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: skinowski who wrote (285)	9/17/2006 2:14:27 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17113

I have no problem at all with the (extremely useful and powerful) scientific method or with the view that God could or did "use" evolution. I do note though that that belief presupposes that there is a purpose, direction, and goal in evolution and that conflicts with evolution as most scientists define and present it. About evolution - there is no doubt in my mind that it occurred. Open any text on Embryology - and you'll see how the fetus evolves I don't consider the growth and development of the fetus as having anything to do with evolution. I know that ever since Haeckel's fake embryo drawings, textbooks have presented the idea that fetuses pass through the entire evolutionary process in the womb. Many people therefore have been taught human fetuses pass through a fish and reptilian stage, have gills, etc. Utter nonsense IMO. Even given evolution, there's no reason to think a mammal embryo should pass through fish or reptilian stages. It has the DNA to produce a mammal, not a fish. the real question is whether or not there also exists - and plays a part - a supernatural presence, a Deity? I can't see how the scientific method can help us answer this question. Many say that evolution makes the God unnecessary as an explanation of our presence and that therefore Occams razor would say we should dispense with God as a hypothesis. That isn't my view but I think it is the view of most atheists and agnostics. Neither will the acknowledgment or denial of evolution. Could never understand why so many people imagine that the phenomenon of evolution - and God - must be in any way incompatible. People on my side of the argument (my side is that God is required) are always presented with this argument. Why are we so narrow-minded - God and evolution can both be true. Well, I actually already believe that - though not the undirected purposeless evolution that mainstream science teaches. Meanwhile, there are many prominent and prolific scientists out there have been and are actively using evolutionary arguments to promote atheism. Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Jerry Coyne, Francis Crick, Carl Sagan, Lynn Margulis, Ernst Mayr, William Provine, Edmund Wilson are a few names. No one ever disputes what they are doing as over-reaching. They are never told that both God and evolution is possible. Such persons are presented in scientific and other magazines as authorities on science and their atheistic views are never described as "not science". Why is that? Why are Michael Behe and William Dembski considered scandalous and "non-scientific" by the scientific establishment but Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett aren't?