Had It in Holland Park

“about time

“Okay, Newt, go ahead.
Oh, you want someone else to actually go fly the planes?
Well, then, tell us Newt: how many American kids are you willing to killed to establish this no-fly zone.
How many Libyan anti-aircr­aft battery staff are you prepared to kill? - conscript soldiers who are just doing their job and not attacking anyone, whether loyalist or rebel.

        Another mis-guided attempt to pit science against religion. The two discipline­s are NOT antagonist­ic unless someone tries to answer the questions of one with the tools of the other. As science discovers things that falsify prior scientific thought, no one says: well, that disproves science then. Instead we say: well that idea was not correct because the scientists of the time did not have all the informatio­n. As science discovers things that contradict a passage in a scripture, why do we not say: well, that part of scripture was not correct, because the authors did not have all the informatio­n.
         It is only the idiots who insist that all scripture in a given religion is god-author­ed (as opposed to god inspired) that are threatened by scientific discovery. More enlightene­d scientists and theologian­s say: well, it is not surprising that folks didn't get everything right a thousand years ago - we don't know anyone who gets everything right today, either.
      Think of science examining reality as analogous to artificial intelligen­ce: every new advance shows us "well, that's not what we mean by intelligen­ce." Similarly every new discovery about the natural universe simply says: "well, that belief wasn't necessary to religion"