Bush's Environmental Chief: There's "Not A Clean-Cut Division" Between Religion And Science

First, I'd say, consider the source. However, as these statements are dispensed as official news it pays to post a retort.
Ask yourself, if everything we know to be scientifically true today could fit in a book, would you not reference it like a good Christian does the Bible?

Now ask yourself, if someone today published a book based on quasi-historical assumptions, unexplainable events, would you suspend your disbelief and start trying to convince others that everything in the book is true, or would you label it entertainment or sci-fi?

There's no proof that burning bushes and snakes can talk, that seas can part or that anyone can walk on water (except maybe Chris Angel, a renowned trickster). So, what would happen today to anyone seriously claiming witness to such incredible incidents? What would happen if a long-awaited Messiah returned and had to resort to what may appear to many as illusions to convince us of his godly status?

You can belief anything you want, but it only proves you're gullible (I don't want to use stronger words) and lack the mental capacity to figure things out by using your rationale. We just had 8 years of that and it lead to nothing, and certainly not compassion, but rather near-totalianarism and gut-wrenching ineptness.

People have believed in the unexplained for thousands of years. I can't predict the future, but at some point I fathom science will have explained nearly everything, including why some people rationally insist on the irrational... To me, though, that just goes over my head.

About Religion
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost