nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 116:
Line 116: + +
→Rewriting History: ID, democracies, etc.
::::Your other point about "creationists and ID people" not agreeing that ID is not a science is fairly irrelevant. If we go by general consensus (which, given that both mine and your countries are Democracy's, seems like a good idea) we can determine that ID is not a scientific theory. I'm not disrespecting ID by saying that! Hell, its a neat theory and if people want to believe it then kudos to them; it just isn't science. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 20:06, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Your other point about "creationists and ID people" not agreeing that ID is not a science is fairly irrelevant. If we go by general consensus (which, given that both mine and your countries are Democracy's, seems like a good idea) we can determine that ID is not a scientific theory. I'm not disrespecting ID by saying that! Hell, its a neat theory and if people want to believe it then kudos to them; it just isn't science. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 20:06, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Not agreeing that ID is not a science is not irrelevant at all, when the claim that ID is not science is used as the basis of an argument. You can't expect a conclusion based on a disputed proposition to be accepted. You should start from accepted propositions and build from there. As for being democracies, I see two problems with that. First, what is correct and what is not is not based on majority opinion. Second, at least in your country, ID might even be seen as scientific by the majority (I'm not sure, so I may be wrong on that). ID opponents don't usually quote the majority, but the majority ''of scientists''. Of course using the latter argument is a rejection of the "democracy" argument in favour of an "experts" argument. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:24, 6 April 2007 (EDT)