[Jaguarbhzrd]

I see, so the Big Bang theory must be bad as well, and any hypothesis of abiogenesis must be a bad hypothesis as well?

Perhaps Geology is a bad science because it shows a 4 1/2 billion year old earth?

How about Chemistry? Aeronautical engineering? archeaology? perhaps physics is against God as well?

If science looked at it's theories, and decided what it could and could not study, based upon the religious sensibilities of believers who are weak in their faith, then we would still be living in the dark ages.

No thanks.

[BlackElk]

I personally do not subscribe to the Anglican Bishop Ushher's notion that the earth was created in 4,000 BC on Tuesday afternoon at 2 PM on a day in March or whatever. First, I am not an ape. Second, I am a Roman Catholic. Third, you have a remarkable nerve calling weak the faith of Catholics and other Christians who KNOW that they are not beasts whatever Darwin may have imagined. That silly proposition is like suggesting that I cannot be a strong Yankee fan because I refuse to root for the Red Sox. Or that I cannot be a strong Catholic unless I worship Dilbert or Darwin or whatever the silly fool's name was.

Do you guys think that physics, aeronautical engineering, archaeology and chemistry are based on Darwin's delusion also. I had thought that physics, chemistry and archaeology certainly predated the voyage of the Beagle (all genuflect before Darwin almighty!!!!) and that DaVinci probably did some serious speculating on aeronautical enginering long before Darwin was a gleam in the elder Darwin's eye.

If you want an argument where you may receive respect, try someone who thinks that the "enlightenment" was a good thng. I don't. BTW, the "dark ages" were actually the Age of Faith. And, what think thee of "Chaos Theory" as a refutation of the silly notion that man is the master of the universe???