>Stephen E. Jones wrote:
>>[No doubt if some of the bacteria survive we will hear all about
>>on the front page of the newspapers, e.g. "Scientific Experiment Proves we
>>Came from Mars!" What is interesting in the shift of the focus of origins-
>>of-life research to space, as science quietly gives up on chemical evolution
>>on Earth, perhaps without ever admitting to the public they were wrong
>>these last 40+ years!]
>I think the shift to space is due to the space bureaucracies, which need
>justifications for funding. The public seems to have accepted paying for
>space operations even though the payoffs have been abstract, so perhaps
>these people are smart to add evolution to the package.
are you guys really sure there has actually been a "shift to space"?
Stephen has recently posted abstracts of articles on research being done on
oceanic heat vents and on bacteria found in deep-earth core samples. In
other words abiogenesis research is alive and well on planet earth. It
*would* be interesting to find extra-terrestrial life or evidence of it,
but I think that research is in *addition* rather than *instead of.*
>If the bacteria should survive re-entry by being on the lee side of the
>module, that would be unfortunate for evolutionary biology, as it would
>encourage nebulous notions of extraterrestrial origins, and possibly put
>a damper on conventional approaches.
doubt it. Organic molecules have already been found inside meteorites.
That's old news.
>>I wonder when some honest leading Darwinist
>>(assuming that is not a contradiction in terms) is going to have the courage
>>to point out to publicly to his colleagues that they are misrepresenting
>>*really* happened, if they continue claiming that the Board "removed"
>>evolution from the State's curriculum?]
>Let's not get into this 'honesty' stuff. I think it's enough to say that
>the events in Kansas were good for science, and that it's just dumb to
>uncritically accept macroevolution through Darwinian gradualism.
I've read the curriculum recommendations proposed by the scientists the
Kansas school board originally hired to write them and I've read the final
curriculum recommended by the board. Stephen posted urls to both documents
(thanks!). The two documents were quite similar except anything that
challenged the religious convictions of the board members had been deleted,
including recommended reading which would have presented some of the
evidence supporting evolution. Where Stephen got this nonsense I have no
idea. Perhaps he should present some supporting documentation.
>>"In the middle sits the lone figure of Steve Jones, a man so universally
>>sceptical that unless he had his birth certificate he would doubt his own
>>existence." (Hurst L., "The darling of the masses", New Scientist, 6 June
>That birth certificate is a meaningless piece of paper that anybody could
>make up. The matter remains unproven.
ROFL!!! :-) I've debated creationists who tried to convince me that since
abiogenesis hasn't been nailed down solid, then evolution (which is the
*history* of life, not the origin) didn't happen. This is like saying that
if Stephen can't prove the authenticity of his birth certificate he doesn't
For if there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing
of life as in hoping for another and in eluding the implacable grandeur of
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 06 2000 - 10:49:49 EST