Dear Every American Who Doesn’t Believe in Science:

I know you are smart.  I know you care about your kids, your family, your pets.  I know you are a basically decent human being who wants to do right and contribute to society.  And because I know these things, I’m going to try very hard to understand why you refuse to believe in scientific fact, rather than berate you and call you names.

But I still really don’t get it.

GMO foodsI wish we could sit down and talk.  I wish I could explain my views without you getting defensive.  I wish you could show me your proof without the hair standing up on the back of my neck.  So I’ll admit – we both have a problem.  We both are talking to answer, not having a conversation to listen.

The funny thing is, I actually think I’m reasonably good at seeing the other side of any issue.   There are a few issues where I struggle, but even then, if I’m honest with myself, I can intellectually understand the other side of the issue and why my friend or colleague has positioned himself on that side.

Regarding immunizations and genetically modified organisms, I can’t.

Yes, I view these two issues – though they are definitely in different industries – as intertwined.  Why?  Because the people who are anti either of them have a blatant disregard for science and I just don’t understand that.

Scientific consensus on both of these issues is that both are safe.  Immunizations are safe for the vast majority of people.  GMOs are safe for everyone.

Do you understand what scientific consensus is, my friend?  That means that most of the scientists (maybe even those who don’t usually agree) believe the safety of GMOs and immunizations to be fact.  It’s beyond dispute.  The data has proven safety beyond a shadow of a doubt so that scientists no longer squabble over this issue.

There is also scientific consensus on gravity.  That the Earth is round.  That germs spread disease.  That atoms exist.

Friend, do you question these truths as well?

The thing is, science is fact.  And while there may be outliers that disagree that the Earth is round, why are you so quick to take up with the outliers that believe GMOs are bad?  If you ran into a scientist who believed the Earth was flat, wouldn’t you think he was a quack?  And when that same doctor believes GMOs are bad, why do you believe him?

I think it must be because buying organic has become a status symbol for you.  You are buying boutique food and making all the other parents feel bad about it.  Which, if true, proves another point for another day – that maybe we never really leave junior high.

Your crusade to eliminate vaccines – is it the same sort of status symbol?  I just can’t cognitively understand anything else.

In fact, here’s a question I’ve been dying to ask and I promise to listen intently: do you deny your children life-saving vaccines and still use birth control?  Do you buy organic produce and hormone free meats and still believe in plastic surgery?  Do you use an iPhone or a computer?  Why are some of these technologies demonized and others celebrated?

Let’s talk, you and I.  I have gotten to a point where I really need to understand why you disregard science.  Because even if your viewpoints are too solidly held to change, I have to be sure I understand how this happened and do everything I can to stop it.

Who knows what unscientific nonsense my grandchildren will face?

Lindsay Mitchell 11/14Lindsay Mitchell
ICGA/ICMB Marketing Director

About corncorps

As Illinois' corn farmers, we're proud to power a sustainable economy through ethanol, livestock and nutritious food. We love agriculture, the land and CornBelters baseball.See or follow us on Twitter,
This entry was posted in Food, Organic, Technology. Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Bravo, Lindsay – another superb article which I will duly send around to all my non-farmer friends (whether they like it or not!) Thanks! Elizabeth

  2. Reblogged this on Bailey Keech and commented:
    Exceptionally written article that brings up a few good points about GMOs and immunization.

  3. chucklasker says:

    I was anti-GMO for a while. I can tell you how people deny the science.

    For me, it was easy to be anti-GMO, because I am generally anti-corporate, as far as believing corporations have a financial incentive to do wrong if it’s profitable. So I believed the lies that Monsanto controlled the seed market, was the first to patent seeds, forced farmers to buy new seed each year, and sued farmers for crops that grew from seed blown onto their farms. As a non-farmer, I didn’t know farmers bought new seed each year and that seeds were patented long before genetic modification.

    I also believed all of the GM safety testing was done by corporate scientists. I respected scientists in general, but, like insurance company bureaucrats who deny life-saving treatments, or bankers who process foreclosures on single parent homeowners, I figured scientists were not immune to the “just doing my job” excuse. As such, I felt all corporate science was suspect.

