tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-374945593972878840.post9183117673623725000..comments2023-09-22T06:24:01.470-04:00Comments on Libertarian Jew: Should Creationism Be Taught In Schools? What About Intelligent Design?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-374945593972878840.post-11561429002143329972014-02-07T15:53:52.649-05:002014-02-07T15:53:52.649-05:00Thank you for your comments, Anonymous. To answer ...Thank you for your comments, Anonymous. To answer your comments:<br /><br />"How exactly does one bring any form of deism into the mix without it being inherently religious?" It depends on how liberal you want to be with the definition of deism. When I was writing that comment, my thought was that one could believe that an advanced extraterrestrial life form could have created the universe. Granted, I personally don't believe that because it doesn't answer that ever-important question of "how did we go from non-life to life in this universe?" Having a transcendent deity makes the most sense, given the context, but it could theoretically be more secular in nature, which is why I said "[ID] is not an argument inherently religious in nature." Perhaps I am wrong in that assumption, but it was the one I was going with at the time. <br /><br />"The scientific community is happy (or at least willing) to admit when it's wrong." What worries me most is that science, much like anything else, can become politicized, and that is something that I would like to not see happen. <br /><br />And yes, I agree that Creationist "theory" (or any of its many forms) has no such flexibility and clings fast to an argumentum ad ignorantiam.Libertarian Jewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07063486300815461137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-374945593972878840.post-78385956179205878732014-02-07T14:08:56.173-05:002014-02-07T14:08:56.173-05:00"The notion that the universe was created by ..."The notion that the universe was created by design, rather than random mutations, is not an argument that inherently religious in nature."<br />How exactly does one bring any form of deism into the mix without it being inherently religious? The logic doesn't seem flawed so much as it seems absent.<br /><br />You also mention how evolutionary theory teachings should include both its strengths and weaknesses, which is fair. After all, science is willing to change based on new or improved evidence. The scientific community is happy (or at least willing) to admit when it's wrong. Creationist "theory" (or any of its many forms) has no such flexibility and clings fast to an argumentum ad ignorantiam.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com