Happy Birthday to You...

fnxtr said: For some reason the words "Kwisatz Haderach" come to mind...

fixed. Can we get an edit button?

https://me.yahoo.com/a/XRnHyQl8usUn8ykD1Rji0ZXHNe.9lqmg3Dm7ul96NW4vxpbU3c_GLu.k#d404b said: when clicking on the "doodle" an article in the Christian Science Monitor is the 1st 'hit' - conclusion of the article that Medel's work/ genetics is critical to the MET - I've known for a long time that fundies considered that CSM a liberal rag but IMHO - proof that "Christian" and "Creationist/fudie/wackadoo" are not the SAME circle in the VENN diagram

The Christian Science Monitor has an excellent track record for journalism. Unfortunately, Christian Science, despite having many progressive and ecumenical features (note - I am completely non-religious and have never been associated with any religion, let alone Christian Science, as an adult), also makes some anti-scientific claims. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_science#Healing These claims have become a relatively more extreme stance over time, as medical treatments have advanced. Circa 1900 it was not outrageously irrational to refuse medical treatment, except in cases of trauma or disorders that could be easily addressed by the surgery of the time. Because the claims were less extreme in the context in which they were introduced, Christian Science once had a legacy of attracting otherwise moderate and progressive people who did not oppose or deny science in other ways. As is characteristic of many crackpot "health systems", Christian Science also makes valid claims, such as emphasis on preventative lifestyle and recognition that psychological factors can play a role in health. It is important to note that where such systems make valid claims, they make exactly the same claims as scientific medicine (good nutrition, healthy body weight, exercise, abstention from excess substance abuse, and so on).