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: neolib who wrote (183667)	3/18/2006 2:43:58 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I haven't seen any inconsistency from either man. They are critical of Darwinian evolution but so what? They are upfront about that. And their criticisms are based on whether it is reasonable to think that complex designed phenomema can be produced strictly by natural causes. Dembski, when in front of religious groups makes no bones about his views. When in front of secular groups, he hedges. I'd be interested in seeing an example. It is natural that people would speak of religious beliefs when talking to other believers, I think. Science can only deal with natural causes, its religion that deals with the supernatural. This is the argument science has to be based on a philosophical materialism (which is atheist by definition). Isn't science supposed to be a search for truth? Suppose just for the sake of argument, that a God exists who created the world, designed its laws, created/designed life, etc and there were convincing evidence of this.* Saying science can only accept natural causes, would mean science could not only never discover the truth but would be required to deny it. The only really safe position for science to take is to be neutral or agnostic on the issue of materialism. Thats the whole problem with ID. Its not science. That may be. OTOH I've come to the conclusion that evolution as an explanation of EVERYTHING, is not science either. It's unprovable, unfalsifiable, and based on nothing but speculative arguments (admittedly persuasive arguments when it comes to simple step by step changes but not persuasive when it comes to explaining complexity). 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. One of the principal figures in the field of evolutionary science today is Dr. William Provine of Cornell. Here is a quote from his 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address: "Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1)No gods worth having exist; 2)no life after death exists; 3)no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent." No wonder American Atheist magazine gave him an award for the "Advancement of Atheism in Academia", huh? Now is William Provine talking science there or is he advancing a religious viewpoint masquerading as science? With the present cultural wars in the USA, it has a future unfortunately, to the long term detriment of our country. Is Provine (and Dawkins and Dennett etc.) fighting a cultural war? And if he is, why shouldn't non-atheists be allowed to fight back? I think attempting to use science to attack religious faith is a threat. I don't see that arguing that God had something to do with us being here is a threat at all. *Btw, though it doesn't constitute a proof of God, the traditional argument (for the existence of God) from design is a LOT stronger than it used to be because of the scientific discoveries of the past century.