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: Brumar89 who wrote (183636)	3/17/2006 11:32:30 AM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

When asked at different times they give different answers. Behe has most consistently claimed to accept some of evolution, but he's sure there are gaps. His approach is to attack from within, while trying to look reasonable. Dembski, when in front of religious groups makes no bones about his views. When in front of secular groups, he hedges. BTW, theistic evolution is contrary to the science as taught. Only natural causes powering evolution are kosher with the theory as it is taught. No kidding. Science can only deal with natural causes, its religion that deals with the supernatural. Thats the whole problem with ID. Its not science. If fine with me if you want to believe ID, or theistic evolution, or Gaia, or whatever, just don't call it science, and don't seek to water down science by getting it included. ID is a political movement, not a scientific one. With the present cultural wars in the USA, it has a future unfortunately, to the long term detriment of our country.