>Chris: Technically, ID *does* cover a wider range than merely the
creationist types. But, as a social and political movement, it is almost
*completely* creationist (i.e., Christian theists who believe God has done
all the designing in life on Earth).
> DNAunion: So as a social and political movement, what does evolution
qualify as? Not science, as under those conditions, it is then social and
political.
>FMAJ: … As a social and political movement evolution does not necessarily
classify as science. Your point is?
DNAunion: My point is...
Why, if ID does in fact cover a wider range than merely the creationists
types - as Chris states - is that ID is viewed as an almost completely
creationist movement if that meaning is relegated to the social and political
worlds? And it it is because the social and political worlds determine what
a theory is about, then you just admitted that evolution should not be
science. Get my point now?
PS; This is another instance in which the original e-mail was marked to be
deleted and the system hung: I then went into my SENT mail and saw that this
reply was not sent to everyone. I assumed I hit the REPLY instead of the
REPLY ALL so I am forwarding this to the whole board. I hope I am not making
another posting error.
attached mail follows:
>Chris: Technically, ID *does* cover a wider range than merely the
creationist types. But, as a social and political movement, it is almost
*completely* creationist (i.e., Christian theists who believe God has done
all the designing in life on Earth).
> DNAunion: So as a social and political movement, what does evolution
qualify as? Not science, as under those conditions, it is then social and
political.
>FMAJ: … As a social and political movement evolution does not necessarily
classify as science. Your
point is?
DNAunion: Why, if ID does in fact cover a wider range than merely the
creationists types - as Chris states - is that ID is viewed as an almost
completely creationist movement if that meaning is relegated to the social
and political worlds? And it it is because the social and political worlds
determine what a theory is about, then you just admitted that evolution
should not be science. Get my point now?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 06 2000 - 01:46:18 EDT