View Full Version : Inside the Mind of New York Times - on the real difference between Creationism and ID
For the record, I myself tend to be more a Creationist than Intelligent Designer. It is still important to prevent evo-propagandists from muddying this issue.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/11/inside_the_mind_of_the_new_yor.html#more
Inside the Mind of the New York Times: My Exchange with Cornelia Dean, Evolution Partisan
A few days ago, I took New York Times reporter Cornelia Dean to task for putting words in the mouth of Ohio Board of Education member Deborah Owens Fink. According to an article by Dean, “Dr. Owens Fink...said the [Ohio] curriculum standards she supported did not advocate teaching intelligent design, an ideological cousin of creationism.” But as I pointed out, Dr. Owens Fink did not call intelligent design “an ideological cousin of creationism,” even though Dean’s wording makes this appear to be the case. Those words represent Dean’s own editorial evaluation (in what was supposed to be a news article, not an editorial). According to Dr. Owens Fink, “the reporter... put words in the article that may represent her view but not mine.”
I contacted Ms. Dean to give her a chance to respond to my criticisms, and she graciously replied. What ensued was an exchange of views that helps illuminate the mindset of many reporters who cover the evolution issue. Here is Dean’s first response:
1. As the article said, the standards Dr. Owens Fink supports "did not advocate teaching intelligent design, an ideological cousin of creationism. Rather, she said, they urge students to subject evolution to critical analysis, something she said scientists should endorse." I did not intend to say, and I do not believe a reasonable reader would conclude, that Dr. Owens Fink asserted in those sentences that creationism is an ideological cousin of creationism. However, as a precaution and in the interests of fairness, I consulted colleagues here who are more knowledgeable about grammar than I am. They agree.
2. Intelligent design IS an ideological cousin of creationism. To say otherwise would be to mislead our readers. [emphasis added]
3. As far as I know, the article you cite accurately represented what Dr. Owens Fink said in our telephone conversations.
I then e-mailed Ms. Dean as follows:
Thanks for the answers. The comment in question was part of a dependent clause in a sentence attributed to Dr. Owens Fink, so it was not independent of the earlier part of the sentence. The only way it can be justified is if the dependent clause was simply neutral explanatory information to help the reader understand the comments of Dr. Owens Fink. But the phrase was not neutral explanatory information; it was editorializing. Terms like "ideological" and "creationism" are highly pejorative. The fact that you apparently think this is merely an objective description shows just how biased you are. You apparently were so afraid of letting Dr. Owens Fink speak for herself that you had to append your own comments at the end of the sentence to make sure that readers would know the "right" way to view her comments.
If you really think this was simply objective description, I look forward to seeing your next article about evolution where you insert parenthetical comments like "evolution, an ideological cousin to materialism," or "evolution, an ideological cousin to atheism" after the comments from defenders of evolution!
Ms. Dean responded as follows:
I have no desire to get into an argument with you, but I cannot resist responding to two assertions in this note.
I don't know exactly what you mean by "materialism" but certainly science looks in the natural world for answers to questions about the natural world. That is what differentiates science from religion.
I would never write that evolution is an ideological cousin to atheism. There are far too many accomplished evolutionary biologists who are people of strong religious faith for that to be the case. I have written about some of them.
Let me know if you would like to know who they are and I will send you information about them. Perhaps you might like to add information about them to your blog.
I then replied:
You have made my point for me. Of course, there are theists who believe in evolution (although not many at the very top of the profession, if surveys of biologists who are members of the National Academy of Sciences, etc. are to be believed). So it would certainly be unfair for a reporter to describe evolution as "an ideological cousin to atheism." But I would argue, similarly, that it is just as biased to refer to intelligent design as an "ideological cousin to creationism." Creationism is generally understood (among the public, as well as among most reporters I've talked with) as an effort to try to defend the Biblical account of creation. Creationism starts with the Bible and then looks to the natural world for evidence to verify its account. Intelligent design starts with the facts of the natural world and asks what can be reasonably inferred from this evidence. The argument for design in the natural world predates the Bible and can found in Plato, so you would have been more accurate to call intelligent design "an ideological cousin to Plato." It was also embraced by Alfred Wallace, the co-discoverer of the theory of evolution by natural selection; this was one of the issues on which Darwin and Wallace differed. As one of the many ID proponents who does not think Genesis is some kind of science textbook (and who also accepts the old age of the universe; and who also has no religious objections to common ancestry), I resent efforts by reporters to try to fit intelligent design into their preconceived stereotypes. When I was in journalism school as an undergraduate, stereotyping--especially of minority viewpoints--was something we were repeatedly warned against.
