Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Guardian Swallows Darwinian Myths About Academic Freedom Bills

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Today, the UK Guardian newspaper published a piece about academic freedom bills in Colorado, Missouri, Montana and Oklahoma. Readers will not be surprised to learn that the Guardian has seemingly bought into the common myth continuously recycled and promulgated by the NCSE and the Darwin lobby that the bills are “just creationism in disguise”, despite the fact that the bills do not protect the teaching of religious-based views (like creationism), nor even, for that matter, subjects which aren’t already part of the curriculum (like intelligent design). Although the Guardian apparently interviewed critics of the bills, including spokespersons from the NCSE, it seems that they failed to interview any individuals representing the other side. The article in the Guardian even opens with a picture from the Kentucky Creation Museum. Not sure what the relevance of that is. The Guardian also insists on defining intelligent design as the view that “modern life is too complex to have evolved by chance alone.” Of course, that isn’t what ID asserts, nor for that matter does any competent evolutionary biologist think that life even plausibly evolved by chance alone.

Comments
Funny. Looking at my c.v., I see a publication in political theory dating from 2006. Maybe I was taught arithmetic badly, but I would have thought that was "since the 1990s." I did not actually claim that *you personally* could not read or write a coherent sentence. You are probably referring to a sentence from the other column (*Congratulations to the New BioLogos*) in which I was referring to the general defects of the high school education given to *your generation*. It is of course always possible for an individual to escape the fate of his generation, and you may be one such individual. What I was responding to there was what I perceived to be an attack upon the educational philosophy and practice of my era, from the perspective of the educational philosophy and practice of a later era. You may be a talented reader and writer, Gregory -- I'll leave that decision to your audience -- but the educational program your generation went through was greatly defective when it came to making sure that students had basic skills. That is why so many universities have had to institute entrance tests for writing skills, and remedial courses as a follow-up for those who fail them. *I never said that I had published anything about ID or evolution in an academic setting.* Nor did I imply that I had. So your "warning" to the readers here that I have no such publications is of no use. I have, however, published a great deal in the general area of *religion and science*, including an article from a couple of years ago that missed your net. I have also done a good deal of studying (courses, Ph.D. comprehensive exams, post-graduate reading) and a good deal of undergraduate teaching (none of which is noted on the internet) of the primary texts relevant to "religion and science discourse," as you would put it. My *general* knowledge of the "religion and science" area is high, and that makes me a competent commenter on a number of issues that get raised in the creation-evolution-design debates. "I’ve met many disciplined, decent, honest, dedicated and faithful scholars who produce (whatever the opposite of dilettantish rubish is) quality scholarship." So have I. Most of them are in the humanities. But they are in the minority in the modern university. And they have little control over the direction of the modern university. I would have guessed that you would not like Bloom's *Closing of the American Mind*. (It is interesting that he started out in your discipline and then abandoned it for political philosophy, the true queen of the social sciences.) I would also guess that you didn't like DeSouza's *Illiberal Education* either. It was another excellent expose of the intellectual decay at the heart of the modern academy. In any case, I've made clear what definition of "ideology" that I'm using. And based on that definition, I would call most undergraduate departments on the "arts" side of the modern university highly ideological, i.e., they corrupt philosophy and scholarship and the curriculum in the service of a social-political agenda. As for your general paranoia that I am out to "bully and discredit" you, it's all in your mind. Actually I would rather not focus on *you* at all, but on your *statements*. But every time I zero in on a crucial statement, and show that your argument or evidence for the statement is questionable, you exit the discussion, or else try to divert the discussion from *contents* to *motives*. It thus becomes impossible for us to have a truly scholarly or philosophical discussion. I wish it were otherwise.Timaeus
February 9, 2013
February
02
Feb
9
09
2013
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT
I’m honoured to work with such men and women of rigour, faith and dignity and find it insulting that you would simply doubt them out of some dreadful habit.
Probably due to the mouthpiece. A mistake, I'm sure, to think that you speak for anyone but yourself.Mung
February 9, 2013
February
02
Feb
9
09
2013
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT
"I *do* have publications in academic books and journals in the field of political theory." - Timaeus Not since the 1990's. Timaeus now seems to want to make up for his jilted and cynical definition of 'ideology,' following his political mentor Allan Bloom. I am not a political writer, but Timaeus has imputed politics to my basic sociological observations about the IDM. That is bad form! "ideology [is] the political corruption of philosophy" - Timaeus/Bloom Oh, sad and desperate heart! I did read Bloom's "The Closing of the American Mind" and a few of his articles and found it disenchanting. Such is how I find Timaeus' embrace of Big-ID.
