Difference between revisions of "Talk:Creation Science"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(ID as "Intelligent Design Creationism" - PR tactic of evolutionists) |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
: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". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:18, 6 April 2007 (EDT) | :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". --[[User:Ed Poor|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. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 22:53, 6 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 02:53, April 7, 2007
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)