“Sarge - so far you are the only one who has talked about "One Atom theory". Can I assume this is your theory?

And if you google "Thermodynamics" instead of "Thermaldynamics" then you might get better results.

However, since you seem to need some help, The non-argument you are putting forth is easily explained by Dawkins in "The Blindwatchmaker" and by Isaac Asimov in several papers. Some of his best arguments can be found in a book of his thoughts, published after his death. If you need more sources than please try harder on Google.
last edited: 12/13/04 2:57:08 PM”

“From the title I thought this would be about architecture and buildings used to educate children.

Please don’t permit the public schools to teach religion or faith in any way or form. Not because religion and faith aren’t important. In the opposite, it is to important to trust to that messed up system. They would get it all wrong.”

“for a discussion on the physics/biochem side of this, there was a book written by Michael Behe called "Darwin's Black Box." I never read it because it is way too far above my understanding from my college bio class but I heard him speak and he was quite knowledgable. He has a website that responds to some of these questions, Sarge, you may enjoy it (and I totally agree with your definition of faith). Here it is http://www.arn.org/behe/behehome.htm”

“Bear - First of all, I am not the one who brought up the theory, so no, assuming it was my theory would be incorrect. If you'd follow the thread, you'd see that it was tara's contribution.

Secondly, yes, I spelled it wrong. I do believe when I first mentioned it (soon after my initial search on the one atom thoery) I had spelled it correctly.

Third, regarding the Blindwatchmaker, are you sure he discussed One Atom Theory in there? If so, I'll check again, but I did not think so.
last edited: 12/13/04 3:37:58 PM”

“deuce - Thank you for the reference. I have seen those principles before (those mentioned in the book), but not in the presentional that Behe uses to bring them together. I'll definitely check it out. Thank you.”

“Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh. Yes. Behe, an apostle of "Intelligent design". A "scientist" of zero credibility.

Here ya go:

http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/”

“Bearmagnet - In all honesty I am trying to learn about one-atom theory that tara brought up. You seem to be interested in the subject (of origins/science) so if you have any information on this and how it could be justified with the first law of thermodynamics, by all means share the knowledge. Thanks!”

“I see.....The "one atom theory" jargon is driving me nuts and must stop now! There was never "one atom"

I posted a spectacular site for talks on origins.

If you want a beginners book on the Big Bang I think the author Gibbs has an excellent introductory book by the same name.”

“Well I agree with you Bearmagnet. I just wanted more information on this theory because it seemed impossible to me under known laws of physics.”

“Crash, please forgive me for potentially going "off topic" on an "off topic" subject, LMAO!!!!! I don't mean to suggest that there is a God or higher power. I believe in letting everyone draw their own conclusions. Ped was right in that I was just printing the poem to support Reformed Lurker's thoughts, and it's a very nice poem or saying if you do believe in God anyway.
last edited: 12/13/04 3:57:04 PM”

“btw lipstick - thanks for the poem - I sent it to many friends.”

“Sarge, the entire name of the poem is Footprints in the Sand, and it was written by Mary Stevenson.”

“bear, interesting article but obviously leaning toward an evolutionary standpoint... thats fine but I would at least suggest looking at Behe's site to get one obviously biased toward the other side before totally ruling out his credibility. It's only fair.”

“I've read Behe's work.”

“Bearmagnet should be banned from using Google. He knows everything about everything from the China Wall, rats, crepelles, atoms etc. I think he even knows where Jimmy Hoffa is!”

“In that case you may believe he has no credibility if you wish. But, I will have to do some more research before I do so. To go more off topic, I thought that we were in a Post modern age where whatever people wanted to believe was OK, the "whatever way you want to go" age. Why is it that the only ideas that doesn't include are ones from a judeo/christian standpoint? (This actually refers back to the "in school" aspect of this thread)”

“deuce, I'm not saying Bear is not credible. I'm not saying he is right either. I'm just saying he is informed.”

“Believe what you want, by all means. Calling pseudoscience science is wrong, possibly immoral and should be attacked.