    I enjoyed the social benefits of being anti-GMO. I had an automatic peer group who pat me on the back when I’d create or share an anti-GMO meme. I even made “friends” with some celebrities who appreciated my stance. It felt great to have my opinions validated constantly. It made it easy to dismiss those who disagreed as being “asleep,” “just being a contrarian,” or a “corporate shill.” I was one of the enlightened ones, privy to special insight. The draw of us-versus-them, with “us” being on the side of saving humanity, is as strong as any drug.

    I even shared information I knew not to be true, justifying it with, “it’s against huge corporations so it’s not really hurting anyone – so it’s okay if it helps us win.” Everything was filtered through a hatred for Monsanto – which I believed was evil incarnate.

    The process of moving away was difficult. It’s a long story not necessary here. I’ll just say I was challenged to be intellectually honest with what I shared. That lead to me seeking truth instead of confirmation.

    I hope that helps.

    • corncorps says:

      Wow Chuck. I think this might be the best comment in the history of all our comments. I have often wondered if it was a “belonging” sort of decision – and while a first draft of this article included this premise and I took it out, I have likened being anti GMO to my fifth grade daughter NEEDING to wear and Under Armor sweatshirt to school to fit in. Can you tell me, what could farmers do more of – remembering that we have very little funds – in order to help people understand that Monsanto isn’t an enemy, but an innovator?

      • chucklasker says:

        Well, everyone wants to feel part of a group. It’s human nature. Now that I defend GM technology from misinformation, I am part of a new group of folks who do likewise. What is difficult is fighting our natural desire to please others and to take part in “group think.” With my commitment to intellectual honesty, I have to analyze everything, not just what I disagree with, and that’s hard.

        When I fought against misinformation while I was in the anti-GMO group, I was instantly ostracized and attacked. But within my new group of skeptics and science lovers, when I point out something incorrect or exaggerated, I am usually thanked and the information is corrected or removed. That’s a huge difference in how the groups interact.

        Regarding Monsanto, I’m not sure there’s anything we can do to help their image, especially since they still use 1980s PR and advertising tactics that no longer work. What we can do, in my opinion, is point out that Monsanto is not the only seed company, is not huge enough to buy off the world’s scientists, and is not the real issue. I work hard to differentiate between Monsanto and GM technology, to separate them in the minds of those I’m conversing with, so discussion can remain about the technology instead of corporations. If someone states a straight-out lie about Monsanto, I might point them to the truth. But most people have no idea why they hate Monsanto, they just assume everyone does, so rarely do they list reasons that can be debated.

        The final thing I’ll say here is that the odds of getting antis to change are tiny. So tiny, I don’t even try. Instead, I focus on people who are silently watching my conversations. I shine a light on the logical fallacies of the anti-GMO arguments, and provide sound, thoughtful arguments in response. Lurkers can then compare my responses to the craziness most antis resort to. Anyone in the middle can then decide who seems more reasonable and credible when thinking about the topic.

    • Chuck, as a farmer and someone who works in “corporate ag” I appreciate your honesty and insight in your comment. From my perspective the reasons you share are a big reason many folks are so adamantly against biotechnology, they enjoy “sticking it to the corporation.” I realize sometimes it is hard to be honest with ourselves and I hope that in the ag industry we do not have the same mentality when we need to be honest with ourselves.

    • Shooshie Roberts says:

      Don’t categorize all people who have reservations about consuming GMOs as anti-Monsanto or anti-corporate, or haters. I’ve been a strong advocate of science since I was old enough to read Popular Science: about 10. But I’ve seen many cases where science was derailed, misled, or just on the wrong path for long enough to do damage. It’s quite possible, even likely, that some form of GMO will someday be discovered to cause certain reactions in people with a certain gene, maybe even a common gene. These first few generations of GMO technologies will lead to safe, effective agriculture, but I fully expect there to be “discoveries” along the way, some good and some bad. THAT is how science works. It’s a self-correcting system, but science has to go off the tracks before it learns what causes derailments, and then learns how to keep that from happening. Sometimes it’s predictable with modeling, and costly — even tragic — errors are avoided, but even modeling is prone to bugs and short-sightedness until they can be corrected.

      Climate change is something most of us knew would happen. We tried to believe the world is a big place, and our effects are small, but when the signs began to appear, we knew it was happening. But like a good scientist, I kept an open mind until the evidence really began to appear overwhelming. I STILL have an open mind in the sense that if someone shows us a major flaw in our thinking, I’ll be happy to accept it and believe that there is no disaster awaiting. But the ice caps and glaciers are pretty convincing. Then the studies of ocean temperatures were beyond the margin for error; it’s happening.

