The *shyster* is the one who claims abiogenesis is part of the Theory of Evolution, and that the Harvard professors linked the two. Although the professor clearly is talking about abiogenesis, I don’t know that we can accuse the reporter of being a shyster. The morons of the press are fully capable of misreporting most any story, but the Harvard Science Dpt’s fingerprints seem to be all over this story, it’s obvious the money is going to that department, and evolution appears to be the focus of attention. I don’t think the reporter is writing anything but what he’s been told by professor Liu &c.
I’ve always understood that the subject of origins was properly a study for theology or philosophy, but clearly the Science Dpt is taking the lead here, and, in fact, those other departments seem to be out in the cold without a cent or a say. But, maybe we’ll discover it was all just a BIG mistake, thanks to a really stupid reporter.
Sorry if you can't read English.
Well I have my occassional problem, as do we all except the very few perfect ones, but my real difficulty sometimes is with slippery English.
" Although the professor clearly is talking about abiogenesis, I don’t know that we can accuse the reporter of being a shyster."
I wasn't claiming the shyster was the reporter, I was talking about someone who says that the Harvard scientists said something they didn't and claimed something they didn't.
"The morons of the press are fully capable of misreporting most any story, but the Harvard Science Dpt’s fingerprints seem to be all over this story, it’s obvious the money is going to that department, and evolution appears to be the focus of attention."
No, the money is going to abiogenesis research, not evolutionary. Evolution is the focus of attention ONLY in the article in the AP, which included it to get flame the fans more and get a higher readership.
"I don’t think the reporter is writing anything but what he’s been told by professor Liu &c."
And you have 0% evidence of that.