As for how I define materialism--I mean the claim that everything in the universe can ultimately be explained as the product of unintelligent matter and energy. Part of the debate here is the "nature of nature." Do natural causes only include unintelligent causes, or do they also include intelligent causes? I happen to believe that intelligence is a part of nature. We see the effects of it throughout the natural world, and not just in human beings. When a beaver builds a dam or a bird builds a nest, or a monkey uses a stick as a crude tool, we see the reality of intelligence in nature. In each of these cases, we can infer intelligence based on its empirical effects. Positing intelligent causes in nature is not appealing to religion.
Ms. Dean did not reply to this. Of course, I understand that she has many other things to do than respond to be, and I appreciate that she responded at all, just as I appreciate her candid defense of evolution and attack on intelligent design. While I think that the exchange speaks for itself, I would like to point out the obvious: Ms. Dean sees her job as not only reporting on the debate about evolution, but advancing one particular side of that debate. She views intelligent design as warmed-over creationism, and she sincerely believes it is her duty to convince readers to share this view--using the news section of the New York Times. Note to journalists working for the old-line newsmedia: Do you really have no clue as to why so many people are losing their trust in you?
Posted by John West on November 5, 2006 12:05 AM |
Stick to the Facts
11-05-2006, 05:24 PM
It is clear from the sentence in question (ie ...intelligent design, an ideological cousin of creationism...) that Dean was not putting these words in the mouth of the interviewee. No moreso than this would be putting words in Bush's mouth: President Bush stated Monday that we should be prepared to take action against Kim Jong Il, the leader of North Korea.
It in both cases that the dependent clause was not actually spoken by the person interviewed - rather it is clarifying language.
Creationism and intelligent design ARE ideological cousins after a fashion - she never said they are idologically equivalent.
They both attribute the origins of life to some creator being. Whether one puts the cart before the horse or the horse before the cart in reaching that conclusion may distinguish the two but they share that quality nevertheless.
The writer of this article needs to brush up on the history of his own religion - the Bible does predate the Greek philosophers. Genesis (the text that describes the creation of the world) was supposedly written by Moses and in any case dates from well before Plato.
Furthermore, the issue of when the ideologies originated has nothing to do with whether they are ideological 'cousins', what matters is that they share some quality.
Insidium
11-05-2006, 08:18 PM
Creationism starts with the god of the Bible, then disregards any evidence to the contrary.
ID starts with the idea of an unnamed intelligent designer (who is often referred to as god by Christians), then disregards any evidence to the contrary.
Gee, this writer sounds so ignorant!! :rofl:
Helios Panoptes
11-05-2006, 08:34 PM
Petr, to what extent is the modern Intelligent Design movement supported by Christians, as opposed to proponents of Platonic philosophy or belief in a God of philosophers(such as Spinoza's)? It has been proven on this forum before that the ID movement is motivated by Christian theology, not having been convinced by an argument in an Ancient Greek dialogue. While it is true that, in theory, someone might oppose ontologically naturalist explanations of life for reasons other than their Christian faith, the number of these people in the ID movement is so miniscule that it may be said to be zero.
Quotes from the "father of ID":
"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of Intelligent Design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." Johnson 2004. Christianity.ca. Let's Be Intelligent About Darwin
"So the question is: "How to win?" That's when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important thing"—the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do." Johnson 2000. Touchstone magazine. Berkeley's Radical An Interview with Phillip E. Johnson
"This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy." Johnson 1996. World Magazine. Witnesses For The Prosecution
In short, in theory ID is not the same as Biblical creationism, but in modern practice it is.
Gee, this writer sounds so ignorant!! :rofl:
It is you who is uncritical TalkOrigins citer, and not in position to accuse anyone else of ignorance.
And so, would you be ready to admit that evolution is inherently ideologically connected to materialism and atheism?
Petr
Petr, to what extent is the modern Intelligent Design movement supported by Christians, as opposed to proponents of Platonic philosophy or belief in a God of philosophers(such as Spinoza's)? It has been proven on this forum before that the ID movement is motivated by Christian theology, not having been convinced by an argument in an Ancient Greek dialogue. While it is true that, in theory, someone might oppose ontologically naturalist explanations of life for reasons other than their Christian faith, the number of these people in the ID movement is so miniscule that it may be said to be zero.
