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 (152339)	12/22/2005 3:37:47 PM
From: briskit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793938

The issue would be addressed purely scientifically by raising the scientific problems/questions in evolutionary theory. It should all be about the science, biochemistry, etc. The questions currently being raised are about irreducible complexity of certain aminoacids and the processes needed to develop them and transmit the genetic information. All those questions are scientific. I'm not a scientist, but the issues are framed by non-deists as well, as I understand it.

To: Lane3 who wrote (152339)	12/22/2005 5:33:52 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793938

It doesn't matter if it's more likely to be correct. It simply isn't science. That's what his issue is about. Science classes teach the best science available. They don't teach needlepoint or religion. You keep repeating that mantra, but without addressing at all the specific issue. Which isn't like you. We know that life forms change. We see it. We know that intelligent beings can change life forms. We do it. Why isn't it scientific to ask whether there are other intelligent beings that also change life forms? What is unscientific about that? Science studies the origins of the universe and asks how it happened. Nobody argues that that isn't science. Why isn't studying the origins of conscious life science? I submit that you call it not science just because you personally don't believe in it. Which is really, really, really bad science. Why