cavediver writes:
Not on topic here, but I cannot think of much more stifling to scientific progress than 'this couldn't possibly happen naturally, and therefore there is no point investigating further - ID'er'didit
I think a concept that completely rejects evolution (literal creationism) is more stifling to science than one that accepts evolution, but holds that a deity guided it (ID).
I don't mean ID is
good by any means, but I think it's
better and less stifling to science than literal creationism. At least ID is loosely based on science. Creationism completey ignores it. That seems worse to me.
™ Version 4.2