Content deleted Content added
to Rgamble |
No edit summary |
||
Line 8:
:Creationism and intelligent design (ID) are allies against evolutionism. ID insists that it's not creationism, and there are some legal aspects to this distinction at [http://arn.org/docs/dewolf/guidebook.htm#5]. What I'm trying to contribute to evolution debate is information that points out the weaknesses in the pro-evolution argument. I am not a Creationist. I consider Creationists too anti-scientific for my taste. --[[Ed Poor]]
Ed, I will remove the reference to Creationists. However, I believe the rest of the statement stands on its own. The phrase does not imply that ID or Creationists are attempting to disprove Natural Selection, but rather Natural Selection as a _mechanism_ for Evolution. ie, since irreducible complexity and Natural Selection ''seem'' to have irreconcilable differences, Evolution can not always occur through Natural Selection. This seems to me, to be the basis of the argument. More simply put, the argument seems to be, Evolution relies on Natural Selection. To work, Evolution has to get around the problem of irreducible complexity. Natural Selection, while a true part of nature, does not get around the problem of irreducible complexity. Therefore, evolution can not occur. If that sounds correct to you, then the phrase as I put it, sums up the problem rather than introducing a fallacy. --[[rgamble]]
| |||