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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (92557)	12/28/2004 11:35:19 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 794351

This is what you voted for. You bed your bed. Now sleep in it. Huh? What I found interesting about the article was that it specifically said that ID did not advocate the six thousand year old earth. This distinguishes it dramatically from creationism. When CB posted the original article by Schlafly, she didn't differentiate between creationism and ID so I thought she might find this take interesting. If all ID does is make the point that there could have been intelligence behind evolution rather than austere randomness and people find comfort in that, I don't have a problem with it. Same as I don't have a problem with people believing in God even as I don't. Creationism, OTOH, is a national threat. From what I've been reading of the Pennsylvania case, the proponents of ID are really pushing creationism and don't make Slate's distinction. Perhaps, too, ID has become code for creationism. Who knows. But if all that school wants to do is to refer kids to books on ID, as defined in Slate, to supplement their evolution coursework, and if they teach the scientific method, too, so kids learn what is science and what is not, I have trouble getting exercised over referrals to ID. If that's all they want to do...

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (92557)	12/28/2004 11:50:29 AM
From: aladin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794351

Mary, ID more appropriately belongs in George W Bush's Presidential platform. You still can't get over the election can you? Which side in this 'cultural' war is blinded by theocratic ideas? It sure looks like the Dems and their green friends are much as much into faith based belief than anyone in the Republican camp. Many of them are blaming the Indonesian Tsunami on Global Warming. Articles on this already appear in many papers. Discussions on an NPR show discussed man made influences on tectonic activity (the weight of cities and pavement - I guess no one in these camps ever took any hard science classes or studied geology beyond high school). When an evangelical refuses to believe in evolution he doesn't hurt anyone. When a Democrat or Green activist refuses to believe any science refuting their beliefs - they push for spending hundreds of billions uselessly and hurt millions of people. Chrichton's looks pretty prophetic at this point. John