The number of people adhering today to ancient Greek religion "is so miniscule that it may be said to be zero." It is not our fault if most religious-minded people find the Biblical God inherently more believable than Greek pantheon.
Petr
Helios Panoptes
11-05-2006, 08:52 PM
The number of people adhering today to ancient Greek religion "is so miniscule that it may be said to be zero." It is not our fault if most religious-minded people find the Biblical God inherently more believable than Greek pantheon.
Petr
Firstly, then you accept my point: while it is true that ID is not necessarily equivalent to Biblical creationism, it is in modern practice. You are the one muddying the issue. You are saying they are not the same, but they are. Secondly, I don't know what you're talking about regarding the pantheon. Platonic philosophy did not attempt to prove that the Greek pantheon existed.
Secondly, I don't know what you're talking about regarding the pantheon. Platonic philosophy did not attempt to prove that the Greek pantheon existed.
Neoplatonists do not count? Perhaps you should tell Wintermute.
Petr
Basil Fawlty
11-05-2006, 09:02 PM
Neoplatonists do not count? Perhaps you should tell Wintermute.
PetrNeoplatonism translated the pantheon into the basic metaphysical elements of reality. The gods were taken to be symbolic of the underlying structure of reality.
For example, Ouranos is taken to be the One, Kronos is Nous (pure intellect) and Zeus is soul in the Plotinian scheme.
Helios Panoptes
11-05-2006, 09:11 PM
For Plotinus, the purity of vision sufficed to effect the 'return to cause', given practice of the virtues and of contemplation. For Porphyry, without sacraments and savior gods, the soul had no hope; this despair of permanent separation is probably some deep part of the Semitic Race-Soul which will never be effaced. For my part, I believe that Plotinus is right in a technical sense, but it is also true, experientially, that things like sacraments and savior gods are helpful aids - therefore I make use of them.
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?p=125241&highlight=gods#post125241
"Helpful aids." Do Christians consider JHVH, experientially, to be a helpful aid?
Insidium
11-06-2006, 07:10 AM
It is you who is uncritical TalkOrigins citer, and not in position to accuse anyone else of ignorance.
And so, would you be ready to admit that evolution is inherently ideologically connected to materialism and atheism?
Petr
I can't speak for everyone, but I think it sure as hell is very compatible with atheism and presupposes naturalism, just like all of science.
Ahknaton
11-06-2006, 07:19 AM
Neoplatonists do not count? Perhaps you should tell Wintermute.
Perhaps if we misrepresent his position, we can force Wintermute to start posting again to defend himself. Cunning plan Petr!
Firstly, then you accept my point: while it is true that ID is not necessarily equivalent to Biblical creationism, it is in modern practice.
Would you agree that orthodox evolutionism is for all practical purposes philosophical materialism/atheism in scientific guise?
You are the one muddying the issue. You are saying they are not the same, but they are.
But they are not. There are many IDers who are not Christians, and that's more than enough proof. Rudimentary Intelligent Design has more in common with Deism (or Paley's natural theology) than Christianity.
Petr
Captain Marinesko
11-06-2006, 09:37 AM
Evolution is the standard because that's what the evidence supports. It's not some conspiracy by evil Marxist/Nazis trying to promote materialism by using science.
Evolution is the standard because that's what the evidence supports. It's not some conspiracy by evil Marxist/Nazis trying to promote materialism by using science.
Thanks for this interesting soundbite/strawman. :snore:
Petr
Helios Panoptes
11-06-2006, 09:51 AM
Would you agree that orthodox evolutionism is for all practical purposes philosophical materialism/atheism in scientific guise?
It explains phenomena without recourse to supernaturalism. I would say that it is "materialistic" in the sense that it does not require an appeal to a deity to work.
But they are not. There are many IDers who are not Christians, and that's more than enough proof. Rudimentary Intelligent Design has more in common with Deism (or Paley's natural theology) than Christianity.
I have agreed that it is not necessarily equivalent to Biblical creationism. However, the ID movement was founded by creationists and continues to be driven almost exclusively by creationists. The ID movement is not comprised of Platonists, Hindus, Buddhists, Deists, etc. I maintain my position that when we refer to the "ID movement," we are speaking of people who are, in practice, Biblical creationists. There are a few on the fringe, some of them can be found on this very forum, but it's disingenuous to say that the people lobbying for ID and engaged in PR campaigns are not creationists.
Captain Marinesko
11-06-2006, 09:52 AM
Thanks for this interesting soundbite/strawman. :snore:
Petr
It's not a strawman, you seem to believe in some conspiracy to promote secular materialism or whatever you call it.
