 |
MSNBC INTERACTIVE
Interactive timeline of Earth's Geological history and Biological diversification.
|
There is a revival of religious fundamentalism sweeping America (and to a lesser extent Canada, as we are its closest neighbors in terms of vicinity and cultural outlook). The catalyst of course for this wave of change were the events of 9/11. Events which sowed the seeds of hate and vengence in the hearts of many on both sides of the ideological divide. Hatred and vengence which have since escalated and blossomed into maturity by the rhetoric and teachings of the current Monkey In Charge (and his Christian fundie supporters) in his "war against terror'". The fundamentalist low-lifes (and I'm referring to all of the Judeo-Islamo-Christian fundamentalists out there), who have no respect for humanity or human life are now emboldened to use this current resurgence in people's religious faith to usurp more power, inject themselves into all facets of government and education, and throw us back into the stone age. A threat that concerns me and well should concern you is the
War on Science currently being waged by American Repugnicans and the Religious Right (aka "the Religious Wrong"). It would seem that there is a very vocal and powerful movement afoot that is attempting to systematically dismantle the very core of our teaching system -- by trying to take out the science and replacing it with superstition and supernatural mumbo-jumbo -- and at the same time instill further hatred in the hearts and minds of our citizens for reason and rationality. These forces want to silence the voices of reason and want to raise our children to be the future wave of irrational, incapable conformist drones. This campaign is being waged through the use of FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt). They've certainly succeeded in instilling fear, the uncertainty is being sown through the fabrication and dissemination of hateful propaganda and lies. As for the doubt... well, religion feeds on doubt doesn't it? Doubt about the afterlife, doubts about our role and purpose in this life, etc... and this movement has used all that along with the inflamed passions of good Americans following Sept. 11 to foster this new grass-roots movement of ignorance, moving us inexorably toward the darkness and away from the light of science. There is a lot of misinformation out there, so let me just clear the air a little...
Some folks out there just don't understand what Science is all about. Many claim that they do, but often a few well pointed questions reveals the true source of this "knowledge"... and often the source turns out to be a pious evangelist on a mission to discredit science. For widespread adoption of Science's teachings is the danger that threatens the organized religions of the world. The knowlege it imparts is the catalyst needed to once-and-for-all snuff out the plague of ignorance from mankind, and ignorance and superstition is the cornerstone of all religion, for it is the pre-condition required for zealots to plant the seeds of enslavement and to turn willing men into sheep so as to be more easily herded. So it is then that few people seem to have been exposed to any real science or definition thereof, be it in school, church (ha ha), or the home (where most ignorance is bred). Perhaps their schools did try to teach this, but perhaps these folks were absent or skipped Science class that day? Perhaps they were too busy in their pubescent hormonal trances to be receptive to the message of "the logical pursuit of truth"? ie. the Scientific Method.
Assuming this is so, I will then take it upon myself to give a crash course in science and help dispel some of the more ridiculous misconceptions about it that seem to abound out there.
Let me now take this opportunity now to clarify the process by which science is done and introduce some words and definition that one will come across when looking at the scientific field.
The Scientific Method (Simplified)
When conducting science, there is always a set of steps that are followed in the pursuit knowledge:
First, we observe a phenomenon in nature. Nature here being anything present in our physical reality.
Second, we wish to know how this phenomenon occurs, or takes place, or, the mechanism by which it operates. So, we pose a question: "How does this phenomena of X work?"
Next, we try and gather as much facts about X as we can, making careful notes and observations. If X is measurable in imperical ways (ie. using numbers and other hard measures), all the better.
Once we have gathered enough data (observations of all kinds), then we must formulate a Hypothesis (see definition below). The hypothesis is our best guess at what we think is the mechanism underlying or responsible for the phenomena. This guess must be based on (and supported by) the facts that we have observed about the phenomena. A good scientist will always try and formulate as many initial working hypotheses as the available evidence will support... because further systematic study of the phenomena will reveal shortcomings of some and will thus whittle the list down to a small list of likely candidates. Such shortlisting weeds out the improbable explanations, leaving only the plausible, so one needs to start with a good set of working hypotheses to begin with.
The next step is to design experiments to draw out more facts and evidence that will either support (or possibly reject) the hypothesis. If carefully constructed experiments yield good, confirmational evidence, then the hypothesis has shown merit and warrants even further investigation and repetition of experimental results by independent parties.
