Cryptic Ichthus

An excellent essay by Mike Gene for readers' consideration:
"Intelligent Design Creationism"

http://www.idthink.net/back/idc/

"There is one good thing about the term "Intelligent Design Creationism." Those who use the term to make sense of this debate give themselves away as being biased and incapable of considering this debate objectively.
When one relies on stereotypes to inform their opinions about issues, it is fairly safe to say that you are dealing with a mindset that thinks the issues have been resolved and we should move on to labeling and fighting people who got it wrong. After all, is it a coincidence that every one who uses the term "Intelligent Design Creationism" also just happens to think that ID is nonsense?"

FL

I think a good test of whether or not one is an Intelligent Design Creationist is whether or not they cite evolution itself as evidence for intelligent design. For the special creationist in ID clothing, evolution (beyond a certain trivial level) is anathema, no matter how intelligent it would be to design species with the ability to adapt to changing and hostile conditions. For the person who believes in Intelligent Design, without any a priori obligation to special creationist dogma, the design of evolution itself could and should form the core of the case for ID. Hence, systematic bias against the intelligent design of evolution is a good indicator of whether one is an Intelligent Design Creationist.

1: the act of creating;esp: the act of bringing the world into ordered existence

Horsehocky. My edition of Webster's defines creation as 1: the act of creating;esp: the act of bringing the world into ordered existence So, does this or does this not sound like the argument from design that the ID creationists use? ID is a subset of creationism. We should not let them play semantic tricks to deny their history, let alone their intent.

I think Dembski is correct. "Intelligent Design Creationist" is obviously a name chosen with hostility towards the ID program in mind (even if the users feel that hostility is justified since the program consists entirely of dishonest PR spinmeistering.)

That is why I use the value-neutral, baggage-free terms "Dembskiist" and "Dembskiism."

"Dembskiism" accurately denotes the ground-breaking work of the Isaac Newton of Information Theory which is the mathematical basis for all the scientific discoveries made by ID and the practical applications thereof.

Furthermore, when discussing the subject with the general public, using "Dembskiism" allows one to avoid the confusingly vague term "Intelligent Design", which many might mistakenly think had something to do with industrial engineering or interior decorating. Or with Creationism, for that matter, since Creationists propose an Intelligent Designer too.

So, using this very same definition, y'all should be labeling theistic evolutionists as "creationists" just as often as you do with ID advocates. Why are y'all not doing so? Hmmmm?

I dunno, Flint. I think I understand what you're saying there, but all the same, I clearly do NOT see PT evolutionists attaching the specific labels "creationism" or "creationists" whenever they use the terms "theistic evolution" or "theistic evolutionists" in their posts and threads.

In contrast (~highly visible~ contrast, I might add), you can clearly see the labels "creationism" or "creationists" attached to the term "Intelligent
Design" very often around here, nearly all the time in fact, by PT's pro-evolution posters.

Using Frank Schmidt's Webster-definition of "creation", however, there appears to be no rational reason for such a double-standard among PT pro-evolution posters.

Therefore, PT pro-evolution posters should be publicly labeling theistic evolution (-ists) as "creationism (-ists)" just as often as they do Intelligent Design and ID advocates.

But, as I look at various threads and posts, PT evolutionists are clearly NOT doing so. My question remains, why? Why the double standard on the part of pro-evolution posters?

FL

FL:

I don't see this double standard, but I'll try not to assume you are playing semantic hide-and-seek. The term "creationists" is used very consistently here, to describe those who do NOT accept that current life forms evolved from some common ancestor, and do NOT accept that the theory of evolution adequately describes the mechanism by which this happened. In general, it's not really expected that anyone who denies that something happened at all, would turn around and accept an explanation for what they deny happened.

And by this usage, theistic evolutionists aren't creationists. If you visit the ARN board, you will find that while not every Officially Approved Poster wears his faith in Christ on his sleeve, they are united by a common rejection of the theory of evolution, generally considered as random mutation plus natural selection. I personally wouldn't consider some of these people creationists.

There are also some people who regard complex adaptive systems as inherently creative and as having some non-embodied emergent "intelligence" in some general sense. These people aren't creationists either, though they might state that evolutionary processes create new life forms (technically true).

So what distinguishes intelligent design are the underlying assumptions about the methods used by the intelligent designer. If that designer is implicitly assumed to be a single quasi-human agent whose activities violate the theory of evolution, then whoever takes this position meets the usage of "creationist" as it is found here (and nearly everywhere else).

So I think you are attempting to sow confusion where none exists. There is no double standard. Anyone who believes in a "designer" or "creator" who uses evolution as commonly understood as the means of design and creation simply does not qualify for the term "creationist" as applied. We could probably substitute "evolution-rejector" and almost nobody involved in the entire issue would have to change places in any way.

IDists are creationists in a stronger sense than just believing in God creating the universe. Many traditional evolutionists and other scientists believe that -- although they would typically say it is an extra-scientific conclusion, not something you would teach in a high school science class. IDists are all, at a minimum, "special creationists" who believe that God has periodically intervened and "poofed" things existence during the history of life -- organisms, IC structures, and/or "information".

They won't say it, but these all involve violations of the laws of thermodynamics -- conservation of mass/energy is obviously violated in most cases, and even merely rearranging molecules in a DNA chain would require expenditure of energy. In other words, extremely reliable physical laws are discarded arbitrarily by IDists based on a few flaky claims of "gaps" in their misunderstanding of evolution. This, I suspect, is part of why physicists so often rush to the defense of the biologists.

So, using this very same definition, y'all should be labeling theistic evolutionists as "creationists" just as often as you do with ID advocates. Why are y'all not doing so? Hmmmm?

Finally, the alert reader of IDtheFuture will note that in the blog's header (reproduced below) there appears to be the not-very-well hidden icon of persecuted early Christianity, the Icthus, complete with pectoral fins and right eye.

Found on a search and had to share.

