[CarolinaGuitarman]

"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."

Actually, you missed my point entirely. I was talking about the people who use the article to promote the false claim that the scientists had linked abiogenesis with evolution. I would not have used the term shyster though; I think the term I used was liar.

"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."

It was either an ignorant claim, or a calculated claim. What it also was positively was an unfounded claim.

The Boston Globe article, what I could read of it online without paying, said the same things as the AP article.

"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."

That is simply not true. They are trying to find a natural process that could have led to life. The fact they are not going to use supernatural causes as *evidence* only means they are doing what EVERY other field of science does. They are not trying nor can they *prove* that God doesn't exist.
Name ONE science that allows supernatural causes as evidence. Abiogenesis is no different than any other field of science in that respect. Whether there is or isn't a God is a philosophical debate, one that science can't resolve one way or the other. And it doesn't try.

[YHAOS]

I pinged you on Dimensio’s message because I didn’t want to say so much twice (and then wound up saying it twice anyway LOL!)

Actually, you missed my point entirely. I was talking about the people who use the article to promote the false claim that the scientists had linked abiogenesis with evolution. I would not have used the term shyster though; I think the term I used was liar.

No, I took your point. But, I was talking about what was actually in the article, whether you like it or not; whether you agree or not (I don’t - you don’t, I would guess).

It was either an ignorant claim, or a calculated claim. What it also was positively was an unfounded claim.

Unfounded and calculated, in my opinion. Like the article or not, there it is, like an elephant in the room. You can grumble about liars, fools and ignorami all you wish, but the fact is sometimes people use you for their own ends and then are perfectly content to leave you holding the bag. As I mentioned in my message to Dimensio, this is one of those times, IMO.

The Boston Globe article, what I could read of it online without paying, said the same things as the AP article.

The Globe article is much more extensive and elaborates considerably more than does the AP article. But then, AP gets bored easily. Check your private box after a bit. It looks like maybe we can call it the Allston Project.

They are trying to find a natural process that could have led to life. The fact they are not going to use supernatural causes as *evidence* only means they are doing what EVERY other field of science does.

But then professor Liu mentions ‘Devine Intervention.’ Why would he do that? According to you, and even me, supernatural causes have no relevance; zip, zero, nada. Not worthy of the least mention. And still, he mentions it. The million/yr Harvard is kicking in won’t be sufficient to fund this project. My guess is that there will be fund raising activities. What puts a zip in fund raising? CONTROVERSY!

Just a thought.