At this point, the Hypothesis is still only conjecture. However, if a hypothesis can be repeatedly and experimentally validated at will, and is well supported by all observed evidence, and can be shown to be able to make accurate predictions of future events of said phenomenon, then it is elevated to a status of Theory. This is not to say that theories are last word on the subject. Theories are always provisional and subject to review and change *IF* (a that's a big IF) any contradictory evidence comes to light at any point, at any time, and that these contradictory facts are themselves reproducible and observable by anyone, at will. This last bit is very important, so I'll repeat. Theories can be overturned or may require modification should new evidence come to light that contradicts the theory or the previous facts. And, these contradictory facts must be readily observable and repeatable. THAT is the beauty of science. The theories are always getting better and moving us closer to the ultimate truth. Science puts an emphasis on observations being accessible and repeatable by anyone, because one of the greatest strengths of science is in its requirement that one does not need to possess any special "transcendental" or "revealed" power or knowledge to participate in its process. Anyone, and I mean ANYONE, who is interested and willing is given the opportunity (and indeed is required to be able) to study and observe the same events whenever and wherever they like. This is the magnificence of Science... it is accessible to anyone, and all one needs to practice it is natural curiousity.
A good theory will explain all the data that is available. A good theory will be able to predict future outcomes, or outcomes in a different time and place. It transcends time and place. It applies just as well here as it does in China, as it does on the Moon, as it does in the farthest galaxy or nebula that we can observe. It applies just as well now as it did yesterday, and as it will tomorrow.
No scientific theory is accepted lightly. Its results must be proven and independently validated many times and by many people throughout the world before it is allowed to be published and eventually accepted. It must withstand the most extreme scrutiny by some of the world's brightest people. This process might take years to accomplish, sometimes decades! "Theory" status does not come lightly, and it is taken to be quite a serious business in Scientific circles.
A bad theory however can't explain shit. A bad theory is not supported by any evidence, or is supported by the flimsiest of evidence. Bad theories are just as common as there are crackpots in the world. Bad theories are like assholes... everybody's got one. The "Creation" myth is one such theory, which attempts to explain the origins of all life on Earth and descent of mankind from an incestuous First Couple and their murderous son (who apparently did marry, but it's not clear whom he married since there was only 1 female in the world at the time... his mom!)
Just think about how liberating the Scientific method is... just how egalitarian it is. Just think about how this differs from doctrine of "divine revelation" or from the common parlor tricks that "psychic" charlatans employ.
Remember... if someone makes a claim, you always have a right to call bullshit and ask them to prove it! And, if they can't or won't offer any plausible account or supporting hard evidence, then either there's nothing material about their theory, or they are trying to snow you. Either way, it's cause for you to move on and past such crackpots and charlatans.
Some useful Definitions of Science-related Terms
hypothesis: A tentative explanation of one or more phenomena in nature that can be tested by observations, experiments, or both. In order to be considered scientific, a hypothesis must be falsifiable, which means that it can be proven to be incorrect.
[A side note: Some statements or claims are not verifiable, and thus not provable. In other words, there is no possible experiment that you can devise or observations that you can make to determine whether the statement or claim is true or false. These statements are statements of faith and thus science does not concern itself with them. Science is only concerned with verifiable truths, not "revealed" truths.]
experiment: A test under controlled conditions that is made to demonstrate a known truth, examine the validity of a hypothesis, or determine the efficacy of something previously untried.
observation: The act of making and recording a measurement; The act of observing; Fact learned by observing; The act of noticing or paying attention.
fact: A natural phenomenon repeatedly confirmed by observation; a truth.
theory: A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that typically incorporates many confirmed obserations, laws, and successfully verified hypothesis.
law: A description of how a natural phenomenon will occur under certain circumstances.
What Science Is
- Science is the systematic study of the physical universe and all phenomena therein
- Science is concerned with the material and physical world. ie. All that which can be observed
- Science is concerned with questions and statements that are testable and verifiable
- Scientific theories are the best explanations of how we think something works, and they are based on facts and evidence. One can't have a theory unless one has facts and evidence, and the evidence must lend very strong support to the original hypothesis, and these results must be repeatably borne out in experiment.
