Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 356:
Line 356: − Sure, Ed. Although many prominent pro-evolution figures in the evolution creation debate+ − believe ID is a new form of creationism, the only source I could easily find was Barbara − Forrest’s expert report used in the Kitzmiller v Dover trial. I couldn’t find a copy − online, but here is a part of the first paragraph. − "ID's rejection of naturalism in any form logically entails its appeal to the+ − only alternative, supernaturalism, as a putatively scientific explanation for+ − the natural phenomena. This makes ID a religious belief. In addition, my+ − research reveals that ID is not science, but the newest variant of traditional+ − American creationism. With only a few exceptions, it continues the usual+ − complaints of creationists against the theory of evolution and comprises+ − virtually all the elements of traditional creationism." − [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 18:09, 28 March 2007 (EDT)+ − Oops! Somehow I turned on this boxed format.+ − [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 18:14, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
→Kitzmiller trap.: "out of the box" thinking - er, formatting
:Can you supply a source for this assertion? Who (besides you) makes this argument? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:17, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
:Can you supply a source for this assertion? Who (besides you) makes this argument? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:17, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
::Sure, Ed. Although many prominent pro-evolution figures in the evolution creation debate believe ID is a new form of creationism, the only source I could easily find was Barbara Forrest’s expert report used in the Kitzmiller v Dover trial. I couldn’t find a copy online, but here is a part of the first paragraph.
::"ID's rejection of naturalism in any form logically entails its appeal to the only
alternative, supernaturalism, as a putatively scientific explanation for the natural
phenomena. This makes ID a religious belief. In addition, my research reveals that ID
is not science, but the newest variant of traditional American creationism. With only
a few exceptions, it continues the usual complaints of creationists against the theory
of evolution and comprises virtually all the elements of traditional creationism."
::[[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 18:09, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Oops! Somehow I turned on this boxed format. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 18:14, 28 March 2007 (EDT)