[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Well . . . that lying moron David R. Liu, professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard ‘told them this,’ apparently (by ‘them’ I assume you mean the liars and the morons of the press)."

"According to professor Liu, not only can we disprove the existence of God, it’s going to be a rather simple matter to do so."

That is not what he said, and only a lair or a moron could get that from his statement. Is there a reason you felt compelled to change his statement? He said,

"My expectation is that we will be able to reduce this [origin of life] to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention."

As is plain, he did NOT say that the task would be easy, just that the steps that led to life would be simple and logical once they were discovered. It may take centuries to figure it all out.

And, as has been said before, NO scientific theory uses *divine intervention* as evidence. ALL scientific theories can ONLY use natural causes. Anything else would not be science. Singling out abiogenesis is just dishonest. Name ANY theory in science that uses Divine Intervention as a perfectly fine piece of evidence (ID doesn't count, I said scientific theory)

Also, the quote from Liu does NOT say he will be disproving God. He says his theory will only use natural causes to explain the origins of life on earth. That doesn't mean there is no God, as a theist can be perfectly comfortable with the idea that God created the laws of nature and those laws of nature are sufficient to run the Universe. God doesn't have to keep meddling at every turn. If he did, like ID claims, then there would be no way to be sure of anything in science.

"Surely, he does understand that the Origins of Life in the Universe Initiative was not instituted to logically demonstrate that origin of life is part of the theory of evolution. Yet the connection is made in the article."

By a reporter who is trying to get more readership from scientific illiterates like you. Not by Liu.

"But, it does seem that someone in Harvard PR perceives an advantage to leaving others with that impression."

Or, that some reporter sees an advantage in getting more readership.

[YHAOS]

Singling out abiogenesis is just dishonest.

Gosh, I thought that was the topic generally at hand.

Also, the quote from Liu does NOT say he will be disproving God. He says his theory will only use natural causes to explain the origins of life on earth. That doesn't mean there is no God, as a theist can be perfectly comfortable with the idea that God created the laws of nature and those laws of nature are sufficient to run the Universe. God doesn't have to keep meddling at every turn.

But the good professor doesn’t say that, oh ye of the cut’em-no-slack school of discourse. Unlike many whom you oppose, you’ll cut Dr. Liu all the slack he needs to fully explain what he really means. Well, it so happens that I agree in this case. Cutting Dr. Liu some slack is not a matter of science; it’s a matter of simple justice. I let your personality disorder affect my judgment in refusing Dr. Liu even a little simple justice (and, after reading some of your more poisonous posts, I promised myself I wouldn’t do that ). My fault - not yours. So I looked up young Dr. Liu.

David Liu: born in Riverside, California; graduated first in his class at Harvard in 1994 with a bachelor's degree in chemistry; entered the Ph.D. program at U. C. Berkeley; studied tRNAs and the enzymes that aminoacylate them; initiated the first general effort to expand the genetic code in living cells; earned his Ph.D. in chemistry in 1999; became Assistant Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard University the same year.

Professor Liu: head of the Liu Group; the group’s research applies evolutionary principles to the creation and evaluation of small molecules and macromolecules; research areas include;

“(i) the development and application of new approaches to the evolution of biological macromolecules, and (ii) the application of evolutionary principles to the discovery of synthetic small molecules, synthetic polymers, and new chemical reactions.”

Other research include; “evolution in living cells of RNA molecules with biological activities from random libraries, and the evolution of proteins with novel catalytic and regulatory activities,”leading to “the laboratory evolution of new macromolecular tools for studying biology,” and also the dissection of “the structural and functional requirements of natural proteins and small RNA (sRNA) molecules.”

Second area of interest; Professor Liu's group has developed “a new approach to the synthesis and discovery of synthetic molecules that captures fundamental advantages of biological evolution.”

So it seems Professor Liu’s plate is full without a project studying the origins of life. Also, it looks like Dr. Liu isn’t far enough up the food-chain to be involved with the politics of fund raising, faculty recruitment, and facility development on a new campus. So, I was wrong to go after Dr. Liu. It’s that politically correct gang who run Harvard like a re-education camp that I should have been pursuing. You have to wonder why Dr. Liu was even in the story unless Harvard PR turned to him to fill in for higher ups. It is summer and people are gone.

But, it is Harvard’s story and it is The Globe’s story, and it’s their responsibility to get it right. You’re supposed to be a no excuses - no slack kind of guy, but in falling all over yourself trying to excuse Harvard and The Globe and blaming this on evil-intentioned little people, you sound like the Clinton Administration: “I never worked so hard in my life trying to make those little weasels get this story straight, and their incompetence is not my fault! Now, I want you to listen close because I’m going to say this just once; I never, not once, ever had sexual relations with the Boston Globe, and neither did Harvard or Hilary. There’s some little evil-intentioned incompetent running around down there trying to torpedo my legacy, and that’s all there is to that story (in Rush’s best Bill Clinton voice).

So, you don’t like my interpretation of Dr. Liu’s remarks (or The Globe’s reporting thereof), huh? Scientifically illiterate, you call me. Yeah . . . that’s largely correct. And content I would have been to remain so (with a few notable exceptions) the rest of my life. But scientists are messing around in my areas of interest (natural rights, natural law, the rights of man, the theory of liberal republican government, the right of free inquiry, etc.), so I’m obliged to find out more about science than I really otherwise care to do. But, it looks like I’ll need to go somewhere else where I won’t need to deal so much with over-hormoned stuffed shirts.

Many scientists seem so self-absorbed in their own interests that I doubt it ever occurs to them there might be other understandings or applications. Or maybe they’re just plain scared. Do scientists actually think they have ultimate control over their work product if their work excites the interest of the politically correct who run most American college campi? Oh, scientists will bravely man the ramparts against the IDers (it’s pretty easy to tear into most IDers - there are some who can bite back), but they’ve allowed a nest of vipers to flourish within their academic walls without doing scarce a thing. The environmental lunatics and the ideological brown shirts have control of the campus administration and the ear of the conventional press, and they can hurt any academic who crosses them.

This thread has gone to dust and hot wind. If you wish, the last word is yours. I’m done.