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 : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (3513)	3/19/2002 3:04:13 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Does that mean somebody's making somebody read it? Or maybe nobody's making somebody read it? Or perhaps somebody is making nobody read it. All in all, I just have to tip my hat, to the somebody, who could say so much about nobody.

To: Lane3 who wrote (3513)	3/19/2002 3:26:07 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Dionne, the author of the infamous slander of evangelicals as being poor, ignorant, and easily lead, when, as a group, they have above average incomes and educational levels, and are extremely fractious (why do you think there are so many denominations? Otherwise, they would just all be Baptists or something), seems to have learned a thing or two. Good piece. All that is necessary, in respect of evolution, is to acknowledge that science tries to explain things purely by natural causes, and assumes that difficulties will be resolved in the long run. "Intelligent design" does not fit into the explanatory model of science, and is really philosophy, from that standpoint. As I tried to explain awhile back, there is a big difference between questioning the adequacy of this or that explanation of phenomena, and questioning the adequacy of the type of mechanistic causality punctuated by randomness that science offers. As long as science insists on confining itself to that sort of explanation, evolution must be true, because it is the only thing that fits into the framework. What Intelligent Design is really challenging is the adequacy of science to explain phenomena. Since no serious philosopher thinks that science has a patent on the Truth, it is not startling to admit that it may not come up with a resolution to dilemmas, and therefore, at a minimum, that Intelligent Design may be true........