posted
Now, now. Prejudiced I'll admit to. But bigoted? Did I advocate re-education camps for Americans? The dissolution of the United States into protectorates, with European control of education, foreign policy, and police authority? Harsh penalties for professing Creationist beliefs? Indeed I did not.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You believe that the religious should not procreate. You believe that the religion should be legislated against. Sound bigoted?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KofM, I haven't the desire to spend time looking for Norwegian extremists, goofballs or idiots. If you wish to contend that there are none, I will let that stand. We both know though that this isn't the case. If you were being honest you would admit that there are folks from your country that hold to beliefs that you disagree with vehemently.
In no way should Creationists take this post as a smear. While I don't ascribe to that philosophy I refuse to denigrate those that do.
quote:If you think Americans are a bunch of losers, why are you wasting your time on a forum called "Books, Films, Food and American Culture"?
Because of the books, films, and food. Three out of four ain't bad. Seriously, I don't think I've said that Amerika is teh sux0r. I've said that Europe is better, in my opinion; that doesn't mean I think the US is as bad as, say, Nigeria.
punwit, how about me for an example of a Norwegian extremist? But in any case, the point I'm trying to make is that Europe certainly has its share of idiots, but they aren't in positions of influence like the Creationists in some parts of the US.
It occurs to me that I may have been letting my sense of humour get the better of me, and lure me into behaviour bordering on trolling. Or even over the border. I apologise for that. But I stand by my belief that the American education system has done very badly by comrade IvyGirl; that on average, it is not as good as the various European ones; and that the separation of Church and State is weaker here than in Europe.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I doubt many people would be willing to share, after having our experiments bashed repeatedly in the past with arguments that don't amount to much more than "you made that up in your head, you delusional twit."
I'm a bit offended by your suggestion that I have ever "bashed" anyone's arugments or called them "delusional twits". If you can produce a quote of mine where I have done so, I will gladly apologize.
In fact, I am truly interested in seeing how one would design an experiment to test God. If this has been discussed elsewhere on this forum, please provide me a link or links.
Posts: 57 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Skeptic, a reading assignment for you: in the Book of Mormon the book of Alma chapter 32 starting around verse 21. It discusses "experimenting upon the word of God". (can look it and any other scripture up at lds.org) Also New Testament:
John 7: 17
17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.
The common idea here is that if you obey God's commandments, you will be blessed above those who do not. Some of the commandments are common sense, but others go against secular reasoning. The idea being this is evidence that these things are from God and that God is good. This is not the same as "having a religious experience that you can turn off and on like a light". It is more of a social experiment.
It isn't perhaps as satisfying as "seeing God face to face" as proof, but there are many who wouldn't take that as "proof" either. And it *is* evidence as far as what evidence actually is.
Edit: I could be wrong, but I have always assumed that this is one of the most daunting things that stands between the agnostic/atheist and the leap of faith. If God does exist, then their eternal happiness rests upon their obedience to certain godly principles. I imagine that is a bitter pill to swallow, since even believers wrestle with it.
Of course, there are a decent number of believers who believe that just being a member of a religion will save them whether or not they follow those godly principles....
posted
So if I write down "white people are blessed above others, because I the lord high god say so", and we determine objectively that white people are generally better off than black/indian/et cetera people, does that make me the lord high god?
IOW, its only (and even this would be hugely up for debate) testable if people who follow the strictures laid out there are better off than most. And considering most of them aren't counterintuitive, and so I could just create a list of those and probably get the same measure, we'd really have to control for the comon sense ones, which would be essentially impossible. Furthermore, I rather doubt you'd accept a study that showed people following those strictures, controlled for the common sense ones, were equally or slightly worse off than others as suggesting there wasn't a god, so there's no falsifiability.
posted
Depends on what your definition of "blessed" is. "Blessed" according to the world's standards and "blessed" according to spiritual standards are not the same thing. I imagine there are many blacks who are far more blessed than whites because of their humility, their gratitude, their love for others. They have true joy in their lives inasmuch as they are following God's principles just the same as everyone else.
quote: Furthermore, I rather doubt you'd accept a study that showed people following those strictures, controlled for the common sense ones, were equally or slightly worse off than others as suggesting there wasn't a god, so there's no falsifiability.
