<<Brother Jim, I'm feeling the heat of your flames on my hard drive
already>>
And you deserve it, boy. Some fuzzy thinkin' goin' on. Observe:
<<Inversely, "Why do CREATIONISTS label ANY critic of CREATIONISM an ipso
facto "DARWINIST"?>>
They don't. The preferred term of art for creationists seems to be
"evolutionists." See, e.g., Gish, "Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics."
<< I work in a large
university in the area of evolutionary biology--and I have never once
heard my colleagues refer to themselves as "DARWINISTS.">>
Yeah, like you expect them to be sitting around the faculty lounge singing,
"Darwinists are we! Born to be free! Just like the fish in the sea!" JUST so
you could overhear them...
Your colleagues notwithstanding, people like Ernst Mayr actually embrace the
term, putting a little "neo-" before it. Dawkins loves the term (even without
the "neo-"). As he says in "The Blind Watchmaker": "Other books on Darwinism
are...excellent and informative and should be read in conjunction with this
one....I want to persuade the reader, not just that the Darwinian world view
HAPPENS to be true, but that it is the only known theory that COULD, in
principle, solve the mystery of our existence....A good case can be made that
Darwinism is true, not just on this planet, but all over the universe wherever
life may be found." (TBW @ x)
I guess the answer to your question, Denis, is that because Darwinists call
themselves Darwinists, occasionally creationists will call them that as well.
Or are you arguing that we cannot call them what they call themselves? What
would your reasoning be on that one?
<<Mike Behe is definitely a creationist, in its ontological sense,
because he is a devout Roman Catholic>>
Denis, we all know what the term "creationist" is meant to convey in the
public square--a literal, 6-24-hr. day, young earth obscurantist. The term is
a lot more "loaded" than Darwinist, which is why so many scientists outside
the provinces of Canada actually use it. (Who do you think coined the term
"neo-Darwinian synthesis" anyway? Aimee Semple McPherson?)
As Behe says, "Evolution is a controversial topic, so it is necessary to
address a few basic questions at the beginning....Many people think
questioning Darwinian evolution must be the equivalent to espousing
creationism. As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth
formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that
is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the
universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is..." (DBB @ 5)
So, not only have you got a skewed view of the terminology, you also commit a
minor sin which is so widespread it presages the end of civilization as we
know it:
<< Most know little about Charles Darwin and most could care less.>>
COULD CARE LESS?
Off with your priestly robes!
Jim