      I cannot explain human propensity for cults that embrace ignorance, but I’ve seen a “Creation Museum” that claimed humans and dinosaurs walked together… “before the flood.” Probably along with unicorns and dragons. I can fabricate what is probably a good narrative for why these cults exist, and what causes them in human behavior; in fact we have some pretty good science on the subject. It doesn’t make it any easier for me to accept that thinking.

      So, yes, I’m firmly planted in the relatively new age of science, but knowing sciences inner workings, I know also to be cautious until all the facts are in. GMOs are still new. There WILL be discoveries, good and bad, and we’ll deal with them. But for the time being, I will eat non-GMO foods. There’s nothing about my thinking that is nonsensical or naive. I’m definitely not a group follower. My belief in science is not a blanket one; it’s one fact at a time, though I believe that most scientists are doing honest work, because I know so many who would never fudge data. But you only get one chance to protect your loved ones from immature conclusions, and in my opinion, GMOs are only in their adolescence. It’s not a mature field. When it is, I’ll trust it. But those who want to believe that in one generation we could discover DNA and learn all its secret pathways, inventing new forms of life and knowing they are 100% safe, well… remember it only takes a minute to birth a new sucker. Oh, we’ll get there if we don’t wipe ourselves out first. (We still have the nuclear threat to deal with, you know. It didn’t just go away. Then there are droughts, climate changes… you know the drills)

      Trust, but be cautious.


  4. Reblogged this on beginingsinwriting and commented:
    Good questions.

  5. LogynxRunn says:

    This is an excellent response. The anal-retentive person inside me though quibbles with the word “believe” in the title because science isn’t really a belief. We place our trust in reproducible results, peer review, etc. To say “believe” lowers it to the rung of religious faith, which it shouldn’t be equated with no matter how often the devout try to do so.

  6. Science Lover says:

    I am a very pro-science person. In fact I have a Ph.D. in physics and spend my day researching. I vaccinate my kids and don’t care very much if my food is a GMO or not.

    However, I found the tone of the article a bit off-putting. Maybe it was unintentional, but the “my friends” interspersed in the article seemed like you were talking down to the people on the other side.

    This is just my perspective (and I am completely on your side on these subjects), but I’ll bet that it grated on the nerves of the anti-science person who read it.

  7. mdbritt says:

    Nicely done! Actually, while wrangling over vaccines I actually did have someone say something to the effect that “only an idiot believes that germs cause disease.” His point being that we only get diseases because we eat GMOs and such. That was the end of *that* particular discussion…

  8. Jacinta says:

    I’m generally skeptical of most things, fads, trends. I’ve seen holistic solutions work where medical solutions did not and vice versa. I believe that studies can be made that show sought after results. So, in the debate about vaccinations I see questions and fears brought up. I see these questions mocked which, for me, discredits the answers. I find medical research difficult to read. However, I’m wading through it. I’m interested in answers but only see heated opinions and a lack of objectivity.

  9. Jane says:

    I do believe in science, but sometimes, science is wrong. Or sometimes only the science that supports one side is released. Or sometimes, the science we have doesn’t tell the whole story. The biggest problem here is that you, my friend, work for the corn industry. You have an agenda. It is in your best interest to believe that GMO corn (the most demonized GMO crop) is safe because a 70 billion dollar industry is at risk, and therefore your livelihood. I get that.
    I am not a scientist, but I can safely say that just because the dangers of something have not yet been discovered, doesn’t mean that there aren’t any. Look at sodium nitrate. This is a preservative in meats. Deemed safe by the scientists at the FDA. It is now being implicated in the development of Alzheimers. By a real doctor. A neuropathologist. That is some science right there.
    But that doesn’t even tell the whole story. We need to wait. Wait for more studies, more evidence, more proof beyond a shadow of a doubt, brought to us by someone not connected to the industry in question. As a critical thinker, I deserve to make my own choices. I want the ability to choose whether I eat nitrate preserved meat that could potentially give me alzheimers one day, or choose nitrate -free meat that might have some deadly bacteria in it that could kill me post-haste. What I want, is the choice to decide from all available information, whether I want to eat GMO or not. I want the stuff labeled. I have the choice to use birth control, plastic surgery, iPhones, computers, and which God or religion I believe in. I think I should also have the right to decide what I want to put in my body as long as it isn’t hurting anyone.
    And just so you know, my kids are vaccinated, and if I was starving, I’d eat all GMO….no questions asked.

