Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 41:
Line 41: + +
Talk:Irreducible complexity (view source)
Revision as of 13:25, April 15, 2007
, 13:25, April 15, 2007→Flaws: Who's equating what?
:It seems to have stuck. Unfortunately this whole approach is equating [[creationism|creationist]] (AKA [[intelligent design]]) [[faith]] ([[ideology]]?) with [[science]]. That is of course an example of silliness, like trying to compare apples and pears, a [[false analogy]]. This causes no end of head scratching when trying to apply [[Conservapedia:Locks and Blocks|locks and blocks]] to protect the article because ''we do not block for ideological reasons'' [([[faith]]?) ...] ''but for silliness'' ([[false analogy]]).
:It seems to have stuck. Unfortunately this whole approach is equating [[creationism|creationist]] (AKA [[intelligent design]]) [[faith]] ([[ideology]]?) with [[science]]. That is of course an example of silliness, like trying to compare apples and pears, a [[false analogy]]. This causes no end of head scratching when trying to apply [[Conservapedia:Locks and Blocks|locks and blocks]] to protect the article because ''we do not block for ideological reasons'' [([[faith]]?) ...] ''but for silliness'' ([[false analogy]]).
:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 09:21, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 09:21, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::I don't see that equation. Can you quote some text which does this? I think it's the other way around, and Evolutionists are equating ID with Creationism. Eugenie Scott loses no opportunity to refer to ID as "intelligent design creationism". Try googling that three-word phrase and see what comes up. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
== Behe's flawed argument ==
== Behe's flawed argument ==