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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Katelew who wrote (101713)	1/24/2009 6:05:00 PM
From: Travis_Bickle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543192

I am talking about honesty too and intelligent design is a joke. We should be telling the kids the truth, that advanced life is due to malevolent design ... Lucifer created life here after being cast out of heaven ... how else do you explain all the diseases and parasites, not to mention the short and brutish nature of life? So long as we do not teach malevolent design in the classroom we are short-changing our children.

To: Katelew who wrote (101713)	1/24/2009 6:08:05 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 543192

Going back to < the creationists were wanting to just add a chapter/section, whatever, to the required biology class that included speculation on 'intelligent design' as a possible explanation for the origin of man> Message 25352788 Kate, it just isn't science. It's like adding a chapter on beauty to calculus texts. As scientists, we don't just pull theories from our intellectual backsides; they have to be treated with a scientific approach to the facts and not whether we prefer apple pie to mutton. Religion is a humanities question. Have a philosophy of science course, but it needs to be a world-view looking at all the different myths and not a test of their validity. We can not surrender to any attempt at showing which facts support Adam and Eve or other religious doctrine, e.g, "Look, there are only two sexes and not three or five, and that supports the Bible. Look, there was water before land, that supports the Bible. etc." This is called confirmation bias - you start with a strongly held belief and only look for facts to support it. That isn't what evolution is; it was hundreds of years of data searching for a unifying explanation, being best supported by an open-ended evolutionary viewpoint which seeks explanations for all known relationships and their variants. It is not a single theory but a whole series of theories, each supporting one another, such as genetics, chemistry, astrophysics, biology, etc. I don't perceive to have the right to put some scientific challenges, just a chapter or two, in any theological seminary work. Theologians are free to take science just as a secondary secular student may spend as many hours of their free time in religious education as they want. Save it for Sunday or Family Home Evening. That is the proper place for it. It should be considered rude by everyone to insert a particular religious viewpoint into the classroom for validity testing. F-A-L-S-I-F-I-A-B-I-L-T-Y. This is the difference - falsifiability.