Stephen is now following Behe's example trying to convince his audience that
there is no scientific basis for my remark that abiogenesis is not such a
big mystery as it used to be. Mysteries are dispelled by observations. There
have now been several observations (some have been pointed out on this list)
that make abiogenesis less a mystery than it once was.
Nice try Stephen :-)
Quoting Johnson:
>"Even such slight evidence is more than sufficient, however, because
>evidence is not really necessary to prove something that is practically self-
>evident.
see? Johnson does it to. Of course, if there were no evidence, nothing to
study, nothing to look at, no evidence to consider, why would science exist
at all?
>If there is no God, then abiogenesis *must* have happened somehow, because
>here we are. All that is needed then is to pick the best (or least worst!)
>naturalistic possibility and put that in the textbooks as an illustration, and
>don't tell the kids about all the failures and disagreements.
the very act of investigation bothers you, doesn't it? "Don't look at that!
God did it!!!"
failures and disagreements are part and parcel of science. I agree that the
history of science should be taught in high schools. There's a reason it
isn't. You think that science itself contradicts your mythology. The history
of science doesn't make Christianity look too good either! Christianity has
opposed and attempted to suppress every major scientific observation. Hey,
Stephen, there's an atheistic assumption in every plane flight and every
space launch. Don't those bother you?
Susan
--------
Peace is not the absence of conflict--it is the presence of justice.
--Martin Luther King, Jr.
Please visit my website:
http://www.telepath.com/susanb