I apologize if this is a double post... I think I even emailed a copy to
DNAunion. (sorry about that) I'm still getting the hang of this.
--------------------
Hello DNAunion,
You and Mike make good points, and you should be happy to know that I am
receiving your criticism well.
For example, you said,
"See how powerful the tactic of labeling someone a Creationist is? It
doesn't matter how valid the putative Creationist's statements are, once
that label is affixed to them, everything they say is suspect (at the least,
if not considered outright wrong)."
Also, you might be surprised to know that I believe your points are valid
regardless of whether or not a person is a creationist. *Anyone* would be
frustrated by having their ideas dismissed *a priori,* as if no
justification could ever be satisfactory.
However, I have something I want to say about all of this: It is no secret
that I am "obsessed" with the question, "Is ID creationism?" or, more
specifically, "Is ID a *form* of creationism?" Of course, you think the
answer is 'no', and since this thread first started, I have been scanning
your (and Mike's) posts for what those reasons are. The following is a
summary of the reasons you and Mike have given so far. (By the way, if I
have understated or grossly misrepresented what these reasons are, then
please correct me).
--Reason 1-- Creationism requires that the 'creator' be spiritual or
supernatural. ID, on the other hand, does not require one to believe in
miracles, magic, or anything supernatural; therefore, it is not creationism.
My response-- Briefly, while creationism is usually tied to some belief in
the supernatural, that is not always the case. As I previously pointed out,
Raelian creationists completely reject any possibilities that their creator
is supernatural or spiritual. They refer to themselves as 'atheist
creationists.' Belief in the supernatural might be *casually* related to
creationism, but it is not *essentially* related. This is the only reason I
quoted Johnson's definition, by the way, because he seems to agree here.
--Reason 2-- Most people assume that the definition of Creationism is
exactly how Webster's dictionary defines it. Since this is the definition
that most people have in mind when the say, 'creationist' (and since
intelligent design does not fit Webster's definition) ID is not creationism.
My response: As I have already pointed out, there is more than one type of
creationism, and Webster's definition is so drastically narrow that only
those concepts which adhere, in some fashion, to the Genesis account in the
Bible can possible qualify. That rules out the vast majority of *other*
types of creationism and is therefore not a very reliable definition to
judge by.
However, I think it is much more complicated than that. For example, what
if Mike is right when he says that most people have Webster's definition in
mind when they are using the word, 'creationist?' After all, that seemed to
be the case with Susan here on this forum.
But that doesn't seem to make sense to say that intelligent design is not
*any* kind of creationism simply because people possess such a narrow
understanding of what it is in the first place. If we use this logic to
rule out ID as a form of creationism, we could use the same criteria to rule
out every other variety that's in existence as well. Therefore, this method
is also unreliable.
--Reason 3-- Labeling a person as a 'creationist' is merely a debate tactic
that people use to malign another person (or their arguments) as dishonest
and/or disingenuous.
My response: In answering this question --is ID creationism-- not only is it
necessary to show what a creationist is, but it has become important to show
what a creationist is not. For example, certain traits, such as dishonesty,
lying, or quoting out of context are not characteristics that define what a
creationist is. One of the most honest people I know is not only a
creationist, but he is a young-earth creationist (my brother-in-law). Such
qualities might be associated with creationism (in some circles), but one
does not have to be dishonest in order to be a creationist; one does not
have to be a liar; one does not have to quote people out of context… and so
on.
Labeling a person a "creationist" can certainly be a powerful tactic as you
mentioned; however, the injustice to which you refer in your posts has to do
with the fact that you were dismissed without a fair hearing and that you
were assumed to be a dishonest person without people getting to know you
personally. Such wrong doings have no logical relationship as to whether
intelligent design is a form of creationism. If the 'creationist' label is
wrongly applied, it is because the label is *inaccurate* --not because
*some* people associate it with many negative traits.
If you'll give me just a second, I think I can demonstrate this to your
satisfaction. Consider the following scenario:
Let's assume that a self-proclaimed creationist did exactly as you did --had
her ideas rejected in advance on a forum filled with people who thought she
was being dishonest-- then pointed out how unfair she had been treated. Do
these actions change the fact that my imaginary character is a creationist?
Do the things that make her a creationist change simply because she was
maligned? I am fairly confident that the answer is no. She is a
creationist regardless.
I have run out of time today, and I still have much more to say. It will
have to wait until Monday. Until then, I want to let you know that I
appreciate the fact that do not like to be called a creationist, and I will
respect that. To be honest, I don't know what your personal views are or
what you believe, so I guess that would be unfair anyway.
Sincerely,
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 : Fri Oct 06 2000 - 17:55:38 EDT