Talk:Creation Science

Umm...creation science doesn't equal intelligent design. It includes stuff like noah's flood geology, and magic changing isotopes, which ID doesn't touch upon. RDre 11:34, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. I blanked the page, pending a correct definition.

Note, however, that groups like E. Scott's NCSE assert that ID is creationist. She never loses an opportunity to refer to ID as "Intelligent Design Creationism". --Ed Poor 17:18, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

ID was developed to overcome to legal shortcomings of creation science, I sketched the bare bones of the issue just now. Teresita 22:53, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Admission

Creation Science admitted Genesis as its primary source, but attempted to gain at least equal time for the teaching of evolution, a humble goal considering that in the 1925 Scopes "Monkey" trial the defendent was in fact found guilty of breaking the Butler law in Tennessee prohibiting the teaching of evolution.

I'm not sure about this: admitted, attempted, humble goal? --Ed Poor 16:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Inappropriateness of Methodological Naturalism in Science in regards to Origins

I think this material should be incorporated within the article:

Inappropriateness of Methodological Naturalism in Science in regards to Origins

http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od181/methnat181.htm

http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od182/methnat182.htm

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/virtual_library/plantinga_alvin.htm (features two links to Alvin Plantinga's material on the subject)

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Philosophy/PSCF9-97Plantinga.html (Plantinga essay)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp

Conservative 23:26, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative