Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 46:
Line 46: + + + + + +
Talk:Irreducible complexity (view source)
Revision as of 01:11, April 16, 2007
, 01:11, April 16, 2007→Flaws: yep, lots of flaws
:::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.
:::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)
:::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 09:55, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::The problem here (for me at least( is that it is not clear to me that "the theory of evolution" is science. First, I do not understand clearly what the "theory" is. Is there some sort of mechanism, force or principle concerning the 'origin of species' and 'natural selection'? can it be explained in 25 words or less? How about 500 words? I can explain the diffence between a toaster and a microwave '''in 10 words'''!
::Second, assuming "evolution" is scientific somehow, what are the various ways by which its proponents agree it could be [[falsifed]]? Like if we see X, these means the whole thing is wrong.
::Third, there's a legal battle going on about whether evolution or "creation science" or "intelligent design" are scientific, ideological, religious and/or pseudoscientific. People will keep trying to end the discussion by one tactic or another. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 21:11, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
== Behe's flawed argument ==
== Behe's flawed argument ==