Quote:
|
Originally Posted by punkworld
Creationism, whether the traditional kind or the intelligent design kind, speaks about purely physical aspects of physical reality. It fails, however, to make any predictions or even to be testable in any physical way. Worse, it defies logic as well, and thereby places itself entirely out of the realm of rationality.
|
So you're trying to say that all questions of origin fall outside of the realm of philosophy? You've also just said that claiming there is no higher power is just as silly as claiming there is one by inference. Thanks for making my point.
Quote:
|
Most of its proponents actually do call it science, and present it as an alternative to common scientific theories.
|
Once again I guess you completly missed my
first post saying it's a travesty taht it's allowed into biology classrooms.
Quote:
 Have you missed the entire discussion?
|
You're missing my point completly. I've meerly stated that creationism is just as valid as the idea that there is no creator. If you want to say that BOTH ideas are equally silly as neither is philosophically or otherwise proveable, well guess what I agree. On the other hand I would argue if you'd accept the idea that there couldn't possibally be a creator as valid then by the very circular nature of the agruement you have to accept the other side of the coin as well.