Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Edwarda who wrote (41190)	6/20/1999 6:19:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 108807

his post demands a more thoughtful answer than you have offered. Unlike Chuzz's post, your post deserves a thoughtful answer, since you have shown yourself interested in discussion and dialogue, not in simply scoring points by intentional offensiveness and insult without concern for truth. Certainly there is a weight of evidence behind the theory of evolution. (As there was at one point a weight of evidence behind the theory that the earth was flat. And as there have been scientific proofs demonstrated that bumblebees can't fly, and that a steamship could never cross the Atlantic.) There are aspects of the theory that have considerable weight behind them. There are other aspects that are far iffier. Legitimate scientists differ on various understandings of the theory. There are even some who still consider it speculative. There are things that don't yet fit. I'm not an expert on evolution, and have never published on the topic, but I do read reputable scientists, and have taken numerous science courses which have given me an excellent understanding of the history, methods, and principles of science. And IMO there is a vast difference between the scientific acceptance of the fact of evolution (as though a theory that complex could be termed a "fact" anyhow; that is one point where C fell down badly) and the fact of gravity. (Basically, C has shown that he doesn't understand the difference between a theory and a fact.) And of course, the evolutionary creationists also have theories that fit with all the scientific evidence and are every bit as provable and demonstrable as the theory of secular evolution. Not that I necessarily agree with them. But I get rather cross when people dismiss their theories, even though they are scientifically every bit as valid as others, solely because they feel so threatened by the possibility of Divine intervention in human activities. That's not very scientific. I originally brought this whole subject up to say that if we were only going to teach facts in school, evolution had to be dumped. And if we are going to teach developing theories, we have an obligation to teach them as such and to teach the alternatives to them also. And to provoke discussion. Which it did.