[...]
Burgy wrote:
><<<2. The statement refers to 'Biblical Creationism,' not 'Creationism.'>>>
Chuck writes:
>Irrelevant. I repeat - the ACLU makes no distinction. In fact, the very
>*basis* for ACLU opposition to the teaching of creationism is that it is
>*inherently* religious. You objected to the observation that the ACLU
>either regards the two as synonymous, or, if not, has never made a public
>distinction. I haven't been around long, but I've never seen such a
>distinction made even on the reflector. Tim Ikeda's recent post on this is
>instructive; as Phil Johnson has pointed out ad infinitum, "scientific
>creationism" doesn't exist because the scientific establishment has defined
>it away. [...]
I do not recall making any statement that could be interpreted that way.
In fact, I made it quite clear (as did Elliott Sober, in the portion which
I quoted), that I accept the possibility that a scientific theory of
creation could be formulated. I simply expressed doubt whether a robust,
descriptive, and "scientific" theory of creation (ie. one that stands
on its own and makes substantive, positive statements) had yet been
formulated. In other words, if scientific creationism doesn't exist as
a well formulated research program, I strongly suspect that it has much
to do with its own formulation (and formulators) and less to do with the
scientific "establishment" defining it away. I hesitate to blame one
person for another's shortcomings. Let's get our own houses in order
first.
Regards, Tim Ikeda (timi@mendel.berkeley.edu)