nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 109:
Line 109: + + +
→Rewriting History: Reply to MatteeNeutra
::: You comments don't make any sense. Drawing a contrast between two theories does not show that neither is scientific. I did not give an example of Intelligent Design being taught in a biology lesson instead of evolution. Nobody tries to convince anyone that the Earth is flat. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::: You comments don't make any sense. Drawing a contrast between two theories does not show that neither is scientific. I did not give an example of Intelligent Design being taught in a biology lesson instead of evolution. Nobody tries to convince anyone that the Earth is flat. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::: I agree that it (MatteeNeutra's post) doesn't make sense. You show them to both be the same (non-scientific) by showing their similarities, not contrasting them. But more to the point, the two are rarely if ever shown to be similar. Rather, they are lumped together as though they are both non-scientific, but with no attempt to actually demonstrate that. And that is the very issue being objected to here. Indeed, your argument itself is based on the idea that ID is not scientific, which of course creationists and ID people don't agree with, so you are basing your argument on your presumptions. Of course I would laugh at someone trying to convince me that the Earth was flat (actually, I probably wouldn't laugh, I would patiently try and show them they were wrong), because that the Earth is round is readily demonstrable, unlike ideas from the past about how things came to be. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:52, 6 April 2007 (EDT)