All my grades were posted on-line today. The results: I have a 3.583 GPA. Two A's, a B+ and a B—and I can work with that.
Last night, I started "reading" (it was an audio book) Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion". Despite being over 7 hours, I pretty much listened to the whole thing in one sitting—it was just too good to set down. I had discussed Dawkins with one of my professors once, who stated that Dawkins "doesn't pull his punches". He certainly doesn't. In one chapter, Dawkins talks about the very book I was given by the Jehovah Witnesses (and ranted about
) and cordially dismembers it's claims about Irreducible Complexity
I've printed out the relevant pages and highlighted particularly meaningful sentences. Together with my previous rants and various other pieces of research, I plan to present this information to the returning Witnesses. In all probability, the facts I have assembled will have no effect. Religious faith gives merit to those who believe for the sake of believing, with no proof and even in the face of evidence to the contrary. However, I think it's important to tear down artificial ideas, such as the claim that science somehow supports creationist myths. I feel it's important because some otherwise reasonable person might be convinced the creation myth has a solid bases (which I can show it clearly does not) and therefore conclude that if the creation story is correct, so too must be the rest of it (virgin birth, talking burning bushes and the need to kill homosexuals). While the person who presented me with this book may never change his ways, he will now have to face the reality that his book trying to bridge science and his religion is seriously flawed. He can either continue trying to convert people without the use of said book and give up on claiming science is on his side, or knowingly lie when he presents the book to someone else as fact when he knows it isn't so.