2 ms·
That doesn't really make sense though. Strictly speaking, evolutionary theory and natural selection, etc describe a theory about a process. I don't think the ve
by dinkumthinkum 17y ago
That doesn't really make sense though. Strictly speaking, evolutionary theory and natural selection, etc describe a theory about a process. I don't think the veracity of evolutionary theory or the explanatory power of it is contingent on how well proponents of it can evaluate the specific "uses" of adapatations.
ID is such a reactionary and contentless view that I find them actually far sillier than outright creationists like Kent Hovind; at least they are honest.
- username 17y ago“When you do things right, people won’t be sure you’ve done anything at all.”
- username 17y agoID is a "contentless view" as evolutionary theory is since some of the views of ID are negations of views of evolutionary theory.
- biohacker42 17y agocontentless is an excellent description. Evolutionary theory implies many things. Like given these bones here, and these other bones over there, we can expect a transition fossil between bones X and Y to be found in soil layers roughly corresponding to time T. ID implies that, nu-uh, it's god that did it. That's not a contradiction, it's just answering god did it to everything.
- username 17y agoStraw man. Who just answers god did it? Reply: http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq/#Godgaps http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq/#Godgaps