Hi Lisa,
You wrote:
"If a person, like Mike Gene, wants to hold to this definition, they'll have
to keep in mind that it is wholly inadequate and completely misleading. It
does not allow for the wide varieties of creationism in existence today,
such as Islamic creationism, Native American Creationism, or for that
matter, Raelian creationism. It's simply a poor and inaccurate definition.
Some intelligent design advocates object to being called a 'creationist'
because people might take the word to mean Biblical literalist. Behe has
made this argument in the past, and certainly he does not deserve to be
called a Biblical literalist."
Yes, the dictionary definition captures how people commonly use and
interpret the word. Now, unlike you, I do have experience with being
labeled as such. And in every case, the word was clearly being used,
by the one who labeled, as it is in the dictionary. What's more, it usually
carries with it all sorts of negative connotations. It's a cheap, and
thus common, debate trick that taps into the preconceptions of others
instead of dealing with the points/arguments actually being raised.
Ironically, when people label me as such, it usually works to my
rhetorical advantage. This is because the labeler is typically influenced
by the power of the label and thus commonly gets confused and
makes faulty claims and attributions about me. It makes it very
easy for me to simply point out how the labeler is tripping all
over him/herself. If you want to argue with me such that you are
a fish in a barrel, by all means, rely on your labels.
Nevertheless, I have some questions for you.
1. Why do you have a need to label me in the first place?
Of all the arguments I posted to ARN (and here), you seem
obsessed only about this. Why?
2. In what specific way does the 'creationist' label better
help you understand my position? {this is all the more
important because experience has taught me that this
label actually makes it harder for others to understand
my position}.
3. You like Johnson's definition. Fine. So you also think Howard
Van Till is a creationist?
4. Francis Crick is well known for having proposed
directed panspermia. Is he also a creationist?
5. If the answer to 3 and 4 is No, why?
If the answer to 3 and 4 is Yes, consider the following
scenario:
Henry Morris, from the ICR, is being interviewed by CNN.
He is asked if there are any other scholars outside the ICR
who are creationists. He says, "Why yes, Howard Van Till and
Francis Crick come to mind."
Now, would anyone accuse Morris of being misleading??
DN...er, Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 03 2000 - 20:31:50 EDT