Webster is the worst dictionary out there (well, of those aimed at adults).
On the other hand, unless you're using the Dictionary of Evolutionary Science (which may or may not exist), any such book is only going to give you a copy-editor's parred down version of a non-biologist's summary description of something he is not even attempting to explain. Aimed at the lay person.
I am seriously considering writing a module that scans for more than two paragraphs of waffle and automatically blocks that user from the subforum in question.
Seeing as I've never seen any evidence that it is, and seeing as the BBC has absolutely nothing to gain from being what you nebulously term a "propaganda machine", I'd much rather assume it isn't (and remain open to new evidence) than just imagine it has attributes I've never witnessed.
(a) "knowledge" includes things that have been written down, which are a part of society as long as they can still be read,
(b) IQ is not a useful measure for this kind of investigation.
First rule of analysis and interpretation: Correlation is not causation.
Similarly, if you don't know whether or not a clone has a soul, why call it "not good"?
I don't think the official stance of any given religion actually changes anything to do with the clone itself, in any case. Unless there's burning at the stake involved, or elevation to godhood, or something like that.
We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.