Either way, it is hypocrtical for someone who believes in Creation trying to point out a fallacy in someone else's logic.
It's not a strawman, you seem to believe in some conspiracy to promote secular materialism or whatever you call it.
It would be one of those "open conspiracies," not exactly cloak-and-dagger stuff.
(The sociological studies on the history of early Darwinist movement are quite interesting - see Gertrude Himmelfarb's Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution).
Like Jonathan Wells puts it in simplistic terms:
The truth is Darwinism is not a scientific theory, but a materialistic creation myth masquerading as science. It is first and foremost a weapon against religion – especially traditional Christianity. Evidence is brought in afterwards, as window dressing.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52166
Petr
Either way, it is hypocrtical for someone who believes in Creation trying to point out a fallacy in someone else's logic.
Typical atheistic myopic arrogance - on just what logical basis one becomes unable to use logic by believing in Creation?
Petr
I have agreed that it is not necessarily equivalent to Biblical creationism. However, the ID movement was founded by creationists and continues to be driven almost exclusively by creationists.
Evolutionists are so myopically arrogant that they simply cannot comprehend how someone could disagree with their paradigm except out of religious madness.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52166
According to Darwinists, there is such overwhelming evidence for their view that it should be considered a fact. Yet to the Darwinists' dismay, at least three-quarters of the American people – citizens of the most scientifically advanced country in history – reject it.
A study published Aug. 11 in the pro-Darwin magazine Science attributes this primarily to biblical fundamentalism, even though polls have consistently shown that half of the Americans who reject Darwinism are not biblical fundamentalists. Could it be that the American people are skeptical of Darwinism because they're smarter than Darwinists think?
Christians have always believed that there exists two sets of revelation about the Creator of this world - the revelation of Scriptures and the revelation of Nature. The former is what drives Creationism, the latter one is what drives ID.
Petr
Helios Panoptes
11-06-2006, 10:21 AM
That is the same article you posted a couple minutes ago, not a link to a poll.
However, the ID movement was founded by creationists and continues to be driven almost exclusively by creationists.
And this simply isn't so - creationists have their own organizations, and are actually often scolding IDers for being too soft on evolution, and ready for compromises.
In our point of view, theistic evolutionists are pathetic sellouts, IDers are the moderate center and creationists are the hard core old school.
Petr
Helios Panoptes
11-06-2006, 10:30 AM
I find the way you phrase the matter odd. Instead of saying "I find such-and-such a position to be inconsistent with the data," you call it "selling out" or "compromising." That is the manner in which one who wishes to force the data to fit the theory would be expected to speak.
Pleos
11-06-2006, 10:30 AM
Atheism is a philosophical belief that god does not exist.
Evolution is a scientific theory that claims that all life on earth shares common ancestry. It does not require god nor does it exclude god. This is no different than Newton's laws of gravity. People objected to these too initially because they considered heavenly bodies to be moved by god. The idea that the heavens were similar to earth was repulsive.
Creationism is the claim that Genesis is scientifically accurate. It requires god to exist and play a hands on roll in the creation of the diversity of life.
ID is the claim that life is designed by an intelligent designer. It requires an intelligent designer to exist and play a hands on roll in the creation of the diversity of life.
ID is essentially a very generalized version of Creationism such that it is a subset of Creationism and thus not only compatible with it, if you are a Creationist you MUST be an IDer (but not necessarily the other way around.)
Evolution and atheism are nothing like this. Atheism is unscientific for one. There have also been atheists LONG before the theory of evolution was proposed. There are atheists alive today who do not accept evolution. There are plenty of scientists of all religions who have contributed significantly to evolutionary theory. Without the contribution of Christians evolution simply wouldn't be what it is today.
Ironically, I was an agnostic who did not believe in evolution. I found it simply impossible to believe. I was convinced that it was true by a Catholic with a PhD in Biology (this was a long process.)
Petr: I strongly suspect you deny evolution outright because it is incompatible with a literal interpretation of Genesis. So what's the point of creating these threads? You have no intentions of having an honest dialogue with anybody who might disagree with you. You have a gazillion of these threads open where you have not addressed your opponents concerns.
So what's the point of creating threads on this topic in a philosophy forum when you are impossible to confront on the issue? It's a waste of everybody's time.
So what's the point of creating these threads? You have no intentions of having an honest dialogue with anybody who might disagree with you. You have a gazillion of these threads open where you have not addressed your opponents concerns.
So what's the point of creating threads on this topic in a philosophy forum when you are impossible to confront on the issue? It's a waste of everybody's time.
Not true, I have addressed very specific concerns of my opponents for very many issues, but my life is simply too short address immediately in detail every soundbite that evos throw my way.
And I will keep spreading information that evo-fanatics will find inconvenient. Even if one reader out of thousand will see through Satan's lies thanks to me, it will have been worth it.
Petr
Pleos
11-06-2006, 10:59 AM
As I said, you have open threads on this topic. Why create more? If you are short on time then don't create these and instead show your opponents a little respect and consider and address their concerns in an honest and reserved manner.
ie, not calling them "evos/evo-fanatics," associating them with Satan, or flat out ignoring their responses.
And I will keep spreading information that evo-fanatics will find inconvenient. Even if one reader out of thousand will see through Satan's lies thanks to me, it will have been worth it.
Then clearly what you are doing is spamming this forum in an attempt to gain conversions. You apparently do just enough to keep from having your posts locked by the moderators. A person incapable of taking his opponents arguments seriously is too intellectually immature for this forum. Your posts bring the quality of the forum down and waste the time of other posters.
Perhaps you should create a Creationist site to inform the public and use google Adwords to get traffic to your site. This forum is not for the purpose you are using it for, and if it is, then I have no interest in posting here. I don't have time to wade through and spend time considering and typing out a thoughtful response to posts by individuals that have no interest in rational discourse.
Then clearly what you are doing is spamming this forum in an attempt to gain conversions. You apparently do just enough to keep from having your posts locked by the moderators. A person incapable of taking his opponents arguments seriously is too intellectually immature for this forum. Your posts bring the quality of the forum down and waste the time of other posters.
Listen greenhorn, I'm a veteran on this forum. I don't have take any lectures from newcomers like you. :rofl:
(Creationism is also only one of my several areas of interest.)
Petr
I find the way you phrase the matter odd. Instead of saying "I find such-and-such a position to be inconsistent with the data," you call it "selling out" or "compromising."
I am
a) using humorous language,
b) speaking from a creationist point of view. IDers themselves may not view themselves as middle-of-the-roaders, and they certainly are what they are because they find the Darwinian dogma intellectually unsatisfying.
c) even Darwinists see "theistic evolutionists" as pathetic compromisers. Theo-evos in turn react to their ridicule more or less in "thank you sir, may I have another"-spirit.
Petr
Stick to the Facts
11-06-2006, 04:20 PM
And this simply isn't so - creationists have their own organizations, and are actually often scolding IDers for being too soft on evolution, and ready for compromises.
In our point of view, theistic evolutionists are pathetic sellouts, IDers are the moderate center and creationists are the hard core old school.
Petr
Do you believe that the earth is the center of the universe, and that the sun and moon move around it, and the stars are little holes in a big dark shell that surrounds the earth outside the moon and the sun? Because that's what the bible says - ie that the heavens are a 'firmament.' And in Galileo's time it was heresy to believe otherwise. Sound familiar?
If you don't believe this, why not?
Do you believe Noah brought 2 of every single animal on a boat built with 4000BC technology? If not, why not?
Stick to the Facts
11-06-2006, 04:24 PM
Not true, I have addressed very specific concerns of my opponents for very many issues, but my life is simply too short address immediately in detail every soundbite that evos throw my way.
And I will keep spreading information that evo-fanatics will find inconvenient. Even if one reader out of thousand will see through Satan's lies thanks to me, it will have been worth it.
Petr
If evolution is all on account of "Satan's lies", why did he wait until the 19th century to spring the trap? Couldn't he have at least started spreading rumors a few thousands years ago?
Furthermore, if they are "Satan's lies", then you have to give satan a heck of a lot more credit than god when it comes to hard work - satan has been busy winning over all of the best minds in the scientific community, and all god did is make Moses write a few lines in a book.
Stick to the Facts
11-06-2006, 04:27 PM
I am
a) using humorous language,
b) speaking from a creationist point of view. IDers themselves may not view themselves as middle-of-the-roaders, and they certainly are what they are because they find the Darwinian dogma intellectually unsatisfying.
c) even Darwinists see "theistic evolutionists" as pathetic compromisers. Theo-evos in turn react to their ridicule more or less in "thank you sir, may I have another"-spirit.
Petr
I've never heard of any 'darwinists' seeing 'theistic evolutionists' as pathetic compromisers, could you please provide a cite?
