We do in fact already have in Australia quite a few gods which cater to particular groups, their respective religions being footbrawl, thugby (one or both practiced by the sheeple), avarice (as practiced by banksters, public company CEOs, lawyers etc) & multinationalism / commercialism / economic growth-ism / big-Australia-ism (as practiced by bloodsucking parasites among others). In addition we have child worship as practiced by at least 90% of Australians. Quite obviously rug-rats & yard-apes must be some kind of deity as they can do no wrong & everything they say is automatically & universally regarded as true. I suggest therefore that any further gods are superfluous as society already has far more than sufficient to meet the needs of its members.

Dear praxidice,

.

You wrote:

"As I've said previously, Darwinian evolution & intelligent design are not in fact incompatible even if extremists of either persuasion believe so".

.

If you consider they are not incompatible, then they must be compatible.

According to my Oxford dictionary, compatible means "mutually tolerant, capable of existing or living together in harmony ".

It derives from Medieval Latin compatibilis, from Late Latin compati to be in sympathy with; see compassion".

In my view - and I doubt that I qualify as an "extremist" - I do not consider that Darwinian evolution & intelligent design are compatible. I see them as being contradictory.

For them to be compatible, the same person should be able to accept them, simultaneously, as being true - just as one could accept magnetism and gravity simultaneously as being true.

Holding conflicting beliefs simultaneously is what George Orwell termed "doublethink" in his dystopian novel 1984. Psychologists call it "cognitive dissonance".

A more appropriate term would seem to be "coexist", which means "to exist separately or independently but peaceably, often while remaining rivals or adversaries".

In nature, I understand (though I am no expert) that chemical substances such as metals of the alkali group, are highly reactive, some with water, others with acids. They coexist (separately) on earth despite the fact that they are incompatible (capable of existing together in harmony).

Hopefully, the coexistence of Darwinian evolution & intelligent design will be short-lived and science will prevail.

It is in the best interests of our children and humanity.

.

Dear Banjo,

You referred to Orwell's dystopian novel. The novel described a dystopia, but the novel itself was not dystopian.

Dear Banjo Paterson, Regardless of any infantile fooling around with semantics, there are no reasons whatever why Darwinian evolution & intelligent design should be regarded incompatible. Any perceived difficulties are purely in the mind of those incapable of coming to grips with one or the other. Whilst you clearly don't acknowledge the existence of a higher intelligence, a substantial number of highly regarded scientists do, and none of that group perceives a problem with the combination of intelligent design & Darwinian evolution. I've previously provided relevant details of one particular scientist & publication that covers the subject. I don't for a second expect anything I say to change a completely closed mind, so lets just agree to disagree.

Praxidice – I didn’t pick you for a botherer.

You have rightly pointed out that politics as we know it is not desirable and change is required.

Religion in all its forms is in my opinion the ignorant attempting to explain rather than accept their ignorance and a tool used by the unscrupulous to control and influence the ignorant.

There nothing there, nobody has a photo, a recording, a movie, there’s nothing, zip, zilch.

Praxidice – Organised religion is just another group of, in your words “bloodsucking parasites”.

If we as individuals had the ability to accept we will for all time never possess all knowledge, religion would not exist.

What a better place this planet would be!

A little song about war, power and religion, play it loud.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZO7ZWfvCjBE

.

Dear david f,

.

"You referred to Orwell's dystopian novel. The novel described a dystopia, but the novel itself was not dystopian".

.

Well noted, david. I just wanted to keep you on your toes.

.