216
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 390:
Line 390: + + +
Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools? (view source)
Revision as of 22:44, November 12, 2007
, 22:44, November 12, 2007→YES and NO
Yes, but Intelligent design still fails the acid test of being science: it doesn’t substantiate its claim. Evolution attempts to “warrant” itself with evidence from experiments, but the experimentation stops with the grand theory of Intelligent Design: <s>God</s> The Intelligent Designer created everything. The claims are just that--claims. They provide neither substance nor testable hypotheses. Likewise, unless an attempt is made to falsify Intelligent Design, it shouldn't be considered science.
Yes, but Intelligent design still fails the acid test of being science: it doesn’t substantiate its claim. Evolution attempts to “warrant” itself with evidence from experiments, but the experimentation stops with the grand theory of Intelligent Design: <s>God</s> The Intelligent Designer created everything. The claims are just that--claims. They provide neither substance nor testable hypotheses. Likewise, unless an attempt is made to falsify Intelligent Design, it shouldn't be considered science.
[[User:Bluecarrot16|Bluecarrot16]] 18:11, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
[[User:Bluecarrot16|Bluecarrot16]] 18:11, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
==A Radical Alternative==
Perhaps churches could invite guest lecturers to discuss the Cambrian explosion or the Miller-Urey experiment as part of the sermon each Sunday. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:44, 12 November 2007 (EST)