Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Futile

Dec. 13th, 2006 01:49 pm
poliphilo: (Default)
[personal profile] 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.

Date: 2006-12-13 12:51 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] frsimon.livejournal.com
In what sense is Intelligent Design a 'philosophical' theory?

Date: 2006-12-13 01:48 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] qatsi.livejournal.com
I like the concept, but I'm not sure how well it works. A theory (of any sort) is something that might be wrong, surely?

Date: 2006-12-13 02:49 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] arielstarshadow.livejournal.com
Bear in mind that those who believe in Intelligent Design view it as scientifically as those who believe in Darwinism.

Honestly, in my mind, science and religion are not mutually exclusive. I've never understood why it's so hard for people to not see that the two fit together perfectly.

Date: 2006-12-13 06:05 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] red-girl-42.livejournal.com
I hate the term "Darwinist." It implies (as the creationists are trying to do) that it's just a belief system. I'm not a "Darwinist." I'm a rational human being who has looked at the scientifice evidence and determined that it overwhelmingly supports evolution. Therefore, I will accept evolution until the evidence overwhelmingly convinces me otherwise.

Since the "evidence" put forth by creationists is not and never has been scientifically sound, I'm pretty sure I will be supporting evolution for the rest of my days.

Date: 2006-12-13 06:57 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] pickwick.livejournal.com
As someone else pointed out, they're using completely definitions of the word "theory". I suppose they're both trying to impose their own definition on the other, but the Creationists seem to be incapable of realising that a scientific "theory" is different, and that just because something says it's a theory that does not mean that there's no more evidence for it than for Creationism. Kind of the reverse, in fact.

I never understood the Watchmaker theory, really - it just seemed to me to move the questions back a step. ("So what created the creator?") Just another Turtles all the way down thing.

Date: 2006-12-13 09:27 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] besideserato.livejournal.com
"It's as if one team turned up for the match in football strip and the other team in cricket whites." That's it in a nutshell.

Profile

poliphilo: (Default)
poliphilo

February 2026

S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 1011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Page generated Feb. 11th, 2026 06:55 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios