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 : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (2455)	4/13/2009 6:32:33 PM
From: LLCF	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

<Watch it? We've been directing it for thousands of years by selective plant and animal breeding.> That too.... <Well, if its taught, it also ought to be taught ... as you said .... "that we dont' know shit about the mechanism".> It IS... why do you think they talk about fossil evidence? Cause we don't know the molecular (cellular, whatever) mechanism. <Untruthfulness is wrong and is ultimately bad for science. > Of course, but it has nothing to with teaching evolution or not. Look, science isn't flawless any more than anything else is... my priest told me during RCIA that "the church is a HUMAN institution, with all the faults of humans"... (which actually is an incredibly enlightened thing for a priest to say I've found out over time)... well, what's the difference with Science??? IN FACT... the beauty of science is that when evidence to the contrary comes about, it is looked at and what was "common knowledge" changes rather quickly, and with a relative whimper comapared to religions... who hang onto falsities for thousands of years and will kill to defend them. DAK

To: Brumar89 who wrote (2455)	4/13/2009 8:09:35 PM
From: LLCF	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

You know, I don't really understand your point... it appears you're saying we shouldn't teach it because we don't know everything about it? I think I understand now your viewpoint about Darwin... and that he shouldn't be treated "so special". I think you are missing some MAIN POINTs: 1.) "Evolution" (a term Darwin didn't really use much, supposedly because he really didn't want to piss the church off) is an integral part of Biology... explaining life on the planet, and how and why it is the way it is. A simple explanation of nature to the best of our collective ability. 2.) Darwin's (and Wallace, probably deserves more credit if you're looking for another reason to diss him) observation went WAY AGAINST the common belief of his day (Religious belief) much in the way Galileo did. He could be described as quite courageous to put forth such bold ideas. 3.) The "scientific community", if there is such an animal MUST change their viewpoint (sure it takes time) when new evidence is put forward and then confirmed over time... 4.) this is NOT the case with Religion. The way religion has changed over time is through past dogma falling out of favor (by political movements within the church incrementally putting forward the truth when safe to do so... at the end of ones life, or during periodic upheavels and of course through sheer loss of disgusted members) over centuries of attempts to twist, change, and propagate it through "face saving" changes and morphologies of those dogmas. Sadly, there have rarely been outright admissions that "hey, we got it wrong". In science this is a regular occurrence! DAK