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: DavesM who wrote (129653)	8/3/2005 11:51:23 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793818

I logically do not really link Biology and evolution. And to me the teaching of ID is simply mentioning that evolotion really only explains why or how some life forms adapted and explains the current lifeforms we see. But as to why life ever started in the first place, evolution has no answers, it is reactionary explanations of what is. Many believe God is somehow responible for the creation of life. As I have said, ID does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I don't see how an intelligent Creator helps explain principles that govern other sciences are the way they are: Astronomy, Physics, Mathematics, Chemistry, Geology. The rules, the aproximations or law we currently use are only based upon the limited understandings we now have. I can see no logic in proffering we don't know something because God does not want us to know. I also cannot see any logical reason why one would teach certainties of Gods cause and effects in physical events. It seems in that you cannot deduce the logic in intelligent design correctly, that seem to lead you to profer the faulty inductive logic I've questioned above. Would it be useful to make the connection that the laws and moral justification of our rights to make laws is predicted on the existance of God and as to the question of how life originated, God being involved is the only explanation consistent with mans current understanding of the laws of physics. That's not religion, that's the objective facts. One could have a constitutional admentmend to deny the basis of the constituion. But that 2nd law is not going to be changed by lawyers and politicians.