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 (101963)	1/26/2009 2:03:10 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542838

<<<You're asking me to comment on something I never proposed. >>> The whole idea behind ID "was developed by a group of American creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science". They are able to teach ID in any religious and private school setting that will have them. Why not leave it at that?

To: Katelew who wrote (101963)	1/26/2009 3:22:22 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 542838

Seriously, show me where I proposed this and I'll answer. I don't think you proposed teaching ID as science in elementary and high schools. You quite clearly did not. What you proposed was that my studying your paradox would change my notion that ID is not a scientific theory. "I asked you to read it before commenting further because the article takes the whole conversation in a different direction, I think. It takes it outside the sphere of religion and creationist style ID." If you think it should change my thinking, you'll have to connect the dots for me. What I see in your paradox is a challenge to one aspect of the evolution theory. I don't know enough about the subject to assess whether it's a successful challenge or not. Assuming, though, for the sake of argument, that it is a successful challenge, the most you end up with is a flaw in the evolution theory, the potential that the evolution theory is partly wrong. Your paradox contributes zero evidence to the notion that ID is a scientific theory. If you think it does, you'll have to explain it to me.