As a starting point for discussions on this topic, I have chosen to cite Stephen Jay Gould who, before dying in 2002 of cancer of the lung--he had survived 20 years after recuperating from deadly peritoneal mesothelioma--wrote a voluminous book on 'The Structure of Evolutionary Theory'. His 'Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA)' principle proposes that "the magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. A similar position has been adopted by the National Academy of Sciences. Its publication Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition (1999) states that "Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature. Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious. But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience.

There are no separate realms of faith and reason. Faith-based religious creeds are simply early and outdated stages in human development.

Here is a conundrum for you to reflect upon: "Does Jesus Christ love Osama Bin-Laden?"

Bobby, FYI, it would mean more to me if you'd said 'Joe.Bloggs: Shame, Shame, Shame!' To your question though, this could easily go either way if you look at (relatively) recent events: The Mabo land-rights case, or the general ignorance towards the aboriginals (what aboriginals??) when it comes to advancing Australia's fare. The government was aware of our drilling for gas off of Timor Leste, including the fact that TL received very little money for it in the beginning, was also aware of the kick-backs paid to Saddam by the Australian Wheat Board (whether they'd admit to it or not), among other things. Just the fact that there's a huge area of land north of the Nullarbor which can't be used for anything (apart for the blacks who want to go 'walkabout') due to the atomic tests conducted there by the british in the fifties (and possibly sixties). We currently have more Japanese in Aus than Abo's, unfortunately. The only way those paintings can be saved is if someone with lots of international influence decides to throw his weight around. Otherwise, hello revenue!

Bobby, Thanks, it's almost like being at home. Wait, I am at home. Hm, that was fast! Anyhoo, no I haven't read 'Songlines' by Chatwin. Why do you ask?

Bobby, Thanks, I'll look it up.

In his Pulitzer Price winning book 'The beak of the Finch', Jonathan Weiner tells the extraordinary story of two scientists, Peter and Rosemary Grant, whose ingenious, meticulous and extended work in the Galapagos islands has culminated in the sight of evolution occurring before their eyes not in fossils but in living, breathing creatures, Darwin's own famous finches. This book, and Grants work, is an undisputable proof of Darwin's theory of 'Natural Selection', and an undigestible one for Creationists. However, the actual 'Evolution of Species' from ameba to Homo Sapiens in the course of millions of years, although supported by many scientific disciplines such as Paleoanthropology and Molecular Genetics, still needs some more definitive proof to convince Bible believers. Examples of such 'proof' would be finding a live (or even fossilized) bird with four feet and a tiny monkey head, or, even better, a humanoid in the process of evolving into what man might become in a few thousand years: Big head, atrophied legs and no penis. Why such pigheadedness in refuting Evolution, particularly by the Catholic Church? Simple: If man evolved from an ameba, there were no Adam and Eve, no 'Original Sin', no need for Jesus Christ to die on the Cross to redeem us, no Paradise nor Hell, no sins, no confession, no need for a Church. Period.

Science standards evolve again(http://tinyurl.com/2lm3z6) "Topeka. New, evolution-friendly science standards for Kansas' public schools were adopted Tuesday by the State Board of Education, replacing ones that questioned the theory and generated international ridicule. The new guidelines reflect mainstream scientific views of evolution and represent a political defeat for advocates of 'intelligent design,' who had helped write the older standards being jettisoned". "There were debates or legal battles in California, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Ohio, Nevada and South Carolina over evolution and 'intelligent design.' But none has inspired comedians' jokes or parodies like Kansas' ongoing battle has, such as the four-part 'Evolution Schmevolution' series in 2005 on Comedy Central's 'The Daily Show.'" Hopefully, in a few more years, all Creationists will evolve into Darwinians, although, given the primitive state of their brains, it might take eons.

With so much still to learn how can we possibly decide one way or another about whether there is a god? A personal experience, a deep belief, those are fine but not grounds for proof. If you accept as I do that if all there is to know could be fitted into a football pitch then mankind's knowledge amounts to a single blade of grass. Science is in my opinion, still primitive and is a long way from solving the biggest debate on earth. Religious texts too, show all the hallmarks of fallible men. So many millions interpret words and phrases is so many different ways. A perfect existence could never be so fallible as to compose such imperfect communication. We all believe our own theories passionately whatever they happen to be at the time but we can't seem to avoid forcing those beliefs on others. Just to further the debate for future generations will eventually lead mankind to some answers. Science and religion are equally primitive in my opinion and the idea that any individual is enough to draw conclusions for us all is ridiculous. The truth is what we each believe and reality will remain a mystery for a very long time.

Labelling 21st century primitive is I agree, a bold statement but one that I become more convinced of as time goes by. The universe is very old. No sense putting a figure on such a huge number. Mankind, at least on earth is very young. Every new technology, science and innovation seems so space age when it first appears, but little of it amounts to much. The big, humanity driving arrivals are few and far between. Electricity was a massive breakthrough leading to many other spinoffs. Transportation from cars through to rockets are significant. Nanotechnology has potential but what else in recent centuries? Computers are still largely toys or glorified calculators. Medicine has made the odd mankind saving breathrough but still can't cure a cold. Science makes many errors too. We always seem to be learning that what we once believed is no longer true. The great mathematicians and physicists like Newton (who was a devout believer btw) and Einstein are rarely glimpsed but when they arrive the world changes in significant ways. Similarly, religion has made breakthroughs but largely it has achieved little. Jesus, Mohammed and Bhudda are among the great spiritual brains but who has there been in recent times? None have emerged to push back the boundaries. Great minds invariably have a flare for an aspect of human existence but few if any can break new ground. History surely teachs us that co-operation reaps rewards in human societies and it strikes me that unselfish co-operation between spiritual and scientific minds would move mankind forward in leaps and bounds. Choosing between science and religion is a dead end in my opinion.

