In a message dated 10/3/00 6:29:05 PM Central Daylight Time,
dorrisli@hotmail.com writes:
<< I've pursued this question on the ARN forum some time ago. In light of a
recent post by DNAunion, I'd like to make some comments:
On what basis does DNAunion claim that intelligent design is not
creationism? In a recent post he/she said the following:
"Most anti-ID people at this site (Susan is one example) conflate ID with
Creationism - doing so is wrong. Versions of Directed Panspermia fit into ID
and do not invoke any supernatural beings or supernatural processes. A
civilization of ETIs just 100 years more advanced than ourselves would
likely be able to create life from non-life, and spacecraft to seed other
planets (we ourselves are planning to transport bacteria and algae to Mars
during our proposed tera forming of the red planet, and in fact, we already
have transported bacteria to the moon, left them for over a year, and then
retrieved them!)"
I am guessing that in order for a person to be a 'creationists,' not only do
you have to believe you were created or designed, but the creator or
designer must (by necessity) also be supernatural. Such a definition is
problematic at best.
For one, the term, 'creationist' is not limited to those who believe they
were created or designed by a *supernatural* intelligence. For example,
Raelian creationists believe that life was engineered by aliens who are
technologically advanced to manipulate genes, DNA, etc. They exclude any
supernatural or spiritual possibilities from the outset and are therefore
referred to as, 'atheist creationists'. That they do not believe the
creator or designer is a spiritual being does not automatically mean it is
not 'creationism.'
Secondly, I would also like to point out that Philip Johnson broadly
describes a creationist as "simply a person who believes that the world (and
especially mankind) was designed, and exists for a purpose." I think that
under this definition, intelligent design certainly qualifies.
Of course, one could easily look in Webster's dictionary (as Mike Gene once
did) and point out the fact that Webster's requires us to interpret a
"creationist" as a religious belief or endeavor. The definition says,
"…a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and
the world were created by God out of nothing and usu. in the way described
in Genesis -- compare evolution"
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.
Even so, this is no reason to say that ID is not creationism -on the basis
that some people are ill informed or that they make sweeping
generalizations. Even though DNAunion is right to say that intelligent
design need not be interpreted in terms of *religious* motivation, it is not
true that creationism is *only* a religious endeavor. To say that
creationism *must be* religious in nature is an opinion that is unsupported
by even the most vocal of ID advocates.
Lisa
>>
DNAunion: So with such flexibility in the definition of the term
"Creationist" - it doesn't have to be religious, it can include aliens, etc.
- are evolutionists creationists too? If not, then why not?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 04 2000 - 01:49:30 EDT