What Science Is Not
- Science is not swayed by appeals to authority. Every claim must be proven and not just taken on faith
- Science is not concerned with supernatural, paranormal or mystical realms
- Science is not acquired through divine revelation
- Science is not concerned with what its practitioners believe
- Science is not a "majority opinion rules" proposition. Truth is truth, no matter how many people beg to differ.
- Science is not concerned with how many people believe its conclusions
- Science is not static and unchanging. It gets better with age.
- Science is not dogma (believing in absolutes because you are told to)
- Science is not religion
A person who tries to discredit a scientific idea by simply stating it is a "theory" (using those stupid air quotes) is a person completely ignorant of the scientific process and has likely been duped and led by the nose to buy into a false and precarious worldview. These adherents are simply spouting off what they've heard and taken with hook, line, and sinker whatever garbage, pseudoscience, and bunk that is currently being spouted from the propaganda mills of religious evangelicals and their right-wing ignorance movement. With such displays of ignorance, they show they have no credibility to lend to their arguments and thus should be summarily dismissed from any debate involving science. This is particularly true when they begin quoting scripture. Such a person has no mind left at all.
Who is attacking Science you may ask? There are two main camps, but both are linked. First, there are the Republicans, guided and supported by orthodox religious doctorine and junk/pseudoscience, and second, the Creation "Scientists" including proponents of Intelligent Design, supported and funded by the Discovery Institute and who wish to use their platform to overthrow science and (re)install religious teachings in place of it. The Discovery Institute's other aim is to promote the the perception that western Christianity is the dominant religion of the world (See the Discovery Institute's accidentally leaked
Wedge Document, which incidentally is no longer available for public download from their site; only their rebuttals to criticism about the Wedge Document are available for download. Do you think they've got something to hide?) Anyway, how ironic, or rather moronic, for these camps to try and use a special, doctored and twisted version of science to disprove science? Does anyone reading this think this tactic by the Religious Right makes any sense? What side are they on? For science, or against it?
So, who are these Creation "Scientists" anyway?
(Lenny Flank summed it up pretty good in his essay WHO ARE THE CREATION "SCIENTISTS"?)
There are a large variety of people who claim the mantle "creation scientists". Almost all of them come from the fundamentalist Protestant wing of Christianity, although a few belong to such denominations as the Roman Catholic Church. One thing they all share in common is a belief in an inerrant Bible, one that is literally correct in all its original writings on all subjects, including its description of the Creation, Adam and Eve, and Noah's Flood.
As in any political and religious movement, there are several schools of creationist thought, separated by doctrinal differences in their interpretations of the Bible. (According to one source, there were in 1984 no less than 22 national creationist organizations in the United States, and at least 54 state and local organizations.)
The "day-age" faction of creationism argues that the "days" referred to in Genesis are really symbolic of enormous stretches of time, and not 24-hour days. Perhaps the best-known of the "day- age" groups today are the Jehovah's Witnesses. Another school of thought is that of the "gap" theorists, who argue that there is an unmentioned lapse of time between the first and second verses of Genesis, and that the six-day creation event did not happen until after a long period of time had already passed. Many of the televangelists are "gap" theorists. Finally, there are the "strict" creationists, who assert that creation happened as described in Genesis, and that the universe and all life was created within six days, several thousand years ago. The first two schools, the "day- age" and the "gap", accept the geological evidence of a very ancient earth (but not the evidence of evolution), and are usually referred to collectively as the "old earth creationists". The strict creationists, however, assert that the entire universe is just 6,000 to 10,000 years old, and they are referred to as "young-earth creationists".
There is also another trend of thought, the "theistic evolutionists", who argue that evolution is simply the method which God used to create life, and that there is no conflict between science and the Bible. Nearly all mainstream religious denominations are supporters of theistic evolution. Although they could be considered "creationist", since they do assert that the universe was made by God, theistic evolutionists are viewed by the fundamentalists as "the enemy" who is doing the work of Satan. It would be more proper to view the fundamentalist creationists as "anti-evolutionists", since the one thing that unites them all is the belief that evolutionary theory is contrary to the tenets of Christianity. Since, on this matter, the theistic evolutionists are on the "wrong" side, they are not accepted as "creationists" by the fundamentalists.
Rest of the essay here.
