:::::::::I am not arguing against religion; personal faith has had, in many instances, a demonstrably positive effect on society. Where would we be without the Catholic Church's support of the Renaissance? What would be the state of modern physics without the contributions of religious scientists such as Newton? Indeed, I support the study of religion for the positive impacts it has had. One cannot properly enjoy English literature (perhaps ALL literature) without being intimately familiar with the Bible. What I do not support, however, is the blatant distortion of scientific fact. Whether we profess to be "atheist" or "creationist", all of us share a common goal: the revelation of the truth. I contend that science is the path to that truth. It is the gateway to that enlightenment. It is the road to that common understanding. If science leads us to embrace a Divine Creator, then so be it. However, if science leads us to doubt the existence of the Creator, then I must whole-heartedly accept that as well. No matter what our personal beliefs may be, we all share a common devotion to educating the next generation. I feel that censoring what is considered to be a large body of scientific evidence disingenuous to that goal. With all due respect, [[User:Professor|Professor]] 14:37, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::Sorry, atheism is on the decline in the world because of its irrelevance. Please see: [[Atheism]] and [[Evolution]]. Liberalism is under duress too via austerity budgets. Unlike evolutionists/atheists/liberals, I try to have relevant material. Not voodoo "science". [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:43, 28 June 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::Again, I am not concerned with atheism, liberalism, conservatism, or any other "-ism". My only issue is the truth. I understand that you disagree with the facts (or perhaps my presentation), but how you can relegate a century's-worth of work to "voodoo" science is beyond me. What exactly makes this "voodoo" science? Is it my not providing you with original data? I think not, as I doubt you can present the ORIGINAL ten commandments. Not the "voodoo", copied version found in a book that was printed in the 50s. The REAL tablets. Is it that the theory cannot be adequately tested? Again, doubtful; there is no conceivable way (in my narrow-minded, scientific view) of testing God's existence. What, then, can it be? What makes certain evidence "true science", while other facts are labeled "voodoo, pseudoscience"? I can think of only one explanation: "voodoo" science is any piece of evidence not in accordance with your world view. Humbly waiting your reply, [[User:Professor|Professor]] 15:19, 28 June 2011 (EDT).