They will go to fight somewhere else. All attention will go there, and the US media will say hardly another word about Iraq. A new threat awaits in Afghanistan; one that no one could have predicted.

My count indicates that he has enough dem. allies to modify the other bill and still get what the repubs. (and apparently he) want. He would attract far less attention doing it that way. Or is this an intentional act of political terror?

Well said. That is exactly what is happening in some parts of the world, and exactly what should happen.

This interview is just another example of religion backing away from explanations it got wrong by making complicated stupid arguments based on nothing.

"Virtually all neuroscientists say consciousness is a direct product of the brain. As far as we know, the human brain evolved within the last few million years. This suggests that there was no consciousness before this time."

Ignorant question. You think only humans are conscious? Most intelligent of the animals, yes, but so what? There is nothing inherently different about animals.

By the way, atheists are angry because religion is so powerful in the US now and is exerting a very negative impact on both the US and the rest of the world. And you do not need to be an atheist to understand this.

"If teaching creationism in schools is offensive to you, then don't teach that OR evolution. If you teach one, teach the other...and everything is fair.

To this day, I do NOT see what the problem is here. Each is a theory to the other so either teach them both as theories or don't teach either of them."

The two are not equivalent. One is supported by an overwhelming set of facts. The other is one member of an infinite set of possible beliefs with no factual support. Understanding the difference is fundamental.

That was a very good summary of what happened, and thus an excellent article to point to when discussing this matter with those who are just becoming aware of it.

"And finally, science too is a faith in that it operates under the assumption that the cosmos is orderly, and that its order can be perceived and even understood."

It would be more accurate to say that science has found that there is (at least some) order in the cosmos and many things are understandable in the sense that they can be successfully modeled with logic and mathematics. It does not say that everything is ordered and understandable. Science has expanded outside of intuitive concepts many times, and will continue to do so.

"Touchy Touchy Touchy!

Three hundred letters in half an hour about how brilliant and righteous and brave the Athiests are?

The heathen doth protest too much?"

If you really think that is what the letters are about, you should go back and read them again.

Decades ago I thought that religion in the US would turn into a quiet internal metaphor that balances and enhances reason. And I am sure it has for some. But the religion that matters now is an aggressive externalization of primitive beliefs. It will not go quietly into the night, but it will die.

"On one point, John Haught is entirely correct: The "new Atheism" and its principle algorithm, the Scientific Method, is a philosophy, and requires the assumption that the world can be understood through observation. "

That is not correct. Science shows that many aspects of the world are understood through observation and subsequent analysis using logic and mathematics. It does not say anything about other things. It is not clear what the limits are.

You seem to be arguing that the lack of understanding of science elevates the status of religious propositions. Well, the fact that most people cannot play the violin very well does not limit the abilities of those who can. You can verify observations and deductions in science. Most people do not bother, so what? Pretty good verification comes from the fact that an ipod works even if you do not believe in science.

I think it is a good one. For me, the realization that the gods of any religion have zero probability of existence makes one an atheist rather than an agnostic. But that leaves open a lot of options on spirituality in general.

I think you are taking things a bit far. It is literally impossible for most people to verify much about science, and certainly impossible for any one person to verify it all. It is correct to say that science asks for some faith on the part of the lay person. The point is that verification has taken place with science, and that it cannot with religion.

I think it is also correct to say that proof, in the sense of hypotheses plus logic leading to conclusions, is a part of science as well as math. It is not useful to hammer on technical definitions here.

I think it would be better just to say that there have been no verified sightings and leave it at that. Gould is is using facts in the sense of a coherent structure that describes the operation of the universe. You are not.

If you studied the physics of slowly moving bodies, you might "conclude", probably subconsciously, that space and time are independent. One smart guy realized that the laws of electricity and magnetism imply something else. Scientific conclusions are based on fitting together apparently independent or even contradictory "facts" through the use of logic and mathematics. A unicorn does not fit in with anything else except in fairy tales.

I think you misread what I am saying. I am a scientist, and I agree with you, but as always, the interesting things are on the edge.