Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 327:
Line 327: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools? (view source)
Revision as of 21:29, July 10, 2007
, 21:29, July 10, 2007ID is not a form of Creationism. It gets into the philosophical issues of methodology and [[epistemology].
::I'm cool with that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:56, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::I'm cool with that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:56, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
==YES and NO==
Creationism and Intelligent design should be taught in public schools, but [[Creationism]] should not be taught "as a scientific alternative". That would confuse religious faith with science.
I suppose the question was framed that way on purpose, since liberals make the following argument:
#Intelligent Design is a form of Creationism
#Creationism is religion
#Religion is not science
Therefore, Intelligent Design is not science.
ID proponents generally disagree with proposition #1, while tending to agree with proposition #2 and #3. So for ID proponents, this is not a [[sound argument]].
Actually, ID is not a form of Creationism. It is an argument that the [[theory of evolution]] has so little material support that a supernatural cause must be considered. Thus ID straddles the bounds between science itself and the [[philosophy of science]]. It gets into the philosophical issues of [[methodology]] and [[epistemology].