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: bentway who wrote (129639)	8/3/2005 10:32:30 PM
From: tbancroft	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793838

I see no reason presented by the ID folks that God (if there is one) couldn't be working his will through the apparently random actions of evolution and natural selection. Interestingly enough, there was a period of time in the twentieth century during which several communist bloc countries fought vigorously against any mention of -- or credence given to -- the "Big Bang" theory of the origins of the universe, because a 15 billion year old universe didn't allow sufficient time for all the successful variations necessary for evolution to be the "designer-less" mechanism for life. Perhaps the short age of the universe as determined by the finest astrophysicists of this and and last centuries provides at least some form of evidence that would necessitate looking for a "guiding hand" of some sort. Just a thought...

To: bentway who wrote (129639)	8/3/2005 11:12:23 PM
From: briskit	Respond to of 793838

Well, I am about out of energy for the discussion, as I tried to say earlier. However, if you would like to see some scientists who have raised questions for various reasons, here are a couple easily found places to read. They are not ID people, as far as I know, but are still in the general field of inquiry ID is looking at. rsternberg.net Recently I was asked by a reporter if I felt in retrospect that publication of the Meyer paper was "inappropriate." I responded as follows: I'm taking inappropriate to mean one of two things, either a faux pas such as wearing brown shoes with a blue suit, or something politically incorrect. The paper was not outside the journal's scope (so no white socks and leisure suit in this instance). Furthermore, Meyer set forth a reasoned view about an issue of fundamental importance to systematics: the basis of taxa. Now his ideas are considered politically incorrect or "anti-scientific" by some. But since I don't do politically correct science and since I think that human reason (i.e., science) is capable of at least considering questions about ultimate causes, no, I don't think his paper was inappropriate in any meaningful sense. the/