SkipCaptcha
265
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 459:
Line 459: +
Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools? (view source)
Revision as of 22:49, April 4, 2012
, 22:49, April 4, 2012→Lets see a Scientific Theory of Creation or Intelligent Design.: legal ruling that ID is not science
: ID ''is'' a scientific theory, and scientific versions of creation have been around for decades. You have been taken in by anti-creationist and anti-ID rhetoric that claims that there is no such thing. But I'm glad you agree with the principle. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:25, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
: ID ''is'' a scientific theory, and scientific versions of creation have been around for decades. You have been taken in by anti-creationist and anti-ID rhetoric that claims that there is no such thing. But I'm glad you agree with the principle. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:25, 12 October 2008 (EDT)
::No, it's not. You see, to be scientific, there need to be experiments. What experiments have been performed to prove that God designed living things? As far as I know (and I may be wrong, so please correct me), creationists looked at the world, assumed God did it, and called it a day. That's not science. That's superstition. [[User:SEdwin|SEdwin]] 22:29, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
::No, it's not. You see, to be scientific, there need to be experiments. What experiments have been performed to prove that God designed living things? As far as I know (and I may be wrong, so please correct me), creationists looked at the world, assumed God did it, and called it a day. That's not science. That's superstition. [[User:SEdwin|SEdwin]] 22:29, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
:ID is '''not''' science. In the 2005 trial "Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. (400 F. Supp. 2d 707, Docket no. 4cv2688", the judge provided a 139 page ruling, which included on page 64 the statement "After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science." The judge's justification for this statement continues up to and including page 89. I am not aware of any legal attempt to overthrow this ruling. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:49, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
== Those Who Forget History are Doomed to Repeat It... ==
== Those Who Forget History are Doomed to Repeat It... ==