nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 135:
Line 135: + + + + + + + +
Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster (view source)
Revision as of 06:10, March 13, 2008
, 06:10, March 13, 2008→Thinly-veiled mockery?: Clarification: ID is no more religious than is evolution—which is!
:: Well, that means that you are claiming that ID does, indeed, have nothing whatsoever to with religion, as I said the claim was, yet Philip came along and said that was not so much the claim as that science and religion are not mutually exclusive (which is, in fact, already perfectly apparant by such beliefs as Theistic Evolution). It's interesting to note, though, that such an statement remains in the article for such a long time without anyone noticing, especially given the recent efforts to distance ID from religion and creationism in order to attempt to get it taught in schools.
:: Well, that means that you are claiming that ID does, indeed, have nothing whatsoever to with religion, as I said the claim was, yet Philip came along and said that was not so much the claim as that science and religion are not mutually exclusive (which is, in fact, already perfectly apparant by such beliefs as Theistic Evolution). It's interesting to note, though, that such an statement remains in the article for such a long time without anyone noticing, especially given the recent efforts to distance ID from religion and creationism in order to attempt to get it taught in schools.
::Apologies to Philip - I should have been aware you were a YEC believer. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 00:12, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
::Apologies to Philip - I should have been aware you were a YEC believer. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 00:12, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
Yes, I am a YEC, not an ID advocate per se, although YECs have been using design arguments for longer than ID has been around as a movement.
I should clarify my comment above about the relationship between ID and religion. ID proponents do try and distance themselves from religion, and for good reason. First, ID is often described as being a new form of creationism. This ignores the fact that a significant number of ID advocates are not creationists, and a larger group are not YECs. Second, ID advocates deny that they are bringing God into the argument. They are correct in this, as they specifically avoid saying who the designer is.
The point is, for ''some'' (perhaps ''most'') ID advocates, religious views are their ''basis''. But that doesn't mean that ID is religious in nature. They are trying to do real science, regardless of their religious basis. Claiming that ID is religious in nature is exactly like me claiming that evolution is religious (atheistic) in nature (which I do claim). Yet when I claim that, I'm very quickly told that there is a distinction between the ''atheism'' of, for example, Richard Dawkins and the ''science'' of evolution. That is, despite Dawkins having an atheistic basis for his belief in evolution, evolution is still science. The same applies for ID: Just because some/many of its proponents are "religious" and see ID as affirming that, doesn't mean that ID can't be considered science.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:10, 13 March 2008 (EDT)