Elements of certain culture war strategems such as creation science are no less philosophic and unscientific than the false dogmas pronounced by psuedo-science's mock-atheists Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens or the farcical straw-fluff of Philip Pullman. Two opposing philosophic camps try to commandeer science to their side. Why, of course they would. That is the model of partisan fear-driven, prejudicial relating.

First, genuine atheists do not spend a lot of energy trying to debunk God or Jesus Christ or Allah or Jehovah or poly-deities because they securely believe that God's (or gods') non-existence is obvious. Arguing the point for such persons would be like saying that the sky is blue a hundred times over. What's the point?

And genuine scientists design experiments, conduct them and report the results. From there, the interpretations and statements of the results take on all kinds of spin. Those statements are not themselves the scientific method or its specific results, which is the hallmark of the hard sciences.

The philosophes, however, love to discuss what science proves or doesn't prove about one or another spiritual or religious thing. Meanwhile, science does not make those claims one way or another because they're not falsifiable within material limits. Science is the physical experiment and its results, and even then, those results not reached by erroneous method or non-scientific spin.

Never mind that the sky is not actually blue, it just appears that way to the eye, and we don't really even know what blue is or its essence. Blue is blue even though it comes through the wonderful ingredients of light, angles, gases, distance and perspective (& more), all of which have their own inscrutable essences, and lots of fun descriptors for sensory or functional uses beneath the higher value of pristine hues within sublime beauties. We do enjoy blue's existence, however. We know it in relation to other colors or shades, and in circular definitions of each of the words used in blue's definition. We can describe and explain aspects of blue, however, we don't know the essence of a spectrum or its components or its totality ... why it is there in all of its grandeur and beauty to our eyes.

Perhaps because Jack (Clive Staples) Lewis became so popular and influential as a former Oxford professor and writer and Professor Anthony Flew came to believe that there was a superiorly intelligent and capable Creator of all things, the atheist philosophes have decided it is time to take their fight outside of academia and into politics and movies. If you can't win with reason, there is always coercion and propaganda.

Philip Pullman, the writer whose trilogy "His Dark Materials" was written as reactionary literature against Lewis' "Chronicles of Narnia" said his books were about "killing God," and "undermining" Christianity. Now a movie based on his books, entitled "The Golden Compass" brings his hatred of God to the screen so children may see it as 'epic.' His story in movie form has actually gone so far in its promoted state as to work to 'help' children "discover" their own "personal demon." Not very atheistic, is it. Rather, it is more Deicidic, literally demonic, and seems not only about "killing God" but introducing children to a spiritual religion of darkness with that very goal. And you'd think Dawkins would protest that, wouldn't you, if he were a true atheist? He doesn't go for that fantasy stuff, right?

Maybe he is too busy being political. Dawkins stubbed his toe on posting and supporting petitions to the UK government for a ban on parochial and parental religious instruction and upbringing for children. It was a political gambit that showed his true anti-civil libertarian colors and it should have brought him into the same category of regard by liberal academics as Professor Lino Graglia at UT Law School for his anti-civil libertarian arguments of inequal intellect among races. Prof. Graglia argued that there would not be a need for affirmative action quotas if intellectual ability across all student races was equal. Dawkins likewise thinks religious people are not fit or intelligent enough to raise their own children and give them a moral upbringing.

So I am not buying the genuineness or honesty of Dawkins or Pullman as I'm sure they protest too much, or of their followers who repeat their formulaic fallacies. It seems that both have their own religious agendas, and their religions are very much religions of control. And imagine that: in the small worlds of each of these men, they are the ideologues with the answers that should control the minds of everyone else's children. They are the gods of their philosophe religions.

If Americans are to maintain, grow and improve their culture, it is not going to be by destroying freedom of religion or religious speech. It is not going to be by retaliating against religions' cultural, moral and spiritual contributions to American heritage because individuals or groups have done this or that bad; or because an organized mixture of church-state forces have at moments in history slandered God by disobeying God in God's name. You might as well ban all governments because Pol-Pot's was evil; or Stalin's; or name-your-tyrant.

Something else to note is that no one survives, not even the fittest. And there is nothing so out of our control and therefore a check on our own tyranny than the Infinite God of Persons, Love and forgiveness. It is this God which inspired the American civil rights movement. It is this God that inspired Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Corrie ten Boom and . Others see Love as the highest purpose, just as God is Love to many. Viktor Frankl wrote:

The truth — that love is the ultimate and the highest goal to which man can aspire. Then I grasped the meaning of the greatest secret that human poetry and human thought and belief have to impart: The salvation of man is through love and in love.

Helen Keller wrote:

I can see, and that is why I can be happy, in what you call the dark, but which to me is golden. I can see a God-made world, not a manmade world.

When the hubris of human error believes it has just about come to know it all, it turns to coercing its fellows to 'get with the program,' or 'grow up'. This is the foolish pride of the new religion of an anti-civil liberty Deicide. That is not what Americans are about deep down in their hearts. Deep down, the plurality of Americans believe in a good God that will redeem them and all of human suffering with love and eternal life of love, mercy, peace and joy, and each of these beyond any measure of our comprehension or understanding. It is not death, but the high points of our love relationships in this life which point us to the meaning of life before and beyond death.