ll be happier and have a more accurate view of how the universe works if that’s what happens.
Religious believer: And I’m worried about my children. If I let them learn about evolution in school, will they come home one day and tell me that we’re all nothing but matter in motion?
NCSE: That would be great! Because that’s what we are. But it’s not as depressing as you make it out to be; correctly understanding how the world works is the first step toward making the most out of life.
How awesome would that be? I don’t actually advocate this kind of dialogue in this particular context — as I just said, I think science organizations should simply steer clear. But these answers have a considerable benefit, in that I think they’re “true.”
That’s the major point. Advocacy and educational organizations have the goal of supporting science and education the best way they can, but there are limits. For example, they should stick to the truth. I tried to make this point in my post about politicians and critics — some people have as their primary goal advocating for some sort of cause, whereas others are simply devoted to the truth. But an organization advocating for science needs to take both into consideration.
And there are some scientists — quite a few of us, actually — who straightforwardly believe that science and religion are incompatible. There are absolutely those who disagree, no doubt about that. But establishing the truth is a prior question to performing honest and effective advocacy, not one we can simply brush under the rug when it’s inconvenient or doesn’t make for the best sales pitch. Which is why it’s worth going over these tiresome science/religion debates over and over, even in the face of repeated blatant misrepresentation of one’s views. If science and religion are truly incompatible, then it would be dishonest and irresponsible to pretend otherwise, even if doing so would soothe a few worried souls. And if you want to argue that science and religion are actually compatible (not just that there exist people who think so), by all means make that argument — it’s a worthy discussion to have. But it’s simply wrong to take the stance that it doesn’t matter whether science and religion are compatible, we still need to pretend they are so as not to hurt people’s feelings. That’s not being honest.
I have no problem with the NCSE or any other organization pointing out that there exist scientists who are religious. That’s an uncontroversial statement of fact. But I have a big problem with them making statements about whether religious belief puts you into conflict with science (or vice-versa), or setting up “Faith Projects,” or generally taking politically advantageous sides on issues that aren’t strictly scientific. And explaining to people where their pastors went wrong when talking about damnation? No way.
Right now there is not a strong consensus within the scientific community about what the truth actually is vis-a-vis science and religion; I have my views, but sadly they’re not universally shared. So the strategy for the NCSE and other organizations should be obvious: just stay away. Stick to talking about science. Yes, that’s a strategy that may lose some potential converts (as it were). So be it! The reason why this battle is worth fighting in the first place is that we’re dedicated to promulgating the truth, not just to winning a few political skirmishes for their own sakes. For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? (Mt. 16:26.)
@21 However, I don’t know of any scientific result that has “cast serious doubt on very basic religious ideas, like souls, an afterlife”.
1st law of thermodynamics. A soul would need to be energy (something physical) to interact with energy (or matter) of the brain/body or the law would be violated. Where does this energy come from if it doesn’t already exist in the universe before a thought (which obviously is a violation of the 1st law)? If it does already exist, where do these physical souls reside (that move the energy) in the universe and is that heaven (a perfectly natural heaven)? Why isn’t the (extra soul produced) energy measured with each thought or act of will if it does exist or is created (in violation of the 1st law) with each mental act?
As for the afterlife, evidence please. We don’t measure no afterlife or realm of the afterlife. If there’s nothing to measure, it’s made up as far as any person can tell. It’s not a mathematical or logical thing, but an empirical thing. Something whose existence is contingent, as is all existence (ontological arguments don’t confer existence). Being scientific, you wouldn’t give credence to something that cannot be known or show to exist would you?
Paul W. #14 (replying to Andrew #10):
As well as a limited notion of what it means to test something, if he thinks history can’t be tested.
The new testament is completely compatible with science
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Thessalonians+5%3A21&version=NIV
1 Thessalonians 5:21 (New International Version)
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Or if you question the translation (http://scripturetext.com/1_thessalonians/5-21.htm)…
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;
King James Bible
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
American King James Version
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
American Standard Version
prove all things; hold fast that which is good;
Douay-Rheims Bible
But prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
Darby Bible Translation
but prove all things, hold fast the right;
English Revised Version
prove all things; hold fast that which is good;
Webster’s Bible Translation
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
World English Bible
Test all things, and hold firmly that which is good.
