SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (60900)12/29/2005 12:28:50 PM
From: Kailash  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 173976
 
Thanks for the clarification -- I had clearly made a whole host of wrong assumptions about the state of the debate! I'll follow up on this later. Just an anecdote: the Templeton Foundation, which has been giving grants to scientific approaches to religion, was open to proposals by Intelligent Design proponents, but found that nobody was interested in doing actual research. So is your suggestion that the mainstream scientific position -- that life itself emerged through a process of natural selection, starting from non-living chemical processes -- lacks any supportive evidence?



To: one_less who wrote (60900)12/29/2005 2:30:36 PM
From: TigerPaw  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 173976
 
I have been arguing that neither is more based on scientific evidence than the other

Only by ignoring the evidence that is there.
As I have shown there is much evidence and research on the origins of life on this earth. Even if you choose to pretend it doesn't exist, it does not make it go away. The state of scientific research improves, evolves over time and whether you choose to understand or be oblivious makes no matter.

TP



HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News