There’s something good about being a miserable bastard after all.
There’s something good about being a miserable bastard after all.
GM foods being cultivated in Scotland — why the hell not? It’s better than pesticide-laden crops that have been (face it) genetically modified over time anyway!
I support this. Too bad we can’t do anything about reforming the libel laws in Singapore.
Heard some weeks ago on Dr. Karl (BBC’s Up All Night then Triple J) about epigenetics. Kind of understood it but seeing it written down (in The Economist, no less) is much better.
Who are the British creationists? in the BBC Magazine. As Dr. Karl stated in last week’s Triple J science programme (he is still my favourite doctor, after all my rellies who are also doctors), there is no conflict between creationism and evolution because they are completely different topics. They cannot be compared.
I watched the last (I think) episode of The Genius of Charles Darwin last night. I thought it was really good, even though I have my reservations about Richard Dawkins — I find his atheism a wee bit too strident. However (or ‘but’), what was most terrifying about that documentary was the absolute refusal by creationists to accept that the science of evolution is rigorously tested as a scientific theory, and the Bible is a book of stories and parables* (that British chemistry teacher who is convinced that our planet is 6,000 years old was the best example). Apples and oranges, in other words.
Why evolution is considered bleak and depressing is also beyond me; I think the adaptations living creatures make to survive and thrive are absolutely astonishing, mind-bogglingly cool, amazing. Whether or not there is an equilibrium of sorts in nature that causes creatures to evolve, and therefore ending at the same point, this is still evolution. We obviously don’t understand everything about the world around us, and it’s very exciting, don’t you think, to explore all these possibilities**?
* Practically everyone who reads this must know by now that I went to a strict convent school for 11 years and did the Sunday school and catechism thing for a really long time, too. Religion and science always occupied discrete areas in my thinking and understanding of the world (although at one time I did hypothesise that the Bible was a very broad interpretation of human history). I couldn’t articulate it then, but I think I always knew that religion was allegory and science was education. I don’t think I’m an atheist, because I’m more concerned with the here and now (i.e. our society and our place in the physical world), I’m not that bothered if there is a god or not.
** At a historical and scientific level, not unsubstantiated claims in a book.
I want to see the empirical evidence proving intelligent design / creationism as a legitimate scientific theory. Otherwise it should only be taught as part of a religious knowledge class.
I have no idea why I find this funny. Got fleas? Get the vacuum:
They said a standard vacuum cleaner abuses the fleas so much it kills 96 percent of adult fleas and 100 percent of younger fleas.
(Emphasis mine.)
It boggles the mind. I think I must be imagining bruised and battered fleas in a household setting, making excuses about falling down the stairs.