God VS Science -Only really for the Greeks amongst us

I reckon if you stand back far enough from 2 people fighting you can see more clearly than most( those enjoying the spectacle of their predjudices played out) ,you have much more hope of seeing what is really going on.
Dawkins and the defenders of Faith have good reason to argue ( Where is God when you need him ? ) Lucky for Dawkins, God does not want to show up.
Even more fortuitously for Dawkins , those believers who tend to rush forward ( for eg ; to defend the paradoxical detail of genesis - "the days" )are often not aware of the limits of science, or even of literature.
Withsomeone to take issue with "science proves things" , Dawkins has a debate on his hands -
But surely its only got some momentume, because both sides are behaving like fanatics. God choosing( it could be said ) to not speak for himself in court doesn' seem tp help the believers case . Jesus could, inspite of expectations, remains silent before men. The big question, if He is really God , might be why?
Clearly for scientist believers , The real aim/question ( Can science and faith coexist ?) is not in focus on this day. It's a myopics field day and Dawkins has set the scene to limit it to that .
Any progress towards understanding the big wonder and word questions is likely to be obscured. The redoubling of effort is effective in selling books and stirring up emotion. For those many believers whose picture of the universe is truly multidimensional, messing with the predicable myopia of the monists only encourages them to be more fanatical .

Dawkins of course, like Dan Brown, relies on the fact that can you guarantee to win a mere argument ---if you set yourself up to win - if you simply get very greek and set yourself up a straw man or in Dawkins case, a straw God .
Dan Brown could be miffed . Dawkins can get away without any touchy feely earthly evidence for the jury . Not only that, with God absent ( at least, not audibly ) you need someone who does not realise the aim and rules of the game( can anyone really say what the invisible has been up to?) ; someone who doesn't quite get the point - the real limits of science and the real limits of rhetoric .

Dawkins and the defenders of the detail of Genesis may be at each other , but without the accused being present to defend the accusation ( "He had no role to play in Creation" ) ,and a proper focus on science , the setup outcome is predictable, if not entirely reasonable .
The idea that you have to be an atheist to be a scientist is not born out by the facts ) The many keen christains who have degrees in physics and chemistry are dualists and do not see the absolute need , or reason to expect proofs on the propositions put by Dawkins. As true Believers , they are not overly perturbed about the hypo rationality of their addiction to faith . They see the logic that God's stated aim is to be more of a personal reality than a purely objective one. Like all Christians, they more would dearly like people to chase the hidden and see how faith can add value to science --how it can spawn and stir up a sense of wonder -the option of proof is denied them and us )

Shakespeares England could have a good laugh at the laborious lumbering logomachy of the reactionary monists .Why can't we ? "
Its all greek to me" mate, said Tvye as he got on with really enjoying and working in his part of a very big big world.

Nothing more symbolizes the fanaticism of the people than their blind acceptance of risk avoidance tokens .
Nothing more symbolizes the god like, but godless arrogance of our leaders than there claims to be supermen
-Howard sends in the troops to save babies
-Rudds runs off at the mouth over simple means to save water
-Turnbull still thinks he can engineer his way out of a conservation issue
-Bracks makes water and sends us full page ads to tell us how clever he is
All this hot air over hot air seems to have led to too much haste and too much talk of brakes - Brakes in energy-1 and water-2 conservation and the new kid on the block -emission targeting-3.

Now whether its 1 ,2 or 3 the science is one thing and the science and praxis is another . But apparantly in an election year the glove of control has only one lever - its called a brake. I am not clear who or whom is now commited to pressing it . I hope I am not the only one who thinks this is the biggest piece of impossible impotent projection ever in politics in Australia. Whose actually going to do it and how?
Pity these blokes aren't listening to the former PS commissioner Podger who is today reminding the leaders of our country that they are lost at sea through their own stupidity. If the issue was complex maybe they should consult with people whose training and experience doesn't allow them to be swayed by every passing wind of doctrine.