Adrian ASpidle@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 2/27/99 8:34:03 PM, Scott wrote:
><< But I don't think one should read this book, then go off and think a lot
>more about what it means, maybe write a paper. But please, don't pray with
>don't pray to any science book.>>
>Thanks Scott for that interesting review and the correction of my spelling
>Stuart Kaufmann (I left the book at my brother-in-laws and can't consult
Be careful with your attributions. Someone reading this post would assume the review was authored by me when, in fact, it was not.
>However, why shouldn't I honor (I don't pray) it and Stuart for the
>breakthrough I think it is? My son tells me there's no Nobel for biology
>great injustice), and I think we should honor the heros in our daly life,
There's nothing wrong with admiring some new and insightful theoretical view. I simply advocate healthy skepticism toward any alleged "breakthrough" until there is broader support within the scientific community (afterwards, as well). Maintaining one's skeptical perspective is particularly difficult when a theory promises to validate one's pre-existing belief system. I'm not familiar with you or your beliefs and I'm not accusing you of this, but it's been my observation that those who *want* to believe in god are strongly drawn to these "there's divinity in the details" theories.
I say this at the risk, of course, of being the recipient of one of your scathing epthets such as "know-it-all smarty pants". ;-)