Chris Mooney on ID (yet again)

I think I can see where Mooney was going now; trying to distinguish between 'creation science' and 'creationism'. Of course, I think he's incorrect comparing ID to those, and still off base on what he had to say about Bush. jzs

In this article Mooney says "Intelligent design -- the 2.0 version of creationism, as Wired magazine called it -- has many antecedents." Yet here (http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/id/) he says "Is "Intelligent Design" theory really "Creation Science" version 2.0? Not exactly, but the parallels are certainly suggestive." but in that same article he also says "...ID is more or less like young earth creationism—and especially like "creation science"—depending on whether you choose to focus on its actual assertions or its strategic behavior." Back to the recent article: in it he also says "It [ID] certainly isn’t synonymous with “creation science,”" Then he says "None of this, however, rescues ID from the broader “creationist” label." and "ID theorists and other creationists don’t like what the overwhelming body of science..." I'm a little confused by this apparent flip-flopping. Is it or isn't creationism/creation science? Also Mooney's comment "Meanwhile, President George W. Bush recently gave an endorsement to ID, commenting, “I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought.” This despite the fact that Bush science adviser John Marburger has explicitly stated that intelligent design is not science." is missing the point in a major way. Bush was expressing his opinion, not official policy as far as I am aware. jzs

"And then there’s Stephen C. Meyer, a Cambridge history and philosophy of science Ph.D. and anti-abortion Christian. " I need to check my Strunk and White. When discussing the qualifications of scientists, aren't you supposed to list their stand on abortion _before_ you list their degrees? And where was Chris Mooney's abortion stand statement? How can I know if he's qualified to discuss evolution unless I know his stand on abortion? Watchman

lol Yeah, if one attacks the darwinian myth you can ONLY be religious motivated. Nevermind the fact that many non-religious people have no axe to grind (aka, fundamentalist purposes) when showing the lack of scientifical backing into the scientistic's most famous myth. Mats