Philo(14feb):
Just which parts of evolution,particularly our understanding of biological evolution, do you not find convincing? Just interested.

I would suggest that the sort of deity that "just lights the fuse" is exactly the sort that is remotely possible and very significantly, does not require worship, or answer "prayers". One worth it's salt (!) would not *want* such trivialities. As the instructions say "light fuse and *stand back*"

Foxy(11feb):
Religion may be subjective. Science strives for objectivity. If objective science impinges on religious ground, it is simply time for religion to step (further) back.

Rusty

Rusty Catheter,
As I've stated earlier - the level of the human spirit and in asthetic and conceptual creative thought, self consciousness and moral conscience. This places man with more responsibility than any other creature. However in these areas man has failed in his social responsibility when not given or even given guidelines and made accountable.

So, philo,

How do these exceed the likely capacity (and neural shortcuts) of neural systems based on known biological systems known to have been evolved biologically?

Just wondering....

Philo <"I have a theory that: However there seem to have been catastrophic natural events about 6,000 years ago (maybe a nearby meteorite implosion) that indicates that there has been a establishment of human society in the Middle East. Hense the record of Adam and Eve the survivors of the radiation impact and their location on the Tigrus and Uphrates River system."

An interesting theory there Philo.
How then do you explain the human remains dug up with plant matter and animal skeletons that existed much, much earlier than 6000 years ago?

If you don't believe in what many scientists can prove by carbon dating and many other proven ways of determining the age of ancient human, animal and plant life, then you are just in denial.

People living in the world when the bible was written still believed the Earth was flat.
I take it then that you expect to fall off the edge of the earth eventually?
If not, why not- if the bible told you so?

Rusty,
I agree almost entirely that evolution is tantamount to a "fact", as we define things. Evolution remains a theory, however, and facts remain subject to parallax. Also, my "respect" for the fundamentalists, and "their stupendous credulity", was plainly rhetorical.
The real problem with evolution from the human perspective is self-consciousness; but more than that, with the fact that each one of us is conflicted with values and "higher" thoughts. We have aesthetic registers from the tawdry right up to Kant's idea of the sublime. And we are capable of love, empathy, compassion--abstract agape as well as self-love or love of our own. Equally we're capable of hate and visciousness and cruelty as well as guilt, depression and thanatos. And why do we aspire beyond our Earthly lot? Beyond the clay we're made of that we "can't" escape--the rationalists (extropians for instance--they're deluded btw) too? We are earthbound in any biological sense, and in the context of our remoteness in the vast reaches of space, and yet we dream of transcending it, analytically as well religiously. Why?
Some stick doggedly to the question, "hmmm, what evolutionary purpose do these feelings serve ?", or "how and why did culture instil these sensibilities".
Others stick Goddedly(?) to their faith in something beyond blind and senseless phenomena--the product of a big bang, which invented beauty and love and music and all the physical wonders too---all some stupid, random, pointless accident?
There is something decidedly vulgar about the purely rational view of things; ditto with the religious fundamentalist view.

Mitchell,
Can I tentatively join your club? I couldn't agree more.

the problem with philosophies that try to explain or organize the human condition is that they tend to do so in generalities.Generalities depend on averages and conditions or circumstance. Which is of themselves limited and therefore incomplete and therefore flawed.

Philosophies of this type tend ,unlike hard science don't acknowledge their limitations and to compensate man's nature for understanding/order or indeed control we tend dogmatise. Ultimately this tends to create one size fits nobody properly. Consequently we end up with versions and conflict. Often the most violent,vicious and contradictory actions are internecine as well as inter philosophic.
In short, We as a species have evolved extraordinary skills, abilities and capacities but internally (human nature) hasn't yet left the trees.