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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (60671)	12/21/2005 6:55:28 PM
From: Kevin Rose	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 173976

Interesting stuff. But, I think it skirts the real issue, which is: how much scientific rigor must a theory undergo before we start exposiing it to our youngsters? Evolution has a large block of scientific work to support it. The main premise of Intelligent Design seems to be that Evolution doesn't explain everything, so that somehow asserts some higher 'designer'. Not a very compelling argument. Disproving one well-supported theory because of holes is problematic; using holes in one theory to assert a completely different theory, with no scientific data to support it, is just...magic. It would be if I said that Einstein was wrong because his theories don't adequately handle magnetism, and therefore assert: theonion.com Presto!