I don't want to sound like a party-pooper here, but
I sense the need to do some chiding. For the most part this
reflector is longer on substance than rhetoric, but this
thread has degenerated into mostly rhetoric with little
substance. Please tone it down.
As to the substance, Denis, please tell us which
journals we should be consulting to learn who the real
scientists are who don't call themselves Darwinists. If
indeed Ernst Mayr and Richard Dawkins are not representative
voices of the scientific establishment, I am glad to know
it. Whom, in your view, are some of the scientists who
are more representative of that community?
Jim, the terms "creationist" and "Darwinist" don't
really communicate very much. Both can be used as a
bludgeon against one's opponent. On this reflector it
seems many have tried to develop a more precise set of
terms: young-earth creationist, old-earth creationist,
progressive creationist, intelligent design creationist,
theistic evolutionist, methodological naturalist,
philosophical naturalist, etc. Even these can be
too broad, and are in need of refinement. A person
could consider him/herself some combination of some
of the above terms.
Granted, those critics who dismiss Mike Behe
out-of-hand by labelling him a "creationist" in a
derisive way are doing him a disservice. I hope that
no one on this reflector has referred to Mike in that
way in order to dismiss his views from consideration.
Let us get back on the high road guys.
Dennis Durst