DNAunion: Multiple falied attempts to post my reply. I will try again by
breaking it up into multiple posts. This is PART 1.
[...]
>>>Susan: Some Christians have no trouble weaving the details of the world
into their religion. Their god is merely larger than the world and science.
Other religionists are very threatened by those who examine the world in
detail and are afraid that something will be discovered (or has been
discovered) that will prove their religion to be untrue. I think you, and
nearly all creationists (and I believe that IDists are merely a subset of
creationists) are in the latter category.
DNAunion: Susan again misclassifies ID, "...IDists are merely a subset of
creationists".
She can't wiggle out with the "I believe" clause, claiming that she is merely
stating a personal opinion that has not been contradicted to her knowledge,
because I have already explained to her her error (as I believe others have
too).
In addition, we know that Susan consistently uses the term Creationist in its
*common* and most negative sense; and not as someone else here did (that
other person used such a broad definition that even non-religious positions,
and aliens seeding life on Earth, were forms of Creationism).
Now, if ID is merely a subset of Creationism, as Susan asserts, then it
follows by force that all IDists are Creationists (remember from high school
that a subset of another set cannot contain any elements that are not present
in the superset). I am (for pigeonholing purposes) an IDist: yet I don't fit
the common and most negative definition of Creationist. This shows Susan's
statement to be incorrect.
Here is more, from my personal notes (they have not been updated for a while,
but I believe them to still be valid).
Intelligent Design is not Creationism
One of the most frequent (and easiest; and most fallacious) attacks against
Intelligent Design is an attempt to discredit ID right off the bat by
associating it directly with Creationism. The basic idea is that since the
general scientific community agrees that Creationists distort and reject
valid science, then all one needs to do to discredit ID is to equate it with
Creationism. After that is done, Intelligent Design evidence can be
dismissed as distortion and half-truths even before it has been read.
However, Intelligent Design and Creationism are NOT the same, as the
following several pages should make clear.
But before diving into details, we first need a working definition of what a
Creationist is. "My" definition, which agrees with the common definition, of
a Creationist is a person who:
1. Takes a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation in the
Bible (a 24-hour-day, 6-day creation).
2. Claims that the creation was a purely divine action - that is, the
Universe was created ex nihilo ("out of nothing") and without the aid of any
natural processes.
3. Claims that this 6-day creation occurred only about 6,000 to 10,000 years
ago.
4. Claims a global, catastrophic flood occurred as described in the Bible in
relation to Noah (and that the fossil record can be interpreted accurately
using such a non-evolutionary view).
In addition to these "core" attributes, it seems that a Creationist also
rejects any science that contradicts his or her religious views, and/or
distorts science in order to support such views. For instance, a Creationist
might:
5. Claim divine creation resulted immediately in "mature" entities - for
instance, the Earth is believed to have been created fully-developed,
complete with mountain ranges and canyons, trees and animals, etc. No early
geological or biological processes were required to arrive at the basic Earth
, which is today much as it was immediately following its creation.
6. Claim that radioactive dating methods give extremely exaggerated results
(because ages of billions of years are obviously impossible if the Earth is
only supposed to be 6,000 - 10,000 years old).
7. Claim that dinosaurs and humans coexisted (as evidenced by supposed human
footprints in the same strata as those of dinosaurs).
8. Claim the fossils that support evolutionary theories were planted by God,
or Satan, to deceive scientists.
9. Claim that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
10. Claim that the Sun's rate of thermonuclear burning mandates it cannot be
more than about 10,000 years old (if cannot be billions of years old because
extrapolating linearly back in time would require it to have started off so
large that is would have engulfed many (most? all?) planets).
11. Claim that the Moon's rate of recession from the Earth mandates that it
cannot be more than about 10,000 years old (it cannot be billions of years
old because extrapolating linearly back in time would have placed it inside
the Earth).
Intelligent Design does not share these Creationists' beliefs; nor does it
attempt to distort science. (This should be, "case closed", already).
Rather, ID draws an inference of design, as the best explanation for the
origin of life, say, based upon commonly-accepted, peer-reviewed scientific
evidence. It uses the same unmodified data as chemical evolutionists do, but
draws a different conclusion (mainly because Intelligent Design is not as
narrow-minded: it is not restricted exclusively to purely naturalistic,
undirected, chance, unintelligent mechanisms).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 22 2000 - 16:26:15 EDT