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: Thomas A Watson who wrote (129657)	8/4/2005 1:54:34 AM
From: DavesM	Respond to of 793835

Thomas, Science doesn't ask the question of why there is life, because it cannot answer that question, and it isn't Science's job. Quantum theory doesn't try to explain "why life started in the first place", and neither does Evolution (nor do I believe Astronomy or Physics try to explain why there is a universe). Scientists try answer questions they think they can find answers to. We shouldn't have "science" answer questions that it cannot answer. Science has problems enough explaining the world when data can be collected (like is the global warming hockey stick really happening), why try to teach an answer to a question that has no data? I do not consider ID to be a Scientific THEORY, I consider it a Hypothesis - as there is no scientific evidence generally recognized as supporting it. You are correct, Theories (and physical laws) we now use "are only based on the limited understandings we now have", BUT they can be tested and are sound (within the boundaries we can test or have set). I assume we agree that now with the ability to analyze DNA, that Evolution answers how the earth developed the diversity of animal life that now inhabits it? When we teach Evolution, we should also teach a hypothesis that cannot be proven even within the most narrow of limits?