[Dimensio]

The professor did say that he believes origins can be explained without reference to 'divine intervention' but he did not explicitly endorse evolution, so maybe he thinks there is a "third way."

Well, there would have to be a third way to explain life origins, since the theory of evolution does not cover life origins.

But, hey, don't let facts get in the way of repeating a lie. Creationists never do.

[YHAOS]



Well, there would have to be a third way to explain life origins, since the theory of evolution does not cover life origins.

That’s what I thought too; that the theory of evolution does not cover the origin of life. But, I don’t think Harvard is expecting to explore a third theory of origins (at least no such third theory was mentioned), so there must be some degree of confusion existing in someone’s mind at Harvard. I don’t know that anyone is lying up there, but, properly, doesn’t origins belong in the philosophy or the theology dpt? Yet the Science Dpt seems to be all over the subject.

But, hey, don't let facts get in the way of repeating a lie. Creationists never do.

If I ever do (lie), I’m sure you’ll be the very first to let me know, and that you will justly rule on differences over disputed facts or matters of opinion. I’m a Presbyterian, by the way.