Re: Is ID Creationism?


Stuart wrote:
> Does a Cow give milk?
>
> Frank J wrote:
> > After years of objecting, I must concede that the majority has defined
> > "Intelligent Design" (ID) as a subset of Creationism, and that
> > there's little I can do about it. Anyone who reads my posts will know
> > that my complying with IDers' requests not to equate ID with
> > Creationism is not meant to do them any favors.
>
> I think we all understand that.
>
>
> >Rather, I think that we
> > "Evolutionists" would be better off exploiting the differences as
> > well as the similarities between ID and "Classic Creationism" (all
> > Creationisms other than ID).
>
> We can still do that, even while employing the richly deserved moniker
> "creationism" to ID. There are YECs,OECs, and IDCs. No need to cut any
> slack here, and its easy to exploit the differences between them as
> well as there horrid arguments.
>
> I would argue that Creationism in all of its flavors falls under the
> rubric of "kook science" or as you put it "xtreme psuedo-science". But
> calling ID "kook science" doesn't illustrate what ID deals with.
> However, when you call it "creationism" then people understand what
> you're talking about.
>
> ID is creationism in the sense that it posits that at least some
> natural phenomena are due to the unknown machinations of an unknown
> "intelligent" agency whose existence is not subject to inspection by
> the scientific method.
>
> The fundamental difference between YECs, OECs, IDCs is to the scope of
> the unknown machninations of the posited unknown agency whose existence
> is not subject to inspection by the scientific method. THe scope of
> activity of the unknown agency in IDC is more limited than in OECs and
> YECs, but I don't believe that is sufficient reason not indclude ID in
> the creationist family.
>
> <snip good stuff>
>
> Stuart

Again, whatever we call it, I just want to make the target audience
clear that we are not a bunch of closed minded "Darwinists" who object
more to the suggestion of a creator/designer than of the
misrepresentation of science. For example the DI's John West recently
said "Critics would rather tar everyone with the brush of
creationism." The article's surrounding context suggested that he was
displeased with that label, but I wouldn't be surprised if, privately,
he was thinking, "go ahead, make my day." When nonscientists hear
"creationism," the first thing they think of is "God did it," then
perhaps "6-day Creation." But scientists think "pseudoscience based on
the 'argument from design' and misrepresentation of evolution."

ID arguments, especially from the DI, are slick enough that many people
think "Gee, ID is a lot more open-minded than critics make it out to be
(by calling it 'creationism')." Of course, it is anything but
open-minded, unless one means Richard Dawkins' "so open that your brain
falls out" version.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is ID Creationism?
    ... > Creationism is not meant to do them any favors. ... natural phenomena are due to the unknown machinations of an unknown ... the unknown machninations of the posited unknown agency whose existence ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: New Age Creationism (Ken Wilber)
    ... It has been my impression that nearly all creationism is a result of ... the scientific community, which caused him to secretly dismiss the ... idea that the known (or even unknown) mechanisms are viable. ... I firmly believe that the entire universe was unknowingly created three ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Dinosaurs on a smaller earth
    ... grave a supporting the Expanding Earth hypothesis? ... You know I suppose it could make an even more impressive list of papers ... supporting creationism if I go back far enough. ... Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
Loading