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 (2575)	4/25/2009 8:54:44 PM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

<If you mean should we teach the universe is a few thousand earth years old and the rest of the stuff from the first couple chapters of Genesis ... in science class, no we certainly shouldn't do that.> No, I mean much more than that... I thought we just established that teaching god in science class makes no sense at ALL in any case because, 1.) It wouldn't be science anyway, and 2.) who's 'god' do you teach? <Thats because of the influence of those wacky atheists control what is science and what isn't.> No, it's because of the 'company' ID keeps, and it hasn't been presented in a a scientific manner... btw, I mis-stated in my part I meant to say ID DOES make some sense to me. You don't have to be an "wacky atheist scientist" to dismiss ID being taught, you just have to note that it hasn't gained enough credibility to replace anything yet. Hence ALMOST ALL SCIENTISTS currently would agree NOT to teach it. All sorts good science takes time to replace the older science. That's just the way it is... and actually the RUSH and intenseness of the religious groups to embrace ID simply polarizes the other side, as it is clearly NOT science that those folks are concerned with. :) Too bad. <I think there's an agenda to suppress anything that suggests that there is something more than chance and materialistic forces involved in the universe.> I would beg to differ... TONS of scientists believe that, but... it's not science, so they don't go there. < I think the NCSE has that agenda and that explains its attitude toward ID. > As I said, don't know much about them... but THAT group certainly does not "an agenda" that could affect classroom teachings, and textbooks, make. Further, I unless you can point me to some actual actions they've taken I see no reason to do more than take them at their face value mission statement... ie. that they want to make sure creationism isn't taugh in science class... and given them sticking to THAT "agenda", I have to say, they won't have a hard time getting plenty of good scientists allow them to put their names on the their web site. <Thanks to the agenda I believe exists, a fellow who developed the galactic habitable zone concept is scientifically persona non grata.> Well, we certainly disagree there. IT's not abnormal AT ALL to have such status at the same time as knowing/inventing/conceptualizing the absolute cutting edge and future of a field. Further, your statement means the "agenda" pervades all most of science. That said, it is certainly plausible that people would ignore him BECAUSE he talks up ID, that is a natural trait of people once they connect something (ID) to something negative. As I said, it is unfortunate for ID that some wacko creationists embraced it and tried to push it faster than the scientific community was ready for. That's not "an agenda"... that's normal. You should be grateful YOU know the truth and can enjoy your life MORE because you know. Lastly, if ID holds more truth than the current science, it WILL eventually prevail. These things take time. BTW, ID IS evolution, just to make that clear... so when it does prevail, it actually won't unthrone Darwin, as he describe important aspects of it. FWIW, if this guy is ignored till long after his death that wouldn't be unusual in science, art, or anywhere else in normal society.... right? DAK

To: Brumar89 who wrote (2575)	4/25/2009 9:16:51 PM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

You should also note that the good PhD is in VERY GOOD company with his being ridiculed. The more ridicule, that BIGGER the idea. Plenty of HUGE ideas were ridiculed... well, errrrr... according to you only Galileao, but I'm pretty sure there were more. :)) Note he's also going to be featured in Stein's upcoming movie, which I'm dying to see. You, know, I think what's happening is you're taking "materialism" in science too personally. I myself, working on degrees in Biology and Oriental Medicine, think the idea the "random mutation" as "cause" of evolution is laughable... but I don't get my nose all out of joint over Darwin... in fact I THINK he was actually a LOT more open to non-material 'causes' than you realize. Further, the fact that most of science is "materialistic" at the moment, and therefore (IMHO) wrong... is nothing I can change by getting all upset and looking for an "agenda". OTOH, as someone who spent much of my "former life" trading stocks I realize that the crowd is by definition wrong... so I guess I just see it as human nature. :)) BTW... check out this guy: brucelipton.com He may never get a teaching job again... OTOH, there are tons of these guys who do just fine. This book is fantastic BTW. DAK