# The Parable of the Heap of Sand

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-parable-of-the-heap-of-sand/504>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Created:** [June 26, 2018, 11:54pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-parable-of-the-heap-of-sand/504 "2018-06-26T23:54:46Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 6

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Argon](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/argon/32/3896_2.png) [@Argon](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Argon)\
**Post date:** [June 27, 2018, 2:48pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-parable-of-the-heap-of-sand/504/6 "2018-06-27T14:48:20Z")

</div>

I get the sense it arises as more of a response to suggestions that Intelligent Design is pseudoscientific.

Speaking for myself, I wouldn’t respond to the argument by suggesting that science is poorly delimited. I’d respond that Intelligent Design encompases a diverse collection of hypotheses, some of which may be investigated scientifically and so it’s not something that can be dismissed as pseudoscience in toto. Granted, there are a lot of pseudoscientific ideas floating around in that sphere but I don’t think all the ideas are.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-parable-of-the-heap-of-sand/504)._