【正文】 months of arguing and final 16 hours of hot parliamentary debates, Australia’s Northern Territory became the first legal authority in the world to allow doctors to take the lives of incurably ill patients who wish to die. The measure passed by the convincing vote of 15 to 10. Almost immediately word flashed on the Internet and was picked up, half a world away, by John Hofsess, executive director of the Right to Die Society of Canada. He sent it on via the group’s online service, Death NET. Says Hofsess: “We posted bulletins all day long, because of course this isn’t just something that happened in Australia. It’s world history.”The full import may take a while to sink in. The NT Rights of the Terminally Ill law has left physicians and citizens alike trying to deal with its moral and practical implications. Some have breathed sighs of relief, others, including churches, righttolife groups and the Australian Medical Association, bitterly attacked the bill and the haste of its passage. But the tide is unlikely to turn back. In Australia—where an aging population, lifeextending technology and changing munity attitudes have all played their part—other states are going to consider making a similar law to deal with euthanasia. In the US and Canada, where the righttodie movement is gathering strength, observers are waiting for the dominoes to start falling.Under the new Northern Territory law, an adult patient can request death—probably by a deadly injection or pill—to put an end to suffering. The patient must be diagnosed as terminally ill by two doctors. After a “cooling off” period of seven days, the patient can sign a certificate of request. After 48 hours the wish for death can be met. For Lloyd Nickson, a 54yearold Darwin resident suffering from lung cancer, the NT Rights of Terminally Ill law means he can get on with living without the haunting fear of his suffering: a terrifying death from his breathing condition. “I’m not afraid of dying from a spiritual point of view, but what I was afraid of was how I’d go, because I’ve watched people die in the hospital fighting for oxygen and clawing at their masks, ” he says.11. From the second paragraph we learn that.［A］ reasoning has played a decisive role in the debate［B］ creationists do not base their argument on reasoning［C］ evolutionary theory is too difficult for nonspecialists［D］ creationism is supported by scientific findings30. This passage appears to be a digest of .［A］ remend the views of the evolutionists［B］ expose the true features of creationists［C］ curse bitterly at his opponents［D］ launch a surprise attack on creationists29. From the passage we can infer that .［A］ evolution in its true sense as to the origin of the universe［B］ a notion of the creation of religion［C］ the scientific explanation of the earth formation［D］ the deceptive theory about the origin of the universe28. Kitcher’s book is intended to .［A］ Inventive Mind ［B］ Effective Schooling［C］ Ways of Thinking ［D］ Outpouring of Inventions1996年P(guān)assage 5Rumor has it that more than 20 books on creationism/evolution are in the publisher’s pipelines. A few have already appeared. The goal of all will be to try to explain to a confused and often unenlightened citizenry that there are not two equally valid scientific theories for the origin and evolution of universe and life. Cosmology, geology, and biology have provided a consistent, unified, and constantly improving account of what happened. “Scientific” creationism, which is being pushed by some for “equal time” in the classrooms whenever the scientific accounts of evolution are given, is based on religion, not science. Virtually all scientists and the majority of nonfundamentalist religious leaders have e to regard “scientific” creationism as bad science and bad religion.The first four chapters of Kitcher’s book give a very brief introduction to evolution. At appropriate places, he introduces the criticisms of the creationists and provides answers. In the last three chapters, he takes off his gloves and gives the creationists a good beating. He describes their programmes and tactics, and, for those unfamiliar with the ways of creationists, the extent of their deception and distortion may e as an unpleasant surprise. When their basic motivation is religious, one might have expected more Christian behavior.Kitcher is a philosopher, and this may account, in part, for the clarity and effectiveness of his arguments. The nonspecialist will be able to obta