With all sincere (?) apologies to G & S:

I am the very model of the Modern Fundigelical,
"It's Information!" veg'table or animal, not mineral;
I know the men of Science, and I quote their fights historical,
From phlo-giston to quantum hum, in order categorical;
I'm very well acquainted too with matters mathematical,
I coin complex equations, crunching concepts problematical,
Thinking theorems thermo'namical I'm gushing with a glut o' news:
I've fancy alleged finds about new legs to that hypotenuse.
I'm very good at integral and differential probabling,
I know some scientific names of beings fornicabaling;
In short, in matters veg'table or animal, not mineral,
I bring my background prejudice as Modern Fundigelical.

I know my mythic history, Saint Anslem's and Sir Caradoc's,
I answer hard acrostics, I've developed taste for paradox.
I quote in elegiacs all the crimes of Science savers' suss,
Not noting Nature's vile peculiarities Diabolus.
I see specified complexity in Dada art and Zoffanies,
Not hearing chorus croaking from "The Frogs" by Aristophanes.
Then I can write a laundry list in Babylonic cuneiform,
And calculate the hist'ry of flagella's micro-uniforms;
Thus I can claim a case for which I've "done the probability,"
And whistle all the airs of "Irreducible Complexity."
In short, in matters veg'table or animal, not mineral,
I "count the information" a la Modern Fundigelical.

In fact, when I know what is meant by "deductin' " and "product'in ",
When I can tell at sight where Life's great Treeform felt God's Javelin,
When such affairs as theories and discov'ries I'm more wary at,
When I know more precisely what is meant by "lab'ratoriat?",
When I have learnt what progress has been made in modern scienc-ries,
When I grasp my genetics more than novices in nunneries;
In short, when I've a smattering of elemental bio-gy,
You'll cry "No Greater Fundigelical has Ever Lived than Thee!"

See my scientary knowledge, though I'm plucky and adventury,
Had only been brought down from a late date of the last century;
But still in matters veg'table or animal, not mineral,
I'll push NonInformation like a Modern Fundigelical!!

"My edition of Webster's defines creation as

1: the act of creating;esp: the act of bringing the world into ordered existence"

verified. even the latest edition (online) uses the same definition as its primary definition.

does anyone else find this to be an odd primary definition of the word creation?

certainly not the definition that springs to mind in everyday conversation, is it?

The Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe.

The being believed in monotheistic religions such as Judaism, Islam, and Christianity to be the all-powerful all-knowing creator of the universe, worshiped as the only god.

My first brilliant insight of the year:

Notice how IDists differ on many of what would appear to be central tenets of their worldview? If you don't like YEC, we're old-earth. But it's ok if you're young-earth too. Christian? Atheist? All ok. Makes it hard to boil ID down to its essence. With apologies to 50 million American Catholics, I've got a name for this....

Cafeteria Creationism!

Whaddya think?

"Are you aware that Merriam Webster's is owned by the Church of Christ, Scientist?"

no, i wasn't!

However, it now seems logical in retrospect. thanks for the tip.

cheers

hmm. double checking on that produces no mention of CCS in ownership.

rather, as of 1996, it shows it as being owned by the Benton Foundation (as part of Encycopedia Brittanica, Inc., and subsequently sold to an investment group led by Jacob Safra. As of at least 1999, this was still the case.

did this change? I sure couldn't find any reference to it. do you have the link to documentation showing the changeover?

or are you just pulling my leg for kicks?

btw, safra is Jewish.

http://shemayisrael.co.il/orgs/ozar/safra.htm

:)

So, using this very same definition, y’all should be labeling theistic evolutionists as “creationists” just as often as you do with ID advocates. Why are y’all not doing so? Hmmmm?

"Creationism", in everyday usage, tends to mean one of two things: It can either mean the beliefs subscribed to by those who call themselves creationists, or it can mean the socio-political movement engaged in by those who call themselves creationists. As for the latter, the connections between ID and creationism are so thorough that it's hardly worth trying to separate them into separate movements. ID is in fact a form of creationism by this usage, and it would be dishonest for its proponents to deny it.

As for the first usage, it's not always clear what "creationism" entails. I generally consider one who believes in special creation of "kinds" of organisms to be a "creationist". So someone who believes in common descent, like Michael Behe, is not a creationist. However, someone who rejects common descent, like Phillip Johnson, is. Keep in mind that this definition is more or less arbitrary, but I think it's the most useful. According to this definition, most leading members of the ID movement are creationists, and that probably includes Dembski.

Whatever the case, it's clear that for all of their whining at being likened to creationists, the ID movement has consistenly forged alliances with traditional creationists, and steadfastly refused to take any action or make any statement denouncing creationism, including the young-Earth variety, as scientifically incorrect. So even if we assume that IDists are not creationists, whatever we mean by the term, it is their own fault that such ambiguity exists to begin with.

Cafeteria Creationism! Whaddya think?

— moioci

Finally, the alert reader of IDtheFuture will note that in the blog's header (reproduced below) there appears to be the not-very-well hidden icon of persecuted early Christianity, the Icthus, complete with pectoral fins and right eye. An extraordinary coincidence, if it accidentally emerged from the design.

— Matt Brauer

Cafeteria Creationism! Whaddya think?

"Dembskiism" is too close to "Lysenkoism" for my taste. Plus, it's unfair to Bill, I hope.

I don't see this double standard, but I'll try not to assume you are playing semantic hide-and-seek.

The term "creationists" is used very consistently here, to describe those who do NOT accept that current life forms evolved from some common ancestor, and do NOT accept that the theory of evolution adequately describes the mechanism by which this happened.

If you visit the ARN board, you will find that while not every Officially Approved Poster wears his faith in Christ on his sleeve, they are united by a common rejection of the theory of evolution, generally considered as random mutation plus natural selection. I personally wouldn't consider some of these people creationists.

