Look...
I'm just giving everyone something to think about and spouting my point of view. I realize that. I encourage you all to voice your point of view as well. I didn't intend for this to get hostile.
For the record...I'm agnostic...and not at all ashamed to admit that. I don't have a problem with any religion...That's what makes our country great. You are free to believe what you want.
YOU are free to believe in scripture, I'm free to belive in science.
But I think this issue has NOTHING to do with religion and you are obviously not going to hear me quoting scripture.
Mr. Sagan makes a hell of a lot more sense to me. But that's just me.
The fact of of the matter is this,
it is obvious to me that large tracts of non-developed land are necessary for many species to survive. They don't need our HELP
to make it, they need our absence.
When land needs to be developed...it's tough to fight business.
And it's very easy for government to back business.
Do I think Bush is trying to do things that will harm native wildlife? Nope.
But do I think he cares? No f'in way.
I'm FAR from a "left wing wacko peta type" I keep and breed these animals in captivity, for crying out loud.
But I understand that the precious and unique ecosystems of this country must be preserved...less we risk losing MANY species for good.
Argue that if you will.
Respectfully,
Dean Alessandrini



...to me, science and the Bible go hand in hand (and I don't look at it as a religion versus science argument but rather one of philosophy and where we put our faith). I do believe that the evidence is overwhelming of a divine creator and Mr. Sagan's arguments are weak at best...but, I respect him as a person and in the end, it all comes down to where we put our faith in (which then shapes our philosophy of how the world began and how we see the world today). We can take ANY piece of evidence and tweek it to match our faith proposition.