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: The Philosopher who wrote (152306)	12/22/2005 1:08:06 PM
From: tbancroft	Respond to of 793955

I agree that the role of science should be to investigate the nature of an Intelligent Designer as a viable theory of origins. It is the seeming intolerance for a theory (which is as testable as most theories of physical activities millions and billions of years past, including Darwin's theory) that is disappointing. There is a definite similarity of expression in those exhibiting BDS and those who are vociferous proponents of No ID. Perhaps another point that is being missed is that evolution of the species as a theory took a severe blow when the scientific community finally agreed the the Big Bang theory established an approximate limit of between 13 and 14 billion years for the universe, and subsequent scientific investigation put the age of the Earth at around 4.5 billion years. The quantity of changes that supposedly all took place during the "Cambrian Explosion" of life forms includes numerous "adaptation sequences" that should have each necessitated tens of billions of years, not the millions of years available in the referenced era. It's not that there wasn't a possible natural sequence (evolution) of differences and apparent relationships between them. Just that the theory as stated doesn't satisfy the facts, in particular, timeframes. It's not just gaps of evidence, it's the lack of sufficient time for randomness coupled with natural selection to explain the variety. news.bbc.co.uk pubs.usgs.gov The essence of science -- which at its heart is not a body of knowledge but a process -- is to put forward theories and then test them. We have serious scientists looking for the Loch Ness monster. We should have serious scientists looking for scientifically valid evidence of the existence or non-existence of an ID. And it is perfectly acceptable to report on this in science class, just as it is perfectly acceptable to show reports on the process of search for the Loch Ness monster in science classes.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (152306)	12/22/2005 1:37:44 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793955

We should have serious scientists looking for scientifically valid evidence of the existence or non-existence of an ID. I agree that that's an interesting area for scientific exploration. I would encourage scientists to see if they can figure out how to explore it scientifically. And if they ever come up with a scientific theory to explain it, then we should include in science classes. I'll sure buy the book.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (152306)	12/22/2005 2:32:53 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793955

We should have serious scientists looking for scientifically valid evidence of the existence or non-existence of an ID. Oh, come now. This is simply silly- -and clearly a move of desperation on the creationist's part. As the judge said, ID is nothing but creationism in some new packing packaging. As best as can be said now, the b=value of about half a dozen physical constants can determine whether worlds can exist at all and whether watery worlds exist. Do the values have to have the values they do? Is it chance that they do? Are there an infinite number of parallel universes and this is one that has life? Or did a God set this one up? I'd like to see your evidence.