Science Forums 2

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by REASON

What aspects of evolutionary theory that you are promoting do you think might be leading the discussion toward a creationist debate?Could it be the teleological assertion of an inherent drive toward complexity in nature?

You've brought those discussions on yourself, T-bird. But I don't think it's worth complaining about. I think they've been useful and informative discussions.



You know, this hasn't really been my experience here. It appears to me that a lot of people with religious assertions to make feel the need to come here to make them, as though they need to prove something to science oriented people. Is there anyone who is luring religious folk to come here to be drawn into a fight? How credible is the information to be found here if unsupported assertions can go unchallenged?

In the process of maintaining scientific integrity at a science website, it is necessary by default to refute unscientific notions, and to challenge philosophies that are based in superstition and myth. These refutations can become heated when people continue to dump their false assertions all over these threads after their claims have been shown to be false. I imagine that if it weren't for those who were continually willing to challenge false claims, these fora would be littered with absurdity.

Personally, I don't recommend that there be a let up on those who know no better than to promote their conjecture and faithfull thinking here at Hypography.

None, that's always been my point. I do not have any intention of promoting I.D. Complexity is not I.D. But some in ID have used it to promote ID some on this forum do not understand that complexity is not about ID, therefore the confusion is not on my part. I was studying complexity long before ID began to be misused it as a wedge issue which is not my intent, but others. Read Stuart Kauffman he applies complexity to evolution properly.