These things are subjective in nature. Repeatable, work for everyone, but subjective. I don't know how you can do an objective study on something that is subjective.
But just because something is subjective does not make it false or irrelevant.
posted
Well then, that kind of makes it hard to duplicate this experiment in any impartial way, does it? Don't get me wrong--I'm not knocking your beliefs. I wouldn't have thought that it was necessary to submit faith to experimentation, or to claim that it could be submitted to experimentation, at all. I just look at it as a personal thing. But then again, like you, I don't view faith as needing to be at odds with rationality. I mean, when I still had faith I didn't turn off my rational mind at the time.
But to suggest that faith can be tested in the same way, and then when someone tries to take the claim seriously, challenge the interpretations of every term that makes such a test performable . . .
posted
Why bother? I was answering a question. I wasn't expecting the answer to be satisfying. The fact remains, it *can* be tested, and there *is* evidence.
Is it empirical? No. But evidence it is. Repeatable it is. Measurable it is not. Dectectable it is.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good question! My understanding is that anyone who keeps a law receives the blessing. The scripture I use for reference on this:
Doctrine and Covenants Section 130
20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated— 21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.
But since part of the law is faith, and that is missing, the blessings associated with it would be lost.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
np, vwiggin. And in case anyone hasn't noticed, I *love* good questions. Thank you for asking one!
Icarus, it works just fine without the faith aspect because the other parts still hold true. If someone were a complete skeptic and were doing it purely for science, they would enjoy the same blessings as one doing it out of faith for the blessings that do not pertain to faith. These are natural laws because all the laws of God are natural. They function as does any scientific principle.
An atheist can be every bit as blessed in this life as a believer except for the principles which require actual faith.
posted
Actually, I'm referring not to your follow up, vwiggin, but to skeptic's original question (or more appropriately, Scott R's original assertion). So maybe this is more a question for Scott R, but Beverly has chosen to take up the gauntlet. I'm wondering why even attempt to compete with science on science's own terms.
EDIT: but since the definition of blessed is open to interpretation, and you pretty much get to interpret it retroactively, how does such an "experiment" go about having a control?
posted
Yes, it would be cool to hear Scott's thoughts on it. But I am a sucker for good questions and thought I would take a gander at it.
I believe that faith is not irrational. I believe it obeys the same principles that science obeys. But because we cannot see everything in our mortal state, we cannot see all the consequences and therefore not fully understand the reasons behind all God's laws. But I firmly believe there *are* reasons and they make sense. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I believe that faith is not irrational. I believe it obeys the same principles that science obeys. But because we cannot see everything in our mortal state, we cannot see all the consequences and therefore not fully understand the reasons behind all God's laws. But I firmly believe there *are* reasons and they make sense.
I believe that faith is not inconsistent with rationality. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "it" obeys principles. If there is a God, then I believe there must be rational reasons behind God's laws, and that they would make sense if we could see the whole picture.
But as far as using the principles of science to test the validity of faith . . . I don't see the appropriateness of such an approach.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
btw, people talk about whether or not God "must" obey rational principals. If there is a God, I would not see Him as bound. Rather, I would see the rational as an expression of His nature and His creation.
(I do get forced into weird tense constructions when I talk religion. I wonder why I am so fascinated by discussions of faith and religion.)
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I feel no particular obligation to help Americans overcome the consequences of their faith. Let 'em eat manna. All the more actual food for the rest of us.
I'm hearing this in the voice of John Lithgow and I'm getting an image of a Lord Farquaad...very strange.
Posts: 3771 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icarus, it does surprise me that you would have feelings about the "appropriateness" of applying scientific theory to faith when you do not have faith. Perhaps old paradigms die hard.
