Difference between revisions of "Talk:Intelligent design"
(Viewpoints) |
|||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
== Viewpoints == | == Viewpoints == | ||
| − | + | I simply wished to outline the reasons behind the changes I made. | |
Essentially, Intelligent Design, as is, can not be a scientific theory unless you can prove the existence of God with the scientific method. You can believe it, you could be right, but it is not science. This is the reason why the petition to have it taught in the science classroom was denied. | Essentially, Intelligent Design, as is, can not be a scientific theory unless you can prove the existence of God with the scientific method. You can believe it, you could be right, but it is not science. This is the reason why the petition to have it taught in the science classroom was denied. | ||
Revision as of 04:56, March 10, 2007
To avoid an edit war, I'll discuss the changes I made here before reintroducing them.
On the Judge Jones speech: Jones is a Republican and a Christian, appointed by George W Bush. If we're going to count quoting him as 'liberal POV,' then perhaps we should make a list of conservatives who aren't conservative enough for conservapedia. Who wants to start?
On the DI's publication list: the cited list contains 38 publications. That's assuming no duplication. It's also counting books, not just articles, and not all of the entries are peer-reviewed. That's not even considering the actual content of the articles, and whether any make a positive case for ID.
On the DI's petition: it is neither designed for nor capable of measuring an increase in support for ID. The claim that scientific support for ID is 'steadily growing' is utterly unsupported. 700 is not 'broad support' in a community of tens of thousands. The petition is indeed open to mathematicians and engineers, as can be seen at the cited website.
On 'new scientific evidence' questioning evolution: far too strong a statement to be made without so much as a citation. Tsumetai 14:39, 2 March 2007 (EST)
- The removal of reference to the Judge Jones speech was wrong and detracts from the authority of this site. I will replace it unless a cogent reason for its removal is provided. --Horace 19:00, 2 March 2007 (EST)
- Authority of this site? It's a laughing stock. "Design Theory has broad scientific support" indeed. What a joke! --John Galt 17:52, 5 March 2007 (EST)
- Since no one has even attempted to dispute my points, I'm going to go ahead and make the necessary changes. Tsumetai 05:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)
- Exactly why are you adding the liberal viewpoint as fact to the article? Harpie snark 17:05, 6 March 2007 (EST)
- Perhaps you could start with the list of reasons above, not to mention Conservapedia's first commandment. Tsumetai 17:08, 6 March 2007 (EST)
- Everything I added and subsequently restored is properly supported by proper conservative sources, which is more than I can say about your changes. Harpie snark 17:23, 6 March 2007 (EST)
- "I'm right and you're wrong" does not constitute a rebuttal. Tsumetai 17:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)
Viewpoints
I simply wished to outline the reasons behind the changes I made.
Essentially, Intelligent Design, as is, can not be a scientific theory unless you can prove the existence of God with the scientific method. You can believe it, you could be right, but it is not science. This is the reason why the petition to have it taught in the science classroom was denied.