As far as I know a lot of creationists are religious. I guess I'll learn what's going on when I see the cite you will no doubt provide.
Do you believe that the earth is the center of the universe, and that the sun and moon move around it, and the stars are little holes in a big dark shell that surrounds the earth outside the moon and the sun? Because that's what the bible says - ie that the heavens are a 'firmament.' And in Galileo's time it was heresy to believe otherwise. Sound familiar?
If you don't believe this, why not?
Do you believe Noah brought 2 of every single animal on a boat built with 4000BC technology? If not, why not?
This thread is not about (your crude and erronous) Biblical interpretation. Evos always try to move the discussion that way to draw attention from their own deficiencies.
For metaphysical ponderings, see this thread:
"From an empirical science point of view evolution is problematic. There are, in fact, several significant problems with evolution. But from a religious point of view evolution can be said to be a fact. Evolutionists argue that God would never have created this world, and so evolution must be true. "
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=14702&highlight=cornelius
Petr
I've never heard of any 'darwinists' seeing 'theistic evolutionists' as pathetic compromisers, could you please provide a cite?
Here something for starters:
How pro-Darwin Catholic biochemist Ken Miller came to be hated one fifth as much as non-Darwin Catholic biochemist Michael Behe
http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13061&highlight=theistic
It is very obvious that people like Dawkins or PZ Myers look upon "theistic evolutionists" with enormous condescension, like children who don't have intellectual courage to make obvious conclusions from their held premises. People to whom spirituality is just an emotional crutch.
Petr
Helios Panoptes
11-06-2006, 07:09 PM
a) using humorous language,
I see. I've interacted with you enough times that I know that when you're being humorous, you usually include an emoticon. I am not arguing that you are lying, mind you; I'm pointing out the reason for the misunderstanding.
b) speaking from a creationist point of view. IDers themselves may not view themselves as middle-of-the-roaders, and they certainly are what they are because they find the Darwinian dogma intellectually unsatisfying.
This thread has not established that there is a difference between ID and creationism, in practice. You've alluded to IDers who do not predicate their beliefs on a Biblical foundation, and I have agreed that there are such people in existence, but you have yet to establish that the ID movements with which we are familiar aren't neo-creationist. While granting that monitoring the activities of creationist movements is not something I do carefully, I could point you to, for instance, the ID Movement in the US(Philip Johnson's) to show neo-creationists posing as "IDers."
c) even Darwinists see "theistic evolutionists" as pathetic compromisers. Theo-evos in turn react to their ridicule more or less in "thank you sir, may I have another"-spirit.
Well, they believe that a purely naturalistic explanation is sufficient. There is a difference between rejecting a hypothesis because it is not parsimonious and complaining that others have sold out to the enemy.
While granting that monitoring the activities of creationist movements is not something I do carefully, I could point you to, for instance, the ID Movement in the US(Philip Johnson's) to show neo-creationists posing as "IDers."
You shouldn't parrot anti-ID propaganda. "Creationism" means something quite specifically Biblical, not just vague pro-theism or anti-atheism.
Petr
Helios Panoptes
11-06-2006, 07:25 PM
You shouldn't parrot anti-ID propaganda. "Creationism" means something quite specifically Biblical, not just vague pro-theism or anti-atheism.
Petr
The objective (of the Wedge Strategy) is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus
Proceedings of the Darwinism: Scientific Inference or Philosophical Preference?, 1992
From this quote(and surely others), I am justified in believing that this movement is motivated by Biblical Christianity, not the dispassionate observation that the current theory does not fit the data.
Proceedings of the Darwinism: Scientific Inference or Philosophical Preference?, 1992
From this quote(and surely others), I am justified in believing that this movement is motivated by Biblical Christianity, not the dispassionate observation that the current theory does not fit the data.
Phillip Johnson is a Christian apologist, I'll grant you that. But he is just one guy among many.
Many famous Darwinists are intimately connected to humanistic and anti-religious organizations as well. Again, are they just atheist ideologues in scientific guise? Away with double standards.
Petr
Helios Panoptes
11-06-2006, 08:51 PM
Phillip Johnson is a Christian apologist, I'll grant you that. But he is just one guy among many.
Many famous Darwinists are intimately connected to humanistic and anti-religious organizations as well. Again, are they just atheist ideologues in scientific guise? Away with double standards.
Be that as it may, you must agree that there is a salient distinction between an individual who is an atheist and an evolutionary theorist, and one who explicitly states that the reason for his rejection of evolution is its conflict with the Bible. Biologists do not argue that part of their theory's strength is its profound atheism, whereas IDers/creationists/etc. are often quoted expressing their religious motivations.
