Back in April, when the forum had been operating for just three months, I reviewed the progress we'd made so far (see "Review", April 15 at 14.17). As we're now going through a slight lull, I thought it might be useful to update some of my comments. - I expressed disappointment at the fact that the discussion had been limited to the battle between science and religion, with virtually all the contributions coming from atheists or agnostics. This seemed to me to be unbalanced, but in the last few months the balance has largely been restored. While George steadfastly upholds the atheist argument that there is nothing out there except physical matter, we have had the Christian fundamentalism of Edinburgh4, maintaining that every word in the Bible is God's absolute truth. This has been modified by the more flexible but nonetheless solid Christian faith of Mark who, among other things, has discussed the nature of God (an endlessly fascinating subject for those of us who are appalled by "The Horrors of Evolution") and questioned whether atheists and agnostics can have any moral principles, since he believes they do not recognize any authority outside themselves. - The discussion on ethics broadened considerably with Carl's introduction of "wisdom" as a basis for morality, and so far it has embraced a wide range of topics from capital punishment through to the Israel-Arab conflict. I feel there's a lot more to be said on this subject, as there is also on the topic of what should be taught in schools. Rightarmover drew our attention to the manner in which religious institutions are being allowed to subvert education in the UK, and it would seem that there are two "mafias" at work now, pulling in two different directions. While religion subverts education, recent contributions by Carl and David Turell under "Front End Loading" (14 October) suggest that atheism is subverting science. This in itself is a massive topic which we have barely begun to investigate: how those in positions of influence (on both sides of the divide) seek to exclude the arguments of those who disagree with them. Commitment frequently breeds intolerance, and that represents a constant threat to our social fabric and to the advancement of knowledge. - I am still haunted by BBella's account of an extraordinary spiritual experience (see "The Arts" 4 September at 07.05), which raises all kinds of questions about the mind and the body and gives us a glimpse of a world already alluded to by David Turell in his research on OBEs and NDEs. Almost as stimulating, though he probably won't appreciate my using it in such a context, is George's comment under Atheism (21 August at 18.13): "What does it mean to talk about something beyond the natural, physical world? If it is something we can sense in some way, perhaps using special hitherto undeveloped senses, then surely it must be natural or physical." What intrigues me about this is the reference to "special hitherto undeveloped senses", which ... as discussed in the thread on "The Arts" ... could entail faculties that are indeed natural but are not physical. Within our restricted world of space and time, just how can we know what constitutes "nature"? In my own post of 29 September at 18.39 I posed the question of whether my material body created my emotions, consciousness etc. or, like a TV set, merely provided the medium. - Parallel to all the discussions on religion, ethics, the arts etc., the scientific arguments for and against design continue to be aired, particularly through David's "Front End Loading" thread and earlier ones on evolution. For those of us who are not scientists, these threads are invaluable. The fact that science can be used to prove whatever the scientist wishes to believe does not mean that we can ignore it. If there is, for instance, a general consensus among scientists that the world is billions of years old, I don't see how anyone can maintain with certainty that it isn't, just because of suspect interpretations of ancient texts. Theists should not shut their eyes to science, any more than atheists should shut their eyes to the fact that science cannot explain the origin of life. - It may be that this review itself is unbalanced or has misrepresented certain viewpoints. In that case, please put me right. In the meantime, once more my thanks to all who have contributed to what has been and I hope will continue to be an illuminating discussion.