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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (183531)	3/14/2006 9:00:01 PM
From: skinowski	Respond to of 281500

LOL! Great post.... g/ng

To: michael97123 who wrote (183531)	3/14/2006 9:58:35 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

ID is not theistic evolution, which I really have no problem with anyone holding. Rather it is an attempt to say that science can in fact show that certain things could not in fact evolve. Unfortunately they have not provided any useful means, other than hand waving, for how science could do such a thing. The argument always comes down to this: We can't currently explain X to a sufficiently satisfactory level, therefore ID explains it better than evolution. A classic argument from ignorance. Whats worse is that it encourages ignorance, since once you know that it was "just designed" that way, why spend time trying to understand how it is tied in with the rest of the natural world? Science on the other hand keeps minting new PhDs who expand our knowledge off all those Xs out there, which is a useful thing, particularly when all the baby boomers start sucking more medicare resources, and we could really use the sort of progress that evolutionary insight in medicine and biology provides. The real problem is that ID wants to make non natural explanations become accepted in the sphere of science, which is precisely what science is not about. If ID is OK, so is astrology, or Crystals, or any other wacky concept.