Quasiscience or Pseudoscience

I like this distinction that @Herman_Mays makes:

I prefer the term quasiscience over pseudoscience. The reason I do is I’m trying to be generous to them because pseudo means false; it implies there’s a deliberate lie under the surface. For instance they know evolution is true but they’re inventing narratives that they know are false. I don’t think that’s the case, so I’m reluctant to call what they’re doing pseudoscience. Quasi means “as if” and it doesn’t have the same connotations of a deliberate lie that the word pseudo.


I respectfully disagree. Though many rank and file ID-Creationists may sincerely believe what they read I have no doubt the professional ID-Creationists (Meyer, Wells, Austin, etc.) know full well what they are peddling is worthless science-free bullcrap. I see no point in trying to cover the stench of the deliberately dishonest BS by giving it the flowery designation quasiscience. Honesty is always the best policy even if it hurts some of the ID-Creationists’ feelings.


I shall begin referring to atheist arguments as quasi-arguments rather than pseudo-arguments.

1 Like


I have the perfect compromise:

Good ID work is Quasi-Science… and Bad ID work is Pseudo-Science.

Perfect, yes?

When the first good ID work is published in a legitimate science journal, please let us know. :slightly_smiling_face: