I.D. is a relatively new idea.

Well, it being popular is a relatively new thing. Essentially I.D. is only popular becuase it is seen as a back door to getting creationism accepted as subject matter in school science lessons. Not that the advocates of I.D> would ever admit as much.

They use (the advocates of I.D.) the phrase "Teach the controversy" which is very clever, and very insidious. Becuase, on the face of it it seems a reasonable proposition. But as soon as you accept that it is a reasonable proposition, you accept that there is anything worth having controvery over. Which there isn't.

Posted By: Arizona Bay on January 26th 2006 at 15:43:57

Message Thread

This whole debate about creationism vs Darwinian theory (NCFC) - Steve in Holland, Jan 26, 15:39:30
- Philosophy (NCFC) - Cardiff Canary, Jan 26, 16:07:55
  - Bingo, innit. (NCFC) - BeverlyHills0201, Jan 26, 16:11:48
  - But current theories *are* constantly challenged and refined... (NCFC) - yarmyyarmy, Jan 26, 16:10:26
- But why not give equal time the creation myths of the Eskimos (NCFC) - yarmyyarmy, Jan 26, 16:07:14
  - As is evolution if you choose to view it in that manner. (NCFC) - BeverlyHills0201, Jan 26, 16:10:14
    - So why should ID (with no evidence) be given equal time as... (NCFC) - yarmyyarmy, Jan 26, 16:14:01
      - ID shouldn't (NCFC) - Cardiff Canary, Jan 26, 16:22:36
        
        Again, bingo. (NCFC) - BeverlyHills0201, Jan 26, 16:27:58
      - At which point did I say equal time? (NCFC) - BeverlyHills0201, Jan 26, 16:15:57
        
        I agree (NCFC) - Cardiff Canary, Jan 26, 16:27:35
        
        Well Gravity is not a fact, but there is so much evidence to support it... (NCFC) - yarmyyarmy, Jan 26, 16:19:22
        
        But gravity is a fact. (NCFC) - BeverlyHills0201, Jan 26, 16:26:58
        
        None of them are wrong. (NCFC) - yarmyyarmy, Jan 26, 16:33:28
        
        Newtonian mechanics was shown to be inconsistent with observation. (NCFC) - BeverlyHills0201, Jan 26, 16:45:24
        
        I didn't say it was true. I said it wasn't wrong. (NCFC) - yarmyyarmy, Jan 26, 16:51:13
- Yes, With You There Steve... (NCFC) - Martin Peters, Jan 26, 15:59:48
- I did RE at GCSE... (NCFC) - Brom, Jan 26, 15:54:33
  - The RE I did (pre-GCSE only) (NCFC) - Arizona Bay, Jan 26, 16:02:04
- Hugely dissappointed SiH (NCFC) - Tomblander, Jan 26, 15:48:20
  - Sorry, mate. Old Git's gonna do it in a while apparently. (n/m) (NCFC) - Steve in Holland, Jan 26, 15:49:14
    - Hurry up Old Git, my Coffee's getting cold (n/m) (NCFC) - Tomblander, Jan 26, 15:51:54
- That's not a very sophisticated analysis (n/m) (NCFC) - Old Git, Jan 26, 15:47:26
  - Yeah well I had to give pants a chance. (NCFC) - Steve in Holland, Jan 26, 15:48:36
- Again though, ID is not a theory because it's not testable and doesn't make predictions. (NCFC) - yarmyyarmy, Jan 26, 15:44:56
  - Would you say evolution was really testable ? (NCFC) - Steve in Holland, Jan 26, 15:46:59
    - Agreed. (NCFC) - BeverlyHills0201, Jan 26, 15:49:20
      - Yup. With you there. (n/m) (NCFC) - Steve in Holland, Jan 26, 15:50:17
  - important not to confooze Theory and Theology (n/m) (NCFC) - Hull Canary, Jan 26, 15:46:37
  - Exactly. See below - that why "Teach the controversy" is so clever. (n/m) (NCFC) - Arizona Bay, Jan 26, 15:45:56
- I.D. is a relatively new idea. (NCFC) - Arizona Bay, Jan 26, 15:43:57
  - It's not. (NCFC) - BeverlyHills0201, Jan 26, 15:46:44
    - Nope. (NCFC) - yarmyyarmy, Jan 26, 16:03:58
      - It is the same to my mind. (NCFC) - BeverlyHills0201, Jan 26, 16:07:34
    - No, I know, but the specific framework of I.D., and the specific terms are new(ish) (NCFC) - Arizona Bay, Jan 26, 15:50:17

Reply to Message

In order to add a post to the WotB Message Board you must be a registered WotB user.

If you are not yet registered then please visit the registration page. You should ensure that their browser is setup to accept cookies.