There are documented cases of virgin birth in the medical literature.

A particular example is of a 15 year old girl in Africa (unable to recall the specific country atm) with an imperforate hymen, who was discovered to be pregnant when she reported with abdominal complaint. This was quite a surprise to the md, as her vagina was completely closed at the entrance.

The specific mechanism of insemination became apparent upon interview: She had performed oral sex upon a male acquaintance, when his girlfriend discovered them and attacked her with a knife, piercing her abdomen, and thus providing passage for sperm into her inviolate womb.

I have no comment as to how this may relate to religious matters, except to point out that the unlikely is not impossible, and statistical certainty doesn’t exist.

I do wish to point out that we are all quite arrogant, and have faith in our own observations. Humility is no less desirable from science than from theology, in consideration of politics particularly, that most fractious of human endeavors.

We do well who remain certain of our own fallibility.

Somehow a statement about “stong economy” turned into “balanced budget,” and a statment about initial conditions turned into what’s developed since.
Talk about magic!

Parents reply: …

On the idea that scientific propositions are never provably true or false: this is absolutely incorrect. Hypotheses *must* be provably false; that is the primary mechanism of scientific inquiry. It is the very fact that Mr. Brownback’s statement is *not* provably false that makes it unscientific.

On policy:
1. cutting taxes not only *can* increase federal revenues, it quite provably has. Additionally, our economy is stronger than ever, and our deficit tiny in comparison to our GNP (as opposed to, say, Japan, which runs at 100% of its GNP as deficit.)
2. The author demonstrates an interesting lapse in memory regarding how U. S. troops were, in fact, greeted by the Iraqis. That is, *by invitation*.
3. I won’t even begin on the topic of liberals and wishful thinking.

On the earlier post re: the Inquisition: The Christian Church was actually quite open to scientific and philosophical investigation, *until it ran into an idea that could not be processed from its world-view*. The Inquisition was a result of science-by-consensus, much like a 13th-century equivalent of the global-warming fearmongers.

Which they got from Syriac Christians.

The library was burnt by Christian monks around 400, led by St Cyril.

The Sarapeum was destroyed by Christian monks, not the Library.

Ah, yes, the liberal scaifegoat.

Let’s see, since then they’ve offered us Al Gore and John Kerry. Two extremists. Don’t see it.

“the science of global warming”

you mean, that critizising a political pamphlet signed by ~250 scientists and endorsed by the un is ‘unscientific’ - even though it is not a peer reviewed publication?

i would more likely compare this “the science of global warming” to the bible.

Belief in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is much worse than belief in spite of a lack of evidence. And seeing evidence where there is none is perhaps worst of all.

Sean, you say that science has established beyond reasonable doubt that humans have evolved via natural selection. To me, that’s a pretty sweeping and overconfident statement! Especially considering the increasing number of “real” scientists who have enough courage to question it and draw different conclusions (and it does require courage to stand against a “popular” view; examples throughout the centuries show that this generally achieves much ridicule and opposition!). I’d thoroughly recommend reading Michael Denton’s “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,” and Dr Michael Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box.” (Neither of them are “cranks” or “unscientifically-minded”

TimG, regarding your comments on evidence vs. lack of evidence, the point I’d make is that evolution and creationism are two opposing frameworks that are being used to interpret the same available facts, each based on different assumptions and preconceptions. It is the underlying assumptions of each that cannot be tested or proven. You can argue a compelling case that either evolution or creationism “see evidence where there is none,” so that is not really the point. My extensive reading into the “evidences” and their numerous differing interpretations leaves me to conclude that rejecting evolution as being a correct theory would not be “a willingness to overlook a mountain of evidence.” In fact, for me to accept evolution as a correct explanation of our origins would be quite a leap of faith in the opposite direction of logic and science — there are too many mental hurdles to be leaped from my assessment of the available evidence.

*******************************************************

“On the sixth day, God created the platypus. And God said: Let’s see the evolutionists try and figure this one out.” Anon.

Watching the Republican debates, and McCain just said everyone should be taught all theories or some such. How nice.

And Huckabee kindly said he’s “not sure” if the universe is 6,000 years old. Someone else talked about this but I’m not sure who it was…

But I loved McCain’s face when he was asked that question as well. You just know deep down he wanted to say something like ‘Everyone who believes in creationism is a gdamn idiot’, but since he has to pander to those voters to have even a slight chance of getting elected he had to put on that befuddled cautious aire.

I don’t know, I hate singling the Republicans out alone for unscientific thinking. They certainly have that far right wing christian base who are so obviously out of whack, but its not like the far left is free of the absurdities either. The conspiracy theories, dubious economic theories, the anti nuclear stance and the weird social constructionism mumbo jumbo comes to mind. But it seems to me ever since Clinton pushed the party to the center, things have gotten better for them and more centrist rational.

This was eye-opening for me, and these people need to be outed. The media have bought it wholesale - they make money from this controversy, and want to keep it alive.