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.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Win Smith who wrote (10784)	4/9/2001 11:07:41 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 82486

I had seen the article on intelligent design. I seem to recall we discussed that a while back on this thread. I missed the one about the apes. Very interesting. Thanks for calling it to my attention. I imagine my notions about leadership style result, in part, from my never having been part of a football team. <g> Karen

To: Win Smith who wrote (10784)	4/9/2001 11:45:50 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Win, I loved the 'intelligent design' article... but I think you missed the best quote <g> It has an appeal to intellectuals who don't know anything about evolutionary biology, And this rather telling comment... the movement has gained support among a few scientists in other disciplines, most of them conservative Christians. In other words, those who want to believe in a particular stance, and then selectively work to that. The real 'strength' of such an unprovable is this. I think that in the next few decades, it will be possible to create viable life from inorganic synthesis - not necessarily in end-to-end fashion, but by the construction of proteins from inorganics, and the use of the same proteins as building blocks (note that both could be randomised, but the second at least would probably just take too long - after all, the first time(s) it took millions of years...: while a computer simulation, which coudl be speeded, wouldn't count). Upon which, of course, the ID take is either 'well, you designed it so that proves our point' or - more insidiously - claiming that the design is not even in the building, but in the shaping of the physical/chemical laws that allowed said molecular building... In other words, staying unknowable, unprovable and adding nothing of value to science or knowledge. </rant> I'd better stop there...