Behe's empty box: http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/box/behe.shtml

"Never say, and never take seriously anyone who says, 'I cannot believe that so-and-so could have evolved by gradual selection.' I have dubbed this kind of fallacy 'the Argument from Personal Incredulity.' Time and again, it has proven the prelude to an intellectual banana-skin experience." Richard Dawkins - River out of Eden

Yes, Michael Behe is a scientist, but is "Intelligent Design" science? If so, it will be the first science established without a single technical paper published for peer-review, including zero by Behe himself. For some reason he has decided to completely bypass professional review and go directly to a Darwin-doubting public. But more to the point, what is wrong with this book? Here is a summary of the critiques you will find included on this page and others:

First, let's be clear about something. Michael Behe has not created a "Theory of Intelligent Design" (ID). He offers no general laws, models, or explanations for how design happens, no testable predictions, and no possible way to falsify his hybrid evolution/ID hypothesis. He is simply claiming that design is a fact that is easily detectable in biochemical systems. The real science of ID is yet to come, and Behe just wants to wedge the door open a bit. So what does this magic Intelligent Design Detection Kit look like? Basically open the box and all it contains is a tweezer. Use it to pluck out any part of a system, and if the system stops functioning properly, it must be the product of design. Why? Because it proves that the system was "Irreducibly Complex" (IC)...

"By irreducible complexity I mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional." [Behe]

But read this argument carefully. Behe is not offering a way to detect design, he is offering a way to falsify gradual Darwinian evolution, and by elimination, conclude design. But there is one big problem- his falsifier has been falsified. The conclusion that an "irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system" is simply wrong.”

“oh, sorry, I was referring to Bear calling Behe uncredible and since he said he read Behe I thought he would be able to conclude what he did. I would say I don't agree with him on that but I do agree with you lipstick in that he is very informed it seems about everything... at least everything on TT.”

“Bear - maybe you could provide something then since Behe's out in your book.

Do you have a paper/theory that explains origins scientifically. In keeping with the thread, we were talking (I believe) about stuff that is taught in the classroom.

What scientific principle for the origin of the universe does not rely on faith?”

“I agree with you Bear, he is not putting forward an ID theory and from when I heard him speak he stated that (paraphrase) I personally believe in ID and this is the reason. I believe he is just showing reasonable doubt to (creation of our world) evolution. And with this reasonable doubt he has chosen to believe in ID. What claims do you have that his falsifier is wrong?”

“Philip Gibbs. Author of "Big Bang" does an excellent job of explaining the Science behind the theories.”

“Interesting you say "the theories".

There are multiple theories on the origins of the universe. To take any one of them is to take it on faith.

Same with ID Theory.

That is why both should be taught in science class.”

“Well, look forward to checking into this tomorrow, as for now, I am going home!”

“Yes, Michael Behe is a scientist, but is "Intelligent Design" science? If so, it will be the first science established without a single technical paper published for peer-review, including zero by Behe himself. For some reason he has decided to completely bypass professional review and go directly to a Darwin-doubting public. But more to the point, what is wrong with this book? Here is a summary of the critiques you will find included on this page and others:

First, let's be clear about something. Michael Behe has not created a "Theory of Intelligent Design" (ID). He offers no general laws, models, or explanations for how design happens, no testable predictions, and no possible way to falsify his hybrid evolution/ID hypothesis. He is simply claiming that design is a fact that is easily detectable in biochemical systems. The real science of ID is yet to come, and Behe just wants to wedge the door open a bit. So what does this magic Intelligent Design Detection Kit look like? Basically open the box and all it contains is a tweezer. Use it to pluck out any part of a system, and if the system stops functioning properly, it must be the product of design. Why? Because it proves that the system was "Irreducibly Complex" (IC)...

"By irreducible complexity I mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional." [Behe]

But read this argument carefully. Behe is not offering a way to detect design, he is offering a way to falsify gradual Darwinian evolution, and by elimination, conclude design. But there is one big problem- his falsifier has been falsified. The conclusion that an "irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system" is simply wrong.””

“deuce, no problem. It's easy to misinterpret each other when we post as opposed to speaking face to face.

God created man in his image, but where did God come from? I guess I shouldn't have cut out of my catechism classes.