When (Kenneth) Miller tries to drag God and Darwin to the bargaining table (by finding design or purpose underlying the laws of physics), his sense of proportion or probability abandons him, and he himself proves to be just another "God of the Gaps" creationist. That is, he joins Phillip Johnson, William Dembski, and company in seizing upon the not-yet-explained as if it must be a locus of intentional action by the Christian deity. -----UC professor Frederick Crews, New York Review of Books, 10-18-2001

So I think you are attempting to sow confusion

What that tells me, then, is that there exists no single, uniform, consistent definition of a "creationist".

...What that tells me, then, is that there exists uo single, uniform, consistent definition of a "creationist". In fact, the arbritrariness by which y'all Darwinists (collectively speaking) are labeling folks as "creationists"

— FL

"Creationism" has come to accurately label people who are united in their belief that whatever Darwin said, Darwin was wrong. That belief is shared by the traditional young-Earth creationists and the modern ID creationists. That belief is not shared by anyone who understands evolution.

"What that tells me, then, is that there exists uo single, uniform, consistent definition of a "creationist". "

it's very simple, really, those of us who are tired of trolls attempt to lump them under one guise so it's easier to address them.

since you have convinced us you are not a troll, you get to label yourself.

I see no difference between the logic here, and on any other forum i have EVER pariticipated in.

you are assumed to be a troll, until you can prove otherwise.

trying to extrapolate forum behavior into a general consesus statement is a bit like trying to claim the internet is entirely reflective of all of human society.

can someone please point out the relative value of this discussion of nomenclature?

What that tells me, then, is that there exists no single, uniform, consistent definition of a "creationist".

I accept the theory of evolution, and I also consider myself a creationist. I am not ashamed of this label because it rightly represents my faith. Why should I be afraid of such a label? I would be, if I were put on the spot to show that my faith is based on science.

Those who would avoid it, on the one hand would like to see a cultural revolution that is anti-science and anti-secular world-view, yet they deny that they are motivated by their faith. Isn't their addmitted goal to challange a natural methodology in science? Then why shy away from admitting that they seek the supernatural?

Personally, I call them whatever they want to be called, and leave it at that. But it doesn't seem mean-spirited to call them creationists, nor unreasonable. It certainly would be no insult to me to be called a creationist, since I do not consider myself obligated to prove my position.

I don't know if that helps anyone on the thread, but I don't really see what the fuss is about, why not just call them whatever the heck they want to be called? (except for science, of course.) It doesn't make the case against their reasoning any easier or more difficult to make.

Since ID was created as a disguise to sneak creationism past the supreme court, Intelligent Design Creationism is a perfectly suitable name, as is just Creationism, or CryptoCreationist.

Bill Dembski's laborious books are efforts to impress laymen as technical, scientific treatises. It dosen't matter to him when David Wolpert points out fundamental mistakes in the argument. Scientists are not really his audience.

I hope Dover becomes the test case for ID. I will be interested in what the DI types do when their charade is legally unmasked. What will they do? Change names again? Advocate for private schools?

I used to work from Britannica. Britannica and M-W are indeed owned by Jacqui Safra, unless something has changed since 2001.

"Wow", said Zaphod Beeblebrox to the Heart of Gold. There wasn't much else he could say. He said it again because he knew it would annoy the press. "Wow." The crowd turned their faces back towards him expectantly. He winked at Trillian who raised her eyebrows and widened her eyes at him. She knew what he was about to say and thought him a terrible showoff. "That is really amazing," he said. "That really is truly amazing. That is so amazingly amazing I think I'd like to steal it."

"What will they do? Change names again? Advocate for private schools?"

seems likely, given the push for vouchers.

Try as he might to distance himself from the "creationist" label, Bill Dembski has made it clear in his own writings that he and his ideas are grounded in the creationist movement and are an extension of that movement. When I read statements from Bill Dembskis' reply to Henry Morris in INTELLIGENT DESIGN'S CONTRIBUTION TO THE DEBATE OVER EVOLUTION: A REPLY TO HENRY MORRIS http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.02.Reply_to_Henry_Morris.htm such as "By contrast, much of my own work on intelligent design has been filling in the details of these otherwise intuitive, pretheoretic ideas of creationists" or "I've focused here on my own contributions to ID. But the work of my ID colleagues falls in this same pattern of, on the one hand, refurbishing old ideas and, on the other, charting new research paths." it becomes clear that the title "creationist" is well deserved.

"I used to work from Britannica. Britannica and M-W are indeed owned by Jacqui Safra, unless something has changed since 2001."

which leaves the question hanging:

why the odd emphasis on religious definitions for some terms?

perhaps that is the way websters originally defined the terms, and subsequent definitions were just "tacked" on?

I'm actually beginning to think it might be important, especially given the prevalence of the use of definitions from dictionaries in many discussions.

cheers

My question is, "Should we call them 'Intelligent Design Creationists' or just plan 'creationists'?" The word "design" seems redundant when used with "creationists" and I sure wouldn't want to call them "intelligent creationists."

Remember, when it comes from me, it's a marketing question and this is a marketing issue.

William Dembski has reminded us that the emerging Intelligent Design movement has a four pronged approach to defeating naturalism: (1) A scientific/philosophical critique of naturalism; (2) a positive scientific research program (Intelligent Design) for investigating the effects of intelligent causes; (3) rethinking every field of inquiry infected with naturalism and reconceptualizing it in terms of design; (4) development of a theology of nature by relating the intelligence inferred by intelligent design to the God of Scripture (Moreland 1999, citing Dembski 1998.

So under those circumstances, I'm kinda left wondering, yet again, why PT pro-evolution folks consistently, nearly always, attach the "creationism" label to Intelligent Design and its advocates. 

— FL

(Hopefully PT posters took time to seriously think about what Mike Gene said.)

— FL

At this point, the critics of ID often attempt a sociological argument, pointing to the religious beliefs of those in the "ID Movement." This is a way to rationalize one's transference. The erroneous "guilt by association" argument is then used to paint any ID proponent in similar light. It is understandable why many ID critics would want to focus on the "movement," as the intellectual concept proposing that some aspect(s) of life are intelligently designed is much more difficult to oppose than erecting arguments that have the flavor of old fashioned conspiracy theories, complete with concerns about the "motivations" of the "ID Creationists."

