Jim Henderson wrote:
> I think we could probably agree that a watch is unlikely to happen as the 
> evolution of something geologic,

Any particular item is unlikely to happen at all. I don't think it's 
that far-fetched to believe in something that keeps time based on 
sunrise, sunset, or tides.

If you ran across a tidepool of water that was just at the right height 
to empty out just as the tide came back in, would it be miraculous?

> True enough.  Personally, I've always taken the approach that if my 
> imagination isn't adequate to the task of understanding, I don't know 
> (rather than "anything I make up must be right").

Heh. Yeah, exactly.

> It seems to me that a lot of the religious people I know believe we've 
> advanced science to the point that there is no more to discover or 
> understand - and if we don't know "it" now, we will never know it.

I don't think it's that exactly. But of course people have been 
predicting the end of science since the greeks.

> That certainly could explain the decline in math/science in the US...

But has it really? I read all kinds of conflicting reports. It's not 
like the US doesn't still invent buttloads of cool technology.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message