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 : A Neutral Corner -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (1844)	12/30/2005 9:13:24 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2253

>>Darwin -- by showing us how purpose and design, meaning, can arise out of purposelessness, out of just brute matter.<< I have always found it interesting how people can find this depressing and frightening when I find it stimulating and empowering. >>They're adapting supply side economics to this and saying that there's a sort of unlimited market for what religions can give but only if they're costly. So they have an explanation for why the very bland and liberal Protestant religions are losing members and why the most extreme, intense religions are gaining members.<< Interesting take.

To: carranza2 who wrote (1844)	12/30/2005 5:10:36 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2253

You realize in Dennett you have possibly the most biased person on earth on the subject of God's alleged non-existence. He thinks Darwinism has proven God can't exist: Dennett makes clear that a belief in God is also not possible in light of what is known. The preservation of any part of the religious tradition as functional beliefs is presented in Darwin's Dangerous Idea as akin to denying, avoiding, and hiding from the truth (3 Dennett page 22). serendip.brynmawr.edu I realize this is from a student paper but it is an accurate presentation of his views. When anyone produces a good explanation as to how something like the bacterial rotary motor came to exist, they will have made a case against ID. So far the explanatory efforts I've been able to uncover are pretty pathetic.

To: carranza2 who wrote (1844)	12/31/2005 10:49:34 AM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 2253

I don't see how the article refutes Intelligent Design. Reduced to its simplest terms, Intelligent Design doesn't refute Darwinism but complements it. (Caveat, I don't believe in Intelligent Design, but I understand it.) Intelligent Design accepts evolution but posits that, from time to time, divine intervention is needed, and therefore God stays actively involved in creation. He took a rest on the 7th day but got back in the game. Personally I believe in the Minnesota Fats theory of creation. God made the Universe like a cosmic pool table, and at the moment of creation aka the Big Bang, He used the cosmic cue stick and the cosmic cue ball to break apart the universe, and put everything into play for eternity. No tweaking is necessary. Speaking of which, they're discovering the precursors to amino acids floating around stars. Coincidence? sciencedaily.com nrao.edu At any rate, Darwin never spoke about the origin of life, nor the origin of the universe, only the origin of species. Speciation is a very limited process. It is a very rare creationist who doesn't believe in speciation -- just the hard core ones that believe that all living species were saved on Noah's ark. We call them YECers, Young Earth Creationists.