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 (152364)	12/22/2005 6:00:47 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793927

You keep repeating that mantra, but without addressing at all the specific issue. Which isn't like you. I'm trying. Perhaps you're not listening. Why isn't it scientific to ask whether there are other intelligent beings that also change life forms? What is unscientific about that? I didn't say it wasn't scientific to ask? I explicitly said otherwise in a post to you just a couple of posts upstream. "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." But the hypothesis you come up with as a potential answer has to be scientific, not philosophical. I submit that you call it not science just because you personally don't believe in it. Tsk, tsk. Think about that sentence. It's not science because I don't "believe in" it? We recognize something as science by believing in it? Good grief! "Believe in" is a faith-oriented concept. "Science" and "believe in" don't belong in the same book let alone in the same sentence.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (152364)	12/22/2005 11:15:50 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793927

Why isn't it scientific to ask whether there are other intelligent beings that also change life forms? What is unscientific about that? Nothing at all - but you need to explain, by means of empirical and reproducable evidence, why Intelligent Design works as an explanation while the current theory of random change combined with survival of the fittest (a process that not only has huge amounts of evidence, but has been reproduced in scientific experiments for humans to observe) does not work. Saying, "Look, this life form is very, very complicated and evolution hasn't explained every step of how it evolved" is not sufficient. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And you haven't done any better for your theory, unless your underlying assumption is that ID is a miraculous process and that by definition, it can do anything. Such an assumption would show that ID is prima facie a theological and not a scientific proposition.