...

...

...

Richard Dawkins. The God Delusion. Houghton Mifflin, New York, 2006. 406 pages. ISBN 13: 978-0-618-68000-9. Hard cover edition. In this review I will discuss what I take to be four of the most prominent fallacies in this new book. While, in my opinion, Dawkins performs a needed service for atheism by calling attention to the oppressive and discriminatory milieu in which American atheists now live (esp. pp. 43-45 f.), as one of atheisms current elites, his intellectual contribution offers little for atheists to be proud of. The first fallacy is that of the need for science to completely displace religion. He cannot see how the natural and the supernatural can ever co-exist. Dawkins regards all supernatural points of view as viruses of the mind (186 f.), which must be eradicated for the betterment of humanity. Unbeknownst to Dawkins, Michael Polanyi wrote, Theological accounts of God must, of course, appear meaningless and often blatantly self-contradictory if taken to claim validity within the universe of observable experience. Such a result is inevitable, wherever a language that is apposite to one subject matter is used with reference to another altogether different matter. (Cf. Personal Knowledge 282) Dawkins was made aware of these basic points by other writers. Dawkins quotes Steven Jay Goulds sage advice: To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth millionth time science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of Gods possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply cant comment on it as scientists. (55) (This and the following quotes are from The God Delusion.) These two magisterial do not overlap, writes Gould, like the magisterial of art and the meaning of beauty. (55) Of course, the key word here is meaning. Dawkinss theologian friends told him that there are other sources of meaning besides the scientific, and that he was brutally foisting a scientific epistemology upon an unwilling theology. (153) But Dawkins simply refuses to acknowledge that frameworks other than natural science can be legitimate sources of meaning for those who are committed to them. He doubts that theology can truly be said to have a province. (56) He sees no good reason to suppose that theology (as opposed to biblical history, literature, etc.) is a subject at all. (57) Others besides Gould have cautioned him against his crusade of intolerance. For example, Cambridge astronomer Martin Rees gave the same advice in a book Dawkins quotes. Another astronomer at Oxford made the point to him directly. But, in plain denial, Dawkins writes, I suspect that neither the Cambridge nor the Oxford astronomer really believed [what they had said to him, or written]. (57) Furthermore, I simply do not believe that Gould could possibly have meant much of [the advice] he wrote. (57) Secondly, the position of Gould and the others also implies that science cannot even make probability judgments on the question. Dawkins, of course, disagrees with all those who have thus advised him. (Cf. page 58) Dawkins notes that T.H. Huxley wrote that the existence of God is a matter of faith, and not of proof. Contrary to Huxley, Dawkins writes, I shall suggest that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other. (50) He then attempts to disprove the hypothesis by his own fallacious brand of statistical probability. Dawkins does not consider that probability estimates generally require some recurring experience from which the estimates can be fashioned. One example is the predictions of rainfall made in the Farmers Almanac. Instead, he asserts that since God either does or does not exist, both hypotheses have an exactly equal probability of being right. (48) After a long discussion of his statistical science, he concludes that Gods existence is equal to the possibility of a hurricane sweeping through a junkyard and producing a perfect Boeing 747. Therefore, he announces triumphantly, the god hypothesis is untenable. God almost certainly does not exist. (158) The logical confusion here is like judging the beauty of a painting by taking a bite to taste it. Unlike himself, those who disagree with his science are among the many people [who] have not had their consciousness raised. (143, 146) The third fallacy is his topsy-turvy notion of child abuse. Dawkins reveals that he was the victim of abuse while a child in one of Englands boarding schools. But then he adds, as a mere parenthetic aside, that it was (an embarrassing but otherwise harmless experience). (316) Instead, what is really pernicious is the practice of teaching children that faith itself is a virtue. (308) In reference to some sensational stories about Catholic priests in Ireland, he comments horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing up the child Catholic in the first place. (317) Dawkins expresses his outrage that society allows such abuse all in the name of maintaining cultural diversity. (329) What would Dawkins do about this pernicious practice of teaching children faith? Dawkins engages in a bad cop, good cop routine on this point. He quotes his colleague the psychologist Nicholas Humphrey, who said that children have a human right not to have their minds crippled by [the] dogma and superstition [of their parents] faith and we as a society have a duty to protect them from it. (326) However, Dawkins does not advocate making this novel notion of child abuse a crime. Instead, he writes, Please, please raise your consciousness about this, and raise the roof whenever you hear it happening. (339) Thus, Dawkins gives us a chance to redeem ourselves before the likes of Humphrey have their way. For his fourth fallacy, Dawkins declares I shall end this book by arguing that one can lead a happy and fulfilled life without supernatural religion. (353) He prescribes a good dose of science. (361) For him, our life is as meaningful, as full and wonderful as we choose to make it. (360) All the knowledge made available by natural science can not only give consolation, but just thinking of the new knowledge awaiting discovery can give inspiration. (360, 374) Thus, he concludes, society has no need for the god delusion. Dawkinss zeal causes him framework blindness. Not only is his intellectual capacity to make clear distinctions diminished by his ardor, but more pathetically, his capacity for human empathy is overridden. He cannot understand that other people may not find his brand of natural science a satisfying source of meaning. William J. Kelleher, Ph.D. is a Polanyi scholar, and the author of Progressive Logic: Framing A Unified Theory of Values For Progressives. http://www.empathicscience.org/proglog.html