Content deleted Content added
*Rebuttal, request for opinions. If majority feel I have introduced non-NPOV I will remove the 'offending' phrase. |
to Rgamble |
||
Line 6:
----Perhaps a poor choice of wording, but the whole phrase includes "as a mechanism for evolution". Creationists are a subset of [[intelligent design]] and most creationists I talk to use this particular species as an example of irreducible complexity. If others believe that I have introduced a fallacy or non-NPOV into the article, I shall remove that phrase. However, do a search on "Bombardier Beetle" on the web before making the juedgement. --[[user:Rgamble|rgamble]]
: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]]
| |||