Summations Only

While I am agreeing with you in general, this could turn into a nice off-topic thread elsewhere in EvC. What are those Christianities that even make the best effort at standing up to the reality? Hmmm.......food for thought. Not my cup of tea, per se, but maybe something for others here.continuing: where would you place yourself on the dreaded Dawkins Scale now? (See my sig) Welcome back!

Cue scene of an obnoxiously snarky kid endlessly asking "Why?"... Why? ...endlessly....... No, it wouldn't make a similar level of sense! However, TO ME, the phrase that makes the far less sense is the Why one, not the How one. In fact, in my opinion - How blows the Why form out of the water. The "How are plants green?" choice in english to pursue this inquiry in science is VASTLY SUPERIOR than "Why are plants green." It immediately directs the investigators to the right things to describe & explain & support with objective scientific evidence. No one pursuing the How question would ever suggest it would be answered with the likes of "because God wanted them to be green."I might modestly suggest that the word "why" be shunned from scientific literature in a similar manner to the way the word "faith" would be. It wont happen, but to continue to leave it in leaves lots of room for misunderstanding. Exhibit A: our friend Dawn Bertot.This may be a major contribution to the difficulty of people brought up in some kind of religion to understand evolution and TOE.

Bluegenes asks Zen Deist: Let's advance away from the stupid word "why". The scientific community wishes to minimize ambiguity when it can, no? The word "why" should be shunned.Experiment: Is the word "why" ambiguous when seen around the world?Hypothesis from the UK and the USA in places: Not at all.Evidence: It is ambiguous to some.Measure again: Lots.