"LiamToo" wrote in message
ups.com...
Vince Hart wrote:
I don't think Dawkins' militancy holds a candle to that of religious
zealots who believe that the God who has communicated to them through a
magic book wants them to make war on those whose God communicated to
them through a different magic book.

Nor do I think that Dawkins would consider anyone an idiot for thinking
that their might be an intelligent designer. I do think he considers
to be idiots those people who want creationism taught along with (if
not instead of) evolution in public school science classes.

Once upon a time, science did not have an explanation for mental
illness, so people attributed it to demon possession. The fact that
science does not provide a satisfying explanation for some phenomenon
currently does not mean that it is incapable of ever explaining it, or
that a supernatural explanation is necessary or preferable.

Sheldrake asked if the rules for manifestation of the Universe pre-existed
the Big-Bang or did they come into being at the same time. This is
interesting when considering mutations, and the way any new element will
form.

Talking about idiots, here's one idiot who said:

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
--Albert Einstein

If religion [re ligio] means 'to join together' [what was sundered], and
science the study of the reunification...

of course, Einstein was very interested in both the part, and the field, and
their cyclicity. Things continuously join together then re-seperate, and
rejoin again. In human culture we call one part of this activity religion
and contrast it with its polar opposite, differentiation or
individualisation.

Here's another idiot who said:

"Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who
set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is
or can be done." --Sir Isaac Newton

How many Natures are there? Human nature, 'nature', nature of God? Is this
even conceivable? The Cosmos seems to have one nature, the study of which is
generally called science, and the content is, what is: Whether this content
is apprehended or not, or whatever name it is given, the /scientific/
implication is; as above, so below, and micro- and macro-cosm have the same
Nature, indeed, they/we are Nature!

Phil