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 (183969)	3/23/2006 8:39:43 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Provine and Dawkins claim they were talking science not philosophy. No, it should be wrong to promote atheism in taxpayer funded science classrooms. It isn't. On this we agree. Good. What should be done about it IYO? Common descent is what the whole ID arguement with evolution is about. Evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life. That is called abiogenesis. Different field. Darwins theory is about the diversity of life, nots its origin. If you have no problem with common descent, then you just stated you have no problem with evolution. You sound like a theistic evolutionist. I've already posted that many or most ID proponents don't have a problem with common descent or with theistic evolution: Michael Behe: "I am an evolutionist in the sense that I do think natural selection explains many things ... But from what I see, the evidence only shows natural selection explaining rather small changes ... If is fine by me if common descent is true, and there is some sort of designed program to power changes over time ..."; William Dembski: "Right now I'm inclined toward a preprogrammed form of evolution in which life evolves teleologically ..". But the scientists call theistic evolution creationism. What the ID issue is about is whether life is a result of natural forces alone or whether God had a hand in it. Irreducible complexity is used as an argument he must have. Re. the living coelacanth - you are saying it is a fraud - at least as it has been presented to the public ever since its discovery. HAve a link on that?