Gobsmacked, I am.

[swestrup]

So, it appears that someone is performing experiments to determine the taxonomical status of God.  So far he's figured out that God doesn't belong to any of the three standard domains (Archaea, Bacteria and Eucarya) so he's added one called Divinea into which he's put all of the Hindu and Pagan gods as well as Divineus deus, the Christian god. The big question in this persons mind, is whether Divinea are more closely related to Eucarya, or to Bacteria. The theory is that since Man is in Eucarya, the whole 'in Gods image' thing might mean those two groups are closest. But, if its all just done by evolution, then maybe the Dinvinea are most closely related to the earliest life, the Bacteria...

Now, since he doesn't have any members of Divinea to experiment on, he's been breeding cyanobacteria (Bacteria) and fruit flies (Eucarya) and seeing which are most easily mutated into more god-like specimens...

Ooog. My brain is dripping out my ears.

Comments

[sps.livejournal.com]

The thing that is most bizarre about the entire debate (not just this article) is that the entire USA seems to be engaged in a debate for or against something that to me, having been brought up by priests, is unrecognisable as theism, let alone Christianity. In roughly increasing order of theological specificity, the Christian 'God' is supposed to be eternal, omnipotent, omnisicient, omnipresent, wise, good and personal. By the time you get to 'wise' it seems quite unlikely that he should be used as a justification for war, but you only have to get to 'omnipotent' to establish that theism cannot conflict with science.

The work reported on here falls off the bus at 'eternal'... ;).