From an "unknown greater good" to "evil is necessary to prove God's existence" it's all a lot of hooey and post hoc justification.
More like this
Or is it Lazarai? Either way, The New Yorker has an interesting article about recreating extinct viruses. To be precise, the article deals with recreating retroviruses.
The Sacramento Bee has a good interactive feature of how to balance California's budget*.
Using the General Social Survey | Gene Expression | Discover Magazine
Let's see…Darwin revealed the theory of evolution in 1859, and the United States declared their independence from Britain in 1776 — but our fou
Wow. Unbelievably turgid arguments, based throughout on a lack of differentiation between "evil" and "suffering", between the existence of a hypothetical divinity and his moral nature. I'm not trying to take a position one way or the other. Just pointing out that, while there may be some good points to be made here, the development of those points is unbelievably sloppy.