For those who are still with me, you will now be rewarded with a rant... STRONG LANGUAGE advisory in effect:
(P.S. If you are a religious nut on a crusade and leave me the usual sampling of stupid comments that I see such people post on other folks' sites, I am going to delete your ass faster than you can blink. I am not beyond using the the same vile censorship that you folks always use in you war against sense and reason. Time for our side to step up and play your game. Believe it. Count on it.)
Dear reader... if you have not been able to deduce by now, such people make me very angry and I just want to choke the living shit out of them, though as I am a kind and gentle person, I usually refrain from such outward aggression. I leave ignorance, killing, maming, raping and pilaging to the neo-cons, the religious fundamentalists (on all sides) and the likes of Mr. Bush and company.
Despite what the Religious Right would have you believe, no good scientist ever claimed that a theory is an indisputable fact. Rather, real scientists are careful not to use such language of "absolutes". Rather, scientists remain pragmatic, knowing full well that any theory is simply the best available explanation we have at this time, given the available and supporting evidence. Scientists are careful when making claims about the physical world for they know that any such claim will be held to the scrutiny of the evidence and all other scientists and non-scientists in the world. In other words, if the claims are bullshit, then they will be easily revealed and disproved simply by someone else trying to repeat the results or findings. Science is precise, and as such scientists tend to be more precise in their use of language when explaining physical phenomena and tend to shy away from making absolute or non-sensical statements, for any good scientist knows that we do not yet know everything there is to know and our theories are always provisional and open to review and revision as new facts and evidence are ascertained. Believers of the supernatural and metaphysical make all kinds of wild claims all the time and no one is allowed (or even able) to repeat them or validate them because... well, because all such claims are a bunch of hooey, horse pucky, cow cookies, and bull biscuits. Because of this inability to measure, observe, verify, test, or validate the supernatural/metaphysical/spiritual realm, scientists don't even bother with it. What good is it when your findings can never be objective... in other words, when the "revealed" outcome cannot be used by everyone alike and is subjective to each person. In that world, no piece of knowledged gained could ever be useful to mankind. It can only serve the egotistical and narcissistic purposes of the "knowledge" seeker and the exploitative/profiteering purposes of the "knowledge" giver.
I would gladly forfeit my life right this instant to prove my certainty in this... the knowledge that there exists no spiritual or metaphysical realms. And to demonstrate this, then I pose this wager: If there be any truth to the notion of the existence of a spiritual world, then I now challenge any being or entity that may inhabit such world to SMITE ME OR STRIKE ME DEAD RIGHT NOW WHERE I SIT. I mean it, RIGHT NOW. Crucify me if you will in order that my blood will wash away the sins of just one of my fellow beings. If Jesus did this for all mankind, then why not take me and cleanse the soul of just one other person. (as a side note, I don't understand the logic in how a blood sacrifice could ever save souls, but that's another issue altogether and best saved for discussion at another time.) Do soldiers that "die for me" or mothers/fathers that "die for their children" also have the same soul salvational powers? Why should Jesus' death be any different? Can I ask Jesus not to die for me? I have no choice in the matter, do I?
Right, it would appear that no metaphysical entity has taken my challenge and smote me for my blasphemy or used me for my willingness to die to save the "soul" of another person. I'm sure I'll live a long, healthy, happy life... or at least long enough to disprove that my death had anything to do with this bald-faced challenge.
As for now, it looks like I'm still alive and still typing... and evidently, you're still reading. Good, I'm very glad to still have you with me my valued friend.
Now, these evangelical creationists are on the bandwagon big-time trying to raise doubts and poke holes in the theory of Evolution. They have yet to succeed, and the truth is that the concept is now universally accepted among scientists. And I'm not talking about those religious evangelists in "scientists clothing". I don't care how many young devout Christians the Discovery Institute sends through college to get their Biology degrees, simply so they can have an army of obedient little thought slaves that they can use to speak out against science as "insiders". The reality is all the Discovery Institute has done is programmed a bunch of drones to go out, waste 8 years of their life on rote memorization and superficial passing of exams without really trying to understand the material and believing in what they are studying, ONLY SO THAT the Christian Right have a dissenting voice from "the inside"; so they can claim "see, not all scientists agree with Evolution", etc.. For those of you getting your Biology (or any science) degrees in this way, I feel very sorry for the tragic waste of your life on such a dishonest group and such an unworthy cause.
