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: Lane3 who wrote (92584)	12/28/2004 1:40:13 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793964

I can only say that the problem is this: that evolution is a scientific theory inferring no supernatural force, while intelligent design (the way most people are trying to teach it) is an attempt to bring the supernatural in to the natural sciences. I have a very great problem with that. While ID can be studied scientifically, it is pretty clear that most people who are "for" teaching it wouldn't understand a scientific experiment if you clubbed them over the head with it. My husband is fascinated by self assembly, and this topic, but I don't think there is a hope in heck of it being presented in any way that would help American students in the sciences. I'm not for the dumbing down of American students- and I think it's an important issue. Now it might fit neatly into comparative religion, or even into a class on artificial intelligence and computer design- but to attempt to teach this to elementary school children is just a first step to religious indoctrination.

To: Lane3 who wrote (92584)	12/28/2004 1:58:56 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793964

Hello Karen... long time no see. Since ionesco asked me about this, I figured I'll add my own thoughts. Self-assembly is something I'm totally fascinated with. I've done all sorts of desktop experiments along the lines of Hans Jenny. With the proper agitation, it appears that many inert systems come to life or, organize themselves into standing and persistent phenomena - it only requires a source of energy. However, a brief mention of Cymatics is not what is being proposed by most ID hopefuls. My experience has shown that this is a hook that allows one set of dogmatic teachings or another to become entrained into the mainstream curriculum. If the proponents of ID were honest, they'd say this. If self-organization is in the fabric of the Universe, which I believe it is, then it may be as unnecessary to discuss ID by itself when teaching evolutionary biology as it is to discuss the awareness of electrons when teaching physics. I haven't seen a compelling argument to show that electrons don't have thoughts, but this is a lot like the missing WMD evidence argument. With weak thinking, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and while logically true in its construction, such an approach is wholly non-scientific and doesn't allow people to discard incredible theories in favor of more credible ones. The burden of proof for ID proponents is to produce the Intelligent Designer Him(Her)self and lacking that key piece of evidence, such discussion is strictly a topic for the the theological classroom.