Does everyone know the universe is expanding, but from what to where? The discussions are interesting about religion, but space is part of it also as it relates to other life forms in other universes, or so I think.”

“Or shall I say religion vs. evolution, which I am saying can be the same thing.”

“Bearmagnet - Several things.

1) You seem to be defining "science" as those things that are reviewed by peers - that is - people who are of a set mind that do not believe in a creator. There have been many papers on Intelligent Design. Are you saying that they aren't science because they have not been peer-reviewed by specific people?

2) Was Einstein performing science BEFORE he published a paper on the theory of relativity?

3) I have not offered an opinion on Behe, so disproving his ideas does not necessarily disprove my beliefs. Like I said previously, I have not read his book.”

“No, The scientific community is saying Behe has created a "new" pseudoscience. Why ID is not a science, again:

First, let's be clear about something. Michael Behe has not created a "Theory of Intelligent Design" (ID). He offers no general laws, models, or explanations for how design happens, no testable predictions, and no possible way to falsify his hybrid evolution/ID hypothesis. He is simply claiming that design is a fact that is easily detectable in biochemical systems.

There is no theory behind ID.”

“BM - You're confusing me. First you said "but there is one big problem- his falsifier has been falsified." - then you said "He offers ... no possible way to falsify his hybrid evolution/ID hypothesis."”

“I'm not saying anything. Go through the site I linked.

Behe's ID is quackery at best.”

“Sarge,

First of all, I am not a teacher... yet. But, when I am, my own opinions regarding the Great Evolution vs. Creation Debate will not be something I discuss with the young impressionable minds in my classroom. They don't need to know if I believe in Creation or God or Jesus or Buddha or if I don't. It's not relevant to their Science studies. I've never asked any of my science professors about their religious beliefs.

Second, mtn gal has an excellent point. In fact, I have had this exact discussion before:

Let's assume three things. 1) As a potential grade school teacher, I studied science (along w/ social studies, math, English, etc) for years 2) I don't believe in Creation 3) I am your child's sixth grade teacher.
Are you comfortable with me teaching him/her science? Yeah, probably.
Are you comfortable with ME teaching him/her about Creation? Probably not.
That doesn't offend me. I wouldn't be comfortable either.

If you want your child to learn about Creation in school, send him/her to a private school where the people teaching have been trained in theology. Otherwise, your children will have ample opportunity to learn about Creation from you or their church.

Remember. I'm talking about what should and shouldn't be taught. So, that is my argument and has been so all along. And, continues to be so.


Now, I will address the rest of your post however fruitless it may be. These sorts of discussion always end up the same... I'm right. No, I'm right. No, you're wrong... lol.

You say many people knew Jesus. Great. Yes, there was a guy named Jesus who wandered the earth years ago. So? How do you know he is who you think he is? Cause the ppl that met him said so? Cause he said so? Is there evidence that it's true? You seem to be putting your faith* in other men... men who have claimed to meet Jesus. And, Jesus, who claims to be the son of Christ.

Science can be proven. Scientists tell me if I pour hot water and cold water into a test tube, the cold water will sink to the bottom and the warm water will rise to the top because the warm water is less dense. I can walk into my kitchen right now and do just that, and guess what? They're right. It's science. I have faith* in these men (and women) because time after time, they have proven what they claim to be true. I can't test everything myself cause I don't have the knowledge. I rely on them to do it because that's what they know.

*I'm using faith in the same way you have been. I still think there's a semantics issue here...cause we seem to be operating under different definitions.

See my posts. When I say faith, I mean it in a religous sense. Muslim is a faith. Islam is a faith. Science is not a faith. Creation is based on a faith. Another way to say that is faith-based.

There is nothing for me to rectify.
I have already explained that I cannot explain the first law of thermodynamics. I'm still not a physicist (and I don't wanna be). Tho, I know a few.

I still maintain that the theory of Evolution is science-based and Creation is faith-based.
I still maintain that the classroom is where we teach Evolution and the church/home is where we teach Creation.
That is my bottom line.

Now, I should warn you that I prolly won't be back to this thread for a while. It's finals week. Not only do I have to prove to you that I'll be a capable teacher, I gotta prove it to my professors as well. lol”

“1. I don't want you teaching creation anymore than I want you teaching one-atom theory unless you know enough to defend it.