Now, all Creation "Science" evangelists -- and I cannot begin to explain just how much I hate them for using the word "science" in that way -- can do is look to see where there are gaps in the theories of science and mount a big FUD campaign. They look for any weakness or any part in which our understanding is not complete, to the extent that they ignore the 99% of the evidence that does exist and does support the theory. Of course they would not focus on the evidence and how the theories of science ARE supported, who could blame them? They are in a death struggle against reason. But rather where there is any tiny opening for them to thrust their toe of doubt and pry the doors of reason open to the harsh and cold darkness of ignorance and superstition, they will do so, and without apology. What's worse is that they don't make any case for their own "theories", but are only there to (unsuccessfully) try to poke holes in science-based theories. They are a pathetic desperate lot, these very small people, hoping against all odds to hold on to their quaint, ill-conceived and unsupported little notions about the world and the origins and nature of life. They cannot stand being an insignificant little descendant of an ape on an insignificant little blue planet orbiting an unremarkable little star, stranded 40 thousand light years from the center of an ordinary, typical galaxy in a vast universe comprised of billions of galaxies that are more remarkable.
|
Diagram of the spiral arms of our
Milky Way Galaxy.
(click on pictures to view a larger version)
Artist's rendition of The Milky Way Galaxy
We don't have cameras far enough away from here to take an actual photo, however, here is an actual photo of the Andromeda Galaxy (M 31) is the closest large spiral to us (at only 2 million light years) and is visible to the naked eye in the constellation Andromeda. It is 1.5-2 times more massive than the Milky Way |
They truly cannot comprehend their insignificance and the insignificance to an all-knowing, all-seeing power to want to send his *only* son to save humanity from its own foibles. We shall discover other worlds and other life one day, and then will the concept of "salvation through the blood of the son" apply to them? Much like the non-middle-Eastern peoples of the world circa 33 AD, "He" did not even go and minister to them, did he? Could the inhabitants of the island nations of Japan or Australia that were around at that time possibly hope for salvation through the blood of the Christ? They who had not -- could not -- hear the "good word"? How then can they possibly be saved if they never heard the message, and could never form a personal relationship with the man? Those who claim to have this personal relationship with Christ today cannot claim so. What they have is a relationship with words and text written about a man, and written by strangers after his death at that. Authors who were removed in time and sometimes by several decades and who had to rely on faulty memories and passed on accounts of the life and times of the man. Authors who as flawed human beings (like you and me) were entrusted to record the (supposed) most important message sent by the almighty to mankind. To believe all this in light of the knowledge and the facts that we have acquired in the short time that we been freed from shackles of the persecution of religious fundamentalism of the dark ages is to buy into the patently ridiculous; a pipe dream for fools who are too feeble to regulate their own moral behaviour without the looming threat of divine retribution from a wrathful, vengeful God or the loving graces of His son, a divine saviour; and to believe that both of these characters -- the good Cop and bad Cop can exist together along with a third in a holy trinity -- is to attribute divinity to what we might in an ordinary person today call Schizophrenia.
How do religions deal with new challenges and evidence to the contrary of their dogma and beliefs? That's right, they tow the line. They kick and scream and lash out irrationally, and only when they've had their 100 year tantrum and can no longer deny the fact, they pass a decree and change the religion to adopt the new knowledge and claim that it was always their own. I saw evidence of this just recently on Dr. Dino's site (Kent Hovind, a Creationist poorly disguised as a scientific-thinking scholar who is espousing Intelligent Design). This unscrupulous, bastard, lying son-of-a-***** actually said that science made the original claim that the Sun revolved around the Earth and that heavy objects fall faster than lighter ones; both of which are church doctrines proven to be false by science.)
Mr. Hovind (I can't call you "Doctor" sir, because I don't recognize
PhDs that are awarded for $100 over the Internet), if you are reading this... FUCK YOU!! It was Galileo who taught you that all objects fall at the same rate, and the religious nuts of his day almost had him executed for it. They might as well have executed him, because he died a lonely, punished man under house arrest because his views were so heretical to the religious establishment of the time. You should be ashamed you fucking charlatan for trying to claim otherwise. I spit upon the sperm and egg that gave you life you GOD DAMN moron.
And, as for the Sun revolving around the Earth, it was Copernicus who with his scientific facts and observations came and upset the Ptolemean world of a Helio-centric "universe" which the religious establishment of the day held high and proud, against ALL REASON AND EVIDENCE to the contrary. It took a scientist (even before there was such a term in any language) to come along and break the world out of the grip of ignorance.
