278
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 43:
Line 43: + + +
Talk:Irreducible complexity (view source)
Revision as of 13:55, April 15, 2007
, 13:55, April 15, 2007→Flaws: Who's equating what? Answer - of a kind.
::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)
::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)
:::Sorry I didn't make myself very clear. I mean the approach in this encyclopedia where an article about science contains stuff criticising the science that has nothing to do with science. Example [[Theory of evolution]]. It would be ok to include different scientific hypotheses or theories. This article isn't a science article so the problem is perhaps the other way around. Science stuff getting into articles that aren't really about science, but since it is claimed that what is being presented ([[Intelligent design]]) is science, science kinda has to answer to the false claim in order to avoid people being misled by the article. You are probably right, ID and Creationism shouldn't be conflated. Perhaps ID and Creationist takes on science should only occur in the Essay space, for example [[Essay: Why evolution is bunkum]] following the excellent example set by [[Essay:Motivations for the Theory of Evolution]]. This way anti-intellectual unencyclopedic material can be reduced in the articles themselves.
:::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 09:55, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
== Behe's flawed argument ==
== Behe's flawed argument ==