Young’s Literal Translation
all things prove; that which is good hold fast;
ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙΣ Α΄ 5:21 Greek NT: Tischendorf 8th Ed. with Diacritics
πᾶς δέ δοκιμάζω ὁ καλός κατέχω
ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙΣ Α΄ 5:21 Greek NT: Greek Orthodox Church
πάντα δὲ δοκιμάζετε, τὸ καλὸν κατέχετε·
ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙΣ Α΄ 5:21 Greek NT: Stephanus Textus Receptus (1550, with accents)
πάντα δοκιμάζετε τὸ καλὸν κατέχετε
ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙΣ Α΄ 5:21 Greek NT: Westcott/Hort with Diacritics
πάντα [δὲ] δοκιμάζετε, τὸ καλὸν κατέχετε,
ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙΣ Α΄ 5:21 Greek NT: Tischendorf 8th Ed.
παντα δε δοκιμαζετε το καλον κατεχετε
ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙΣ Α΄ 5:21 Greek NT: Byzantine/Majority Text (2000)
παντα δε δοκιμαζετε το καλον κατεχετε
ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙΣ Α΄ 5:21 Greek NT: Textus Receptus (1550)
παντα δοκιμαζετε το καλον κατεχετε
ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙΣ Α΄ 5:21 Greek NT: Textus Receptus (1894)
παντα δοκιμαζετε το καλον κατεχετε
ΠΡΟΣ ΘΕΣΣΑΛΟΝΙΚΕΙΣ Α΄ 5:21 Greek NT: Westcott/Hort
παντα [δε] δοκιμαζετε το καλον κατεχετε
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Hebrew Bible
בחנו כל דבר ובטוב אחזו׃
Apocalypsis 22:21 Latin: Biblia Sacra Vulgata
omnia autem probate quod bonum est tenete
1 Tesalonicenses 5:21 Spanish: La Biblia de las Américas (©1997)
Antes bien, examinadlo todo cuidadosamente , retened lo bueno;
1 Tesalonicenses 5:21 Spanish: La Nueva Biblia de los Hispanos (©2005)
Antes bien, examínenlo todo cuidadosamente , retengan lo bueno.
1 Tesalonicenses 5:21 Spanish: Reina Valera (1909)
Examinadlo todo; retened lo bueno.
1 Tesalonicenses 5:21 Spanish: Sagradas Escrituras (1569)
Examinadlo todo; retened lo que fuere bueno.
1 Tesalonicenses 5:21 Spanish: Modern
más bien, examinadlo todo, retened lo bueno.
1 Thessaloniciens 5:21 French: Louis Segond (1910)
Mais examinez toutes choses; retenez ce qui est bon;
1 Thessaloniciens 5:21 French: Darby
mais éprouvez toutes choses, retenez ce qui est bon.
1 Thessaloniciens 5:21 French: Martin (1744)
Eprouvez toutes choses; retenez ce qui est bon.
1 Thessaloniciens 5:21 French: Ostervald (1744)
Éprouvez toutes choses; retenez ce qui est bon.
1 Thessalonicher 5:21 German: Luther (1912)
prüfet aber alles, und das Gute behaltet.
1 Thessalonicher 5:21 German: Luther (1545)
prüfet aber alles und das Gute behaltet!
1 Thessalonicher 5:21 German: Elberfelder (1871)
prüfet aber alles, das Gute haltet fest.
帖 撒 羅 尼 迦 前 書 5:21 Chinese Bible: Union (Traditional)
但 要 凡 事 察 驗 ， 善 美 的 要 持 守 ，
帖 撒 羅 尼 迦 前 書 5:21 Chinese Bible: Union (Simplified)
但 要 凡 事 察 验 ， 善 美 的 要 持 守 ，
帖 撒 羅 尼 迦 前 書 5:21 Chinese Bible: NCV (Simplified)
凡事都要察验，好的要持守，
帖 撒 羅 尼 迦 前 書 5:21 Chinese Bible: NCV (Traditional)
凡事都要察驗，好的要持守，
@19 2) matter *magically* appeared
-BOTH of these are in complete violation of the law of causality, the single principle upon which all science is based, yet nobody here seems to think anything is wrong with putting 100% faith into this hypocritical system…
And yet you think God who was uncreated (option 1) did option 2. Ironic. By the way, contingent laws of nature (could have been different in the philosophical sense), upon which science relies, are not some logical law which you’ve made up and called the law of causality.
Andrew #21:
It’s possible that the atheists you know are weird outliers. I think it rather more likely that this is either the common strawman atheist we get from the ‘other ways of knowing’ folks, or you’ve never actually bothered to find out what your atheist colleagues really believe.