It took Columbus, who did not believe the Earth was flat as the religious establishment of the day had convinced everyone of (and some still do to this day... unbelievable), in an attempt to find a shorter crossing to the Indies that the America (to which you add your foul poison Mr. Hovind) was discovered and proved to the then ignorant Europeans just coming out of their religion-induced mental incarceration that the Earth was indeed NOT FLAT. And if it wasn't for all those book burnings during the Dark Ages (called Dark because of the complete persecution imposed by the religious establishment of that time to anyone who questioned or sought to think independently or acquire knowledge not manifest in the Catholic doctrine of the day), we would have known that the Earth was not flat as this was knowledge that was given to us by the Greek scholars over a millenia before through their understanding of Geometry... a field of mathematics that we had nearly lost I might add thanks to fools like you and your religious ilk, Mr. Hovind.
And, I am certain Mr. Hovind, if it were up to you, we would still be burning books, wouldn't we? Those heretical books on Astronomy, and Geology, and Evolution, right Mr. Hovind? Those books full of those theories about Evolution that you hate so much, and we'd replace them with what, an airy-fairy account of creation and unsupported quotations from your religious scriptures? Puhleeeeez, spare me. Such claims of dogma ADD NOTHING to our understanding of the world and how it works. Thanks for contributing to the spread of the public's ignorance towards science and science education, you ignorant bastard.
If you want to criticize, denigrate and disprove a theory Mr. Hovind, you better be able to replace it with a plausible and hopefully better alternative. Or at least one that is just as good. An explanation that accounts for and fits the evidence. You have not done so. You can't simply misinterpret the scientific facts at your whim and point out a flaw (or rather, incompleteness) that you've fabricated, and then proceed to say that for these reasons we should disbelieve in the scientific theory and buy into yours instead. This is a straw man argument. What evidence and support do you have for yours? Creationism, or whatever it is, you better be able to support it and subject it to the same standard of scrutiny. But you can't, can you Mr. Hovind? Because it doesn't stand up even to a 5 year-old's questioning, can it now? No, instead you like to attack science, particularly Evolution, and continue the fallacious line of reasoning about "gaps" in the fossil record. Sure there are gaps, but we've seen enough evidence that cannot be discounted, no? Anyway, I am certain that if scientists in future were to dig up my bones and say that I am descended from my father, you would be in vociferous opposition to this claim with the reasoning that there is a "gap" in the fossil record and note the missing transitional form between the skeleton of my father and that of me. By this argument, if it were solely up to you Creationists, then none of us human beings could actually exist since no transitional forms could be found from one generation to the next. Our fossil record would simply be a trick of the devil, a temptation away from God's word. Idiots.
I have been to your site Mr. Hovind, and I have watched your video seminars. I have seen your dishonest tactics; I have seen your misquotes, your misrepresentations, your complete and utter lack of respect for others' intelligence, your lies, deceptions, and fabrications, your oversimplifications, your personal attacks, your underhanded and dishonest manipulation and twisting of the facts; I have seen your putting of words into other people's mouths and quoting them dishonestly, incompletely, and out of context. I have verified your claims and facts and have determined you are a complete fraud. If only the members of your audience would do the same. I wish to expose you Mr. Hovind, for the evil, pernicious phoney that you are. You are practicing every foul, dishonest and underhanded deed and trick in the book that you claim (with your religious moral founding) is evil. In closing Mr. Hovind, I'd like to tell you that you are a despicable human being, if we can even call you that. So, FUCK YOU Kent Hovind, FUCK YOU. And the same goes for your colleagues and contemporaries Misters Barnes, Baugh, and Bliss, and the rest of you Creation Science morons; kiss my ass, all of you... and that goes for your mindless followers too.
A final word
My sincere regrets to any friends whom this post might offend. But like others who are passionate and protective of the people they love and ideals that they cherish, so too am I with respect to Science. I truly believe knowledge, education, and learning are Man's only hope for salvation and deliverance from his own ignorance and evil. Knowledge is the light. The only light. And it is the path to righteousness. Dogma and ignorance are the antithesis to this and so you must forgive me my friends for running to the aid of my precious, beautiful science when faced by attacks from those whom seek to enslave the mind and body of mankind.
Most sincerely,
Simon
Tools 