— Mike Gene

look it really is simple.

science does not need ID to explain any "gaps". we do just fine without it, thankyou.

so, any motivation for purporting ID is necessesary can't come from any thought it will be a "contribution to science" as Dembski claims.

So what motivation is left? only religious ones.

by definition, ID is "intelligent design". If the only real motivations behind its support are religious ones, how is that not essentially creationism?

it's like stacking denial upon denial upon denial.

I keep wondering when the denial stacks up high enough, will it crush creationists?

but then, i guess denial doesn't weigh anything.

calling an IDer a creationist simply keeps the true motivation in mind.

Order of Senses The order of senses within an entry is historical: the sense known to have been first used in English is entered first. This is not to be taken to mean, however, that each sense of a multisense word developed from the immediately preceding sense. It is altogether possible that sense 1 of a word has given rise to sense 2 and sense 2 to sense 3, but frequently sense 2 and sense 3 may have arisen independently of one another from sense 1.

so then webster does use a historical representation in its dictionary.

okeedokee.

then what about the other dictionaries?

It is understandable why many ID critics would want to focus on the "movement," as the intellectual concept proposing that some aspect(s) of life are intelligently designed is much more difficult to oppose

I know that the Oxford English Dictionary does. In fact, one of the reasons it was created was to discover and display the correct historical order of the senses. See the Wikipedia and the OED website.

what does the oxford dictionary have under "creation"?

Somewhere around here, or at talkorigins (and reproduced in various other places), is the Creationism Scale--the illustration of the spectrum of Creationist beliefs, from flat-earth through geocentric, YEC, OEC, and theistic evolutionism. ID welcomes them all into the "big tent."

If ID is not Creationism, then I have had a revelation--I'm the Intelligent Designer. After all, I've designed many things, but never got around to creating them. But perhaps, now that I have designed those things, they might spontaneously come into being, or even develop naturally from simple chemicals without any effort from me. But I'll take credit fro the designs.

glad to meet you!

now then, i have a few requests...

Grey Wolf,
Re "instead prefering to invent their own unproven assumptions,"

Or borrow someone else's?

Re "and who then pretends there is a conspiracy against him"

Or against disbelievers (in evilution or some parts of it) in general?

Henry

speaking of dembski, I just browsed their new blog IDthePast. For a guy whose attempt at a theory has been obliterated, he's certainly spending a lot of time posting to a blog, instead of trying to repair it. Just reinforces my point that they don't care about making an actual theory--or know it can't be done.

Sorry to be late to the party, but taking seriously Dembski's complaint about being lumped with creationism has about as much value as regarding with his calculation (which I'm sure is derived through mathematics incomprehensible to us mere mortals) of the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin.

What one chooses to call the Johnson/Dembski notion, ID or IDC, really revolves around whether ID is a new species (has speciation/macroevolution occurred?) or just a new generation of the same species. I submit the latter. If you examine ID in its native habitat (in the writings and talks to the faithful, not its laundered public language) it exhibits all the characteristics of creationism:
*Negative attacks on evolution
*Heavy reliance on the argument from personal incredulity
*Mixing of theology and science
*Denial of contrary evidence
*No active research of any sort
*No testable hypotheses offered in support
*Need for god, gods or the supernatural to explain the physical
Examine ID. Strip away the fancy words, elegant clothing, pretentious mathematical mumbo-jumbo, and high-flown rhetoric of Johnson, Behe, Dembski, and the others, one still has creationism, with strong biblical roots. Oh, sure, ID's advocates can't agree on exactly how to interpret those biblical roots (or whether the Earth is young or old) but those biblical roots cannot be denied. They are there in the publications, correspondence, and talks of ID's principals for all to see. They try to hide them but given the evangelical's need to evangelize and to give testament to their faith, they cannot hide or deny their true colors. They must give public testimony to their religious beliefs or they are not true to their faith.

William D*mbski: Intelligent Design Creationist

Has a nice ring to it, I think. Takes away much of the humbug, that is, the humbug that ID is anything but creationism. I like the term Intelligent Design Creationist and I'll use it from now on out.

D*mbski can call himself Yertle the Turtle for all I care, but Intelligent Design Creationist he is from now on.

Finally, I think it's more respectful to the grand and ancient order of clowns to refer to the sect of D*mbski, Behe et al as Intelligent Design Creationists (fully spelled out; why be coy?). Seems to be like salt on a slug which appeals to me in particular!

I don't recall the exact words, but I liked the take of a Scottish columnist on the web today who noted that every time an advocate of ID opens his mouth in support of ID, he undercuts his argument.

"or just a new generation of the same species. I submit the latter."

not only the same species, but i suspect inermarriage among them would produce lethal recessives.

Why not Demdskism and Dembskians if Bill is getting prickly about the label "Intelligent Design Creationism(t)?" Unlike in the case of Darwinism which is a term that is ill-applied to 150 years of scholarship and 1000s of scientists/articles and numberless hours of research, Dembskism and Dembskian is an apt label for a pompously titled bloviation that's nothing but a few presentations, evasive and 'ahamkaric' (OK that is pig-Sanskrit) holding forths, a few by now thoroughly trashed volumes of pseudomathematics of one person. Of course since we have to accord some weightage to factotums - the O'Briens, FLs, Donkey-whatevers, Cordovas, we can once in a while refer to this pseudoscience as O'Brienism, FLism, Cordovism etc.

But before we start the fun here's to the new science of Johnadavisonism.

whatever you call D*mbski, one wrong label is Intelligent Design Theorist. You can't be a theorist, when there's no theory.

btw, it doesn't surprise me that he's become disenchanted with his mathematical attempts. That happened to us years ago.

I just ran across this, and was going to post it in the thread on the Kansas BOE article, but that thread was closed, so...

The Associated Press State & Local Wire

April 12, 2005, Tuesday, BC cycle

HEADLINE: Correction: Evolution Debate story

DATELINE: TOPEKA, Kan.

