Hello Mike,
I sincerely appreciate your comments. I would like to start off by
reassuring you that I am not trying to score cheap points by making it seem
that DNAunion (or you) are something that you're not, and I am not trying to
make "faulty claims and attributions." Remember, the title of this subject
is in the form of a question. So, if you have a good reason why intelligent
design should not be regarded as a variety of creationism, then I'm willing
to listen. DNAunion was the first to say that ID is not creationism based
on the fact that ID can be interpreted in non-religious terms. My response
was merely to say that this criteria is weak and unconvincing.
Now, I want to respond to some of your comments and/or questions directly.
You said,
"Now, unlike you, I do have experience with being labeled as such. And in
every case, the word was clearly being used, by the one who labeled, as it
is in the dictionary. What's more, it usually carries with it all sorts of
negative connotations. It's a cheap, and thus common, debate trick that taps
into the preconceptions of others instead of dealing with the
points/arguments actually being raised."
Question: Is this the reason you do not believe that intelligent design is
creationism? Because the word 'creationist' carries negative connotations?
Because the word is really just a cheap debate trick? Or are you merely
pointing these things out as a general observation? (I'm not trying to be
sarcastic. This is a sincere question.)
I'll await your response before I make any specific comments. In the
meantime, there are two general ideas I want to convey: First, consider how
the word, 'evolutionist' is used in some circles. If you read through some
of the literature on the ICR web site, you quickly get the sense that
evolution is really EVILution. My close family - a devoutly religious
bunch-- use 'evolutionist' this same way. In their opinion, evolution isn't
science; it's an excuse a person uses to support their godless and immoral
lifestyle. I can't think of anything more negative than that. So my point
is this: I'm an evolutionist in spite of the fact that some people think
that means I'm a bad person.
Second, while some people might assume that creationist carries negative
connotations, some people think this word is a positive thing. They are
proud and delighted to be called a creationist because the word emphasizes
the core of what they believe --that they were created. You're wrong about
me never being labeled a creationist. I was a creationist for most of my
life, and I thought that being a creationist was a good thing. It was
certainly better than being an EVILutionist. My point here is that while
some people might think the word 'creationist' is a negative word, it does
not automatically mean it really is negative.
Either way, to say that intelligent design is not creationism simply because
some people might see this as a negative thing is not a very good argument.
Furthermore, to say that intelligent design is not creationism simply
because some people do not recognize the differences (sometimes HUGE
differences) that exist between the various types of creationism is not a
good reason either. And maybe this isn't what you're arguing. Again, I'll
wait for you to respond.
Regarding your questions:
It will help clarify matters if, in the future, you specify what kind of
creationism you're talking about. For example, you said that I'm labeling
you as a creationist, but you were completely ambiguous as to what
'creationist' is supposed to mean? Do you think I'm trying to label you as
a young earth creationist? An Islamic creationist? A Raelian creationist?
If you would be specific about what you mean, it would certainly clarify
matters. This is true with regard to all of your questions, especially the
5th one. For example,
You said,
"5. ...
Henry Morris, from the ICR, is being interviewed by CNN. He is asked if
there are any other scholars outside the ICR who are creationists. He says,
"Why yes, Howard Van Till and Francis Crick come to mind."
This question, like all of your questions, is misleading because the variety
of creationism you're talking about is ambiguous. It matters, and matters
very much, what the CNN reporter is talking about when he says, "other
scholars outside the ICR who are creationists." Does he mean young-earth
creationists? Old-earth or progressive creationists? We cannot know for
sure, and we're forced to make a guess. Why not write the sentence to
reflect what kind of creationism you're talking about? For example,
"Henry Morris, from the ICR, is being interviewed by CNN. He is asked if
there are any other scholars outside the ICR who are [young-earth]
creationists. He says, "Why yes, Howard Van Till and Francis Crick come to
mind."
What if we were to insert "old-earth creationists" in the brackets? What if
the reporter asked about atheist creationists or Islamic creationists? It
makes a difference.
For example, if Henry Morris were to name Hugh Ross as a fellow creationist,
I would say that this was not entirely accurate, either. Hugh Ross is
definitely a creationist, but he's not the same kind as Henry Morris. We
attach descriptions -old earth, young earth-- to clarify what we mean, so
that people do not confuse Hugh Ross' take on creation with Henry Morris'
take on creation.
My point here is that I have never said that you are a 'creationist,'
leaving the door open to individual interpretation, as if my grand purpose
was to malign you with the likes of Henry Morris or any other person. I
have been very specific and careful in my handling of this term. Instead
of asking me why I label you a 'creationist,' why not ask why I label you an
'intelligent design creationist?' That would certainly be more accurate.
Kind regards,
Lisa
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 04 2000 - 13:04:38 EDT