Be that as it may, you must agree that there is a salient distinction between an individual who is an atheist and an evolutionary theorist, and one who explicitly states that the reason for his rejection of evolution is its conflict with the Bible.
And the latter would be a creationist, not IDer.
This is annoying, you refuse to recognize a clear difference and listen instead to stupid left-wing propaganda about IDers being undercover creationists.
Biologists do not argue that part of their theory's strength is its profound atheism,
To begin with, Darwinism is not synonymous with "biology" or "science."
And most Darwinists won't do this because they want hide it from their great audience. More arrogant ones are beginning to openly admit that their paradigm, when consistently applied, would inevitably lead to atheism and worldview of purposelessness. Dawkins has said that Darwin made it possible to be an "intellectually fulfilled atheist."
Darwin’s real message: have you missed it?
"Gould argues that Darwin’s theory is inherently anti-plan, anti-purpose, anti-meaning (in other words, is pure philosophical materialism). Also, that Darwin himself knew this very well and meant it to be so."
"Darwin knew, and virtually all the world’s foremost students of his idea know, that belief in his concept quite simply spells materialism with a capital ‘M’. The idea of no designer, no purpose, no guiding intelligence, no progressive plan — these are not afterthoughts to Darwin’s evolution, but form the very core of it. Accept Darwin’s ‘baby’, and this ‘bathwater’ has a nasty habit of coming along, as the drastic decline in belief among evolution-compromising churches attests."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/darwin.asp
Petr
Helios Panoptes
11-06-2006, 10:02 PM
And the latter would be a creationist, not IDer.
This is annoying, you refuse to recognize a clear difference and listen instead to stupid left-wing propaganda about IDers being undercover creationists.
Is it not true that Philip Johnson calls himself an IDer? I would be highly naive to believe that those who declare themselves "IDers" are not motivated by a conflict between biological evolution and their religious beliefs. Some IDers(the best known, most vocal ones in this country and probably the world, in fact) are explicit about the role the Bible plays in their opposition to evolution. They're self-described IDers.
To begin with, Darwinism is not synonymous with "biology" or "science."
I know. I did not say that the words were synonymous. "Physics" is not synonymous with "science" or "general relativity," either.
And most Darwinists won't do this because they want hide it from their great audience. More arrogant ones are beginning to openly admit that their paradigm, when consistently applied, would inevitably lead to atheism and worldview of purposelessness. Dawkins has said that Darwin made it possible to be an "intellectually fulfilled atheist."
We are talking right past one another. I did not say that evolution was not capable of being materialistic. I said that, unlike IDers/creationists, evolutionary theorists do not base their adherence to the theory on their religious convictions, or lack thereof. Biologists do not argue that the reason why evolution is true is that it allows one to reject theism. Iders/creationists do say that the reason for their opposition to evolution is because it contradicts their theistic beliefs.
Pleos
11-07-2006, 10:14 AM
Then clearly what you are doing is spamming this forum in an attempt to gain conversions. You apparently do just enough to keep from having your posts locked by the moderators. A person incapable of taking his opponents arguments seriously is too intellectually immature for this forum. Your posts bring the quality of the forum down and waste the time of other posters
Listen greenhorn, I'm a veteran on this forum. I don't have take any lectures from newcomers like you. :rofl:
(Creationism is also only one of my several areas of interest.)
Petr
You're out of line taking that tone with me. What I said applies universally to people of all post counts defending any position.
You clearly are here to wage war on Satan, not to engage in rational discourse. You are incapable of considering your opponents position and thus you can't possibly get anything out of these threads. Helios, and other posters, are explaining things to you all over again that you have been corrected on in open threads that you have not replied to. What a waste of time. Perhaps you contribute to the forum in a respectable manner on other topics, but your posts concerning evolution are utterly worthless.
Also, your posts do not have the effect you think. You cannot net 1 in 1000 conversions to your religion via such a dishonest approach. You may strengthen the feelings of people who already share your views, and you may waste the time of those who dare disagree with you, but ultimately behavior like yours pushes more fence sitters towards evolution.
I know you sincerely think your fight against what you perceive as the work of Satan will improve the course of mankind. You are either grossly dishonest, have significantly below average intelligence, are mentally ill, or a little from columns A, B and C.