I recognize that our religious backgrounds are different. But honestly, from my religious background, "experimenting on faith" is not a strange idea. Nothing I have expressed here is strange to me.
quote: btw, people talk about whether or not God "must" obey rational principals. If there is a God, I would not see Him as bound. Rather, I would see the rational as an expression of His nature and His creation.
I don't really see these two ideas being at odds with each other. Rather I see it as two manifestations of the same reality.
posted
If its blessed spiritually, then its hardly testable .
Also, if faith doesn't let us see the consequences, it is not scientific, though it may be rational. Science only speaks to things which we can see the consequences for (at least in an immediate theoretical sense -- that is, theoretical at one remove "if we have enough energy, we can test theory x", as opposed to "if theory x is true, then we can test theory y" or even "if theory x is true, then we can test theory x", which is pretty much what you seem to be saying bev ).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Oh, absolutely. It still gets my dander up when people attack Catholicism, too. (Only I get to do that! )
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
a) Evolution is a nice theory... b) ...but it has huge holes in it that never have been answered to my knowledge
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
Can you even explain it to me? As far as I see, the process is supposed to take the following path:
a) A cell is randomly formed b) That cell somehow has the ability to recreate c) Then, through, mutations, one of the cells gain the ability to have sex d) And it all goes from there...
That is an insanely unlikely illogical sequence.
Furthermore, there are many adaptions that make no sense, such as butterflies. Yes, I'm sure you have an "explanation" -- but it just seems so absurd.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu, an interesting point. I think what I am saying is whether or not theory x is true, it can be tested. According to the results of the test, a person can see for themselves the truth of theory x. It is a test that can be conducted on a personal level, but doesn't really work any other way. My faith in theory x is strenghtened on a regular basis by repeated tests of it.
Perhaps as you say this is not science but simply a form of rational thought.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Phanto, you have cried wolf enough times I don't know whether to believe that you are earnest in your "doubts".
But I'll bite anyway.
Let's assume these are your actual doubts. The way I see it, this is where an intelligent Creator comes in. Let's assume that life happening all by itself is so crazy-unlikely that it would never happen on it's own. As likely as, say, my dinner spontaneously making itself. But if there is a guiding hand throughout the entire process, this is no longer a problem.
I understand, though, that most atheists believe that not only is it more likely to happen than my dinner spontaneously making itself, but our existance proves that it did happen by itself. From that POV, who knows how many "failed universes" and "failed terrariums" happened before one actually produced sentient life that can ask, "What am I? Where did I come from?" and "Why am I here?"
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Let's assume these are your actual doubts. The way I see it, this is where an intelligent Creator comes in. Let's assume that life happening all by itself is so crazy-unlikely that it would never happen on it's own. As likely as, say, my dinner spontaneously making itself. But if there is a guiding hand throughout the entire process, this is no longer a problem.
I understand, though, that most atheists believe that not only is it more likely to happen than my dinner spontaneously making itself, but our existance proves that it did happen by itself. From that POV, who knows how many "failed universes" and "failed terrariums" happened before one actually produced sentient life that can ask, "What am I? Where did I come from?" and "Why am I here?"
So your belief in Evolution is an offshoot of your belief in God? As I do not have, however, a belief in God, that same process won't work for me.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Phanto, perhaps you can take it as evidence that there is indeed a God, or at least some intelligent force that guided evolution? Aliens maybe?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Take what as evidence? That there isn't a good explanation for initial cell formation and the start of evolution?
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there? I don't know. Alls I'm saying is if there isn't a good explaination, the other still works.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which butterfly adaptation theories bother you. Is it because they have bright colors that are easily seen by the human eye?
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Phanto, how life originated has nothing to do with evolution. You're confusing evolution with other theories.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I know, the evolution theory starts from the start...with life forming randomly then evolving from there...
Beren: While the bright colors may a confusing point for some people, I'm more concerned with the 2 stage lifestyle.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are lots of different theories for how life starts, and none of them start out with a cell. Even the most 'primitive' organisms around today are the end product of two billion years of evolution, and fine-tuned beyond belief compared to whatever the earlist life was.