Religion has been a social glue of civilization; to deny it is unscientific. Religion is universal — every culture has some form of it; there has never been a society without gods of some kind. There is strong evidence we have evolved with the instinct to create gods. Religious faith is both a universal source of community and a universal source of turmoil. We are increasingly interconnected and hyperlinked to each other in a world of rising seas — and other challenges to act as a single civilization.
Yet the globe lacks a religion everyone can get behind to provide that “social glue,” which means religions must either cooperate or get out of the way. Thus far, no global religion has emerged — except perhaps atheism, which is not universal but certainly ends any religious arguments between its adherents. Furthermore, atheism lacks a priesthood or missionary class; it has a few leaders like Sam Harris, but no tent revivals.
Science, on the other hand, has produced college-high school fairs and such.
The goal is science. A majority of Americans professing faith, any effort to avoid confrontation is important. You do not advance the cause of science by having no dialogue, as you cannot then educate them; you do not advance understanding by confrontation, either.
Training scientists to talk about faith (and how not to talk about it) allows them to imbue faith in science, and that is as close to missionary work as science can simulate.
@31 there has never been a society without gods of some kind
Really, you know this how?
“All we can really tell you is that evolution is the bedrock of modern biology …”
Ah, Mooney’s lack of understanding of biology really shines through – so obviously we must believe him when he tells us how things should be done? Personally I can’t see how anything can be claimed to be the “bedrock of modern biology”. A large fraction of biological studies does not depend at all on the veracity of evolution, but the fact of evolution does put certain welcome constraints on things – and yet even if we had no Darwin and no Wallace we would still have a vibrant and diverse field of biology. You can hardly call a field of study “bedrock” when the greater field of study is not really dependent on that field having ever been established. In short: you can have biology without having discovered evolution, but you can’t have evolution without biology.
I happen to be one of those damned scientists who is only concerned with the truth; because of that I’m called “difficult”, “insensitive”, and I’m sure readers can imagine all sorts of other things that I’m called. It’s really pathetic how some people have such egos that the truth must be subjugated to their feelings; I never hesitate to tell them to jump off a cliff, after all gravity is “only a theory” and would certainly be more sensitive to their ego than I am.
Mooney brings up inane straw man arguments and attributes nonsense to others that they didn’t advocate. Mooney is getting more dishonest by the day.
He and his court of jackals still do not understand that lying that science and religion is compatible makes them look like fools.
Let’s try these substitutions on for size, and see how absurd this really is:
Religious believer: I know you say that heliocentrism is good astronomy, but I’m afraid of what my pastor says–that accepting it is the road to damnation.
NSAE: As a policy, we only talk about astronomical facts and do not take any stance on religion. So we couldn’t comment on that.
Religious believer: I do have one friend who accepts heliocentrism, but he stopped going to church too and that worries me.
NCAE: All we can really tell you is that heliocentrism is the bedrock of the modern understanding of our planetary system, and universally accepted within the scientific community.
Religious believer: And I’m worried about my children. If I let them learn about heliocentrism in school, will they come home one day and tell me that we’re not the center of the universe and of God’s creation?
“Wow, that is pretty amazing that the blogger you linked to says that science and religion are compatible because some people believe they are. (Are they also incompatible because some people believe they are?) Shouldn’t he, like, lose his blogging license for that?”
Totes. He committed some fallacies there.
“Demanding that your lover see “hard science” of your eyes removes any emotion. Are these observations incompatible? No, they are answering different questions. A doctor asks questions that can be answered scientifically, while your lover does not (nor should he or she).”
If you had an understanding of neuroscience and psychological study, you would know that this is bullshit.
I would like to add that we in the biological sciences have the highest amount of atheists.
I am a proud atheist neurobiology student.
I’ve actually come to regard the vast majority of religious people as total pansies when it comes to actually discussing science or religion in any depth.
Believe it or not, the advertisement that DiscoverMagazine.com attached to the bottom of the RSS feed version of this post is “Is there a God? a short article gives six reasons why God exists.” and links to this article.
I have very much enjoyed reading Cosmic Variance, since long before you moved to Discover Magazine. Mostly I ignore the ads, but your blog is the only one that gets them into my RSS feed. I will probably unsubscribe soon.
“Mooney brings up inane straw man arguments and attributes nonsense to others that they didn’t advocate. Mooney is getting more dishonest by the day.
He and his court of jackals still do not understand that lying that science and religion is compatible makes them look like fools.”
