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 : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (97737)	3/12/2005 4:55:45 PM
From: goldworldnet	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

The middle ground of course is theistic evolution. * * *

To: Lane3 who wrote (97737)	3/12/2005 7:25:22 PM
From: Tom C	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Wow, I'm way behind on this thread. That's interesting. You're telling me that the hypothesis (I hesitate to call it a theory) of intelligent design is that there was an intelligent designer. Period. I was expecting something else. Come on, you were not expecting something else!

To: Lane3 who wrote (97737)	3/13/2005 3:50:46 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Well, what I can offer is only my opinion and my take on things I've read. ID is a developing field of thought as is complexity theory, symbiogenesis, etc. I want to respond to something you said about intelligent design operating at the molecular level and maybe not at the higher level - ID rests on irreducible complexity. And complexity increases as you go to the bio-molecular level. When you look at a living organism with the naked eye - you see a certain body shape, color, skin, hair, limbs, eyes, etc. When you dissect an organism, you see much more complexity inside than can be sign outside - blood circulation, numerous organs, a brain and nervous system, a digestion and elimination system, lungs, etc. Then when you look at things on the molecular level, you see vastly more complexity - you see that even simple cells have about 20 different types of structures (oorganelles) in them and each of these structures is made up of a large number of proteins (50 proteins in the case of the bacterial flagellar motor, for example). So yes, there is more complexity at the molecular level. So a theory based on irreducible complexity would find more on the molecular level than at the gross antomical level that we see with our eyes. The argument for darwinian evolution has always mainly rested on reasoned arguments mostly drawn from the level of gross anatomy. Like, the panda's "thumb" that Gould chose as the title of one of his books on evolution; or like the colors of moth wings. Reasoned arguments for natural selection are stronger when talking about gross anatomical things; it's harder to make those arguments as the level of detailed complexity involved increases. One thing: ""evolution tells us that mammals have walked the earth for X years" Intelligent design would agree. "I don't know how that can be for something intended to be taught in schools as science. " I haven't given any thought to that issue. Perhaps, the truth - which is, as I see it - that there exist complex things that couldn't have come about by natural selection. I think this opinion is a lot more widely held by scientists than is generally known. (You don't have to rely on intelligent design theorists for that point. Non-ID folks like Francis Crick, Stephen Wolfram, Lynn Margulis and more think so. ) And there are theories of how to account for these complex things. One of the theories is ID. Others are complexity or chaos theory, symbiogenesis & the Gaia theory, panspermia. (There may be others though I'm not aware of them now.) All of these have been put forward by very intelligent people. Now, as far as I know, there is no debate on panspermia or complexity theory and so on - no one asking should this be taught in schools. Why should the intelligent design theory be treated differently?