One possibility is simple, common clay. Clay occasionally forms geometric patterns (on the microscopic level); when a new layer of silt is deposited on top of the pattern, it follows the form laid out for it. Sometimes the top layer breaks off, and the process can start anew in other places. You can easily imagine some patterns forming faster and breaking off more often - hey presto, a reproductive advantage. To get life as we know it, just note that the early Earth is full of organic gunk, and organic molecules are excellent at forming complex patterns. Complex patterns are the default state of carbon compounds. Just let them be deposited on top of, or together with, the clay, and you have the required organisation as well.
That's one possibility; there are many others. But what they have in common is that they do not start with a cell, which as you quite rightly point out is way too complex. "Omnia celluli e cellula," but you are allowed more primitive precursors.
Incidentally, you say "that cell somehow has the ability to procreate" as though it were an incredibly complex business. I'd like to point out that crystals can do that much. It doesn't have to procreate the way a modern cell does it - if nothing else, it's got the vastly organic-rich environment of the young Earth to draw on. A modern cell in that environment would go "Woo-hoo! Free food!" and explode into action; ten minutes later there'd be a sea of fat, happy-looking bacteria. Which would then turn on each other in an orgy of cannibalism. The point I'm making, however, is that it's not actually that difficult to make a copy of a sufficiently primitive organism. Especially when you consider that it doesn't have to be a good copy; as long as there are enough copies that at least one has preserves the ability to make further copies. The thing about life is that it only needs the most tenuous of footholds to take off.
Sex, I admit, is more complex. In fact, speaking now as a physicist, I'm not ashamed to admit that I haven't quite figured it out yet. I don't know what the current theory is here. Just off the top of my head, though, I wonder if we can appeal to primitiveness again? Early organisms didn't have the sharp distinction between 'inside' and 'outside' that modern ones do. So, whatever they used for genetic information, it would be easy for them to swap it. Hey presto - bacterial sex.
The final point I'd like to make is time. Humans have intuitions for what is likely on timescales of, at most, tens of years. So if you say 'it seems pretty unlikely that such-and-such will happen in my lifetime,' I might well agree with you - your intuition is probably good. But the Earth's lifespan is measured in the thousands of millions of years. Neither of us can really understand that number, nor is our intuition developed for it. So when you say, "it seems pretty unlikely to me," you are talking gobbledegook. Your sense of what is likely or not just doesn't apply on such a length of time. You would have to run the numbers to get some sense of what the probabilities are; an exercise for which neither of us is equipped.
By the way, and just out of curiosity : Suppose someone managed to produce life in the lab, from nothing but organic molecules. Suppose further, for the sake of argument, that it's repeatable, several different labs can also do it, and you've watched the process yourself to make sure they're not cheating. Would you accept that as proof of abiogenesis? Because if you would, you may have to get ready for a change in world-view in the next thirty years or so.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You post a lot of interesting stuff. I don't have the time to post a reply that is worthwhile, so I'll defer replying for now.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, cool post. Ambiogenesis is a cool subject and one I am interested in discussing. I have a question in my mind I am trying to think how to articulate this idea properly.
I guess I have always been fascinated with DNA. Not just with it's ability to replicate. If DNA all by itself were a form of life, that would not be so incredible. It is the way that DNA is able to encode the information for creating an organism in which it resides. Amazing! I really wonder how that system in particular could develop on their own.
Or like viruses. It is debatable whether they are a form of "life" or not. But how do you get a strand of DNA strapped inside of a casing that it has the information to recreate?
If a scientist could cause the above things in a lab I would be pretty amazed/blown away. If it were repeatable--not just a one-time fluke--that would be even more amazing.
