Content deleted Content added
Hob Gadling (talk | contribs) |
Markbassett (talk | contribs) →False, dishonest and misleading: just to be technical -- 'creationism' is not a decision for 'scientific consensus' |
||
Line 380:
:Also, the article doesn’t lead with it as Creationism. It instead leads with a vague pejorative “pseudoscience”. I actually think a branch of “Creationism” is what it should say instead, as ID was listed as a type of such in texts, and as fitting the definition because it is supporting a view of creation versus evolution. In the end I’m reassured by the thought that starting with an obvious judgemental insult serves as fair warning of bias in a situation of two wrongs make almost-right. Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 15:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
:Your opinion that {{tq|Intelligent Design is NOT Creationism}} contradicts the scientific consensus on that as well as the judge of [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]]. That is not invalidated by a non-creationist pseudoscientist agreeing with it. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 16:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
::[[User:Hob Gadling]] Just to be clear -- "Creationism" is not a matter determined by "scientific consensus". Such determinations are outside the realm of science, and in the realm of Philosophy or Theology. One cannot make a scientific test to show something "Creationism", nor does the view of scientists count for that. Scientific consensus can determine if something is "science" or not. But the opinion of say a Biologist in matters of Theology has about as much weight as the opinion of an auto mechanic in some discussion about Biology. Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 05:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
| |||