2. My faith in men is no different than a school teacher's faith in other men if he (the schoolteacher) doesn't know what he's talking about.

3. You put faith in men because they have shown you they have consistently proven to you their trustworthiness, just like I put my faith in the Bible and certain teachers of it because it/they has consistently proven to me their trustworthiness.

4. I agree that some scientific theories are science based. Your one-atom theory, on the other hand, is not necessarily so. It seems to have fundamental flaws.

5. By the way - I do believe in evolution. I believe in micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. There is lots of evidence to support micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution. That is why I have a problem with "scientists" teaching origins in the classroom in high-school without teaching intelligent design theory in the classroom. They cannot prove their theory with science any more or any less than a Christian can prove ID theory using science.

Good luck in the classroom. I'm sure you'll do well.
last edited: 12/13/04 5:49:08 PM”

“You have not studied evolution then, sarge. Yet your mind is closed to the subject.
last edited: 12/13/04 5:55:09 PM”

“Arrrrgh. I haven't posted on a "controversial" thread in ages. I don't know why I did this time... Anyway, this TT debating is addicting. I'm just sitting here writing a lesson for third graders about weather prediction, air masses and fronts and I can't stop thinking about this dumb thread. lol. So, needless to say, I had to check back again. I'm such a sucker. :-)

1. I don't want you teaching creation anymore than I want you teaching one-atom theory unless you know enough to defend it.

I couldn't agree more! I never claimed to know enough about it to defend it today, anyway. I don't ever want to be put in a position where I'm forced to teach something I have never studied or don't understand.

2. My faith in men is no different than a school teacher's faith in other men if he (the schoolteacher) doesn't know what he's talking about.

So, if I can't prove the the one atom theory on my own, I don't know what I'm talking about. And, if I don't know what I'm talking about, I'm relying on faith? My real problem, then, is that I don't yet have a solid grasp of physics on my own. But, when I do, I'll no longer be relying on faith. Right?
I'm getting confused.
We'll just have to agree to disagree...

3. You put faith in men because they have shown you they have consistently proven to you their trustworthiness, just like I put my faith in the Bible and certain teachers of it because it/they has consistently proven to me their trustworthiness.

Again, we'll need to agree to disagree?
I simply don't think it's the same thing. We're talking about physical evidence versus... something else.

FWIW, I was not trying to attack your religion when I said the stuff about Jesus, and who met him, etc. And, I aplogize if it came across that way. I was just trying to illustrate a point.

4. I agree that some scientific theories are science based. Your one-atom theory, on the other hand, is not necessarily so. It seems to have fundamental flaws.

One of my current professors is a physicist. I will ask him tomorrow, if there is time.
What if "my" one atom theory doesn't have flaws. (you do realize it's not "my" theory, right? lol)

5. By the way - I do believe in evolution. I believe in micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. There is lots of evidence to support micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution. That is why I have a problem with "scientists" teaching origins in the classroom in high-school without teaching intelligent design theory in the classroom. They cannot prove their theory with science any more or any less than a Christian can prove ID theory using science.

You are right when you mention high school, in terms of macro. The idea of Evolution does come up in some grade schools, but the focus is micro. My Nat'l Science Ed Standards are in the car so I'm just going off memory. The person teaching them about macro in high school will likely be a person that studied physics. And, fortunately, I'm going to be teaching grade school so it won't be me. :-)

You say "they cannot prove their theory" as if you assume, already, that there is no logical explanation for the one atom theory. You've discredited it, just like that. So, I can see that even if I were to get an explanation form my prof, you'll find a way to argue it. Forgive me if I'm jumping to conclusions here...

It's quite obvious ID will not be taught in the classroom, the courts continue to enforce that. So, you would rather Evolution not be taught, either?

Good luck in the classroom. I'm sure you'll do well.

Thank you.

So, hey, can we still be friends?
last edited: 12/13/04 7:10:57 PM”

“No.”

