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 (143322)	10/16/2005 6:19:19 PM
From: briskit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794392

LOL, we're opening the whole can of worms now, LOL. I heard Chuck Colson said in his most recent book that a leading atheist philosopher at Oxford he heard speak, (here we go...my cousin's brother's aunt knew a lady who....) read one of the leading ID biologist's arguments about irreducible complexity (maybe), and changed his mind about his atheism. He had to allow for a deism of some kind. I would do some work to document it if it made any difference to you. Just to say that the flat earth society may actually have something worthwhile to contribute to the evolutionary discussion. O sweet Jezzuz and Lawd have mercy, here cum da fruit cakes, LOL. I'm not worried about competing. UT physics, engineering, medical and other professors attend our church (Christian, where Karen Hughes goes even, if it matters). They have lots of positions on many subjects, but aren't too uptight about defending against ID in the world of ideas. Either evolutionary theory will answer the questions and solve the issues raised, or it won't. Evolution is a big boy now in the world of ideas, and will stand or fall on its own merits, so to speak. Teachers should stick to teaching data first, and questions and implications raised by it.