Sir,

1. I stand by my statement and believe you have a deep-seated bias and/or agenda..

2. It would appear from your comments regarding my statements from the time of Galileo you are intentionally choosing to misunderstand my comment from Cardinal Baronio. To state this well-documented comment is "offensive" merely demonstrates my point. I did not "create" this statement, I am merely reporting the documented facts. Also, I fully recognize Galileo, Sir Isaac Newton, Copernicus, and any number of other scientists were to their core religious individuals. In fact, some were quite frustrated the evidence they uncovered overturned their religious understanding at that time. I also recognize that Galileo's opponents would - in some cases - refuse even to look through the optical telescope Galileo had improved. The position of the scholastics at the time (in this case, the scholastics represented the Christian church) stated the surface of the moon was perfectly smooth and the optical instrument "obviously" was flawed in that it showed hills, valleys, and shadows. The scholastics view was based on their interpretation of scripture, not based on scientific observation and evidence.

3. I fully agree and have never denied that for a very long time, both science and religion worked in a very cooperative fashion and still do in a number of areas (and continue to in a number of areas, most notably medicine) - but of course, this was before the time of sloganeering, shouting, and P.R. machines. (an excellent example of the intermingling of science and religion can be seen in reviewing the work -both religious and medical - of Dr. Albert Schweitzer. I apologize for only using Christian references, but that is the background from whence I came, I have only the most rudimentary understanding of Judaism, though I fully understand the philosophic, scientific, engineering, and technical contributions of the Jewish people to the world has far exceeded their population numbers on a proportionate basis and generally the Jewish community's dedication to education, community and work ethic displayed are to be admired.)

4. You attempt to twist comments - science is about theory. Your questioning what scientific "truth" convinced me of my perspective belies either an apparent lack of scientific understanding or a biased perspective. True scientists of all stripes - religious, non-religious, political, apolitical - essentially develop models to explain observation. These models typically change over time as more information is uncovered and tested in both a predictive and backward-looking basis.  I suppose some people would refer to the most polished models as scientific "truth", though they in fact simply demonstrate the predictive power of the underlying model.  Based on documented, demonstrable theories I have formed my perspectives. Bullying and demonization are NOT part of the scientific method, they are the tactics of P.R., advertising, bias, and prejudice.

5. I can accept that life may have been initiated by a creator - in fact, I can accept that the initial phrase "let there be light" may be a poetic description of the event typically described by scientists as the "big bang". I doubt if a creator had explained the methodology to Moses he would have had the underpinnings to grasp the concept. So "let there be light" would have been more appropriate at that time (whenever that time was, 5,000+ years ago). But let's be clear, that is an opinion, not science. Now, can you also admit and accept the possibility that life may have occurred via natural and unguided events? (BTW, Darwin wasn't the first to posit the concept that ultimately received his name. Additionally he went to college to become an Anglican minister, but instead developed a deep interest in the collection of beetles and was tutored under the instruction of the Reverend John Stevens Henslow, professor of botany, once again indicating the peaceful co-existence of religion and science.)

6.  Finally, it never ceases to amaze me that people like yourself - obvious from your responses - educated and articulate, appear to be so closed minded about science, as if there was an agenda that was tantamount to the basic science. Of course, that would indicate bias.