Replies

How happy I am that my particular branch of scientific insterest, astronomy, is not home to the closed-minded morons that inhabit the biological sciences.

I think you'd find most trained astronomers pretty confident of atomic theory and the theory of gravitation, just as most trained biologists (and indeed most other scientists) are confident in the theory of evolution. All of these theories have been consistent with the data, and made useful predictions.

Until a more consistent alternative theory to atomic theory is provided and tested by its proponents, atomic theory will remain solidly accepted. Likewise with evolution. Does this make astronomers and biologists "closed-minded?" Should they spend vital time seriously considering every half-formulated, untested theory that comes along from people unwilling to do supporting research? Some people suggest that they should. Personally, I don't think busy scientists have any obligation to do the alternative-theory-proponents' homework for them.

Until a more consistent alternative theory to atomic theory is provided and tested by its proponents, atomic theory will remain solidly accepted. Likewise with evolution.

Atomic theory and evolution are not on equal foundations. The practical applications of atomic theory are huge. A child can test elements of atomic theory.

As of yet, there are no corresponding practical applications of evolution, and no one can test elements of it.

Alright, I have nothing insightful to contribute to this discussion, so I'll just relate a vaguely remembered anecdote.

I don't know if you folks remember the debate on "Firing Line" quite a few years back, where the same topic was being contested by two teams with divergent viewpoints, one of them being led by Michael Behe.

Well, there was an exchange between Peter Brimelow-as best I recall-and Barry Lynn.

The only thing about Brimelow's rebuttal that I remember is his statement to the affect that: "the scientific community hasn't yet found a way to create a feline/female hybrid..."

Anyway, that p***y Barry Lynn starts in on how Brimelow is a freak, just because he'd like to see the "Catwoman" fantasy realized; implying that he's some sort of sexual deviant.

Personally, I didn't see the problem with it myself. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely some positions of Brimelow's which I take issue with, but I don't think that he could be criticized for wanting to see genetic engineering get to the point where it would be possible to see some form of Mendelian gene-splicing that could eventually create a real, live, cat/woman hybrid.

Am I totally off base here?

I mean, I know it sounds like a strange concept at first, especially if you're a chick, but just think about it.

I realize that scientists would encounter some difficulties at first. I for one, have some wicked allergic reactions to cats and they would probably need to invent some sort of woman that didn't have the body hair/fur that you'd customarily expect to see on a cat.

However, once they've got all the kinks worked out, I'm sure that whatever female-feline concoction they devised would be awesome.

Am I just being a total weirdo here?

Hit me back.

-good times, G.J.P. (Jr.)