Me: Imagine their elation when they were told that it’s just a matter of a few years and the existence of God will be definitively disproved, and that it will be known authoritatively that we all came from a mud puddle.
You: Who in the hell told them this? I've never heard anyone claim that we're anywhere close to demonstrating that the latter is true, and science could never, ever, do the former. Anyone who claims that science could disprove God is a liar or a moron.
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).
"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." That’s a quote - professor Liu said it; he’s responsible for it (the part about the mud puddle is my responsibility - more about that later). 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.
Professor Liu has a bit of wiggle room if the heat gets a little intense, and he has to squirm out of what he said (it won’t so he won’t). He did reference ‘logical events that could have taken place,’ indicating there might be various possibilities (including ‘divine intervention’). He could claim that God may have created the universe, and therefore might be indirectly responsible for the origins of life. He could simply flat-out deny the quote, or claim that he was quoted ‘out of context.’ He could declare his utter neutrality in the matter, leaving his prior quote hanging in midair with no context.
I imagine you’re tempted to come to Professor Liu’s defense. I really wish you wouldn’t. The professor is not worthy of your defense. 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. More to the point, surely he must know that the Initiative is incapable of delving into value judgments such as declaring God either dead or alive (or irrelevant). Yet, he says what he undeniably said. But then, perhaps it’s just that he knows an Atlantic City Boardwalk stripper named ‘Devine Intervention.’ Undoubtedly, she would have nothing to do with the origin of life, even though she may have more than her share to do with its perpetuation.
That little bit of humor aside, the question remains why would a science professor make such an irrational statement. In the first instance, if the professor was not concerned with science in that statement, it ceases to be irrational. In the second instance, it’s not science, it’s Harvard with an atmosphere where huge amounts of wealth float around looking for a hook-up. In the third instance, it’s not science, it’s Harvard, with an atmosphere where agendas float around looking for wealth to hook-up with. In the forth instance, it’s not science, it’s Harvard, with an atmosphere where professors float around looking for opportunities where their particular discipline can go “Ta-ta for money.” Understand this, and what was obscure and perplexing becomes suddenly very clear.
On Mud Puddles where little children and scientists love to play:
Scientists like to posit that it’s in places like tidewater basins and wetlands where life most likely originated. Loaded with nutrients and lots of readily available sunlight. Yes or no, true?
Second best option: the bottom of a sea. Sunlight is a problem, but hot water vents are thought an adequate substitute. Yes or no, true?
Very well, then. Mud Puddles. If you don’t like my analogy, then Mr. Madison &c, more than two hundred years ago, said you have a perfect right to sneer. In the interim you’ll know what I mean even if you don’t like it.
I think that you're reading into this things that are simply not there.
That’s always a possibility. On the other hand, there may be just a whole lot of things there that you’re not seeing.
Harvard is doing a study on life origins. Many people mistakenly think that life origins is part of the theory of evolution.
I’m not one of those people. And, this story did not do one thing to clear up the misconceptions of people who do hold that mistaken belief.
The theory of evolution has recently come under attack by a group of hacks pushing "Intelligent Design", thus from a study on origins we get an article mentioning the evolution vs. ID issue.
You can’t reasonably blame everything on LD ‘hacks.’ This story is the responsibility of the Boston Globe and of Harvard. We’re dealing with the original story, not with blowbacks.
I don't see how this is the fault of Harvard, . . .
It’s their story. In fact, it reads like a press release originally written by the Harvard PR department (and, yes, they’re not scientists, so they’re morons too, but these morons should be smart enough to get feed-back from the Science Dpt). Better than half of these kinds of stories are press releases. You and several other posters noted the stories from different sources were virtually identical, but you apparently missed the vital connection: the parts that are identical from news outlet to news outlet are part of the original press release. It looks like The Globe did follow-up (probably with some telephone interviews - it’s doubtful there was any face-to-face), but apparently most of the outlets basically printed the release as is. Some did throw in a little bit of information from other sources.
