[continued from previous message]   
      
   I don't see that in the three organisations I mentioned but that is   
   possibly due to me being more familiar than you with their work and   
   ideas, especially the religious slant to it. The important factor is   
   that they start by accepting science and seek ways to fit their   
   religious views around that science. Despite Ron's vehement but   
   unsubstantiated claims, they do not try to adapt science to fit around   
   religious beliefs.   
      
   >And until people become perfect and   
   >perfectly rational I don't see that changing. They're   
   >philosophically distinct (and frequently contradictory)   
   >things; best to keep them that way, at least for now.   
   >>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>But *my*   
   >>>>>point was that I didn't comment about the content, only   
   >>>>>about the meaning of "literal" (or, of course, "literally"),   
   >>>>>and MarkE's assertion that "The measure of literalism is in   
   >>>>>the *interpretation* of the text of  Genesis, not the   
   >>>>>quoting of it.". I thought I made that clear with my further   
   >>>>>comments made in reply to him and others. IOW, he misused   
   >>>>>"literal", which is defined (OED online) as (paraphrased)   
   >>>>>"exact or actual meaning, not allegorical or figurative".   
   >>>>>"Exact or actual meanings" do not allow of interpretation,   
   >>>>>regardless of how the word may be misused ("literally   
   >>>>>Hitler"; "I literally died"). At least that's how I see it,   
   >>>>>and the OED seems to agree.   
   >>>>>>   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)