In an April 8 story about Kansas science standards, The Associated Press reported erroneously that public hearings next month will feature witnesses who advocate teaching intelligent design alongside evolution in public school classrooms. Instead, the witnesses are expected to advocate exposing students to more criticism of evolution, not teaching alternatives to it.

*sigh*

more idiots in the press fall to the doubletalk that is ID.

I weep for the future of the free press, if this is the best the AP can do.

As Steve Reuland pointed out before me, the anger at the term "Intelligent Design Creationism" while condoning and propogating the term "Darwinism" for any who accept evolutionary theory is HIGHLY hypocritical. After all, evolutionary theory has changed considerably in the past century-and-a-half. This point is important because the ID Creationists love to point out that those who follow modern principles in evolution are, in their terms, "Neo-Darwinists".

Sadly, ID Creationism has not. In it, we see simply a rehash of the old Watchmaker fallacy with a few new touches like "irreducible complexity". However, the overall hypothesis is the same and this hasn't changed in around 200 years. While a few ID Creationists may be willing to accept the idea of aliens creating the various forms of life, it is without doubt that the majority still express the concept of God as Creator. (That in itself isn't the problem. The problem is that they believe that they can prove it and contradict evolution with no evidence, experimentation or even predictions based on their "theory". This in itself, I believe, shows the strong religious instead of scientific basis for their claim.)

Intelligent design supporters are anxious to obscure its creationist roots. It's a mistake not to point these out at every available opportunity.

I think the AP retraction i posted above points out they even are willing to obscure that it is anything other than:

"exposing students to more criticism of evolution"

laughable, if it weren't so evil.

I use creationist to refer to any individual who thinks there is scientific evidence that a creator is responsible for some or all aspects of organic life.

I consider "Intelligent Design" to be a particular strain of creationism.

I use creationist to refer to any individual who thinks there is scientific evidence that a creator is responsible for some or all aspects of organic life.

STRANGE THOUGHT OF THE DAY ========================== Sometimes my brain ties together things that are better left alone. Here are three things I've thought about recently: - Microchip designers often embed microscopic messages on the surface of the chip as a way of signing their work. - DNA has a lot of "junk" parts that don't seem to have any function. - A lot of people think evolution is obviously "designed" by someone. I wonder if any cryptographers have looked at that junk DNA to see if it's a message from the designer. I'm guessing that it's a code that says something like, "I am Kaloopah, from the star system Nebulon IV. I have sent this evolution program into space as my eighth grade science project." I imagine that a few thousand years from now, when scientists have learned to manipulate DNA, we'll be launching evolution programs into the cosmos, programmed to seek any planet that has the right environment. The rocket will land and spill its primordial goo, programmed with evolutionary preferences such as gender, eyeballs, limbs, mobility, and the urge to sit in cubicles while complaining about coworkers. Evolution on that new planet would be programmed to develop over a few billion years to resemble us, obviously, because we're spectacularly vain, so we'd write the DNA program to turn out that way. There'd be no point in going to all that trouble just to create the Giant Chipmunk Planet. This doesn't answer the question of who created the original aliens. But I suspect that the only way time can be infinite is if the past connects to the future like some huge Mobius strip-wormhole kind of deal. All you need to make this hypothetical system work is people like us who evolve and create new planets, who in turn evolve and create more new planets, until time loops back to our past and we get created again. In other words, we'd HAVE to evolve to the point where we could create a new planet or else we wouldn't exist in the present. Freaky, huh?

I never use the word "creationist" when referring to the ID-crowd. In fact, I lump the ID-crowd, YECS, etc., under one tent: anti-evolutionists. It would also be perfectly prudent to call them the anti-science crowd.

Not only don't I find that the word "creationist" means the rejection of evolution, more importantly I think using it in this sense is damaging to the dialogue. Not because it is upsetting to Dr. Dembski, but because it implies that one has to choose between creation and evolution. After all, belief in some form of creation naturally follows a belief in God. So when you use "creationists" to describe all evolution deniers, I think there is the danger of alienating any religious people who are just getting to know the arguments.

Please tell me you see the logic, all.

Off-topic, but is Richard Smalley, 1996 Chemistry Laureate, a creationist?
So it would seem in this Tuskegee speech referred to by Dembski.
However, I cannot find any other statement by Smalley deriding evolution.
A Austin Stateman article from around 2002 does have Smalley and his new
wife exploring Christianity, visiting a different church each week; so perhaps
there was a conversion. Otherwise, I think the Tuskegee report is a misquote.
Smalley's many speeches about his concern about science education in America
don't fit in with what is reported.

http://www.tuskegee.edu/Global/story.asp?S=2382961

quote 1

"Why are we here," asked the director of Rice University's Carbon Nanotechnology Laboratory. "Your single greatest challenge is to provide the technology and wealth that will enable the well-being of all of God's children, 10 billion people. Only about 1.5 billion live well today." The bottom percent of Earth's population "lives horrendously. Billions of people really are not involved in modern life."

quote 2

The 1996 Nobel laureate in chemistry  --- who also discussed the longer lifespans of humans as cures and treatments are found for bacterial infections and diseases --- urged the listeners to take seriously their role as the higher species on this planet. Smalley mentioned the ideas of evolution versus creationism, Darwin versus the Bible's "Genesis." The burden of proof, he said, is on those who don't believe that "'Genesis' was right, and there was a creation, and that Creator is still involved.

Katarina

I see your point and agree up to a point. In this context the term "creationist" is very specific and refers to those who advocate biblical literalism, however couched, obscure, obtuse or hidden they want to be. If you read other screeds attributed to D*mbski, Behe, Johnson, and others it's clear that their roots and motives are directly along the lines of conservative, Christian, evangelical, proselytizing, in-your-face fundamentalism, and I'd even go so far as to say "of the American variety" since we don't see efforts to subvert science education in other countries to any great extent.

