>Evolution is a fact. Abiogenesis is not. Despite the fact that it is
at best intellectually cowardly and at worst a reanimation of
vitalism, evolution and abiogenesis should be separated. We can
happily teach evolution in the schools, back up our teaching with
a grab-bag of supporting evidence that ranges from rocks to
macaques, and thoroughly embarrass any school board, legislature,
or appellate court that dares say 'boo.' Evolution rules, OK.
At some point abiogenesis will rule. But right now we cannot
point to a single mechanism that defines the origin of life.>
Thanks for posting the message by "deaddog." It casts light (not heat) on
the discussions here. I appreciate that.
When you wrote:
"Apparently you are unaware that the same word is often defined
differently in different fields."
and friend Kevin replied:
"Which is irrelevant, since abiogenesis is a biological/biochemical
phenomenon, so therefore the biochemical definition is the only one that
matters."
it brought to mind one vital (sic!) similarity between him and friend
Joseph -- each is so insistent on his own world view and word definitions
they are literally unable to catch another POV sufficiently to have a
useful discussion.
Burgy
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]