Reply
Sat 21 Sep, 2013 06:32 am
Context:
Clinton's speech began by comparing this human sequence
map to the map that Meriwether Lewis had unfolded in front of
President Thomas Jefferson in that very room nearly two hun-
dred years earlier. Clinton said, "Without a doubt, this is the
most important, most wondrous map ever produced by hu-
mankind." But the part of his speech that most attracted public
attention jumped from the scientific perspective to the spiritual.
"Today," he said, "we are learning the language in which God
created life. We are gaining ever more awe for the complexity,
the beauty, and the wonder of God's most divine and sacred
gift."
Was I, a rigorously trained scientist, taken aback at such a blatantly religious reference by the leader of the free world at a moment such as this? Was I tempted to scowl or look at the floor in embarrassment? No, not at all. In fact I had worked closely with the president's speechwriter in the frantic days just
prior to this announcement, and had strongly endorsed the inclusion of this paragraph. When it came time for me to add a few words of my own, I echoed this sentiment: "It's a happy day for the world. It is humbling for me, and awe-inspiring, to realize that we have caught the first glimpse of our own instruction book, previously known only to God."
Not necessarily--the question of proofs is irrelevant to this use of the word. Whereas Clinton was expressing a personal belief, when the writer "echoes the sentiment," he is just saying that he agrees, without reference to proofs. So, for example, i might say that the behavior of students in resorts on school holidays disgusts me. That requires no proof, what i feel is a matter of certainty for me. Someone else might "echo that sentiment," and all they would be saying is that it disgusts them, too.
Yes.
I echoed this sentiment = I shared this thought or feeling; I had the same opinion.