Creationism appeals to the ignorant; what I would refer to as "B" Ark folks (from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) It explains why school boards in rural areas are more susceptible to this nonsense than, say, in Berkeley.

D*embski, Behe and others certainly aren't ignorant, but they have a definite agenda, purpose and objective. Coupled with huge egos they are perfectly willing to cross the country wrecking or trying to wreck science education as an expression of their desire for control and power.

I think that rational, educated people see creationists, D*mbski, Behe and others for what is is and what they are, thus, would not be alienated.

Now, Katarina, I'm really irritated at you for making me break my promise to post ONLY lampoons on this board. If you'll pardon me I must go out and gather more rocks to throw at the Intelligent Design Creationists.

Think you missed my point, bill. I do not disagree with the assessment of Dembski, Behe, Johnson, et al. as creationists. What I am beginning to disagree with is calling anyone who is anti-evolution a creationist.

Draw a van diagram, please. All (or most) anti-evolutionists are indeed also creationists. However, not all creationists are anti-evolutionists. Not by a long shot! Creationism is simply the belief that God had something to do with it, not necessarily that this can be empirically or mathematically demonstrated.

I do not disagree with using the term ID Creationism, because it describes a specific kind of creationism. I disagree with using the term creationism to specifically define anyone who is anti-evolution (whether or not it has been agreed upon here at PT or anywhere else), since the term creationism includes too many people who are not anti-evolution.

Dr. Dembski, you are such a card! If you will open "Darwin on Trial" by Phillip E. Johnson to page 4 and look at footnote 1 at the bottom of the page, you can see what Professor Johnson, the Father of ID, has to say about ID and creationism:

1 Clearing up confusion requires a careful and consistent use of terms. In this book, "creation-science" refers to young-earth, six day special creation. "Creationism" means belief in creation in a more general sense. Persons who believe that the earth is billions of years old and that simple forms of life evolved gradually to become more complex forms including humans, are "creationists" if they believe that a supernatural Creator not only initiated the process but in some meaningful sense controls it in furtherance of a purpose. As we shall see, "evolution" (in contemporary scientific usage) excludes not just creation-science but creationism in the braad sense. By "Darwinism" I mean fully naturalistic evolution, involving chance mechanisms guided by natural selection.

I mean to say, I disagree with just using "creationist" by itself, without "ID" in front of it. While I do not disagree with attaching "creationist" to "ID," I also do not think it necessary.

All (or most) anti-evolutionists are indeed also creationists. However, not all creationists are anti-evolutionists. Not by a long shot! Creationism is simply the belief that God had something to do with it, not necessarily that this can be empirically or mathematically demonstrated.

Mr. Butler,

There already is such a term, "theistic evolutionist," it is not new. Many people fall into the category. The now-deceased pope certainly did. Some who admit the fact of microevolution (how can they possibly deny it?) do not believe macroevolution follows. This is hollow reasoning, but you could say they too accept evolution to some extent. They certainly think they do. So how do we avoid confusion? By being very specific.

I do not wish to stake out a little portion of the ID/YEC spectrum. They did not get there first, theistic evolutionists were around before the ID movement arose.

Saying "ID creationism," or "YEC creationism," seems the least confusing. Just saying "creationism" is too broad. But since most people usually are specific, I am only making a small point here, there is really no reason for anyone to disagree.

I never use the word "creationist" when referring to the ID-crowd. In fact, I lump the ID-crowd, YECS, etc., under one tent: anti-evolutionists. It would also be perfectly prudent to call them the anti-science crowd.

— Katarina

Ultimately, it seems that the battle is between those who accept that common descent happened, and those who do not (for whatever reason). What's confusing is, it's basically impossible for any knowledgeable person to reject common descent for non-religious reasons -- the evidence is simply too solid and pervasive to reject on rational grounds. The source of rejection on the part of NON-knowledgeable people is invariably tied directly and transparently to religious doctrine.

Religious believers are a subset of all people, and evolution-rejecters are a subset of religious believers.

In the Origin, Darwin posited two hypotheses for the relatedness and variety of living things: Special Creation and Descent with Modification. In other words, Creationism and Evolution. Of the two, it's obvious that the latter is supported by the scientific evidence. It's also obvious that when you scratch the surface of the self-styled ID'ers, they really do believe in Special Creation, as when they disavow "macroevolution." Hence the C in the IDC label fits.

To this might be added the variety of Unique Special Creationism which is the fallback position of Behe, although it's not clear whether he really believes it: the "puff of smoke" to account for abiogenesis.

All three forms of Creationism claim that the twin phenomena of relatedness and variation in Biology require the active intervention of some Being who is not bound by the laws and observations of Chemistry, Physics and Biology. Hence, the label fits.

In the Origin, Darwin posited two hypotheses for the relatedness and variety of living things: Special Creation and Descent with Modification. In other words, Creationism and Evolution. Of the two, it's obvious that the latter is supported by the scientific evidence. It's also obvious that when you scratch the surface of the self-styled ID'ers, they really do believe in Special Creation, as when they disavow "macroevolution." Hence the C in the IDC label fits.

To this might be added the variety of Unique Special Creationism which is the fallback position of Behe, although it's not clear whether he really believes it: the "puff of smoke" to account for abiogenesis.

All three forms of Creationism claim that the twin phenomena of relatedness and variation in Biology require the active intervention of some Being who is not bound by the laws and observations of Chemistry, Physics and Biology. Hence, the label fits.

@Katarina:

I fully agree with your statement that there are those who believe in creation and evolutionary theory at the same time. You have easily been able to explain the difference in thought between yourself and those under fire here. So I agree that if you wish a term, theistic evolutionist seems to fit very well.

