[CarolinaGuitarman]

" 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.

[YHAOS]

I wasn't claiming the shyster was the reporter . . .

I know you weren’t. But, there just aren’t all that many candidates; the reporter (and maybe his editor), and the scientists with whom he spoke. Like that elephant in the room, the connections are there in the article - thanks to either the scientist(s) who said it, or the reporter who wrote it on his own (unless you want to blame errant quantum particles).

. . . you have 0% evidence of that.

I have the article. I have the other articles I’ve researched:

http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2005/08/14/project_on_the_origins_

The Boston Globe

Project on the origins of life launched

Harvard joining debate on evolution

By Gareth Cook, Globe Staff

On the basis of the articles, it’s perfectly reasonable to accept the reportage as information imparted by the scientists, and preferable to asserting that ‘some journalist made an ignorant claim’ as you did in an earlier post.

But whichever it is, the article makes it clear that a great amount of money and effort will be poured into an attempt to determine the origins of life and to prove that God doesn’t exist. A sort of abiogenesis Manhattan Project. Maybe we could call it the Cambridge Project? Probably not. Better to wait in case the project is located at a cite remote from the Cambridge campus.

Is this project real science? Does it deal with matters appropriate to science? Or does it actually belong in the Divinity Dpt or the Philosophy Dpt? It looks like it’s going to be 100% a science undertaking.