    • There have already been 20 years of testing and over 2,000 studies done worldwide on GMO production, and it has demonstrated GMOs are safe. How much more testing is needed?

      – 2,000 studies compiled by a non-profit organization *not* funded by Monsanto:
      – 30 years of testing:

    • corncorps says:

      I will echo modemac’s comments that if thousands of tests and years of studies aren’t already enough, nothing will be.

      But I would also ask you to think about how new technologies get approved. The government asks the sponsoring company to prove safety and efficacy on their own dime. That skeptics question the validity of a study that Monsanto has funded when that is the way the system is set up, makes this a really difficult conversation. In this particular argument – and many others – the company that has invested in the new technology can’t win.

      If Monsanto didn’t pay for the studies that prove safety, would do you think should? Who do you think would? I would argue that a study funded by the organic and health food industry could be potentially just as corrupt. Would you trust science from a university? From an outside company like Kraft? And what sort of incentive would they have to pay the thousands for such a study?

      I understand skepticism. But I also live in reality. This is the reality that we face.

  10. Rebecca says:

    I’m all for debate about GMO’s, please tell me if they’re so safe why not just label them? There is nothing to be afraid of right? Monsanto’s reasoning that “it would confuse customers” is very disrespectful and assumes the population is too stupid to make up their own mind.

    • rrsande says:

      I am a farmer and believe that GM foods are safe. I don’t necessarily mind if products are labeled “GMO,” but I do understand the hesitation for these labels. It is less about not wanting the consumer to know that a GM crop is in what they are buying and more about how that label can be misconstrued. I believe they are safe, so that label would not deter me. But how does that look to someone who isn’t clear on what a GMO is? “WARNING: THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS ONE OR MORE GMO!” In it’s very nature the label would come across as a warning, like what you see on a box of cigarettes. We KNOW there are harmful substances in a cigarette, and there is a warning on the label telling the consumer that. But, if GMO’s are safe, why are we treating them like a harmful substance? There are already “non-GMO” labels, so from where I stand, if that is where your interests lie, you have the capability to find those products already.

      • There has never been, and hopefully never will be, a food product require to produce a label saying: WARNING: THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS INGREDIENTS PRODUCED USING METHODS DETERMINED TO BE SAFE IN CONTROLLED TESTING CONDITIONS.

      • Rebecca says:

        So you don’t believe everyone has the right to know what’s in the food they’re eating? And why are GMO’s banned in so many countries if they are safe? I’m not trying to start any heated debates with anyone here, I’m just purely interested in people’s opinions as I’ve just become much more interested in the GMO debate 🙂

    • corncorps says:

      What rrsande said. 🙂

      It is in the best interest of our nation and our citizens to only label things that have a scientific basis. Everything else can be labeled as a marketing opportunity. That definition means that companies have every right to set themselves apart by marketing their products as non-GMO so that you can pay more for that particular product. But because there is no scientific basis – no reason why Americans need to seek out non-GMO – a “contains GMO” label would be misleading.

    • madcapfeline says:

      Food items that do not contain GMO ingredients are already labeled as “GMO Free” or “Non-GMO.” Food that is certified organic is labeled as “Certified Organic.” Anything that does not possess one or both of these labels is either a food item that contains GMOs or is produced/prepared by a company that does not share in the ideology that organic is better/GMO is bad. Find your desired labels and shop accordingly. Also, Monsanto is not anti labeling because “it would confuse customers.” I’d really like to see a link to wherever you pulled that quote from. Monsanto’s stance in thus: “We oppose current initiatives to mandate labeling of ingredients developed from GM seeds in the absence of any demonstrated risks. Such mandatory labeling could imply that food products containing these ingredients are somehow inferior to their conventional or organic counterparts.”

    • Ralph Pearce says:

      Another reason why labelling is suspect is the use of labels as a marketing tool (and that may have been stated already). In Canada and the U.S. there are two companies that come to mind that have used the consumer’s general lack of knowledge to their advantage. The example is the use of “Cholesterol Free”. McCains Foods in Canada has used this in the sale of their frozen French fries and General Mills has used it in the sale of Cheerios. And at some level, both companies are correct; neither of these foods contain cholesterol -but only because they’re processed from plants -and ALL plants are cholesterol-free! Is it possible that these companies -and others like them -would use GMO-Free labelling as more of a marketing tool than an information resource? That’s the slippery slope that comes with labelling; if it were to be used to inform -that’s one thing. But too often, retailers, processors and manufacturers blur the lines between “informing” and “selling”.

