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 : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (12471)	7/21/2001 10:34:21 AM
From: gao seng	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

Well, you are speaking legally. In a system of men, and not laws, yelling fire in a crowded theatre when there is no fire is the same as saying there is taxation without representation when that is false. Lives could be lost. It is a precious right to speak freely. We must be as diligent against incursions into this right as the Darwinists are against incursions into their dogma. The last paragraph is why I am posting this article. Wednesday, 18 July 2001 18:53 (ET) Civilization: Science, doctrine and Darwin By LOU MARANO WASHINGTON, July 18 (UPI) -- The continuing argument between strict Darwinian evolutionists and those who believe in the intelligent design of the universe seems to hinge on two issues. The first is the mechanism of biological change over time. Darwin's dynamic can be summarized in the phrase "blind variation and selective retention." In other words, changes in genetic material are random and purposeless. Most mutations are harmful, but some confer reproductive advantages in given environments. This gives rise to another aphorism, "differential fertility and differential mortality." In other words, organisms that have by chance inherited genes favorable to survival in a given habitat are more likely to live to reproductive age and have more offspring than those less favored, modifying the gene pool of the breeding population. Scientists who believe in intelligent design have no quarrel with simple Darwinian mechanics in the short run. They believe this is the way bacteria become resistant to antibiotics, for example, and how mosquito populations became resistant to DDT. But they ask if random genetic change can account for creation in all of its amazing complexity. Most intelligent design theorists also accept the Darwinian doctrine of "common descent," meaning all organisms descend from a common ancestor. "The issue is not science vs. religion," William Dembski told United Press International. "It is about the mechanism or force that's driving evolutionary change." Dembski is a mathematician and a philosopher who also has a background in theology. He is an associate research professor specializing in the conceptual foundations of science at Baylor University in Waco, Texas, and a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture in Seattle. "The fundamental claim of intelligent design is that purpose is displayed in the complexity and diversity of the living systems that we see," Dembski said in a telephone interview from Waco. "Undirected natural causes are insufficient to account for functional complexity, and the underlying design is empirically detectable." Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pa., wrote in his 1996 book "Darwin's Black Box" that some biological systems are so "irreducibly complex" at the molecular level that it is impossible for them to have evolved by chance alone. An example is a bacterial flagellum (tail), which Dembski described as "a little outboard rotary motor on the back of certain bacteria. It requires about 30 protein parts to make the thing and another 20 to put the whole thing together. It spins at about 17,000 RPM and can change direction in a quarter-turn." Dembski called it as "a marvel of nano-engineering," which indicates "specified complexity." The mathematician told UPI that one cannot generate this type of complexity by "stochastic (chance) processes. Basically, if a stochastic process outputs 'specified complexity,' it's because it had to first be inputted." Dembski likened the process to solving an accounting problem. "You track the information, and you see that it needs intelligence to get this type of result." Judging from the Discovery Institute's Web site, discovery.org, intelligent design theorists welcome input from their many critics. An unfavorable review of "Darwin's Black Box" by computer scientist Don Lindsay argues that some examples offered as evidence of "irreducible complexity" are in fact reducible. Behe's bacterial flagella are considered. Lindsay said that the flagellum on a certain form of intestinal bacteria consists of a chain of 497 amino acids. "What if we chop out a third of those? (He cites a study.) If the 'system' is irreducible, then removing these parts should make it stop functioning. But that has been done, and the flagellum still worked fine." Dutch science writer Gert Korthof has problems with intelligent design theory, but he welcomes it as a good test for contemporary Darwinism. The famous philosopher Karl Popper (1902-1994) changed the world with the publication of his book "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" in 1934. In this book Popper introduced the concept of "falsification." What separates science from other endeavors, Popper wrote, is that scientific theories must be subject to refutation. Only hypotheses capable of clashing with observation can be considered scientific. Korthof notes that neo-Darwinists, who are in charge of mainstream science, seldom publish any writer who attempts to falsify the idea that evolution occurred by chance alone. This raises the question of which group is more scientific and which is more doctrinal. The best answer might derive from a far older scientific principle -- parsimony, otherwise known as Occam's razor. William of Occam, a 14th century Franciscan priest who taught at Oxford, wrote: "What can be done with fewer (assumptions) is done in vain with more." In other words, the simplest explanation is best. In the last analysis, the determination of which school of evolutionary thought is more scientific might come down to a subjective judgment about which explanation is more parsimonious. Intelligent design theorists will defend their ideas doggedly, but one can imagine, at least, that they will back away from examples that don't pan out. Strict Darwinians, on the other hand, refuse to consider explanations that depart from the preconception that all natural phenomena are the result of chance. Which approach is more scientific, and which relies more on doctrine?

To: Neocon who wrote (12471)	7/24/2001 6:17:27 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

In other words, protected speech must be better defined, although exceptions should be construed narrowly. Very narrowly in my opinion. I think freedom of speech is a true right but we should be responsible in using it and it does not extend to a right to use your speech to violate the rights of others. You don't have the right to use your freedom to commit fraud on others or to forcibly harm them when self defense is not an issue. Unjustified, unnecessary and reckless endangerment of another can reasonably be considered to be a violation of their rights. So just as neither my constitutional 2nd amendment rights nor my natural right of self defense gives me the right to recklessly discharge firearms, neither my 1st amendment rights nor my natural right to free speech and expression gives me the right to "yell fire in a crowded theater". I don't think incendiary speech should be regulated except to the extent it actually become disturbing the peace. If I met you in a public place and cursed you out and told you I was going to kick your ass, I don't think I should rightfully face any legal sanction. If I even started to try and hit you, or if I followed you screaming continual threats then the sounds themselves then it would be different, but I don't really believe in the idea of a "fighting words" exception to free speech Tim