Talk:Irreducible complexity

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ed Poor (talk | contribs) at 11:50, 6 March 2002 (to Rgamble). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
almost a standard bearer for Creationists in their attempt to disprove natural selection as a mechanism for evolution.
  1. It's not about Creationists vs. evolutionists, but intelligent design vs. evolutionists. "Can't tell the players without a scorecard."
  2. No one is trying to disprove natural selection -- where did you get that?

--Ed Poor


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. --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 [1]. 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