Talk:Intelligent design
From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ed Poor (Talk | contribs) at 18:18, April 12, 2011. It may differ significantly from current revision.
| ! | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Religion-related articles on Conservapedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | 
|
| ! | Due to the controversial nature of this article, it has been locked by the Administrators to prevent edit wars or vandalism. Sysops, please do not unlock it without first consulting the protecting sysop. |
|
More evidence of intelligent design
I would add this article giving more evidence of an intelligent designer at work. Martyp 11:05, 30 January 2011 (EST)
[1] is a logical fallacy
The reference is an argument from ignorance. It effectively posits that since there is no evidence against intelligent design, it must be true. Celigans 03:03, 10 April 2011 (EDT)
- Atheism is also a logical fallacy; atheists think since there is no evidence against atheism that it must be true. Keyword is think; they think there is no evidence against it. DMorris 07:31, 10 April 2011 (EDT)
- What part of the reference says that?
- "Dembski and Wells argue calmly and convincingly that intelligent design theory is empirically testable (in spite of Darwinists' shrill protests to the contrary) by indicating precisely what it would take to refute the theory, namely a clear demonstration that systems exhibiting irreducible complexity with specified complexity can in fact arise spontaneously by purely material processes"
- I do not see how indicating precisely what it would take to refute the theory is an argument from ignorance. Please explain. --Ed Poor Talk 14:18, 12 April 2011 (EDT)
- What part of the reference says that?
