"But getting Pete to see the point of this and other examples of scientific progress towards understanding what we are is no harder than getting Steve and Greg and Shimrod and a few others to see why Pete and other deeply religious folk believe as they do."

You don't have to try too hard with me, Bill. I do get it. When we were little we were all swamped by religion. It's the default. It WILL be fed to us and that won't be questioned. Millions of people will never enter a free-enough thinking environment where this can be questioned guilt-free (it was hard enough for those of us who did manage to unshackle ourselves). I understand why enforced belief sticks. There would be no religion if it didn't. But this is absolutely not my issue. Unlike you, I think that, after centuries of a free pass for religion, it's high time that it was comprehensively attacked. Charles Darwin was as diplomatic as can be towards religion once he realised how the truth of evolution was undermining it, but he was attacked and demonised vehemently nonetheless. He still is being from certain quarters, as we see on this forum, and it stinks. Soft-soaping organised religion is spineless. All religion is predicated on falsehood and proselytisation and it's incredibly damaging. Religion NEEDS to be attacked. Not to do so would be immoral.

"It is not enough to study science & logic in order to comprehend why evolution makes sense......... there is also a need to study history and culture and philosophy and psychology in order to cope with the strange situation we have where basically intelligent people can look at the same data/evidence and draw different, incompatible conclusions."

I don't agree with this. Only people blinded by religion would fail to comprehend why the beautiful and true phenomenon of evolution makes sense. There is no other explanation for life on earth. Anyone confronting the truth of evolution who then continues to deny it, or who tries to subvert it by positing Godly input, is not as intelligent as you're suggesting. As I've said over and over again, religious faith stuns the intellect. If you deny evolution, you are not especially intelligent. Their conclusions are not incompatible. You're being far too indulgent. Their conclusions are wrong. Say so.

"Of course it is tempting to lay out 'evidence' to show the ignorant how much better YOUR system is... but when you encounter 'stubbornness' or 'ignorance'(which is different than stupidity), why would you think that arrogance and insults might turn the tide?"

I am very disappointed that you feel the need to put evidence in speech marks. And there is more muddle here. I haven't got a system for a start, and even if I did I wouldn't be doing the schoolyard mine's-better-than-yours thing. I can do better than that, thanks. As for arrogance and insults, well I'm a direct fellow, though I've more or less abandoned name-calling in case you haven't noticed. I prefer to counter with argument laced, admittedly, with that thing that's the lowest form of wit. I would also suggest that your approach is absolutely no better at turning the tide than mine, but hey ho. I must say, I admire your staying power apropos of pete's incessant inanity, but brick walls and heads spring to mind. I would also say that pete is one of the most Insulting people it's ever been my misfortune to encounter, even though he dresses up his insults in a particular brand of sloppy and smiley wackiness.

"No, I'm sure you DON'T think that making fun of different views will suffice.... it's just an common human response - perhaps allowing one to 'feel superior'?"

Or perhaps not, Bill. Your rather aloof and objective philosophical approach here is admirable and valuable, but I wouldn't dream of saying that you were doing it to look superior. However, it probably stands slightly more chance of eliciting that response from the average reader around here than our merely making fun...

"I argue with Pete.. but I don't really expect him to change much, so I try to comprehend why he thinks that way. Then I argue with those who denigrate Pete... and I try to understand why they feel it necessary to react that way.----- You know, it's easier in some ways to have a polite, although frustrating, debate with Pete than to cope with the attitudes of some of those with whom I agree!"

I suppose you're not a bad old boy on the whole... ;-)