“piss off. lol”

“Go to hell, hater.
last edited: 12/13/04 7:14:22 PM”

“:-(”

“Why the edit? You didn't like your first post? Ya know... the one where you called me a #$%&ing $#!@* ?
lol”

“LMAO! Too wordy! I like simple insults. I hope you realize I'm keeeeeeeding, no?”

“Science and evolution should be taught in the classroom, but so should philosophy and religion. Philosophy and religion ask many of the same questions about life, but often provide different answers. My personal belief is you can make a strong case for "god" via a philosophical argument, and of course, C.S. Lewis is well known for this. It can be done without ever mentioning creationism or the Bible, but even so, I see no reason why theism/mono-theism cannot coexist.”

“EDIT: You'll have to flip between our posts for it to make sense. Sometimes I quoted you in italics - sometimes I didn't quote you, but used the reference # from your post. Sorry if it's confusing. :)

"Anyway, this TT debating is addicting."

Yes it is.

"I'm such a sucker."

No comment.

1. Then we agree on that point. Cool!

2. "So, if I can't prove the the one atom theory on my own, I don't know what I'm talking about."

Wait-up! No, I didn't say that did I?

"And, if I don't know what I'm talking about, I'm relying on faith?"

Yes, in other men's conclusions.

"My real problem, then, is that I don't yet have a solid grasp of physics on my own. But, when I do, I'll no longer be relying on faith. Right?"

No, I didn't say that either. I certainly did not say you would be relying on faith if you understood one-atom theory. What made you think I said that? You probably will be relying on faith then too. At least then I'd consider letting you teach my kids.

"I'm getting confused."

Yes you are.

We'll just have to agree to disagree...

I hate doing that, but okay, since we're still friends.

3. But you are not talking about physical evidence. You are talking about putting your faith in theories and other men's theories. Same as I am with Christianity. Unless you can go back to the beginning of time, I doubt you'll find your one-atom.

re: FWIW - It didn't occur to me that you might have been attacking my religion, but now that you mention it ... LOL

4. That would be GREAT if you'd ask your teacher-pal about the one-atom theory. Could you ask him specifically about the 1st law of however you spell it? I am totally serious. That is not meant to be an argument, but it truly makes me curious how one atom could release so much energy. The internet did not provide the answers I was looking for. Thanks!

5. That's 2 for 5. We're agreeing pretty well here.

"You say "they cannot prove their theory" as if you assume, already, that there is no logical explanation for the one atom theory. You've discredited it, just like that. So, I can see that even if I were to get an explanation form my prof, you'll find a way to argue it. Forgive me if I'm jumping to conclusions here..."

You are forgiven, my son. (just kidding) I say that because I have never seen proof for any theory on origins. Have you? I think it would be big news if you did. See the "mode of thinking" you've gotten yourself into? You seem to think there is "proof" of these things ... these things we call "theories". That is the point of this thread. If you, a future super-teacher, has trouble distinguishing between "fact" (i.e.-proof) and "theory" (i.e.-not yet proven) then what are we to expect of our children?

Hence the debate we're having!

It's quite obvious ID will not be taught in the classroom, the courts continue to enforce that. So, you would rather Evolution not be taught, either?

Don't be so certain that ID will not win sometime in the near future :)

"So, hey, can we still be friends?"

Ummm .... I'm certain we can. As certain as I am the universe began with a bang.
last edited: 12/13/04 8:23:50 PM”

“"I'm such a sucker."

No comment.

OUCH. lol

#2. We'll never agree. If I studied physics and proved on my own, using science and math and all that other crap, that the one-atom theory does not violate any laws of thermodyndamics, blah blah blah. Then, and only then, would I not be relying on faith? That's what I think you're saying. Why do I have to do it myself when others already have.

#3. Good idea. I will go back to the beginning of time. Join me?

#4. I promise to ask if we find time. Busy day as tomorrow is the last day of that class and lots to do... If not, I have his email addy... :-)

In the meantime, I did find something on that talkorigins website that said something about the first law of thermodynamics. Though I don't completely understand it yet, I'll post it. It comes from here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html

"The first law of thermodynamics is equivalent to the principle of conservation of energy: the total energy of a closed system is constant; any energy change must be compensated by a corresponding inflow or outflow from the system.

