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
The Sacramento Bee has a good interactive feature of how to balance California's budget*.
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.
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.