But what I really would be fascinated by is not just a mapping of genes in the DNA of an organism, but the actual understanding of the mechanisms and processes going on. This is something I would soooo love to understand. It seems like such a mystery to me.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As others have pointed out, it should be stressed that evolution and the origin of life are two seperate things. The evolution as a mechanism of change and speciation is very well documented and understood (though we are constantly finding out more and filling in the gaps of specific cases) and should be considered as "proven" as anything ever is in science.
The origin of life, however, is pretty much still up in the air. There are alot of theories, some of which have some decent evidence, but we are still a long way from being able to definitely say how it happened.
Anyone interested in the origin of life should check out the RNA World hypothesis which is really in vogue at the moment.
Beverly, most biologists do not consider viruses to be alive, but they are good examples of non-living things that can mimic most (but not all) of the properties of life. It may interest you that scientists have actually built a functioning poliovirus out of basic building blocks.
quote: The team of three virologists at the State University of New York, Stony Brook, used genomic data available on the Internet and materials from a mail-order chemical supply company. "The reason we did it was to prove that it can be done and it is now a reality," said researcher Eckard Wimmer.
quote: To create the virus, the researchers first assembled single nucleotide bases into DNA based on the virus' known genetic sequence. An enzyme then transcribed the DNA into the single-stranded RNA genome. The virus could then replicate itself naturally.
A variety of experiments on cell cultures and in mice confirmed that the artificial virus was almost identical to the natural one. It invaded cells and reproduced the same way, and it was inhibited by the same antibody. These results confirm that the data describing the chemical structure and genetic sequence of the natural virus, published more than two decades ago, were accurate.
Viruses are NOT believed to have been a step in biogenesis, so this tells us nothing about the origin of life, but it's still a pretty cool experiment.
[ September 12, 2004, 04:26 AM: Message edited by: Vera ]
Posts: 96 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I guess I have always been fascinated with DNA. Not just with it's ability to replicate. If DNA all by itself were a form of life, that would not be so incredible. It is the way that DNA is able to encode the information for creating an organism in which it resides. Amazing! I really wonder how that system in particular could develop on their own.
Ok, Bev, first of all let me say how perceptive you are! That is a problem that plagued molecular biologists for years. One of the reasons the RNA World hypothesis seems so convincing at the moment is that it actually deals with this problem.
Basicly the problem is this: The central dogma* of molecular biology states that the information flow in living cells goes DNA->RNA->protein. DNA is the long term storage media that is passed down. DNA is transcribed into RNA, which can be regarded as the short term working memory of the cell. RNA is then translated into proteins, including enzymes, which actually do the work of the cell. There are certain enzymes that are responsible for replicating the DNA. The problem for the origin of life is that for this to work you need all three. You can't replicate or transcribe DNA without enzymes (proteins) and you can't make the enzymes without the DNA that codes for them. It seems impossibly complicated that this system could have arisen in one step, and yet the parts can't function on their own.
This is where RNA World comes to the rescue. It has been known for years that RNA can act as a genetic material on it's own without the need for DNA ( as in RNA viruses). In 1986 it was discovered that RNA could also catalyze chemical reactions. The discovery that RNA could act as both an information AND a catalytic molecule, gave rise to the RNA world theory, which suggests that RNA filled both of these roles in early life.
*Yeah, I know, it's weird that biology actually has something called the "central dogma." It is NOT dogma in the religious sense of a postive statement of belief. The reason it has that freaky name is because Francis Crick was a brilliant scientist, but not much of a linguist. Crick didn't know what the word dogma actually meant and thought it meant "something that is not proven." When he intoduced the central dogma he was actually saying "I think that information flow in all cells works like this, but I can't prove it." Unfortunately, the name stuck. Biologists are well aware of the exceptions to the "dogma" and are not troubled by them. The only time I, personally have ever been troubled by anything relating to the central dogma, is when playing the Molecular Biology Drinking Game, because the phrase gets used so damn much and every time someone says it you have to take a drink.