<flame deleted>
Stick to the Facts
11-07-2006, 10:47 AM
This thread is not about (your crude and erronous) Biblical interpretation. Evos always try to move the discussion that way to draw attention from their own deficiencies.
I don't think you have a good answer for your inconsistent beliefs, do you? Why not believe evolution, whereas you will believe the earth goes around th sun? What's the difference? Both of them contradict the bible, so why is one ok and not the other?
For metaphysical ponderings, see this thread:
"From an empirical science point of view evolution is problematic. There are, in fact, several significant problems with evolution. But from a religious point of view evolution can be said to be a fact. Evolutionists argue that God would never have created this world, and so evolution must be true. "
This last part is, of course, patently false. You are projecting creationism onto evolution. Evolution doesn't say "god couldn't have created this world, so let's look for something else that might explain it." Rather it says "lets look at the empirical evidence and try to find a model that both explains it and is capable of predicting results of other experiments." (And yes, despite what you post here, evolution has had predictions verified.)
Creationists, on the other hand, say "god must have created this world, so let's find a way to explain everything that is consistent with this."
Tell me this - is there any model for the creation of the world, or universe, or mankind, that you would accept that didn't involve god in some way? No? Then you are no scientist because you always put the conclusion first and then look for "evidence" that fits that pre-formed conclusion.
You clearly are here to wage war on Satan, not to engage in rational discourse.
I will use colorful, expressive language (like words "God" or "Satan") if I like. I refuse to play by the rules of secularists and follow their decorum that mandates people to keep their religious opinions to themselves.
And only a bigoted secularist would automatically assume that it is impossible for a same person to wage war against Satan and argue rationally.
Also, your posts do not have the effect you think. You cannot net 1 in 1000 conversions to your religion via such a dishonest approach. You may strengthen the feelings of people who already share your views, and you may waste the time of those who dare disagree with you, but ultimately behavior like yours pushes more fence sitters towards evolution.
You know nothing about me or the impact I've had, newbie. :rolleyes:
Petr
I don't think you have a good answer for your inconsistent beliefs, do you? Why not believe evolution, whereas you will believe the earth goes around th sun? What's the difference? Both of them contradict the bible, so why is one ok and not the other?
I might as well argue for geocentrism, but I see no urgent Biblical need for it:
Husserl's Argumentation for the Pre-Copernican View of the Earth
"Yet, it has been claimed that the dispute between the Ptolemaic and Copernican views was never really solved within natural science. Fred Hoyle states in his book Nicolaus Copernicus that
[t]oday [1973] we cannot say that the Copernican theory is 'right' and Ptolemaic theory 'wrong' in any meaningful physical sense. The two theories are . . . physically equivalent to one another."
The two views are really two different ways of arranging the same data. In fact, by acknowledging this, one actually enters into the gates of the theory of relativity."
http://www.redorbit.com/news/display?id=143062&source=r_science
Anyways, you read statements about things like Biblical firmament with wooden literalism. I would be the first one to admit that the Bible uses highly poetic language about many things, especially in prophetic books. Here's some antidote:
http://tektonics.org/af/earthshape.html
This last part is, of course, patently false. You are projecting creationism onto evolution.
Did you even read the article? Many anti-creationists do indeed point at supposed defects in this world, like all the suffering, and ask "would a loving God have really created a world like this"?
Petr
http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/blog/ej_klone/an_atheist_in_support_of_id
An atheist in support of ID
In the scientific debate over the origins and patterns of life over the years, it is often claimed that evolution is propped up by atheists, and ID is propped up by theists alone. There are theists in support of evolution, but what about atheists who support ID? I'm one.
I wanted to get this right out there, seeing how this is a new community and I plan to contribute as much as I can to shape the discussion. Over the next month, I hope to elaborate more on my positions (and lack of positions) on Evo/ID issues, but the first one I wanted to bring up for everyone's mutual digestion is the pidgeon-holing of the debate into religious terms.
First, I would like to object to the statements made by non-believers that ID amounts to nothing more than a religious argument dressed up in scientific language. Information theory, biochemistry, and engineering - these are hardly religious concepts. Fields such as Archaeology can conclude that design has taken place, in the case of human artifacts, but the keep-away-from-biology wagon-circle that they put up to design detection methods reveals that they are afraid of theism leaking into biology. Why?
ID proponents are currently mostly religious, and currently mostly Christians. This is to be expected because of the origins of the theory. If ID was formulated in Saudi Arabia, we would be debating the islamic origins of ID, and if it was invented in Atheist/Communist China, the debate would be of a whole different flavor.
...
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.