Futile

[poliphilo]

I've been on a message board where Darwinists and Creationists were slugging it out. Ouch, ouch, ouch!

Such dogmatism- on both sides.  But, as one of the posters pointed out, Darwinism is a scientific theory and Intelligent Design is a philosophical theory. They belong in different disciplines. 

It's as if one team turned up for the match in football strip and the other team in cricket whites.

Comments

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I'm out of my depth here. But presumably even the most far-fetched of theories in physics has to be backed-up with testable mathematics.

[frsimon.livejournal.com]

Ah, but mathematics needn't be *empirically* testable need it?

My basic point here is that ID is, as its proponents claim, a scientific theory. It is, however, a crap one. And unless children are to be taught fringe theories about everything in science classes, it seems arbitrary to insist they should be taught this one.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I'm inclined to think that "crap science" is a contradiction in terms.

But we're in basic agreement on the most important thing. ID- however you want to classify it- has no place in the science class.