Mooney = faintly-PR-obsessed journalist. Mooney /= scientist who cares, justly, more about the truth than PR.
The definition of “knowledge” that I use is “verified belief”. Science is the only methodology humans have ever developed that can reliably verify belief. The only method that is systematically self correcting. So our (human) knowledge most certainly does NOT come from any other realm except for science. Perhaps somewhere else in the universe, some other alien intelligence has discovered a different way of knowing, but humans have not. If the source is human, and it is not subject to science, then it is not knowledge.
If it is not repeatable, then its occurrence by definition cannot be predicted, and by definition, having happened once, it will never happen again. For all practical purposes then, it is not worth answering.
Of course the ‘soul’ exists, and science has proven it. It consists of a pattern of electrical potentials across a network of specialized cells in highly evolved organs known as brains. Science has characterized the organ that houses it, recorded its activities, measured the consequences of its actions, and even taken pictures of it working in real-time. It produces personality, possesses memory, is self-aware, has moral conscience, and is capable of free will (or at least appears to be). It has been labeled with several different names in addition to ‘soul’ but it possesses all the characteristics attributed to souls, except for one – it is not immortal, and dies with the brain that houses it. However, immortality is not an attribute universally attributed to souls by all religions, so that’s ok.
Well of course not. But what cannot be understood by science, at this present moment, by these present intelligences (humans), at this present time, cannot be understood at all.
Holy crap! Have I entered an alternate universe where there’s no way a person who is religious can believe in science and vise versa? There are still so many questions to be answered. In many ways, having faith helps one stretch to believe and be interested in some pretty fantastic things. Having a grounding in science can have a profound effect on faith (both directions). Not all persons of faith shy away from natural selection or an old universe. So to say they are incompatible is to take a stance no where near the center; where I think most scientists ought to stand. Mostly, day to day, there is no conflict. They exist peacefully together. Always have. Always will. There are extremes on both the religious side and scientific side. I believe this blog took an extremist point of view.
Katherine… are you open-minded enough, versed enough in religion and science to discuss both sides confidently? This is the crux of many discussions. Alot of times people on both sides hear but they aren’t listening.
John,
Please tell us one question that religion can answer…
How do you, or me, or anyone, know someone else’s “deepest thoughts and desires”?
You observe that person.
You make a hypothesis based on that person’s behavior.
You test your hypothesis by modifying your own behavior and seeing how that person responds.
You attempt to develop methods and/or devices to help you in your observations. (One method available to you is a mechanism known as “language” and a structure known as a “question”.)
You observe some more.
You evaluate your hypothesis in accordance with your new hypothesis, and adjust it accordingly.
Once you have sufficiently confident in your knowledge, you reveal your findings through a change in your own behavior.
Your findings are now subject to peer review. Other people observing your changed behavior are now free to evaluate the veracity of your findings.
You may do all this instinctively without conscious recognition of the steps, but it is still the scientific method through and through.
The scientific method is the only way humans have of knowing anything. Formally or informally, explicitly or implicitly, it doesn’t matter.
@ 42. John Williams (January 19th, 2010 at 9:30 pm)
“Holy crap! Have I entered an alternate universe where there’s no way a person who is religious can believe in science and vise versa?”
Go away. Your shallow grokking of this debate wastes other people’s time. Read the relevant posts and come back when you have divested yourself of such a ridiculous caricature. You can start here. (The first link is broken. You can find the new location here.)
I was disappointed with both responses. The first was non-speak. The second wandered off into theological areas.
Another approach:
—-
Religious believer: I know you say that evolution is good science, but I’m afraid of what my pastor says–that accepting it is the road to damnation.
NCSE: I do say the evolution is good science you also have your pastor saying something different. What would probably be best is for you to examine the evidence carefully for each point of view and make up you own mind which truth you want to accept. One plug for science though… if you decide the evolution makes sense to you it’s ok to dispute it, question it, or try to disprove it. That’s good science too!
Religious believer: I do have one friend who accepts evolution, but he stopped going to church too and that worries me.
NCSE: Ah…cause and effect. It’s a hotly debated subject in science and I’m glad you’ve joined the debate! Did your friends acceptance of evolution ’cause’ him/her to stop going to church, or was there some other factor? You could start your own science project to try to uncover the evidence to support your hypothesis. Isn’t science fun!
Religious believer: And I’m worried about my children. If I let them learn about evolution in school, will they come home one day and tell me that we’re all nothing but matter in motion?
