1,660
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 243:
Line 243: + +
no edit summary
: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, as it stands the "theory of ID" is not a theory, it has not been allowed to be tested due to a lack of fundamental definition of what constitutes intelligence and how it could influence diversity.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:33, 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, as it stands the "theory of ID" is not a theory, it has not been allowed to be tested due to a lack of fundamental definition of what constitutes intelligence and how it could influence diversity.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:33, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Ed, as you have generally been a fairly moderate voice of reason, perhaps you can mediate a bit. THe whole "evolutionists promote this idea, see this NYT article" should go, as well as the rest of the little debate, and moved elsewhere (not deleted from CP). We should go with the simple definitions above. IMHO.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]]<sup>[[User_talk:palmd001|talk]]</sup> 19:11, 30 March 2007 (EDT)