Interesting. I'd agree on a number of levels with this position. I've had to help a 60-something woman (who recently lost her husband who did all the computer work) to get her wireless mouse working. Because the USB nub wireless receiver fit perfectly into her mouse for storage, she assumed that is where the nub was supposed to go. She didn't understand why her mouse didn't work. She laughed when I "fixed" her problem in about 12 seconds.
I guess the appropriate response is know your audience. How do they work? What do they want to see and how do they want to see it? Perhaps the eG8 knows their audience. Perhaps we hangers-out on slashdot are not the primary audience.

I suppose an intellectual is neither of these. Perhaps as dogmatixpsych states, an intellectual may be segregated from the real world behind the walls of academia. I'd like to think that an intellectual neither memorizes nor learns but synthesizes and develops alternatives based on what is already known. If an intellectual happens to be grounded in the real world then those alternatives may also be relevant and productive.

Yeah, this is a tough one, too. Since no evidence exists for alternative universes, either preceding or parallel, these things cannot be tested. Just because a parent universe could exist doesn't mean it did exist. The only evidence available is that the universe we live in is the only universe that does or has ever existed. So when ordering possibilities, the parent universe and a lineage of universes falls lower in likelihood than the current universe is the only one, ever.

This is a tough one. Theory is a strong word. It's not even a hypothesis as it simply can't be tested. No evidence exists. Multiverse seems to be more a postulation of a possibility, even if the idea sounds scientific enough to be a reality. I believe in realm of the possible, possibilities need to be ordered in terms of likeliness based on the evidence we have. So your disclaimer IANAS is appropriate. I appreciate your candor!

A bit late to the party here but it seems this isn't an argument about whether or not God exists but where this whole universe came from. To date, neither religion nor science can prove any hypothesis about where the universe came from. And to say that science will figure that out eventually seems like scientism, or putting the same kind of religious faith in science that the religious place in God.

I don't think it belongs in the theology department, either. Probably better suited in the rigors and frameworks of philosophy than any other discipline. The same goes for scientists who believe that science will eventually answer all the questions. Why? Because science cannot empirically test whether or not science will answer all questions. It's a philosophical statement.

Here, here. Freakin' sensitive. I suppose the word is tolerant. Tolerant of other people's views. When I tolerate something I tend to hold my nose, grimace, then chew it up. I don't have to tolerate things that I don't care about or that I agree with.

Biochemist and Ohio U Ph.D. Fuz Rana in Creating Life in the Lab makes a strong case that a basic life form created by scientists is approximately a decade away.

http://www.amazon.com/Creating-Life-Lab-Discoveries-Synthetic/dp/0801072093

...we're above average.

and see if we can find analogous evolutionary behavior to substantiate carbon-based macro hypotheses