https://rose.geog.mcgill.ca/wordpress/?p=425 Tue, 27 Sep 2005 13:52:52 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.8.10 https://rose.geog.mcgill.ca/wordpress/?p=425&cpage=1#comment-1745 Tue, 27 Sep 2005 13:52:52 +0000 http://rose.geog.mcgill.ca/wordpress/?p=425#comment-1745 Proponents need to distance ID from creationism so they say that ID has no god in it. Good point about changing the definition of science.

]]> https://rose.geog.mcgill.ca/wordpress/?p=425&cpage=1#comment-1744 Tue, 27 Sep 2005 02:26:20 +0000 http://rose.geog.mcgill.ca/wordpress/?p=425#comment-1744 How does accepting ID as science distance proponents from the Christian god? Are they not just proving themselves devout believers? By changing the definition of science, and thereby by extention our whole acceptance of “true” and “false”, do people not take upon themselves god-like qualities? And why is it that religion seeks to overcome/overpower science? Has “science” become so powerful in our society that religion can no longer stand alone as a seperate and wholly unrelated discipline? And is there literature to support that, because I have sure never found any. On a lighter note, citizens in Kansas have come up with what seems like an equally viable alternative to ID. I am sure that the Flying Spaghetti Monster would agree that his existence is scientifically relevant and true…yes, the flying spaghetti monster, changing scientific data with his “noodly appendages”…check out http://www.venganza.org/

]]>