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: Neocon who wrote (77293)	4/10/2000 9:35:00 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

And which God guided it Neo? And where is the proof, ANY proof for God? I'd like to see one fossil of his holiness, or holinesses. I'd like to see one shred of evidence that a God or GOds existed- I don't care which one(s). Alas, there is much less proof of God than there is for evolution. Of course Evolution is a theory and yet people actually BELIEVE in God (s),who is, or which are, not even theoretical to some people. It's ironic isn't it?

To: Neocon who wrote (77293)	4/10/2000 12:49:00 PM
From: nihil	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

One of the most interesting aspects of evolution is how perfectly the theory which was developed largely on observation of external characteristics and comparative anatomy before anything was known about genetics, has been upheld and extended by modern genetic experimentation. The development of Mendelian inheritance theory provided an actual mechanism by which mutations could be transmitted. Modern genomics is producing detailed family trees. Science will soon determine in detail exactly how many genes are different (if any) between Neocon and a barbary ape and which is more closely related to their missing link. One of the neatest things to be developed is our ability to determine the existence and probable genomes of millions of missing links (transitional species) between two existing species. Perhaps the greatest thing about genomics will be the ability to correct evolutionary mistakes. Homo sapiens sapiens evolved without a waterproof container for important papers, and maybe a place to keep a nice cold drink.

To: Neocon who wrote (77293)	4/10/2000 6:25:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

First, evolutionary theory is not based upon experimentation, and the physical evidence is quite circumstantial. The fossil record is abundant and consistent, and displays a chronological progression from simple organisms to more complex ones. The theory of evolution, while incomplete, is at least consistent with this physical evidence. The real buttress of evolutionary theory is that it has to be true if one insists on a physical mechanism. This is not true. There may be a physical mechanism of which we are unaware. Science has not closed the books on it by any means. Evolution is simply the most widely accepted theory at this time; new and superior ones may emerge as we learn more. the pure Biblical account is almost certainly untrue Strike the "almost", and you've got it. And if one bit is untrue, where does that leave the proponents of inerrancy? And if it is even "almost" certainly untrue, why on earth should we present it in science classes as an alternative theory? some version of special creation or "guided evolution" could be true, were it not that science rejects that sort of explanation. Science has to reject any explanation for which no physical evidence exists. If it didn't, it wouldn't be science any more. A scientist can practically be defined as one who accepts nothing as a matter of faith. The only reason to believe in "guided evolution" is because we want to, because it suits our myth-guided predisposition. That's not science, and has no place in a science class. In a class on comparative mythology or religion (same thing), maybe. However, there would be nothing wrong with at least noting that science has its own ways of framing questions and pursuing answers, and that within those limits, this is the best theory it has come up with....... If you are saying that the scientific method should be taught in science classes, I agree absolutely. And if you wish to point out that people who have not yet developed the capacity for rational inquiry frequently resort to supernatural explanations for natural phenomena, I wouldn't object to that either. Certainly there are abundant examples: the notion that volcanoes are the outlets for the flames of Hephaestus's workshop, for one, the notion of simultaneous creation, for another. But the fundamentalists might not like that, so we'd better not.

To: Neocon who wrote (77293)	4/11/2000 12:25:00 AM
From: Sea Otter	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

For a theory to be a scientific theory it has to be open for disproof. That is, how would you disprove the theory? How would you test it? How would you validate it? Etc. If you can't test it or disprove it, then it isn't science. It's faith. By this standard evolution is a strong scientific theory. Yes, only a theory. But then, the "Atomic Theory" and "The Theory of Gravitation" have the same status. But no one doubts that gravity exists or that atomic bombs can't be built - even though they are based just on "theory". Similarly, evolution is the guiding principle for all modern medicine and biology, much like quantun theory is the guiding principle for physics. And yet, I have never heard a politician or religious leader say "quantum physics is only a theory, therefore we should not teach it." (Probably because they are too stupid to know what it is - it is FAR more subversive to people's ideas about God than evolution!) Pure creationists are not scientists. There is no room for disproof in their theory - it is immutably true by definition. Thus, it is not scientific. "Guided Evolution" is, at least, more intellectually respectable. The problem is, it is more complex. It introduces this mysterious "third force" that intercedes at certain intervals to get evolution cranking. How would we test for this force? How would we prove it? Scientifically, the simplest theories are always held over the more complex ones. Thus, guided evolution has no acceptance amongst biologists and medical researchers. It's akin to the epicycles of pre-Copernican astronomy. As a researcher, I get a bit put off by these creationists. They are always American and always religiously motivated, and I wish they'd stop trying to drag us back to the "good-old-days" of the Middle Ages, where Christians alone defined what was true based off of religious texts. If we don't rise above primitive superstition, I'm afraid we're all doomed. Fortunately, this appears to more of a strictly American phenemona, as I said, although you also see it amongst radical Islamic fundamentalists in Iran and Afghanistan. The same intellectual underpinnings there, I'm afraid.