Worse comes to verse: Jeremy Reitsema's pro-Christian, anti-liberal November 14 rant was so porous, so uninformed, so full of the usual rhetorical bromides of fundamentalism, it's difficult to decide where to begin to refute it. He derides Westword's liberal leanings and its propensity to be "intolerant of religion, particularly Christianity." Being intolerant of religion is akin to being intolerant of philosophy or mathematics or history. What Reitsema really means is that Westword is intolerant of his particular brand of religion, which holds numerous myths, metaphors and symbolic references in the Bible to be literally true and all non-Christian beliefs to be evil. For that kind of intolerance, we can all be grateful.
Reitsema claims that "there is no concrete evidence to support evolution." Huh? I think that may come as a great surprise to many scientists. Look at Jerry Falwell. Look at a chimp. No family resemblance? C'mon.
Reitsema would have us believe that "churches are not supplemented by the taxpayers, while the museum and zoo are." The hell churches aren't supplemented (by which I think he means subsidized). Unless I am mistaken, churches are not subject to property tax in Denver, and they are also immune from many zoning laws that apply to businesses and residences.
I accept the possibility that a superior force/being is in charge of things. I reject the thinking of boobs like Reitsema who are convinced that among thousands of denominations on the face of the earth, which profess thousands of different answers as to the why and how of our existence, theirs is somehow the correct one.
The final chapter: I would like to point out to David Holthouse that while truth may be altered by political correctness, facts remain constant. Both Christianity and science are institutions of fallible humans. The former claims inspiration from an infallible deity. The latter claims to identify and correct the consequences of its assumed fallibility. Everybody decides for themselves which method they prefer.
I would like to point out to Fred Williams that while there may indeed be many "advanced-degreed scientists who are brave enough to admit the speciousness of the secular darling cow of evolutionary theory," he would be hard-pressed to find anyone willing and able to provide a cogent scientific argument for a literal interpretation of Genesis. I would like to point out to Kurt Cowling that he is the one who "misses the point," that "mutations" and "variations within a species" are two entirely different processes, and the combined and accumulated effects of both over time have, in fact, created new species.
I would like to point out to Jeremy Reitsema that nobody correctly claims "we came from monkeys," but that modern humans share a common ancestor with modern apes, and his inability to understand this distinction distorts and twists all that he says on this subject.
Finally, I would like to point out to Tyson Thorne that the statements "God made the universe" and "The universe started from a Big Bang" are not mutually exclusive. While the former is an expression of faith and the latter is an expression of science, both can be true and are not inherently in conflict with each other, and any perceived conflicts are in fact a consequence of an incomplete understanding of both faith and science.