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 (2851)	8/28/2009 5:48:14 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 69300

Robert Wright's Bloggingheads.tv Censors Intelligent Design Interview Thursday August 27, 2009 Categories: Books & Media Wow. This is positively Stalinist. Robert Wright's Bloggingheads.tv has abruptly removed an interview it put up hours before in which linguist Dr. John McWhorter talks with biochemist Dr. Michael Behe about Behe's The Edge of Evolution. It's a fascinating exchange. McWhorter starts off by saying that while his own writing has been primarily on race, other subjects interest him more. For example, it would seem, evolution. He proceeds to reveal startling depths of enthusiasm for Behe, Behe's book, and intelligent design. He talks about how he never previously believed in God and never wanted to until he read Behe, who of course in his own writing steers clear of theological ruminations (apart from noting that he's a Roman Catholic). A senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, McWhorter clearly has been thinking and reading about the subject for years. He makes a stimulating, well informed interviewer for Behe. Sounds good, right? No, bad! Very bad! Bad McWhorter! Apologize now! OK, I will! Something evidently happened behind the scenes at Bloggingheads. So the interview was taken down, at which point an anonymous Orwellian Administrator posted as follows: John McWhorter feels, with regret, that this interview represents neither himself, Professor Behe, nor Bloggingheads usefully, takes full responsibility for same, and has asked that it be taken down from the site. He apologizes to all who found its airing objectionable. ..... blog.beliefnet.com Amazing, wonder what enhanced interrogation techniques were used on McWhorter to get him to repudiate his interview within hours? Did they waterboard him? Were electrodes and a car battery used? Now everyone, pretend that didn't happen.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (2851)	8/30/2009 11:20:24 PM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

The very first point in the interview IMHO is where the current evolutionary thought goes wrong... "random evolution". 1.) Creates a model where evolution would pretty much be a 'constant grind' as opposed to what we see, rapid evolution when environments change. 2.) Creates a situation where the organism is separate from it's environment and has nothing to do with it's own destiny. Where we see, in reality, organsims reacting to their environment all the time, moving towards good things and away from bad. NOW, that said, I completely disagree with Bebe's next answer and point... that "Darwinism" (as opposed to LaMarck) states "ramdom mutation with natural selection" can't get the job done. What I disagree with is the "ramdom mutation" being attached to Darawin's name since he didn't even know what a gene was!! He should be using terms like 'current evolutionary thought, or "modern synthesis today"... That idea (ramdom mutation) has been added much later, I"m surprised Behe would use those words as I believe he is incorrect. Darwin MAY have implied that 'natural selection' was enough (later in life he supposedly had reservations that it was apparently... giving Lamarck more creedance than others... at least I hear that), but Behe should really be adressing 'ramdom mutation'. I'll listen to the rest later, but clearly Behe himself certainly believes in evolution, from what I heard so far... in fact even 'natural selection'... just that it's not the whole story... pretty much in line with my own thinking, actually. DAK