At 04:26 PM 10/22/2000 -0400, you wrote:
>DNAunion: Multiple falied attempts to post my reply. I will try again by
>breaking it up into multiple posts. This is PART 1.
>
>[...]
>
> >>>Susan: Some Christians have no trouble weaving the details of the world
>into their religion. Their god is merely larger than the world and science.
>Other religionists are very threatened by those who examine the world in
>detail and are afraid that something will be discovered (or has been
>discovered) that will prove their religion to be untrue. I think you, and
>nearly all creationists (and I believe that IDists are merely a subset of
>creationists) are in the latter category.
>
>
>DNAunion: Susan again misclassifies ID, "...IDists are merely a subset of
>creationists".
>
>She can't wiggle out with the "I believe" clause, claiming that she is merely
>stating a personal opinion that has not been contradicted to her knowledge,
>because I have already explained to her her error (as I believe others have
>too).
I will answer this, but the discussion must remain civil or it's back into
the killfile you go.
Your problem is two-fold. 1. you assume my opinion is personal to you. 2.
You run to implications that are not meant.
>In addition, we know that Susan consistently uses the term Creationist in its
>*common* and most negative sense; and not as someone else here did (that
>other person used such a broad definition that even non-religious positions,
>and aliens seeding life on Earth, were forms of Creationism).
actually I usually refer to IDists specifically and call them that, since
that is the group I seem to talk most to these days.
I'm relieved that I no longer have to argue against Noah's flood and very
seldom have to argue against a young earth (which still comes up from time
to time). I'm glad that creationists have by and large abandoned the idea
of vegetarian dinosaurs drowning in the Great Flood, though I know that the
rank and file creationists sitting in the pews still mostly believe that
stuff.
>Now, if ID is merely a subset of Creationism, as Susan asserts, then it
>follows by force that all IDists are Creationists (remember from high school
>that a subset of another set cannot contain any elements that are not present
>in the superset). I am (for pigeonholing purposes) an IDist: yet I don't fit
>the common and most negative definition of Creationist. This shows Susan's
>statement to be incorrect.
No, it only means that you don't fit the common and most negative
definition of Creationist. However, you do believe that some biological
processes did not occur naturally in Darwinian fashion. That some features
of biology were designed by an unseen hand. You don't understand the
scientific method in that you think that "unnatural processes" can be
observed by science or somehow taken into account when observing nature.
That is, of course, impossible for science to do without destroying the
scientific method and therefore science itself.
It is Christians who pour their money and energy into making Paley's idea
sound like modern science. You have said that you don't believe in the
Christian god, but the vast majority of IDists do and you are standing in
that crowd. Therefore you should not be too surprised when someone thinks
you are a member of that crowd. I accept your statement that you are not a
theist, but you have that big crowd around you and sometimes I am talking
to them when it may seem like I'm talking to you.
>Here is more, from my personal notes (they have not been updated for a while,
>but I believe them to still be valid).
>
>Intelligent Design is not Creationism
>One of the most frequent (and easiest; and most fallacious) attacks against
>Intelligent Design is an attempt to discredit ID right off the bat by
>associating it directly with Creationism.
I like your characterization of creationism. It is quite apt.
>Intelligent Design does not share these Creationists' beliefs; nor does it
>attempt to distort science. (This should be, "case closed", already).
>Rather, ID draws an inference of design, as the best explanation for the
>origin of life, say, based upon commonly-accepted, peer-reviewed scientific
>evidence.
Behe's evidence has been peer-reviewed and has mostly been discredited.
Nevertheless neither Behe nor IDists have dropped their claims. It simply
doesn't matter that the evidence can be discredited. It fits the religious
views of most of the adherents (including Behe himself) and therefore it
*must* be correct. And that is where the creationism comes in. No, Behe is
not Gish-style creationist. He knows the evidence for evolution and knows
it's overwhelming. Behe's creationism (and IDists creationism) is vastly
more sophisticated but it's aim is the same. It is my belief that it isn't
and never has been aimed at the scientific community. It is aimed at the
folks in the pews. That is why Stephen and Bertvan, following the lead of a
lot of Discovery Institute guidelines keep trying to plead their case to
the *public*. They know (well, DI knows, I'm not sure what Stephen and
Bertvan know) that the public is too unsophisticated to evaluate Behe and
Dembski's claims. Therefore an emotional appeal should work. And given the
sorry state of science education in the US it probably *will* work, at
least for a while. "Scientific" Creationism worked for a long time.
I think I've mostly replied to the stuff in part 2 so I will end here.
Susan
--------
Always ask. Hang out with people who make you laugh. Love as many people as
you can. Read everything you can get your hands on. Take frequent naps.
Watch as little television as you can stand. Tell people what you want. Do
what you love as much as you can. Dance every day.
--------
Please visit my website:
http://www.telepath.com/susanb
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 22 2000 - 22:54:20 EDT