"As for “contemporary interdisciplinary scholarship,” a good deal of it should be called “contemporary undisciplined scholarship,” since much of it is dilettantish rubbish" - Timaeus
That's probably why you failed to get tenure, 'Timaeus.' And that's also probably why you publish rarely and nowhere relevant (if you even do actually still publish). You attack and condescend upon just about everyone in the contemporary academy, as you probably likewise did with your previous colleagues. I've met many disciplined, decent, honest, dedicated and faithful scholars who produce (whatever the opposite of dilettantish rubish is) quality scholarship. I'm honoured to work with such men and women of rigour, faith and dignity and find it insulting that you would simply doubt them out of some dreadful habit. That you haven't, aren't or weren't is no reason to try to litter the educational punch we're all drinking. And your continued attempts to try to bully and discredit me (saying things like I can't read or write a coherent sentence, even though I hold a PhD from a more highly rated university than yours!) simply because I've seen through your haughty IDM advocacy and repeatedly revealed your flip-flopping at UD is in the public record. It is unnecessarily rude. "in settings you have not yet uncovered" - Timaeus Internet age; I've uncovered what you have offered, 'Timaeus'. Nothing yet to speak of regarding Big-ID. Nor will there likely be anything forthcoming except ID-sheltered locales, since you don't defend its scientificity. That is the only thing that gives it argumentative life and which at the same time is squeezing life from it. Don't think you can trick us into believing you publish about Big-ID in non-ID-sheltered peer-reviewed journals or books when you do not. At least try to speak honestly here at UD! "I wish you the best in your new position." (Gollum, Gollum)Gregory
February 9, 2013
February
02
Feb
9
09
2013
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT
Let's hope Gregory's new position is accompanied by an extraction.Mung
February 9, 2013
February
02
Feb
9
09
2013
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT
Gregory above quotes Fernand Braudel -- whose major work on capitalism, incidentally, I was taught by a specialist in economic history -- as saying that capitalism is not merely an economic system. I agree. That is why I carefully qualified my remark, quoted by Gregory: ““capitalism” isn’t an ideology *when it refers merely to the technical description of how an economic system works*.” The qualification, between the asterisks, makes my statement correct. That is why I added it, knowing that Gregory would pounce on it otherwise. But of course he pounced on it anyway, because he didn't read it carefully. Gregory calls my definition of ideology "sophistry" -- showing that he has even less understanding of the meaning of "sophistry" than he does of "ideology." I suggest reading the works of Plato to become familiar with the Sophists and Plato's critique of them. But I don't think Gregory likes reading anything written before McLuhan (or at most Weber), so that is not likely to happen. As for "contemporary interdisciplinary scholarship," a good deal of it should be called "contemporary undisciplined scholarship," since much of it is dilettantish rubbish, in which people who have not mastered even *one* field try to make grand pronouncements involving *several* fields. So I'm not too worried about the judgment of "interdisciplinary scholars." But in any case, Allan Bloom, whose definition of ideology I was using, was intellectually head and shoulders above any recent scholar that Gregory has ever mentioned in his postings here. He had read more of the important books, and read them more carefully, and understood them more deeply, and was a better writer and teacher, than the gaggle of careerist academics whose writings Gregory deems important. But it's nothing new that most academics can't tell the difference between minor thinkers and great ones. Oh, and by the way, Gregory, I *do* have publications in academic books and journals in the field of political theory. And I've taught a number of the great political classics, though in settings you have not yet uncovered in your industrious (though destructively motivated) private researches on me. I wish you the best in your new position.Timaeus
February 9, 2013
February
02
Feb
9
09
2013
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT
ZZZzzzzz......Mung
February 9, 2013
February
02
Feb
9
09
2013
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT
"I follow Bloom in thinking of ideology as the political corruption of philosophy, the seizure of the language and conceptual apparatus of philosophy by interest groups representing part of the body politic rather than the whole." - Timaeus Big mistake. Outdated sophistry, showing how out of touch 'Timaeus' is with contemporary interdisciplinary scholarship. Is his definition of 'ideology' yet another candidate for Timaeus flip-flopping? Probably. ;) I thought you told UD that you were a theologian and religious studies PhD. Now you're claiming to be a political scholar also?! Now you're claiming relevance outside of the 'little-big tent' of Big-ID, with which you don't actually agree with Big-ID leaders regarding its scientificity?! I guess wonders never cease. "“capitalism” isn’t an ideology when it refers merely to the technical description of how an economic system works." - Timaeus RIGHT, timid North American, layman! Ha, ha, ha... ;) "“The worst error of all is to suppose that capitalism is simply an ‘economic system’." - F. Braudel Should people at UD actually be patient with 'Timaeus' anymore when much wiser and accomplished scholars who are actually brave-enough to speak in their own name exist to trust and explore? The only thing that need make you trust 'Timaeus' is your shared ideology of Big-IDism. Yet there are better, more dignified and faithful paths to travel than that.Gregory