      There was an interesting survey conducted here in Ontario, Canada, last year or in 2013, by a group called Farm and Food Care. One of the highlights from the study was a statement that “66 per cent of those surveyed stated they wanted to know more about agriculture and/or how their food was produced, but only 20 per cent of those surveyed stated they were willing to learn more about agriculture and/or how their food was produced.”

      So to those who say, “Don’t you think we’re intelligent enough to understand . . fill in the blank . . . (GMOs or vaccinations)?” By that statement, it’s not a matter of intelligence, but a matter of diligence or willingness. The information is there.

      • rrsande says:

        I couldn’t agree more. Food labeling is a real pet peeve of mine. I’m all for consumers having a choice, but the choices have been made so cloudy and labels are so misleading. The information is out there for people to find, but there is so much of it to dig through. It is definitely about diligence.

  11. michael madigan says:

    Most people in the anti-GMO, anti-Vaccine camps are not scientists or mathematicians, so they’re just not capable of understanding. I occasionally get sucked into arguments, but I try really hard not to, because they will never understand.

  12. Andrew says:

    i have nothing against gmo or immunizations.. however, the moment an advocate says something along the lines of “the debate is over” “the science is indisputable” and “consensus is in” you are no longer talking about science. Science always evolves. new data is always uncovered, and the scientific method is all about continual skepticism and attempts to falsify the hypothesis. Its not to say the proof may never get to a point where one can make informed decisions at all. But it is to say there is nothing that is beyond debate or discussion. I immediately worry when I hear people attempt to shut down debate in scientific matters because “the science is settled”. A few minutes on the internet will show you lots of examples of science that was settled.. right up until it wasn’t. Be careful in how you debate. Use verifiable facts and let the data say what it says. To me the data is clear that gmo’s are safe and vaccines are a good idea. But I’m not about to force this on anyone at gunpoint, and I sure will not say the science is all settled. That’s not only not an accurate statement, its arrogant and is a very poor argument for your cause.

  13. A breath of fresh air. Thank you!

  14. Michael says:

    I think you’re perilously close to the argument from authority here. I know GMOs are safe because I understand the science well enough that I don’t have to care what scientists agree about. Same goes for vaccines. (I also understand my own field – computer science – expertly well so I know that existing climate models are useless, but I doubt I’ll get a warm reception here for that.)

    People have no choice but to rely on their own knowledge and judgment, even in fields where they have no expertise. Accepting another’s views as correct is still a judgment based on one’s own knowledge and critical faculties and should be made with the same standards and independence as if examining the raw data.

    “Believe because the scientists say so” is a call to suspend judgment. That’s unacceptable.

  15. Kane says:

    Articles like these ostensibly address the people ‘rejecting science’ but are written in a manner that does little more than preach to the choir. The people who ‘reject science’ don’t see themselves as doing such, they see themselves as rejecting some (liberal|establishment|corporatist|elitist|statist|choose_your_conspiracy_bad_guy) propaganda. As far as they’re concerned, they believe in science, just not the “system of propaganda” being doled out by (pick your conspiracy bad guy).

    Anti-(GMO|Vaxx)ers share many traits with creationists and climate change deniers. People like this generally lack a foundational knowledge of things like the peer review process. They tend not to know the difference between something appearing in a scientific journal vs mainstream news. They think (corporations|atheists|liberal universities|The Illuminati) has(ve) somehow stacked the deck.

    Really, I think we need some way to popularize the basics of science. Simply saying “scientific consensus” doesn’t mean anything to someone who thinks “mainstream science” has been compromised, or that that it merely refers to a subjective hand-picking of scientists.

  16. diviarblog says:

    Its a fallacy to equate the opposition to GMOs with anti vaxxers. Its also really insulting to all of us who work in agricultural research.
    GMOs are only reasonably safe if you consider the product alone. Im speaking for the ones that have been widely used. When you account for complete effects on the surroundings, they are anything but safe, anything but worth it economically and light years from being sustainable.

    Its just crazy to see these articles of self righteous people, that think they somehow represent science, without knowing much about the topic.

