Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: Intelligent design

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 01:59, 31 January 2008 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(No)
← Previous diff
Revision as of 04:13, 31 January 2008 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(No)
Next diff →
Line 65: Line 65:
*[http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/ap_051118_ID_vatican.html Nicole Winfield, Associated Press. "Vatican Astronomer: Intelligent Design is Not Science". Live Science. November 18, 2005] *[http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/ap_051118_ID_vatican.html Nicole Winfield, Associated Press. "Vatican Astronomer: Intelligent Design is Not Science". Live Science. November 18, 2005]
*[http://csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/not-science.html Penny Higgins. "Why 'Intelligent Design' (ID) is not science, and why, therefore, it should not be taught in a science curriculum". Retrieved 1.30.08] *[http://csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/not-science.html Penny Higgins. "Why 'Intelligent Design' (ID) is not science, and why, therefore, it should not be taught in a science curriculum". Retrieved 1.30.08]
 +*[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001.html "Claim CI001: Intelligent design theory is science." The Talk Origins Archive.]
 +

Revision as of 04:13, 31 January 2008

Is Intelligent Design a legitimate scientific theory?

Contents

Background and Context of Debate:

Write Subquestion here...

Yes

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here

No

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here

Write Subquestion here...

Yes

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here

No

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here

Write Subquestion here...

Yes


No


References:

Related pages on Debatepedia:

External links and resources:

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.