If I may chime in with a few questions - has "evolution" ruled that the origin of species and the origin of life are mutually exclusive?
It seems that if the hypothesis is that species evolve from predecessors, and since "evolution" concerns itself with predecessors, then why not be concerned with the original predecessor?
At what point in the progression does "evolution" say "I'm done - can't go there"?
It’s my question: Why is science studying the origin of life at all? Aren’t such studies pointless, scientifically speaking? It’s my understanding origins is properly a subject for study by theology or philosophy, Science being a materialistic discipline, unable to make meaningful judgments about other things. That’s true isn’t it? Can I get a straight answer to an uncomplicated question? If you need to qualify or equivocate a little bit, please feel free - I won’t accuse you of lying.
The story is appearing all over; it’s in the Sidney World Herald, in the UK Guardian, in the Houston Chronicle, USA Today, CNN, and many others, I’m sure. The Boston Globe has the biggest article, and a lot of the others seem to have based their report on the Globe version.
The Boston Globe
Project on the origins of life launched
Harvard joining debate on evolution
By Gareth Cook, Globe Staff
http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2005/08/14/project_on_the_origins_
On what do you base this? A USA Today article?
Can’t trust them papers, huh? Well, here’s your chance to set the record straight. You have the name of the reporter, so you can email the bovine scatological ignoramus, and his equally mentally retarded editor, and square them both away on the gratuitous addition of material potentially embarrassing to the Science Community, or their failure to edit out some of the more careless statements made by scientists. You have such an enchanting manner about you when you are correcting others’ errors, that almost assuredly they (the editor and the reporter) will be charmed into a response, confessing who it was that screwed up in leaving too many dots around to be connected.
Personally, I think the articles are probably accurate. You have to remember who MSM pukes cuddle up to, and who they scorn and shun. Imagine their elation when they were told that it’s just a matter of a few years and the existence of God will be definitively disproved, and that it will be known authoritatively that we all came from a mud puddle. This would just be too good of news not to be passed on largely unretouched. It is IDers, other ‘Bible-thumpers’ and ‘Jesus-freaks’, and knuckle-dragging conservatives generally, who are greeted with hostility and disdain, and whose stories are spiked or distorted.