    • Please provide your own references, then, to support your argument that this article doesn’t know much about the topic. What “complete effects on the surroundings” are you describing here? We’ve already posted links above to over two thousand studies done worldwide supporting the safety of GMOs. Please show some verified and peer-revoiewed evidence to support your criticism.

  17. Bob Kutz says:

    Strangely, I don’t disagree with you on immunizations and GMO’s AND yet I have to tell you that you do not know what science is. Least of all basic physics.

    Science is not fact. Science is the best knowledge that we have at this time and is subject to revision at any time with new evidence. As Einstein said, in response to a pamphlet that was published entitled “100 Authors Against Einstein”. Einstein retorted “If I were wrong, one would be enough.”

    You see, science is only as good as the evidence which supports it. There is very little science that is written in stone. Newton’s law of gravity was re-written by Einstein, for although it worked very well, it was not correct and was unable to explain certain observable physical phenomena. Einstein made a correction, in that instead of universal attraction, the space time continuum was shown to bend around mass. Strange stuff indeed. However, Einstein’s equations involved a ‘cosmological constant’. Edwin Hubble overturned this and even Einstein’s field equations of general relativity did not stand as such.

    I will make a conjecture; you believe in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming and believe that you do so on the basis of science.

    I am here to tell you that the basic physics upon which the theory is based is both true, and not likely to produce runaway global warming.

    The catastrophic effects upon which activists base their alarmism have no more basis in science than did the notion that the trinity test would ignite the Earth’s atmosphere and kill everyone.

    I will sum up my comment by stating that consensus has little place in science, no matter what you hear.

    In short; while I agree with you on GMO’s and immunizations, your characterization of science and your understanding of it are a part of the problem.

    If you do not know what science is, do not presume to tell others.

  18. Don Carr says:

    Lindsay – what do you make of the only 7.8% of corn belt famers the believe humans are mostly causing climate change (from a USDA poll)? Should they be castigated like you do to GMO and vaccine skeptics?

    Human’s dominate role in climate change is a scientific fact supported by the National Academy of Science:



    • corncorps says:

      I hope I’m not chiding anyone for their decisions, but asking why some choose to disregard science and asking for dialogue. As for climate change, I side with the best available science and I realize that many farmers don’t on this issue. I encourage dialogue on that topic as well.

  19. psaurian says:

    Thanks for the quick response. You have a captive audience with corn growers. Why aren’t there more efforts to convince the famers you represent about climate change? You say you believe then you must understand the profound urgency and danger to agriculture climate change poses. If there are and I’m mistaken my apologies and would love to see them.


    • corncorps says:

      This blog is not the forum. My goal is to make this blog more non-farm friendly and I pray that I’m talking to a larger audience than just IL corn farmers.

      Internally, we have many discussions about this and other issues.

      Appreciate your conversation!

  20. David Oana says:

    So is it your position that the 30+counties which have all banned gmo food didn’t use science to decide that they infact aren’t safe? Your science is flawed and filled with propaganda. Eat all the gm food you want. If it’s so safe they should be wanting to label it staying “now with extra GMO corn for more nutrition.” Even rats and pigs refuse to eat gmo corn unless there’s nothing else available. Anyway eat all the gmo foods you want you can have my families share. I get that you think it’s safe. Then eat up, but don’t try to force people to eat that poison filled food by not giving them a choice. People deserve to know what’s in their food. Why did biotech companies spend $14 million in an attempt deceive 50,000 voters on Maui? The most money ever spent/voter in any election ever. If they’re trying to feed the world that 14 million would’ve bought a lot of food for starving kids. And btw they still lost. Just flushed that money down the toilet where their gmo crops belong

  21. Chaim Bochner says:

    It seems like science believes in thr big bang theory and I cannot except that.

    If G-d created the world (which I snd many believe as a “fact”, then he has a plan for the world’s lifespan too.

    For thr years G-d wants this world to exist, he already provided what’s needed for that time span. It’s just logical; to those that believe G-d created the world…

    If gmo where so good, why not give Adam a gmo modified version and teach him the secrets we know now?

    Anyway, if you’re happy coming from a monkey, I feel bad for you and understand your fears that the “bang” needs a shake-up; sorry, I’m proud to be an image of G-d and a direct descendant of G-d’s personal creation “so to speak”, the thinking MAN.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s