686
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 241:
Line 241: + +
→Where the controversy is - and what it's about
:Ok, this has nothing to do with ad hominem statements. It really is true that in the vast majority of th scientific community, the definition of theory is not an issue. I am not saying that those who disagree are nut-jobs, just not part of the vast majority of the scientific community. Of course in American culture, there is a HUGE controvery about Evolution vs ID, etc. and in the discourse of the ID partisans, this whole theory definition is an issue. That's why I think the discussion belongs in the IDish articles, not in the definition of theory.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 15:25, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
:Ok, this has nothing to do with ad hominem statements. It really is true that in the vast majority of th scientific community, the definition of theory is not an issue. I am not saying that those who disagree are nut-jobs, just not part of the vast majority of the scientific community. Of course in American culture, there is a HUGE controvery about Evolution vs ID, etc. and in the discourse of the ID partisans, this whole theory definition is an issue. That's why I think the discussion belongs in the IDish articles, not in the definition of theory.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 15:25, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
:I would agree. Ed, we understand that you are on neither side of the TOE and ID debate. However, you are feeding into the argument. There is a major difference between the two thoughts. ID has yet to undergo any scientific research so to list this in the theory article detracts from the main point.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:33, 30 March 2007 (EDT)