February 9, 2013
February
02
Feb
9
09
2013
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
Re Gregory at 85: Just a question of clarification: Is Gregory claiming that any Pope, or any official Catholic document, has ever referred to "creationism" as an "ideology"? Or is Gregory merely identifying his own critique of creationism (as "ideology") with some Vatican criticisms which do not actually employ the term "ideology"? If it's the latter, Gregory has the scholarly duty to make clear that the Vatican has not actually used the term "ideology," and that it might not endorse Gregory's application of that term to "creationism." It's one thing to say: "The Roman church has some of the same criticisms of creationism as I do"; it's another thing to continue with "And since I call creationism 'ideology,' the Roman Church would accept that label for it as well."Timaeus
February 9, 2013
February
02
Feb
9
09
2013
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT
Gregory:
Yet you seem to wish to suggest an alternative definition that conflates ...
God forbid that we should, and I quote, "not settle absolutely on definitions," but rather "explore, discuss and correct, seek to improve."Mung
February 9, 2013
February
02
Feb
9
09
2013
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT
“What I would like for him to do, however, is settle on his definition of “ideology,” so that I can answer the main part of his question.” – StephenB 'Settle’ is a backwards, primitive term. We do not settle absolutely on definitions; we explore, discuss and correct, seek to improve. But you are obviously not a professional philosopher or communicator, StephenB, so your 'settle' demand is understandable. I loathe referring to ‘wikipedia’ or what StephenB casually calls “the dictionary” as authorities on topics that require deeper thought and careful expression. In university course syllabi, wikipedia is usually considered as an 'unreliable' source, though StephenB now refers to it as some kind of authority. StephenB is clearly not a scholar. Personally, I attain to a higher standard in quest for truth and competent communication than StephenB. But for the sake of untwisting his personal definition of ‘ideology,’ which he has shown already differs from Timaeus’ obviously distorted and cynical political dinosaur negative definition of ideology, let me offer now a brief definition (some of which I’ve already given here before): Ideology is a way of organising (cf. cataloguing, filing, structuring, making sense of) one’s ideas, whether around a particular concept (e.g. design or creation) or a system or school of thought. It can also be defined as a way of (academically) over-reaching one’s particular idea(s) into a field in which it/they do not belong (e.g. evolutionism or pragmatism). Will StephenB now address the question: Do you not see ‘Creationism’ as an ideology? If not, why not? Because to me, ‘creationism/Creationism’ is an ideology first and foremost (Mung’s kindergarten ding-dong aside). That is, as I understand it, also the Vatican Science Council's and recent Popes’ position. Yet you seem to wish to suggest an alternative definition that conflates “God created” with ‘creationism/Creationism’ as ideology. Can you please help to clear this up? Thanks, Gr.Gregory
February 9, 2013
February
02
Feb
9
09
2013
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT
I am going to give Gregory the benefit of the doubt in the first part of his comment @72. While no official Church documents have ever excluded the notion of "Creationism," it is true that what we know as "Creation Science" has been informally discouraged as being unscientific. Inasmuch as Gregory accepts my definition of "Creationism" as "Creation Science, I will accept the claim that recent popes have "distanced" themselves from it even though there are no encyclicals to that effect. What I would like for him to do, however, is settle on his definition of "ideology," so that I can answer the main part of his question.StephenB
February 4, 2013
February
02
Feb
4
04
2013
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT
In general I find labels (e.g. "creationist") to be a hinderance to substantive intellectual interchange. It's far too easy to get bogged down in parsing out terminology at the expense of the core subject, namely, does the universe (incl. the life it houses) possess clear indicators of intelligent agency. For proof of that just look at virtually any post that someone like Gregory puts up. Solely "debates about words" (to borrow a phrase), no compelling logic or discussions of empirical data. Additionally, labels provide a handy excuse to ignore trenchant points contrary to one's own viewpoint. Personally I don't think I could pick a side in preceding discussion. It seems like yet another instance of idealism versus pragmatism. Ideally we should be able to explain to an intelligent adult person that affirming creation simply means acknowledgement that creative intelligence was responsible for the origin and nature of the cosmos. Practically, though, this can be daunting given the history of inordinately rancorous debates about creation and evolution. I certainly understand and sympathize with anyone who would prefer to skip that discussion altogether in favor of articulating the core ideas of the position (a la Timaeus @ 81). As a Christian person, I take the record of Scripture quite seriously. There are manifold evidences archaeological, documentary, and scientific that confirm so many of its particulars that it is overwhelming. I also feel that there are compelling exegetical reasons to view the account of Genesis 1-9 (creation through Noachian deluge) as describing actual history (not the least of which reasons include the fact that Jesus and his apostles invariably reference those events as actual history). At the same time, though, I do not think that the cosmos was created by God in six 24-hours days some 6000 years ago. There are clear textual reasons why this view is untenable (esp. Gen 1 w/ Gen. 2:4), and there are the demonstrations of science. Nor do I think that all biological organisms spontaneously "poofed" into being. Neither do I have any quarrel with observed microevolution. Does this make me an OEC? Maybe, but I really don't care. I prefer following evidence to hiding behind labels.Optimus
February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
11:45 PM
11
11
45
PM
PDT
Kantian: Agreed; Sedley's is a very good book. It shows that the design versus chance debate is much older than Christianity, and that the idea of "intelligent design" is not intrinsically tied to acceptance of the Bible. It also shows massive learning in both primary and secondary literature. And Sedley is a scholar, not a polemicist. If only people like himself could have more effect on how the public debates are conducted. But the partisans aren't going to take the time to read and digest a careful study like Sedley's. It would force them to adopt nuanced positions, and partisans can't live with nuanced positions. They have to demonize the other side, while pandering to their own devotees. Very sad.Timaeus
February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
10:04 PM
10
10
04
PM
PDT
Mung: Regarding your comments in 75: Yes, let's always keep our disagreements friendly ones. If I've ever given any impression of unfriendliness -- as perhaps I do when I show irritation over comments of yours that seem elliptical and cryptic and I demand an explanation -- chalk that up to my impatience rather than to any animus against you personally. And I assure you that I find many of your comments on these issues quite wise, and some of your remarks (when they aren't too cryptic) quite funny. Regarding your comments in 64: The analogy holds, to this extent: both those who hate homosexuals, and those who march in Pride parades, mean the same thing by "gay"; and both Dawkins and Ken Ham (and the Dover trial judge, and countless others) mean the same thing by "creationism." The fact that one side in each case uses the word positively, and the other pejoratively, doesn't change the fact that there is a common usage which public speakers or writers can take for granted. And that was all I was trying to establish, not that it is right to use "creationism" pejoratively, but only that the term had acquired a generally accepted meaning. Way up above (#33), I set forth that meaning, in non-pejorative terms. Regarding your comments in 77: Thanks for the biographical background. And believe me, I sympathize with someone who has escaped from YEC or other fundamentalist background who says: "Why should the fundamentalists get to define "creationism"? Why should they have the ownership rights of an important Biblical teaching -- that of "creation"? And I assure you, had I lived during the period when "creationism" was beginning to take on its current meaning (narrowly Biblicistic and literalist), I would have fought that usage tooth and nail, shoulder to shoulder with you, in hopes of preventing it from becoming the established meaning. But that battle was over before I was old enough to read. The fundamentalists had captured the word, and succeeded in getting even the opponents of fundamentalism to adopt their usage. And as the Dover Trial has demonstrated, even the legal establishment now accepts this meaning of "creationism." The battle for the word has been lost -- for now. Maybe the word will change meaning again some day. But when we communicate today, we have to take into account how people will hear our words today, not how they might hear them 20 years from now if we can work really hard and engineer a shift in usage. So we only have two choices: (1) Avoid the term "creationism" in selling ID to the general public; (2) Use the word "creationism," but supplement it with footnotes, caveats, explanatory statements, etc. The problem with the second approach is that it wastes time and energy, and also that it puts the speaker on the defensive; before he can even begin to make his arguments, he feels he has to defend his language. It's sort of like applying for a job, and having to start out