Einstein showed that mass and energy are equivalent, by E=mc2. So, if the universe started from "nothing," energy conservation would seem to have been violated by the creation of matter. Some energy from outside is apparently required.

However, our best estimate today is that the total energy of the universe is zero (within a small zero point energy that results from quantum fluctuations), with the positive energy of matter balanced by the negative potential energy of gravity. Since the total energy is zero, no energy was needed to produce the universe and the first law was not violated."

#3/#5. Specifically in reference to your comment: "theory" (i.e.-not yet proven)

Theory. From The Am Heritage Dictionary. "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

Ummm .... I'm certain we can. As certain as I am the universe began with a bang.

:-P

In the end... My opinion remains unchanged. Just as yours does.”

“BTW...
I will NOT be debating any more tonight. Tomorrow, maybe. :-) But, tonight, I must finish at least one more lesson and a reflection before I go to bed. TT is being turned off.”

“I know there is too much going on here to get into discussing saints, but anyway..... I think inorder to be one after you are dead, miracles have to be performed on people that pray to you. Now there is no thermo/micro/macro etc. theories involved there.

There are no theories that can be applied to miracles, so why does a theory have to be applied to the creation of life except that there is a supreme being and the "miracle" of life?”

“Most of you know that I am a HS/MS English/Social Studies teacher in a Michigan public school.

In the past week, the following religious events have happened...

1) The Santa Lucia singers processed down the hallway to celebrate a Scandinavian holiday brought to the school about ten years ago by a foreign exchange student.

2) A male student came into school wearing a bright pink kippa/yamulke (sp?) after the first night of Chanukah. He told everyone about how his family celebrated.

3) We were reviewing the essay list for the upcoming sophomore English midterm exam. One of the questions required students to select and support the Most Important Person of the late 1800s and early 1900s in a five paragraph essay. One student suggested Jesus Christ. We spent the next five minutes looking for evidence to support this idea. Students brought up the religious upbringing of the Wright Brothers, the religiously-inspired Social Gospel Movement and the religious aspects of the budding temperance movements. It was kind of interesting.

4) We have been studying Queen Elizabeth in my advanced twelfth grade English class. We have studied the religous conflict during the period.

5) During a holiday party with my Quiz Bowl team, Christmas music played in the background. Much good Christmas music is blatantly religious.

Every one of these things happened in the normal ebb and flow of the classroom. All of it was natural and constitutional. People who think that there is some kind of anti-religious conspiracy in the public schools should really visit one.

BTW, I think that creationism is an incredibly interesting topic simply because of its historical and sociological aspects. I think that any school that does not teach about creationism is not doing its job.”

“Lipstick!

A few years ago, I visited a priest friend of mine who happened to have a Melchite-Catholic priest staying over, too. The man had like 12 children and one of them experienced one of the "miracles" that made Edith Stein a saint.

This guy was incredibly well-connected and was big in the Catholic peace movement. And he was so forceful. My conclusion was that it was the man's connections, forceful personality, a desire to "find a miracle" and a random freakish health event that ended up making Edith Stein a saint.

Miracles=Successful Politics

At least that's the case in the Catholic Church.”

“this may be the best thread I have seen since I have been on here. Faith is one of those things that is hard to define. The best one I have heard is this: faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is the stand point of what sarge was saying about knowing Jesus and believing what is written about Him. However, it can be proved to a point that he was who he said he was by studying the prophecies of the old testament and how he met every single one of those. This does, however, require you have faith in the old testament writings then. I don't think anybody can "meet" Jesus and not have some experience that changes them. This is why it is so ingrained into Christians view points about creation. We may not know exactly how it happens, but if we believed that it was not ID, we would be going against the faith that defines us.

I do agree that the passing on of the faith needs to be first and foremost from the family and I am actually for the teaching of evolution being taught in school, but being taught for what it is, a theory (despite any "proof" that people may think it has) and not a fact, just like I don't think they can nor should use ID as a fact (if it were provable it wouldn't take faith!). Our culture has taken seperation of church and state to a point that I do not think it was ever imagined it could get to...but I guess that is for another thread. Good night!”

“My previous post should have read "no reason why theism/monotheism cannot co-exist with philosophy and religion."”