Hi Jeanie,

I'll agree that there are realms which the spiritual addresses, which science does not. I am not someone who believes that science explains everything. I think human beings do need a spiritual element in their lives.

However, I would also ask you whether or not you think that the way we view reality should be based on objective evidence; and if not, how we go about deciding what is real and what is not. For example, we accept that the earth is round instead of flat because of the overhwelming evidence that shows that this is so. It is of course entirely possible to decide that one will simply ignore this evidence and insist that they believe the earth is flat (some people really do this). They insist that "not all things make sense" and they "don't feel the need to prove details." You could claim these reasons for believing anything you want, and it could be removed from reality to any degree. The question then being, do you want to have a belief system based on reality, or does any chosen fantasy have equal legitimacy in your eyes? In that case, how do we decide what the nature of reality actually is? And how do you decide that your own version of it is more legitimate than someone else's, who believes that the earth is flat and that we are being invaded by aliens? Your system provides no means for us to say that this is right or wrong.

That's why we use science. We gather evidence, formulate hypotheses, test them, and repeat the tests. We alter or discard them when new evidence comes to light. This seems to me to be a pretty good way of learning about the world around us. What's more, a person's "belief" in the nature of reality really needs to take into account what we already know about that reality through science. One cannot logically deny the existence of the fossil record, for example. We can look at the way it is sorted and dated and see that humans and dinosaurs lived at different times, and that there is no evidence anywhere that giants ever existed. The fossil record, as well as evidence from genetics, also points strongly to the unlikelihood of us being descendants of neandertals; the current consensus is that we evolved from an ancestor called homo erectus.

You can say that you are not interested in these things, but they are objective evidence that show us something about reality. Are you interested in reality, or is that too inconvenient at times?

Seriously, I suggest you educate yourself a bit about the things you mention here. You can do a little Googling, or borrow a book or two from the library. Creationists like the person who wrote your flood book rely on the scientific ignorance of their audience in order to convince them of what they are saying. You can choose to go along with this, or you can empower yourself to be able to question what you are being told in an educated way.