You have a solid point, and we shouldn't presumptuously accuse all Christians of advocating such things.

Thanks for your post.

Zetetic,

"I myself do not consider myself a christian, I am a humanist and a rational positivist. The very structure of this attack is ludicrous and simplistic to the point that I could almost consider it moronic.[/quote]

What then, is attacking science today, a wisp of smoke perhaps, this same wisp of ether tries to usurp the public education system with some MORONIC rerun of creationism, this same wisp of non-accountable smoke put a president in the whitehouse. Know you only make an enemy more intense by denying any responsibilly while you trash him. I care less than nothing for Zeus!!

Ludicrous-----simplistic-------moronic, your building up to be rude I can tell!!

What then, is attacking science today, a wisp of smoke perhaps, this same wisp of ether tries to usurp the public education system with some MORONIC rerun of creationism, this same wisp of non-accountable smoke put a president in the whitehouse. Know you only make an enemy more intense by denying any responsibilly while you trash him. I care less than nothing for Zeus!!

Ludicrous-----simplistic-------moronic, your building up to be rude I can tell!![/quote]

Presumption 1: That the wisp of smoke is a homogenous one and that all of its constituents act towards the same ends and of the same reason

Presumption 2:That said wisp only chose said political figure to acheive a single end and that it is tied into attacking science
subpresumption: This is a majority or near majority of peoples who must be held accountable
-Inquiry:By who?
If this said wisp is a homogenous majority, it is not subject to accountability, it defines accountability. The negatives of majority rule are well understood and poorly controlled.

You assume that you are correct, they assume that they are correct, you claim you know better, so do they, you both forget that you are part of the same balancing act that has continued for thousands of years between the minority of change and majority of stagnace whihc has ocme to define progress. In attacking the majority for stagnance you condemn man of his nature in his laziness you are attcking your own generalised nonspecific argument with little attempt at a solution.

As for your assessment of my assessment, these are fairly sweeping generalisations and I think that they merit the title of simplicty. Perhapse you are right, moronic is a false assesment in light of the constituent parts of the argument, I think that perhapse I was rude in the slaphazard lazyness of my assesment, I think the term devistatingly lazy is much more accurate.

Zetetic,

Christians are the majority in the United States, and when they call for Christians to unite and vote in blocks, are they still as hard for you to find, can't find the trees for the forest. Just what is it you think the intellectual community is reacting to, they have been accused of attacking Christianity, somehow they found it, however Christianity attacked first in its assault on science and reason in general. You are a sharp and rude chap, which means, your a sharp and rude chap. If you are going to call yourself something, best check it out for what it is up to, to insist you are something, to support it, then deny responsibility, is apparently, simply Christian,

"to insist you are something, to support it, then deny responsibility, is simply Christian."-Boagie

It is simply human. I know many intellectual chrisitans who are very supportive of the scences. I have met several christians who fear the sciences out of ignorance. I have met non christians who still have superstitious belief about the sciences and the dangers inherent in them. It is human to fear what we do not understand, and most people do not understand the sciences, this is a very terrible problem, one that I am directly affected by as a future scientist.
The christians percieved science as an attack because they did not understand it and had not had to look at the bible in an accomodating way but rather only listened to their parents or pastors who have of course led them astray unwittingly. Belief is not rational, and most people are slaves to belief.

As far as rudeness is concerned, I find that it is the quickest way to get a reply and most can handle it, if it is false they will show me why, if it is true then there they sit bare-assed.

Zetetic,

How is one to deal with the actions of an institution then, that is no real entity? Such a non-entity would be invincible and able to do whatever it liked, quite the beast!

You assume it is a problem to be solved by simple measures, and that it is even solvable or proper to solve it. The opposing side cannot stop science, they depend on it too much and science always finds a way. It is not as though science is being qushed or stamped out,only slowed down, which is actually good in some ways. The people must get used to unkown waters and it takes quite a while for it to happen. I think you might look to solving the problem of impatience, it is the quickest way that you might satisfy yourself. That being said, the best way is through persistent education and attack through individual issues. Find a chink in the armour of the beast and you can topple it with small effective attacks.

There is no denial of responsibility. Fundamentalist Christians are trying their best to replace science with their religious views.

The mistake you continue to make is blaming all Christians for the actions of some Christians.

There is no trouble picking out particular institutions, and even particular individuals, as being responsible.

The mistake is assuming that all Christians are part of some unified group. This is simply not the case.

While some try to deface science, others in this group (Christians) work daily as scientists. We obviously cannot blame all Christians for the assults on science when some of those Christians are the one's working in scientific fields.

Are you forgetting that this isn't the only institution that has no real entity? Many entities appear invincible, however, since they don't have much power or influence we don't care as much.

I see where you're coming from but the problem seems a lot harder to fix than it appears. We can't blame all Christians, and even knowing which Christians to blame seems a bit hazy. Instead of attacking the problem in this manner, why not try something else.

Take the Broken Window theory, for example. It suggests that to fix a larger problem, say the downfall of a neighborhood into poverty and crime, one must focus on the little things first, such as the broken windows. The more people that see the little effort that is made, the better the reputation of said area - with time, the small things will actually wind up fixing the larger problem. So, what are the little things that may fix this problem? Well, for starters, we could stop this senseless bickering and acknowledge a common denominator (hopefully being to better humanity). Secondly, we could plant seeds, that is, give knowledge to Christians and everyone for that matter regarding the problem. Don't force this knowledge, but just present. Every fundamental Christian that chooses to consider is a fixed window. But it doesn't stop there. Ya see, every person that regards a Christian as necessarily the sole cause of this problem, is only contributing to the problem. So, the enlightenment of said people is also another broken window that must be fixed.

If our goal is really to benefit humanity, we can't just keep pointing fingers. This discrimination, anger, saving of face, is just not helping. Furthermore, we need to come to some common conclusions and attack this problem from a different angle that places all humans, regardless of their beliefs, on the same plane.

Didymos Thomas,

So who or what is one to address, I do not wish to blame any individuals, however if a deed is done in the name of Christianity, how is it wrong to address that entity as Christianity, when it is calling itself Christianity? What's the alternative boys? First broken window to be fixed.