> Your agit prop polemics are a bore.

Fascinating!

> There is of course nothing ironic in Bernard's position.

Maybe not to you but it is certainly "ironic" to me...

> You are making the assumption that since Bernard (in your opinion) thinks certain
> things happpen "randomly", that he "aproves" of them at some level and thus his
> advocacy of intervention is "ironic". It isn't.

This, of course, is not an issue of approving or not approving something, but rather an issue of logic and contradictions! It is "ironic" because the two positions are extreme of each other!

> As for "combatting nature", since human beings are part of nature, than helping the
> sick etc., is not combating nature, but perfectly natural.

I didn't say it was! It was his position that Nature was harsh and that human beings were trying to make it less harsh! I think that you have an "interpretation" problem!!!

> As per usual you continue to mouth absurdities, your reference to dominant genes would
> fail you in a first year genetics course.
> In boredom.

That, of course, is both a meaningless and senseless statement! Your dismisal that dominant treats are absent in reproduction and replication is absurd at best!!!