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: Kevin Rose who wrote (60686)	12/22/2005 11:18:25 AM
From: bentway	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 173976

Even at it's most ambitious, "intelligent design" is nothing more than a hypothesis, not a theory. For it to move from hypothesis to theory, it needs to amass a body of evidence, as Darwin and others since have done for evolution. Papers need to be published in scientific journals postulating the supposed evidence, which then need to be reviewed by the scientific peers of the presenters and judged. None of this has been done for ID, because it is not science and would fail these tests.

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (60686)	12/22/2005 11:46:24 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

”Evolution has a large block of scientific work to support it.” Yes and it also has a belief system associated with it. Adaptive change of species to environmental conditions over time is a well documented phenomenon and really has no educated challengers. It is observable and we can reproduce it in labs. This is scientific fact, supported by evidence from scientific method. I would be fine with a biology class that stuck to strict explanations of what we can observe in adaptive biology. I was not arguing for a particular explanation of origin in the Part I and II treatment you just read. I was simply pointing out that scientific method is useful within its qualified limitations. There is much about our condition that is not observable using scientific method; origins being one of those items. To top it off, we as human beings have limitations on our ability to observe and know things via scientific method. The “Evolutionists”, however, want a belief system about origins just like everyone else and so they take license in biology classes to say, "see all of the things that we have that make sense about the universe, then believe as we do about where it came from." Cosmic soup, a big bang, a black hole, alternate universes, multiple universes, or like the Eskimos ‘an old woman pulled the caribou out of the hole first and then pulled the wolf out to keep the caribou healthy’. All of that is myth until proven otherwise. Religious people do the same but they don’t get to have a required class in schools to publicly bolster their version to every child in the country.