Over the breakfast table I was told that someone, presumably an archeological team, has found Homo Sapien teeth that are something like 400,000 years old. As the breakfast table talk went, these teeth, found in Israel, predate the previously oldest known Homo Sapien remains by 200,000 years.
Since I have slammed the door shut on outside news, I have successfully resisted the pull of politics, disasters and scandal. A new archeological discovery may prove too much for me. Would reading a scientific journal be perusing the news? I have to submit this one to the news jury. I never mentioned scientific journals in the original rules of this game. In all fairness, the TBG asked my permission before telling me of the the discovery in the Mid-East, so I wasn't chasing down the news on my own.
The second thing I thought about, after I thought that I really wanted to read the article in question, was that it won't be long now before someone turns this discovery to their own political advantage. I can already see the claims from folks with a religious agenda Those who previously scorned the fossil record as the work of charlatan atheistic scientists will probably embrace the finding of old Homo Sapien teeth in Israel as proof that human-kind sprang, full formed, from the creative hand of divinity.
I guess my imagined conflict between new discoveries in the science of archeology and their collision with dogma will have to play out in the news without my help. I an obliged to stick to my news-boycotting guns or the imperil my experiment in happiness.
Now where did I put those subscription cards to Scientific American and Nature?
As someone who does not readily pursue news these days and tends to hear it here and there from her peers, I would definitely NOT consider scientific journals as a news media venue. To me, scientific journals are like recipe books - ever changing but always interesting, and usually uncontroversial. :) Hope that helps!
ReplyDelete