every interview with, "I know I don't have a college degree, but I'm really smart and experienced and honest and ..." Having to constantly dispel a negative puts one on the wrong persuasive foot. "I'm a creationist -- but please don't jump to the wrong conclusion -- I'm not one of THOSE creationists," has a similar effect, in most contexts. You start out the game two touchdowns behind the other team, and even if your explanation of your language eventually satisfies the relevant persons, the most you have accomplished by it is to even the score -- you're no further ahead in your argument, and you've expended time and emotional energy. Of course, among smart, thoughtful people with open minds, your approach -- challenging people to accept other meanings of the word -- might work. But in the culture war over evolution and design, there is so much prejudice already, that certain "trigger words" can lose you your audience before you even have a chance to make your case. My approach is to say: "I believe that the world was not the product of blind natural laws and chance, but of an intelligent mind." That way, I get in the *contents* of what you would like to call "creationism" without bringing in the negative *connotations* of the word -- fulminating, jowly Southern preachers; barely literate hillbillies; Creation Museums; claims to have found the prow of Noah's Ark; etc. -- connotations which enable the foes of theistic religion to make mock of the idea of creation without ever addressing its contents. Best wishes.Timaeus
February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
09:57 PM
9
09
57
PM
PDT
I also thought the Sedley book was excellent. I was deeply struck by his suggestion that Socrates is tacitly responding to Leucippus, and that Plato's criticisms of Anaxagoras and Empedocles are motivated by a conviction that those views will lead to Democritean atomism and anti-theism, if left unchecked.Kantian Naturalist
February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT
I wonder, what does a Darwinian Myth taste like?Mung
February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT
I would not call Young Earth Creationism an ideology. I would call Biblical Literalism an ideology. Young Earth Creationism has it's roots in Biblical Literalism, as does Dispensationalism. It is probably no coincidence that the two often go hand-in-hand.Mung
February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT
p.p.s. I've actually read the book by Sedley as well, though without the same checking of sources. I have it right here. I just don't have time to go to all the originals on every single subject that I discuss, so at some point I have to rely on others. I left young earth creationism. I left dispensationalism. I try to test my ideas and allow them to be changed when required. But the ideas can't always come from reading the originals. When I feel it's important I do try to obtain originals. I have many writings of evolutionist authors. If someone charges with quote mining I can often go to the originals.Mung
February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT
p.s. I read some Aristotle today, lol.Mung
February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT
Timaeus:
You know what I’m *driving at*, i.e., most Americans automatically think of “creationism” as connected with narrow Biblicism and literalism, and only a few would think of the meaning you want them to think of.
I do understand. I was letting you get under my collar. I felt you were misrepresenting my argument but I didn't want to respond in a way so rude that it might cause an irreparable rift between us. I hope we can always disagree on some matters and yet remain cordial. Now, back into the ring! ;)Mung
February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT
SB, Absolutely! As per my MO I am probably being too provocative. I do try to stimulate thought and debate, though my methods may leave something to be desired. :) No insult is meant to anyone (except Gregory). And Gregory, I'll try to do better. I apologize. I would do well to emulate Timaeus in this regard.Mung
February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT
Mung @64, In these unusual circumstances, I don't sense any potential for a meeting of minds. The good news is that we have both had a good chance to make our case. So I think I will, with respect, withdraw and let the readers decide. Peace!StephenB
February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT
Gregory
@68, sorry, I don’t have time to elaborate. If you got tripped up by my small-Big addition, it was simply meant to mirror your use of Big-C ‘Creationism’ from #58. I note you capitalised Big-ID also, but that can be for another thread.
You alluded to several popes and other official Catholic sources as distancing themselves from the ideology "creationism/Creationism," That is not a small statement, so I was hoping that you might take the time to explain when and where these events happened. I realize that it takes more time to defend a proposition than to assert it, but such is the burden of rational discourse.
My question is what you do with ideology and do you not see ‘Creationism’ as an ideology? If not, why not? What I quoted from you doesn’t include mention of ideology. And combined with the next paragraphy just talks science and philosophy/theology without ideology. Why?
