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.

Pastimes : Observations and Collectables -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (279)	9/14/2006 1:45:26 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17079

Having evolution, or other parts of the universe, operate in a largely random fashion, doesn't preclude some purpose for any other part of the universe. Ok, but I think that part of the universe that is alive is the part we humans are most concerned about - as opposed to some potential divine purpose for Pluto. The origin of life, is distinct from later parts of the evolution of life People often say this in defense of evolution. I guess the writers of scientific textbooks don't know this. Science textbooks routinely say life began by chemical evolution, even though a belief that that is so is entirely a matter of faith. I have one of my kids at home and it says that. "Chemical evolution" is a bolded defintion term - meaning students should memorize it. including for example the rise of intelligence and sentience. My observation is that evolutionists believe intelligence and sentience had to have originated by purposeless mutation and natural selection, just like walking upright, religion, and everything else. In fact, it would be considered "anti-scientific" to suppose otherwise. Any of a massive amount of parts of the evolution of life could be purposeful with the majority of the change still being accidental. Okay with me. I think evolution accounts for an awful lot of biological variation myself. But you have just departed from Darwinian evolution and science as it is taught. The whole point of opposition to ID is denial that any part of the evolution of life could be purposeful. Also the whole progress of life could be random or mostly random, while other aspects of the universe (such as perhaps the physical laws that enable life to evolve in the first place) could be purposeful. My comment is the same as above. Science is understood to preclude any purposeful origin of anything in the universe. I think that's a philosophical mistake.