All people that on earth do dwell,
sing to the Lord with cheerful voice;
Him serve with mirth, His praise forth tell;
come ye before Him and rejoice.

Know that the Lord is God indeed;
without our aid He did us make;
we are His flock, He doth us feed,
and for His sheep He doth us take.

O enter then His gates with praise,
approach with joy His courts unto;
praise, laud, and bless His name always,
for it is seemly so to do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us2O62TTqYA

The author has no idea what religion is.
Yes, humans may invent religious techniques, but religion itself is a primordial property of time itself: wherever time seems to be real, all flows from God and all eventually returns to God: religion is always there, conscious or otherwise.

Religious techniques help us to avoid the worldly traps.
Science on the other hand, can only reveal more details about the objective and transient material world where no values can be found, burying its believers deeper in materialism - what a waste of time!

Many people (of a surprisingly diverse sets of beliefs and conclusions) have already voiced this article to be of no merit. I agree with that sentiment. However several elements within the article I see pop up again and again within popular argument against religous perspectives (as well as now political perspectives being defeated by the magority of voters).

Perhaps we should take a hard critical look at these ideas so that as a whole we don't fall into their perspectives when trying to explain away people we don't agree with as being "too dumb, or to primitive" to agree with us, and then look for anything close to proof to support it.

That is essentially what this article is. The fight against SSM, abortion, and assisted suicide; is all explained in a manner to say why we are too prehistoric to accept the "right and smart" facts of the world. If you are observant you've probabley seen this kind of argument come to light conviently to drop a person's opponents down a few notches, by explain the rational reasons they are too dumb to get it. I've see simular arguments around politics a few times. Around religion constantly. And more often then it ever should be, also around our ancestors. (Sometimes even applied to people just a few generations ago.)

Three points of critism for this article.

1). There is no evidance I've come across to suggest we are smarter and more evolved then mankind has been in any era in the past. Our tools have changed, our technology has changed. And some elements of ancient civilizations impress us so much because we don't understand how they accomplished those feats. With or without modern technology. Besides weren't they all support to be dumber then we the modern man is? There is no evidance that we are any smarter or dumber then our ancestors were. Mankind has remained mostly the same throughout known history. With the exception of farming techniques, or wide spread manufactured technology. Mankind is the same as it was on the earliest written records in history. Wisdom from long age still applies today and holds up merrit as wisdom from great thinkers of the distant past.

2). It is never a good idea to count one element of the brain as useless and in the way. We are still learning a lot about the brain and how it works, and much of our understanding of the brain comes from head injuries where we've observed changes. Showing geography on the brain where key elements lie and why they are important (even if we don't understand how they work).

3). The reality of the world does not fit in nice neat little scientific understandings. We've made progress but if you open your eyes, you'll see more than then enough unexplained phenomena that science hasn't figured out. Religous insight might be more then the given credit as ancient and obsolete ideas of people long long ago. It's expecially bad to generalize all religion together when trying to refute specific religions.

As a general rule, generalizing vastly different ideas as the same thing is a bad idea.

I want to put the global warming backers back in their box and completely stop them in their tracks in the hope that these clowns will get on with some other misleading agenda.
My point is as follows:
If we have caused this, so called, 'global warming', no wait it's not called that anymore because the idiots were proven wrong, then why are there well preserved human and animal examples being exposed as the ice and snow melts. These examples are quoted as being 'thousands of years old'. Is the penny dropping yet? That's right these animals and people were once alive 'thousands of years ago' when they were on the surface, which is where they died. Now if that was ground zero thousands of years ago, what we have witnessed over the past few hundred years is an accumulation of ice and snow falling on them over time and burying them. We are going through a cyclical phase which is normal and has been so for millions of years.
So you global warming/climate change freaks, shut up. I have been badgered from here to eternity and back again by you guys, for proof. Well Nya Nya, there's your proof. Now you guys get off your ignorant asses and do some fact checking yourselves. It's easy, just go back and look at the recent news and TV articles.

ALTRAV - I read your post, then substituted 'global warming' references with the word religion. Made sense.

As for global warming, whether it's real or not, it is a wise thing for we humans to explore other forms of energy.

' Science doesn't give a damn for your perversity and closed mind. It ignores you and that pisses you off, doesn't it?'

No Pogi its the truth and you having to shut your eyes to the obvious that obviously ps you off. Your pseudo fake science is a joke.