NCSE: The real issue if your children come home from school, their friends, the mall, or from reading a book knowing more about evolution, computers, math, geography, theology, literature…. than you do! Short of moving your family to a cave the best you can do is keep talking openly and honestly with your children about everything they learn and be open to what they have to teach you!
@David
I’d like to amplify one point you made, although I like your post in general.
“if you decide [that]* evolution makes [no]* sense to you it’s ok to dispute it, question it, or try to disprove it. That’s good science too!”
This should be in the toolkit of every science advocacy organization. It needs to be wielded carefully, so as not to imply ridiculous “fair and balanced” thinking (like putting astrology on the same footing as astronomy). But useful nonetheless.
* I corrected what I think were typographical errors.
I read through thirty of these postings and then my head began to throb…
I guess I can understand all these posts politically: everyone wants to push there own agenda, be they scientifically minded or religious. Got to have a dream… and then force it on everyone else too. Or two dreams. To give is better than to receive.
Really though, does everyone really care about whether science and religion are compatible or not? I get the feeling groups just like arguing with one another. Everyone wants to be associated with some sort of identity, but it leaves everything inverted… like a pale reflection in a mirror, no one can see anyone face to face. No one is abel to see, see to it that what they want, what they wish, be seen by all. Faded glass.
Where’s community when you need it? I hate commuting for it, which is probably why I spend too much time online. Listening to Chopin.
I clicked a link last month that took me to one of those naughty sites. I did it a day later too. I knew I had found a goldmine of sexy speedos, and I clicked on it every chance I could. Then today I clicked the link, and it was disabled. WTF? Someone better fix that…
Truth and falsity be damned, words stretched into circles dancing on the edge of madness, a sonata of vertigo. Maybe I’m just a hedonist. I could be spending this time staring at the cars pass by on the street or the moon hovering overhead. Hell, when’s the last time I spent some quality time with my hand? Instead I’m here, staring at these posts, completely engulfed by a sense of weary confusion: trapped by word smiths and their hammers. The gulf between knowing and believing stretching before me, larger and larger, encompassing all these people to scream in defiance at one another, loudly and sharply, each sentence a newly forged blade. And for what? Put away your fuckin’ anvils.
I will pass from this Earth as ignorant as the day I came into it. Truth is not mine to have. Mine are memories: the sun’s sparkle, a supernova spectrum, or a Sunday sermon. Whether the words I hear are true or not, I hear them. Whether the ideas I read are true or not, I read them. I live, I breath, I am. And sometimes I lie to get laid.
Other times I don’t have to.
Don’t ask me about you, I haven’t a clue. Don’t ask me about me, sounds too damn weird to be talking in the fifth person.
Godless or Godmore.
I don’t give a damn, I was never very good at arithmetic as a child.
Will I be when I’m a man?
I like what Matt Osborne has to say a lot. At least in his post relating to religion. What scientists should be doing really, is understanding why Religion is so important, and why people hang on to it. Also, I notice that here, particularly, religion seems to be a euphemism for Christianity. Clearly ignoring the host of other religions throughout the world. A really bad way to make a point. But that’s debating, not science. Me personally, I’m what an Atheist would really hate. I don’t just believe in one God, I believe in multiple gods. Still, I find it interesting the religious fervor with which people who describe themselves as not having a religion defend science. It has seemed to me for some time, that people doing so have started to confuse actual science, (which is really just a method for looking at things), with a religion that is being built that happens to have the same name. Also, Atheists, as far as I’m concerned have every bit as much of a religion as Christians, Muslims, Wiccans, Hindus, etc. do. I agree that often Science and religion are adversarial, but to say that they are not compatible would be to imply that just because one groupof humans and another human, or group of humans are adversarial they are incompatible. Bad bad logic. Every time I see this argument, I am more convinced, that there is a brave new religion in the world and it has named itself Science. That it is doing everything it can to wipe out all other forms of religion. Kind of reminds me of a virus, or at the very least some kind of organism. Could be bad science on my part, but then according to some, the very fact that I believe in any kind of higher power, let alone making the incredibly bad choice to believe in multiple ones, makes my opinion useless. Which, to me, just sounds like the more close-minded “religious” folk that deny evolution, or condemn to me to burn in hades because I believe in evolution, and multiple gods. Just my two-cents. Also, I really like the blog. always have, even if I don’t always agree with what it says.
Enjoy, everyone:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o
Spot on, as usual.