. . . nor do I see how this logically demonstrates that life origins actually is part of the theory of evolution.
I don’t see that it does. But, it does seem that someone in Harvard PR perceives an advantage to leaving others with that impression.
Theology and philosophy can certainly address the matter of origins, but that doesn't mean that science can't investigate the matter.
Apparently two lines of evolutionist thought on this issue. There are others who say that origins is not a fit study for science because any conclusion/hypothesis/theory arising from this study would not be falsifiable and, therefore, not genuinely scientific. You’re the first I’ve encountered to say differently. Elaborate a little on this, if you wish to take the trouble.
Me: Personally, I think the articles are probably accurate.
You: On what basis?
I explained once, but let me try again. Coming at it from a little different angle, and in addition to that written above:
Recollection may bring to mind that several years ago four or five college students made up an environmental logo letterhead with an impressive-sounding scientific-like title. They set themselves up in an off-campus apartment, with a copier, and a fax. They then begin sending phoney environmental studies and bulletins to newspapers, wire services and various other news outlets. Unbelievably, some of the news organizations published their crap without checking out either the information or the supposed organization, despite the outlandishness of much of the material being produced. Once that happened, then everyone else was more that pleased to chime right in and add to the mist of misinformation. Eventually, of course, the whole little scam was uncovered and the jig was up. But, the question is, why did any journalist ever fall for this nonsense in the first place?
The answer is simple. The stuff these kids were putting out fit the political and ideological agenda of the press. It also fit their prejudices and their ignorance. All the right people were being flayed. The press had no hint of the truth of the matter, and could have cared less. It was so very much emotionally satisfying that they were thrilled to pass on whatever they were told. When the game was finally up and the scam exposed, then all the press simply dropped the whole matter without so much as a sheepish grin. Why should they feel sheepish? They didn’t believe they had done anything particularly wrong, and it had served a good purpose in their minds.
This present situation is very similar. The press gets to stick a thumb in the eye of those evil Christians and those dumb knuckle-dragging conservatives. What else do they need to know.
Me: Imagine their elation when they were told that it’s just a matter of a few years and the existence of God will be definitively disproved, and that it will be known authoritatively that we all came from a mud puddle.
You: Who in the hell told them this? I've never heard anyone claim that we're anywhere close to demonstrating that the latter is true, and science could never, ever, do the former. Anyone who claims that science could disprove God is a liar or a moron.
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).
"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." That’s a quote - professor Liu said it; he’s responsible for it (the part about the mud puddle is my responsibility - more about that later). 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.
Professor Liu has a bit of wiggle room if the heat gets a little intense, and he has to squirm out of what he said (it won’t so he won’t). He did reference ‘logical events that could have taken place,’ indicating there might be various possibilities (including ‘divine intervention’). He could claim that God may have created the universe, and therefore might be indirectly responsible for the origins of life. He could simply flat-out deny the quote, or claim that he was quoted ‘out of context.’ He could declare his utter neutrality in the matter, leaving his prior quote hanging in midair with no context.
I imagine you’re tempted to come to Professor Liu’s defense. I really wish you wouldn’t. The professor is not worthy of your defense. 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. More to the point, surely he must know that the Initiative is incapable of delving into value judgments such as declaring God either dead or alive (or irrelevant). Yet, he says what he undeniably said. But then, perhaps it’s just that he knows an Atlantic City Boardwalk stripper named ‘Devine Intervention.’ Undoubtedly, she would have nothing to do with the origin of life, even though she may have more than her share to do with its perpetuation.
That little bit of humor aside, the question remains why would a science professor make such an irrational statement. In the first instance, if the professor was not concerned with science in that statement, it ceases to be irrational. In the second instance, it’s not science, it’s Harvard with an atmosphere where huge amounts of wealth float around looking for a hook-up. In the third instance, it’s not science, it’s Harvard, with an atmosphere where agendas float around looking for wealth to hook-up with. In the forth instance, it’s not science, it’s Harvard, with an atmosphere where professors float around looking for opportunities where their particular discipline can go “Ta-ta for money.” Understand this, and what was obscure and perplexing becomes suddenly very clear.