However, the whole purpose of this site, seems to me, is to debunk those who are "creationists" of the political variety. that is, those who would eliminate rational science in favor of religious principles. Those that have deluded themselves into thinking they are doing us a favor by trying to turn science and the US government into a "christian coalition".

as such, labeling these folks under the simple term "creationists" is probably the best way to approach discussion about their aims and intentions. However, with the difference being mostly a matter of degree, how about we call them "Creation Extremists"?

or maybe identify them more with a political movement (which they certainly seem to be):

"Right-Wing Creation Extremists"

or maybe twist that a bit to something sillier:

"Creation is Right Extremist Wing" then we could abbreviate them as

the CREW

"But since most people usually are specific, I am only making a small point here, there is really no reason for anyone to disagree."

you nailed it. Most folks HERE usually follow up a broad term with some sort of declaratory statement.

Unless one wishes to discuss what term to use to describe ID OUTSIDE of this forum. then the issue remains, as it is clear the media has not, nor ever will, commonly provide for declaratory statements when presenting either "side" of any issue, not just this one.

Just think about RED vs BLUE states, for example. that is a TOTAL media construct, meant to create controversy. With no explanatory statements following RED or BLUE, they don't make much sense, do they?

Moreover, they tend to label the entire population of a state as RED or BLUE, which we all know is patently false and misleading.

but that's the media for you.

which I guess is why i am going to split myself into two camps at this point, and agree with myself on the one hand that nomenclature discussions wrt to this issue are mere mental masturbation here on PT, but scaling the discussion up to the national arena... all of a sudden the discussion takes on some serious importance.

so, for PT, i'll stick with "creationist" since i have little reason to argue with theistic evolutionists. But for the national stage, something like "Creation Extremists" (sounds like a terrorist cell :) )
or Right-Wing Creation Extremists (if nobody minds the longer term), sounds more appropriate and useful.

man, I hate having to even think about this crap.

cheers

HEADLINE: Correction: Evolution Debate story DATELINE: TOPEKA, Kan. In an April 8 story about Kansas science standards, The Associated Press reported erroneously that public hearings next month will feature witnesses who advocate teaching intelligent design alongside evolution in public school classrooms. Instead, the witnesses are expected to advocate exposing students to more criticism of evolution, not teaching alternatives to it. *sigh* more idiots in the press fall to the doubletalk that is ID.

I never use the word "creationist" when referring to the ID-crowd. In fact, I lump the ID-crowd, YECS, etc., under one tent: anti-evolutionists. It would also be perfectly prudent to call them the anti-science crowd.

— Katarina

But even if one takes their claims of uncertainty of the age of the earth and common descent at face value,

Ultimately, it seems that the battle is between those who accept that common descent happened, and those who do not (for whatever reason).

Flint -

One can believe in common descent and be an IDist. Behe comes to mind, even if he can be notoriously circumspect. The main defining feature is that they believe there is compelling scientific evidence that an intelligence had some hand in designing some aspect of life. And "intelligence" is code for "God" for a great many of them.

What makes them "anti-evolutionists" is they tend to adamantly reject that mechanisms not directed by an intelligence can account for biodiversity, and so (poorly) critque the modern evolutionary theory that says it can. I suspect what lies beneath that, for many of them at least, is 1) a deep resentment that such reasoning makes their God superfluous to the proccess. God isn't eliminated, but he isn't needed either. 2) A burning need for their faith to find compelling rational validity finding home in this sort of teleological approach. 3) An appreciation for and a willingness to use the persuasive power of the appearance of science as a missionary tool.

Whatever we call ID, we are beating a dead horse -- or worse- by dwelling on whether the chief ID promoters (hereafter "IDers") are "creationists," who would "sneak in" God or Genesis into science class. Rather I think that exploiting the differences between ID and creationism, and the strategic similarities (i.e. misrepresentations of evolution) is the way to turn the public off to ID.

— Frank J

One can believe in common descent and be an IDist. Behe comes to mind, even if he can be notoriously circumspect.

I suspect what lies beneath that, for many of them at least, is 1) a deep resentment that such reasoning makes their God superfluous to the proccess. God isn't eliminated, but he isn't needed either. 2) A burning need for their faith to find compelling rational validity finding home in this sort of teleological approach. 3) An appreciation for and a willingness to use the persuasive power of the appearance of science as a missionary tool.

So there is, for some people anyway, the feeling that if their god is neither required nor relevant, it attacks their faith. The faith of many Americans (and others, I suppose) requires an aggressive, active god producing regular and significant miraculous exceptions to natural processes. For them, a god whose nonexistence would change nothing whatsoever is a little bit too abstract.

Not sure what your phrase means here.

Here I think you have a good point. Science has been (at least in the West) supplanting religion as the arbiter of "good", because science is equated with techology, and technology is associated with long life, health and medicine, transportation and mobility, economic prosperity, and so on and on. This gives science a huge cachet, which in turn represents powerful leverage if only it could be redirected for "moral" (read:doctrinal) purposes.

For them, a god whose nonexistence would change nothing whatsoever is a little bit too abstract. ...but when science says that we were not created as the highest form of life directly in the image of god to serve god's purposes so as to live forever in peace and glory, science must be wrong. Science has been (at least in the West) supplanting religion as the arbiter of "good", because science is equated with techology, and technology is associated with long life, health and medicine, transportation and mobility, economic prosperity, and so on and on.

— Flint

And after all, science discovers the truth, and what is more true than their religion?

— E

The twilight of nontheistic hegemony is nigh.

W. Dembski posted snippets from the discussion on this thread between Dr. Silver and Dr. Elsberry on his page, Uncommon Descent.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/6

This one apparently has an open comment section, if any of you care to venture.

OOPS, sorry, the post is about the "Dembski holds debate on ID as science, forgets to invite scientists" thread.

For these reasons, a simple exposition of the failings of Intelligent Design simply won't work as a tactic to get the public interested in stopping its spread. It's also critical to point out the well-documented politico-religious motivations of those who support the ID propaganda machine.

— Matt Brauer

What, um, "nontheistic hegemony" would that be? Over 90% of the US population is theistic. Most scientists are also theistic. So are most car mechanics, most dentists, most veterinarians, most car mechanic's, and most pizza delivery boys. So who the hell, exactly, are you directing your Holy War at?

If the first link in comment 25326 doesn't work, try this:

http://reason.com/9707/fe.bailey.shtml

like i said...

