One of the most beautiful things about science is that it doesn't need belief to work. People can concoct whatever myths they need to explain the world in human terms, but regardless of whatever fantasies they construct, science keeps humming along underneath. All religions fade and die over time. Some, like Christianity and Islam, are perverted from their true origins long before they fade, and so die two deaths. And just as surely others will rise to take their place. But science is eternal.

It may sound depressing that only 40% of Americans understand enough science to grasp the truth. But consider that at the time of the Enlightenment, less than 1% of Europe's population could comprehend the logic, mathematics and science that made the Age of Reason possible. There will always be a segment of the population who is too ignorant, incurious, or incapable to see the truth in science. They are the ones who need operatic mythology to make sense of the world, and it is unlikely we will every truly be rid of them.

It's lucky for them that they live in a world where science is indifferent to belief. That way they can continue to enjoy the benefits of medical and technological innovation that is derived from an understanding of evolution and cosmology and other non-biblical sources of data. And just like an anti-choice father who discovers his daughter is inconveniently pregnant, they are more than ready to renounce their precious belief if it means science will fix something for them, only to resume their delusion once stability is restored.

You have hit upon the very crux of the issue. Atheists, agnostics, and NOTAs (like myself) did not create these problems for Christians - other Christians did.

Are we responsible for Christianity fragmenting into two major divisions and hundreds of sects? No, Christians are. Are we responsible for the fanaticism and dogmatism that infects so many Christians orders? No, Christians are. Are we responsible for some Christians' inability to reconcile their faith with an ever-changing world? No, once again, Christians are.

My Christians friends, we didn't create your ignorance, your distrust, your anti-intellectualism. You did. Or at the least you sat quiet and let it happen. And if we weren't here, if tomorrow you woke up and the whole world was Christian, you'd immediately start battles over which flavour of Christianity was right. And you'd never stop, because religion is tribalism, us-versus-them, and there's always someone else who is not quite as pious as yourself.

@Richard Ray

I understand the distinction you are trying to make re:science and mathematics. However, ever since the days of Kurt Godel and his incompleteness theorem, we can't even be of math entirely.

I concur with had_enough in this instance, that there is a certain threshold at which scientific (and mathematical) knowledge becomes useful, regardless of its infallibility. The effects of gravity are measurable, whether or not we know what causes it. Penicillin kills diseases, whether or not we map its genome. And so forth. This is what gives people grounded in science the (to me, justified) arrogance in speaking of these matters as trumping "theorems" of faith.

Sorry if this sounded combative or condescending, it was not my intent. Like you, I'm more at home with Gould than with Dawkins. I'm just more reticent to give ground in the debate with the faith-based crowd, because allowing their whole-cloth fantasy to stand on equal footing with laboriously produced scientific theories is a non-starter. I'd rather place my "faith" in a system of observation which contains a degree of errancy, than in a system that promises inerrancy at the cost of reality.

@RealName

If the discussion is over your head, feel free to withdraw from it. But don't take it on yourself to try to codify it into some dumbed-down nugget for others. Many people here are actually able of thinking at an adult level for sustained periods of time without wanting to go hit a rock with a stick.

Armagetting ready for the Rapture!

Revelating when the nukes do fall!

It israelly a Holey Land,

With room to bury us all!

REFRAIN

Oh, Dubya fought the battle of Jericho,

Jericho, Jericho!

The DLC, Democratic in name only, have their chosen disciple Clinton perfectly positioned once again. Like her husband, she commands a spotlight, carefully triangulates, and says all the right things. She wishes to be all things to all people. Unlike her husband, she is unelectable. Her connection to the DLC ensures that she is probably the next Democratic candidate for president, barring some vast public gaffe, and there's sod-all most of us can do about it.

As for why Kucinich is not considered viable, it's precisely because he is such a vocal and effective liberal. The Dems don't want to run a real liberal, they want to run a centrist who will promise everyone a slice of the pie. They're too cowed and comfort-loving these days to offer up someone who will overhaul the system, and prefer to pitch a candidate who is barely discernable from the opposition's.

Remember, the two major political parties are like brontosauri - it takes a long time for a bite on the ass to reach the brain, and even longer for them to turn around.