On Mud Puddles where little children and scientists love to play:
Scientists like to posit that it’s in places like tidewater basins and wetlands where life most likely originated. Loaded with nutrients and lots of readily available sunlight. Yes or no, true?
Second best option: the bottom of a sea. Sunlight is a problem, but hot water vents are thought an adequate substitute. Yes or no, true?
Very well, then. Mud Puddles. If you don’t like my analogy, then Mr. Madison &c, more than two hundred years ago, said you have a perfect right to sneer. In the interim you’ll know what I mean even if you don’t like it.
I think that you're reading into this things that are simply not there.
That’s always a possibility. On the other hand, there may be just a whole lot of things there that you’re not seeing.
Harvard is doing a study on life origins. Many people mistakenly think that life origins is part of the theory of evolution.
I’m not one of those people. And, this story did not do one thing to clear up the misconceptions of people who do hold that mistaken belief.
The theory of evolution has recently come under attack by a group of hacks pushing "Intelligent Design", thus from a study on origins we get an article mentioning the evolution vs. ID issue.
You can’t reasonably blame everything on LD ‘hacks.’ This story is the responsibility of the Boston Globe and of Harvard. We’re dealing with the original story, not with blowbacks.
I don't see how this is the fault of Harvard, . . .
It’s their story. In fact, it reads like a press release originally written by the Harvard PR department (and, yes, they’re not scientists, so they’re morons too, but these morons should be smart enough to get feed-back from the Science Dpt). Better than half of these kinds of stories are press releases. You and several other posters noted the stories from different sources were virtually identical, but you apparently missed the vital connection: the parts that are identical from news outlet to news outlet are part of the original press release. It looks like The Globe did follow-up (probably with some telephone interviews - it’s doubtful there was any face-to-face), but apparently most of the outlets basically printed the release as is. Some did throw in a little bit of information from other sources.
. . . nor do I see how this logically demonstrates that life origins actually is part of the theory of evolution.
I don’t see that it does. But, it does seem that someone in Harvard PR perceives an advantage to leaving others with that impression.
Theology and philosophy can certainly address the matter of origins, but that doesn't mean that science can't investigate the matter.
Apparently two lines of evolutionist thought on this issue. There are others who say that origins is not a fit study for science because any conclusion/hypothesis/theory arising from this study would not be falsifiable and, therefore, not genuinely scientific. You’re the first I’ve encountered to say differently. Elaborate a little on this, if you wish to take the trouble.
Me: Personally, I think the articles are probably accurate.
You: On what basis?
I explained once, but let me try again. Coming at it from a little different angle, and in addition to that written above:
Recollection may bring to mind that several years ago four or five college students made up an environmental logo letterhead with an impressive-sounding scientific-like title. They set themselves up in an off-campus apartment, with a copier, and a fax. They then begin sending phoney environmental studies and bulletins to newspapers, wire services and various other news outlets. Unbelievably, some of the news organizations published their crap without checking out either the information or the supposed organization, despite the outlandishness of much of the material being produced. Once that happened, then everyone else was more that pleased to chime right in and add to the mist of misinformation. Eventually, of course, the whole little scam was uncovered and the jig was up. But, the question is, why did any journalist ever fall for this nonsense in the first place?
The answer is simple. The stuff these kids were putting out fit the political and ideological agenda of the press. It also fit their prejudices and their ignorance. All the right people were being flayed. The press had no hint of the truth of the matter, and could have cared less. It was so very much emotionally satisfying that they were thrilled to pass on whatever they were told. When the game was finally up and the scam exposed, then all the press simply dropped the whole matter without so much as a sheepish grin. Why should they feel sheepish? They didn’t believe they had done anything particularly wrong, and it had served a good purpose in their minds.
This present situation is very similar. The press gets to stick a thumb in the eye of those evil Christians and those dumb knuckle-dragging conservatives. What else do they need to know.