"Right-Wing Creation Extremists"

like i said...

"Right-Wing Creation Extremists"

I'm not directing a holy war at anyone. If you reread my post, you'll note that I was descrbing others.

In a nutshell, I'd say yes...and no...

One of the points I've observed isn't that 90% of the population are theists...it's that 90% of the population aren't conservative evangelical/born-again Christians. As Dembski himself said in the other thread just posted, it's a golden opportunity to "reclaim society for Christ". So that leads to the conclusion that they're out to convert everyone to their brand of Christianity, while tearing down the apparent enemy that they see, as E pointed out.

But given the repeated evidence for their blatant dishonesty, I have to come to the slightly more jaded conclusion that this struggle is really little more than a power trip. They want to be the people in charge, but they don't want to pay the piper.

That's the reason why to some extent, this doesn't to me seem to be wholly a "Holy War". The people fighting a Holy War have a 110% fanatical adherence to their religious beliefs, down to the very letter. Given the very unChristian dishonesty and tactics which they have time and time again resorted to, I would say that they believe more in their own self-promotion and the fulfillment of their egos more than in the convictions given to them by their religious beliefs -- and it is subconsciously that, not their faith, which is the dominant force driving them.

Given the very unChristian dishonesty and tactics which they have time and time again resorted to, I would say that they believe more in their own self-promotion and the fulfillment of their egos more than in the convictions given to them by their religious beliefs --- and it is subconsciously that, not their faith, which is the dominant force driving them.

well, as long as we are throwing out opinions...

I don't see ma and pa kettle as the one's really responsible for trying to alter the teaching of science; I think it is all a ploy by the right to try to control thought in America. just another way to gain a larger political grassroots base. they convince ma and pa kettle they are "fighting for their faith". frickin' liars.

I could go into listing evidence in support, like the right's most recent attack on the judiciary, and the right's most recent accusation of demos being "anti-faith". But the list would be VERY long and likely take about an hour for me to complete.

cheers

I don't see ma and pa kettle as the one's really responsible for trying to alter the teaching of science; I think it is all a ploy by the right to try to control thought in America. just another way to gain a larger political grassroots base. they convince ma and pa kettle they are "fighting for their faith". frickin' liars. I could go into listing evidence in support, like the right's most recent attack on the judiciary, and the right's most recent accusation of demos being "anti-faith". But the list would be VERY long and likely take about an hour for me to complete.

In a way, I guess, I'm less cynical. My take is that they are quite fanatical about this particular aspect (basically, creationism - or maybe I should say anti-evolution) of evangelical christianity. Much more so than they are about all the rest of it (all that tiresome stuff about feeding the poor, housing the homeless, swords to plowshares, rendering unto Caesar . . . ). That's why Jonathan Wells - a Moonie, not a Christian - is one of the ID illuminati.

— Russell

Hmmm, first time I hear of IDTheFuture ... such wishful thinking in that name. ID is nothing but an attempt to turn the clock back.

sir_toejam pretty much nailed it for me. It's all about intellectual control, ultimately.

But you raise a point Russell which I've given a lot of thought to. Okay, so the ID/C movement has been established to be largely based upon a predominantly Christian worldview. If they are battling so hard for God and Christ, as they say, why don't they contribute to global efforts to end hunger and poverty? Surely that's an easier and more powerful way to effect massive change in favour of Christianity than trying to fight for forced intellectual change on a country-by-country basis...I seriously wonder if Behe, Wells, Johnson et al., if they found themselves in a village stricken by the Asian tsunami, would be passing out Bibles and preaching about Creationism rather than handing out food and drinking water.

I'd also like to add that the people in the ID/C movement appear to not care at all about the damage that they're doing to Christianity as a whole. I'm reminded of a comment I once read on talkorigins.org from a debate where the pro-ID speaker attacked John Paul II over his support for evolutionary biology. They're not even willing to have any kind of reasoned exchange of ideas with other Christians, only adopting the same sort of with-us-or-against-us binary logic that they use when talking to non-Christians. They don't care they they've marginalized Christianity in the minds of others, or that they're ruining the relationships with people of other faith and belief systems that Christians like myself have tried to cultivate -- as long as they've put themselves in a position of clear intellectual and political power.

Rampancy,

Your comment is right on. ID is just as destructive to science education as it is to religion in the US.

@lenny:

See: http://www.geocities.com/lflank/fundies.htm . . .

I see you already did some of the leg work.

;)

cheers

I read Dr. Lenny's well documented summary of the right's recent political agenda, which appears to relegate the right to politicians run amok with delusions of granduer. I also read a piece given as a link to me by someone (heh, probably Dr. Lenny) tracing a more "parental concern" underlying the right's political support for the ID movement, stemming from concerns about society and its underpinnings as expressed by Strauss and Kristol:

http://reason.com/9707/fe.bailey.shtml

these are the only two logical conclusions i can come to regarding the politics behind the ID movement.

so which do folks here think is closer to the real political motivations behind ID?

rampant political power mongering, backed by some false righteousness?

-or-

concern over the underpinnings of society as expressed by Kristol?

cheers

so which do folks here think is closer to the real political motivations behind ID? rampant political power mongering, backed by some false righteousness? -or- concern over the underpinnings of society as expressed by Kristol?

"The two are not incompatible"

true, dat. However, the question was not "are both possible?" it was, more related to which strikes one as the more important factor.

cheers

"The two are not incompatible" true, dat. However, the question was not "are both possible?" it was, more related to which strikes one as the more important factor.

are you saying i need to be more specific?

;)

Why is the split between Creationism and Intelligent Design so hard to see? Creationism (as generally defined) deals with and only with the God of classical western theism. Intelligent Design does not speak of this God. It speaks of any god or any higher life force that may be responsible for the creation of the universe. So for ID detractors, it's irrelevant to constantly gripe that Dembski believes in Creationism. He's not trying to convince you of Creationism. Deal with the arguments for ID. Are they true or false?