Hi Tom,

You know exactly what I meant Tom... ;-)

The creationists are not worthy of my jabs - however teachers who take it upon themselves to claim religion and science are 'compatible' are.

The road to 'hell' is paved with good intentions. Unfortunately when you claim that you need not be an atheist to believe in the big bang, you are actually compromising science. Let religions deal with that by themselves.

He is saying in so many words that science should be accepted by religionists. That seems 'rational' right?

Not really.

By reverse, then religion must be acceptable to science, and the inference is that the big bang is custom made to fit mainstream religion.

What lengths will science go to then, to 'cultivate' broad support?

For surely that is what this site is all about - trying to make loyal churchgoers equally comfortable with the big bang and a certain brand of science, while ostracizing the fundamentalist churchgoers who are the big bangs greatest opponents.

This site is really 'selling' the big bang as the Catholic & Protestant explanation of choice.

If you 'sell' these folks on the bang as conforming with religious doctrines, naturally you are going to hope that it keeps such compatibility.

Since the big bang is a purely hypothetical excercise - it is not too hard to keep it inline with mainstream religious thought.

Part of this subtle religion-pandering can be evidenced by the ridiculous claims that life forming on earth is special. That supposition is so utterly preposterous as to be insulting, considering man has not actually set foot upon any other planets!

Yet this fits the 'sell' to religionists - SURPRISE - who make up the majority of the inhabitants of this world and 70% of the scientists.

Hawkings wife is a devout believer in God. It helps her deal with his ailment. While other religionists take comfort in this - for pure science it is like seeing the village medicine man hired at the hospital.

In China, they used to tell folks worms caused cavities. Street dentists would carry dried tree worms and when the patient came for help the dentist would plant these in the patients abcess, and as saliva swelled it he would pull it out of the cavity with chopsticks - and present his 'proof' and collect his money.

Today's funded big bang cosmologists, remind me much of these old street dentists. First they tell you what their probe is supposed to find based upon their theory - something very inconclusive naturally. Then they present some easily obtained inconclusive data - and point to it claiming 'success' or 'evidence'.

While this may seem harsh.... seeing teachers blend religion and science is abominable to my way of thinking - and has created generations of religionist/scientists who do not want the TRUTH - but rather confirmation of their belief system.

While some might say science would shrink by 70% if you alienated the folks who believe in hocus-pocus, omniscient beings and pink clouds - that will give you a 'pure' science and not cluttered up with schizoid religious/scientific compromises and scientists who may just be using science to find or support their 'God'.

Yes, that seems 'irrational' at first glance - but it would be a 'godsend' for science.

Best wishes,

SDAI-Tech1