Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (9005 total)
61 online now:
dwise1, jar, Son Goku (3 members, 58 visitors)
Newest Member: kanthesh
Post Volume: Total: 881,194 Year: 12,942/23,288 Month: 667/1,527 Week: 106/240 Day: 5/29 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed - Science Under Attack
slevesque
Member (Idle past 3270 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 248 of 438 (516451)
07-25-2009 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by Coyote
07-25-2009 1:02 AM


Re: Excerpts from a review
Ok tell me if I got it right here:

It is the job of an editor to not let pass an article that would promote intelligent design ???

Isn't that one of the major criticism of ID ... That it never gets published ? But then if it is not supposed to be publish , than how can someone critic ID on this particular point ?

I also disagree with your saying that ID is simply creationist propaganda. The only thing it has in common with creationism is that it is not naturalistic. Many ID proponents believe in evolution, but not in a naturalistic explanation of abiogenesis.

Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Coyote, posted 07-25-2009 1:02 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Huntard, posted 07-25-2009 6:42 AM slevesque has responded
 Message 253 by NosyNed, posted 07-25-2009 8:35 AM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 259 by Coyote, posted 07-25-2009 2:11 PM slevesque has not yet responded

slevesque
Member (Idle past 3270 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 250 of 438 (516454)
07-25-2009 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by Huntard
07-25-2009 6:42 AM


Re: Excerpts from a review
I'm not gonna go on the pseudo-science thing, because we would need to give a definition of science, should science arrive at simply naturalistic conclusions etc. etc. which goes way off the topic.

It still remains a fact that ID was what creationists chose to get evolution out of the classrooms. And if it has nothing to do with evolution, as you seem to be saying here, then why do they always whine about it? It's not abiogenesis they want it taught alongside, it's evolution.

We'll have to agree that the term 'evolution' means a lot of things. From simple 'descent with modifications' to the 'tree of life'. Anyways, I would think that in the end, it would have to go down to ID being taught alongside naturalistic abiogenesis and directed panspermia as an alternative explanation to the origin of life on earth. Because I agree that those that want it to be taught alongside evolution (in the 'tree of life' sense) are most probably creationists. For almost everybody else it would be regarding the origin of life. (except for those who believe in guided evolution, such as Behe. They are pretty much a third category).

Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Huntard, posted 07-25-2009 6:42 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Huntard, posted 07-25-2009 7:01 AM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 252 by Percy, posted 07-25-2009 7:34 AM slevesque has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020