RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (6) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Thread 2 for Kris< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Wesley R. Elsberry

Posts: 4465
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2011,09:46   

Here's an argument:

P1: Science is crap.
P2: ID is crap.
C1: ID is science.

As any tracker can tell you, there are lots of different kinds of crap, though. If you've got a definition of science that admits IDC, you've got a non-functioning definition of science. It isn't even close. IDC is, after all, a collection of arguments that have only been ornamented as they have been passed down from natural theology to creationism to scientific creationism to creation science to IDC. IDC hasn't brought a single empirically testable claim *for* its position to the table. As noted in the Kitzmiller trial, whatever is "testable" about IDC is that way because of its class of negative claims about evolutionary science, which *is* empirically testable.

"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

  174 replies since Jan. 21 2011,05:52 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (6) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]