Edit: Ok, one more thing and then I'm going to bed.
quote:I have a question in my mind I am trying to think how to articulate this idea properly... It is the way that DNA is able to encode the information for creating an organism in which it resides. Amazing! ............. Or like viruses. It is debatable whether they are a form of "life" or not. But how do you get a strand of DNA strapped inside of a casing that it has the information to recreate? ................... But what I really would be fascinated by is not just a mapping of genes in the DNA of an organism, but the actual understanding of the mechanisms and processes going on. This is something I would soooo love to understand. It seems like such a mystery to me.
Actually, if I am interpreting your question correctly, this is something we know alot about! The chemical processes that go from DNA->RNA->protein are well characterized. And gene expression (how and when certain genes are turned on and off, and how you get from DNA->phenotype) has been studied quite a bit. If you want I could try to explain a bit of it, or try to lay out what we already know and what we don't, or if you have a specific question that that might help, I would be happy to answer.
I generally stay away from evolution arguments and I have no interest in trying to convince anyone of anything, but (in case you couldn't tell ) I LOVE talking about molecular biology to anyone who is genuinely interested.
[ September 12, 2004, 05:20 AM: Message edited by: Vera ]
Posts: 96 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
KofM, I must admit that decisions like the one my home state (Kansas) made, leave me scratching my head over our vaunted separation of church and state.
I'm not sure one should blame the state for an individuals personal beliefs. Also, as Geoffrey pointed out in another thread, there is an incumbent responsability as a parent to monitor and refine (or refute if necessary) your child's schooling. My daughter didn't suffer from the silly (in my view) decision to remove evolution from the curriculum. We picked up the slack here at home.
In regards to your belief that you may have stepped over the line . I got the sense you were sorta debating just to debate when you asked me to find examples of Norwegian crackpots. That didn't really bother me I just declined to take the bait. I find myself agreeing with you on many points and fussing over the finer ones.
My major beef at this point is your blunt handling of IvyGirl. I realize you don't know her but I do and I like and respect her and her mother. As a friend I can disagree with her viewpoint but still wish to defend her from harsh vitriol, which your post was.
posted
Beverly, I did the assigned reading. The problem is that I have no faith. My ground is barren. What I need is evidence that requires no faith. I see now that we are using the word “experiment” differently. I want an experiment in the scientific sense. One with multiple samples, controls, and independently observable, measurable phenomena. Alma does not use the word in this sense.
You wrote:
quote: Is it empirical? No. But evidence it is. Repeatable it is. Measurable it is not. Dectectable it is.
For me, the problem is that I would like to believe. I want to have eternal life. I want to see my grandfather again. Knowing that I am extremely biased, I have to try to avoid my emotion-based bias. If I do not do this, I risk believing something that is not true. I can’t lie to myself.
quote:If someone were a complete skeptic and were doing it purely for science, they would enjoy the same blessings as one doing it out of faith for the blessings that do not pertain to faith.
I am a complete skeptic (hence the screen name). Which blessings can I expect if I follow the law without faith?
Icarus wrote
quote: I'm wondering why even attempt to compete with science on science's own terms.
Beverly is doing it because I asked her to (I think). I also agree with the implication that perhaps it isn’t worth it. I am an agnostic because I don’t believe that the existence/nonexistence of god is demonstrable in a scientific way. Beverly has suggested that if one follows certain laws, then one can expect certain blessings. If we can nail down which laws one must follow (the ones that don’t require faith), and what blessings one can expect to arise, I may choose to try the experiment. It may be a before and after comparison with a sample size of one, and a biased observer—an imperfect experiment at best—but I may try it.
Beverly wrote
quote: I believe that faith is not irrational. I believe it obeys the same principles that science obeys.
Here I think you either misspoke or misunderstand science. Science works to uncover the principles by which the natural world works. The principles by which science works—that’s a social-psychology question.
Thanks to Vera for clarifying the issue of evolution vs origin of life. BTW—How do you play the molecular biology drinking game?
Posts: 57 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Seriously, I don't think I've said that Amerika is teh sux0r. I've said that Europe is better, in my opinion; that doesn't mean I think the US is as bad as, say, Nigeria. ![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
