Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 1:
Line 1: − + Line 565:
Line 565: + + + + + +
Talk:Intelligent design (view source)
Revision as of 17:16, February 12, 2008
, 17:16, February 12, 2008can't separate the explanation
{{unprotect|Ed Poor}}
{{protect|DanH}}
== Uneditable?? ==
== Uneditable?? ==
I would like to include mention of the term [[Cdesign proponentsists]] under the opposition. It was a term coined during the Dover case as a strong piece of evidence against the legitimacy of ID. I believe that including external links for new users gets me banned, so please google the term if you are unclear about its meaning.--[[User:Gman2|Gman2]] 18:03, 4 February 2008 (EST)
I would like to include mention of the term [[Cdesign proponentsists]] under the opposition. It was a term coined during the Dover case as a strong piece of evidence against the legitimacy of ID. I believe that including external links for new users gets me banned, so please google the term if you are unclear about its meaning.--[[User:Gman2|Gman2]] 18:03, 4 February 2008 (EST)
==Implications==
It's not possible to discuss ID or evolution without considering the implications. The clear implication of naturalistic evolution is that "forms of life came into being with God". In fact, 15% of Americans believe just that. The other 85% believe either that God caused the forms of life to come into being gradually, or that he created it all a few thousand years ago.
The [[Origins dispute]] covers this in more detail (or it should). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:16, 12 February 2008 (EST)