User talk:SouthWriter/sandbox/An atheist's objections/@comment-1777104-20100809141615

Oerwinde, I agree, science class is for science - and "origins" is not science, but just conjecture. Science is a study of what is known, and should be restricted to teaching what is known through direct and indirect means. However, "theology" is a worthy "science" in that it is the study of God as He has revealed Himself. It is a truly GOOD thing to know God.

Des, Shaw was a humanist of the highest intellect who wrote profusely. This makes him very easy to quote. Many of his quotes, out of context, are surely used by many who do not espouse his socialism (and outright communism). His quote about "no man believes" is quite subjective, stating a "fact" that he could in no way back up. That is a projection of HIS unbelief upon all of mankind.

Zack, it is sad that a pastor would so direct your thinking - if indeed you understood what he was saying. It is of course true that the Bible "better" explains who God is, and that without the Bible we would have no way of knowing God's "teachings." But to assume upon oneself to judge the reliability of the historicity of the Bible is arrogant beyond belief. To recommend a book about an obscure discredited castle in France as shedding light on the "true" nature of Christianity is ludicrous. This is tantamount to canonizing Dan Brown as an apostle. I hope that Brocklehurst at least separates facts from theory.