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 (184032)	3/24/2006 2:34:57 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

What should be done about it IYO? In high school and lower, leave philosophy largely out of science. In the college level, my preference would be to tolerate more diversity both ways, but with some clarity as to what is opinion vs. science or religion. What I don't get is why people up in the air about ID aren't up in the air about any of the militantly atheist scientists? Not true. Behe in the statement you quote is a good example. He always hedges. I suppose having no problem if common descent is true is a hedge. But not much of one. But from what I see, the evidence only shows natural selection explaining rather small changes That says it all. Microevolution vs. Macro. The entire point of ID is to escape kinship with Chimps and other Apes. For the rest of creation, they could care less. Not at all. The issue Behe raises is whether natural selection or some other natural cause can produce irreducibly complex molecular machines - where there are multiple parts which all have to be present for the machine to work. How could that evolve in a step by step fashion? Evolving one part of a multi-part machine wouldn't be an evolutionary advangage. The odds against the whole complex machine evolving in one step would be huge. But the scientists call theistic evolution creationism. Some might, but most don't Do you know some names of prominent evolutionists who have publicly said they think evolution might have been used as a divine tool, that is guided? What theory do they put forward? Design by an intelligent agent obviously. The genetic evidence is going to 100% support common ancestery (or Nobels will be handed out as I've noted). So the Cambrian must fit within that framework, even as Darwin guessed it would, while lacking the extensive knowledge we have now. I agree and see common descent as evidence that the odds against life arising by solely natural means are overwhelming. You still have not answered my question: If you accept common descent, why do you need ID. What does it do? Explains the irreducibly complex molecular machines within living things. Things with multiple parts which all must be present at once for the thing to work.