|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Does intelligent design have creationist roots? | |||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: Well, in the first place, it's hardly clear since the word "many" is rather vague. You mention 5 by name, does that constitute "many?" Second, it's far from clear that any of the people you mention are anti-creationist.
quote: So, to you, the fact that old earth creationists support ID is proof that ID doesn't have creationist roots? How curious. The quote from Coyote that you present in your OP is conclusive evidence that the IDeas presented in People and Panda are based on creationism. Beyond that, the basic game plan that IDers use is straight out of the creationist handbook. Step 1, find something that science hasn't (yet) explained (or that you don't think science has explained)(or that has an explanation that you don't understand). Wave your hands around a bit about this "mystery," then conclude that it's proof of intelligent intervention. Step 2, misrepresent what the theory of evolution says, then attack your straw-man misrepresentation. Step 3, ignore all established methods of presenting your ideas to the scientific community and publish a mass-market book to try to convince those without scientific training that there's something to your nonsense. Step 4, when the scientific community rejects your IDeas, claim that closed-minded dogmatism (or atheism) is the only thing preventing scientists from accepting what you say. Make no mistake, IDers' roots are showing to anyone who wants to look. For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: Five is many. Okay....
quote: Which literal biblical account? And, given that there are different accounts that say different things, isn't it pretty much impossible not to hold a belief in contradiction of one or another?
quote: Ah yes. Another tried and true creo stratagem, moving the goalposts. First, the discussion was whether ID has creationist roots. Now, it's whether ID has young earth creationist roots. Tell you what, you decide what point you want to argue and let us know when you've fixed on one. But, if you're going to try to create a distinction between OEC and YEC, you better provide a compelling reason for that distinction. To those of us who understand science and creationism, OEC and YEC are virtually the same in their rejection of and attack upon science, although they disagree on some of the rather minor details.
quote: So, you wanna compare qualifications? Suits me. I've been studying creationism and ID since the mid 80s. In college, I majored in Philosophy with an emphasis on Philosophy of Science. My honors thesis was on creationism, and I got an A on it from Dr. Philip Kitcher, author of Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism. I've read dozens of books on ID and creationism, and hundreds of websites. I've also read a great deal about evolution. Note carefully, I'm not providing my credentials to prove that I'm right, I'm providing my credentials to show that I do know what I'm talking about. I'm not trying to be offensive or gratuitously rude either, but accusing those who criticize ID or creationism as simply not understanding it is another hoary creo gambit, and usually wrong.
quote: Well, that certainly wouldn't be a start for me. In any event, at this site, we don't simply swap citations to authority back and forth. You are expected to provide the argument yourself in your own words. So tell me, what does Dembski say in Design Revolution? In particular, since you were responding to my description of the creationist game plan, tell me why that book doesn't fit with my description. You might begin by demonstrating that it's any different from Steps 3 and 4. Specifically, you could address the preface, which Wiki describes this way:
The book begins with a preface polemic where Dembski maintains that the harsh critiques that his work has received to date by the scientific community, which he describes as "dogmatic Darwinists and scientific naturalists," is typical of what previous geniuses and innovators have been subjected to by science orthodoxy Isn't it amazing that I haven't even read the book, yet it fits so well with the creo game plan I outlined? For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
I'd be delighted to.
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
I think I made my beliefs about the creationist roots of ID fairly clear in posts 3 and 25 of this thread. The full details of the evolution from creationism to ID show a deeper and clearer connection. I'm pressed for time at the moment, but I'll follow up with a fuller analysis, probably sometime this weekend.
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
For present purposes, I'm comfortable with the following description of "creationism" from Wikipedia:
Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or deities. In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism is commonly used to refer to religiously motivated rejection of evolution as an explanation of origins. Creationism in the West is usually based on a hyper-literal reading of Genesis 1-2, and in its broad sense covers a wide range of beliefs and interpretations. ... However, by 1929 in the United States the term became particularly associated with Christian fundamentalist opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth. Several U.S. states passed laws against the teaching of evolution in public schools, as upheld in the Scopes Trial. Evolution was omitted entirely from school textbooks in much of the United States until the 1960s. Since then, renewed efforts to introduce teaching creationism in American public schools in the form of flood geology, creation science, and intelligent design have been consistently held to contravene the constitutional separation of Church and State by a succession of legal judgments. The meaning of the term creationism was contested, but by the 1980s it had been co-opted by proponents of creation science and flood geology. Such beliefs include Young Earth creationism, proponents of which believe that the earth is thousands rather than billions of years old. They typically believe the days in Genesis Chapter 1 are 24 hours in length, while Old Earth creationism accepts geological findings and other methods of dating the earth and believes that these findings do not contradict the Genesis account, but reject evolution. My reference to moving goalposts had to do with the fact that you appeared to change the meaning of the term creationism as used in your OP, where you referred specifically to "scientific creationism." I agree that we should settle on a definition of creationism and stick to that one definition. For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Well, I'm familiar with what Dr. Forrest has said on the matter. Why don't you begin by explaining why you disagree with what she's said. In particular, I think you need to address her "cdesign proponentist" transitional form.
In addition, perhaps you could give your reasons for concluding that ID isn't a species of creationism. Is it simply because they base their ideas on a looser reading of Genesis than OECs or YECs? I've been giving this topic some small thought, and it occurred to me that perhaps you have the idea that since IDers accept more of science than OECs do, and OECs accept more than YECs, you think this difference is significant. Is that the basis for your distinction? Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Subtitle. For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024