1,792
edits
Changes
→Rewriting History: The analogy is just nonsense
:::::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)
:::::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)
:::::: Say I agree with you that ID is not scientific because it is not testable. How does that relate to the Flat Earth? At least the hypothesis that the Earth is flat can be tested. The analogy is just nonsense. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:18, 7 April 2007 (EDT)