As a courtesy to you, I will put aside all the historical references to the term ideology, and limit the number of possible combinations and permutations to two sources, Wikipedia and the Dictionary. Here is what Wikipedia says about “ideology” "An ideology is a set of ideas that constitute one's goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology is a comprehensive vision, a way of looking at things (compare worldview) as in several philosophical tendencies (see political ideologies), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society (a "received consciousness" or product of socialization). Ideologies are systems of abstract thought applied to public matters and thus make this concept central to politics. Implicitly every political or economic tendency entails an ideology whether or not it is propounded as an explicit system of thought. Here is what the dictionary says about “ideology.” 1. A system of ideas and ideals, esp. one that forms the basis of economic or political policy: "the ideology of republicanism". 2. The ideas and manner of thinking of a group, social class, or individual: "a critique of bourgeois ideology". Again, as a tribute to you, I have narrowed the number of definitions down to five. Now if you will be good enough to tell me which of those five definitions you would like me to use for analyzing "Creationism," and if you will disclose which of my two definitions of Creationism you are alluding to, I will be happy to provide my perspective.StephenB
February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT
Just a clarification re terminology: Gregory says that his usage of "ideology" is governed by his "professional" knowledge. Translation: He uses the term as sociologists (or at least, the sociologists that he favors) use it. Not all scholars are sociologists. Many political scientists, e.g., Allan Bloom, use the term differently. I follow Bloom in thinking of ideology as the political corruption of philosophy, the seizure of the language and conceptual apparatus of philosophy by interest groups representing part of the body politic rather than the whole. I can't force Gregory to adopt my usage, but I want to explain it to others who are reading and want to be sure what I mean.Timaeus
February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT
Mung (60): Regarding the words "change" and "broaden" you are merely being captious. "Change" can mean "substitute something new" and "broaden" is "broad" enough in meaning to include the idea of "making people aware of other possibilities that already exist" as well as "add a new possibility." And I gave you plenty of words -- several hundred, probably over a thousand, of context, context which I expect you to use if you are discussing in good faith. You know what I'm *driving at*, i.e., most Americans automatically think of "creationism" as connected with narrow Biblicism and literalism, and only a few would think of the meaning you want them to think of. And it usually takes a long time to make a major shift in language, and even when swifter changes in language take place, it's never because the masses have been convinced to adopt academically or historically sounder usage. Side by side with the more common usage, your preferred usage will be crowded out of the cultural arena, even if you can get a few very educated people to follow you. Contra your remark to StephenB, I am certainly not trying to force a narrow usage of "creationism" upon you or anyone. I said already that I accepted your usage as legitimate and that in certain contexts it was understandable. Did you not catch that? But I am a realist about which meaning of "creationism" is now dominant and will remain dominant for the foreseeable future in the culture-war arena. On that question, you are a dreamer. As for Sedley's book, it's right in my academic area, and I've read it entirely through and with great care, even checking the Greek and Latin footnotes to see how literally Sedley renders the texts into English. Sedley chooses to use the word "creationist" in a certain way relevant to the study of ancient classical texts, and that is fine for a special study of that nature. But the classical authors were not addressing "what we call the creationist option" -- not if "we" means most Americans on the street. They were addressing a more general notion of a creative intelligence behind the world. They had not read the Bible and did not have modern "creationism" in mind. The normal usage of "creationism" in the culture wars over evolution and design is inextricably bound up with the Bible. You can dislike that fact, but it remains a fact. And at that I will have to leave it.Timaeus
February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT
@68, sorry, I don't have time to elaborate. If you got tripped up by my small-Big addition, it was simply meant to mirror your use of Big-C 'Creationism' from #58. I note you capitalised Big-ID also, but that can be for another thread. My question is what you do with ideology and do you not see 'Creationism' as an ideology? If not, why not? What I quoted from you doesn't include mention of ideology. And combined with the next paragraphy just talks science and philosophy/theology without ideology. Why?Gregory
February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT
Sorry for the double-negative typo. @67 should read, "I don’t know what your private term “creationism/Creationism” means, nor I am clear on which specific positions taken by which popes and councils you are referring to or how their positions tie in with your question. Could you elaborate?StephenB
February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
Gregory asks,
Do you include ‘ideology’ within ‘philosophy/theology,’ StephenB? Or, how is ideology related to ‘creationism/Creationism’ in your view? Because to me, ‘creationism/Creationism’ is an ideology first and foremost. That is, as I understand it, also the Vatican Science Council and recent Popes’ position. Yet you seem to wish to suggest an alternative definition, that conflates “God created” with ‘creationism/Creationism’ as ideology. Can you please help to clear this up?
I don't know what your private term "creationism/Creationism" means, nor I am not clear on which specific positions taken by which popes and councils you are referring to or how their positions tie in with your question. Could you elaborate?StephenB
February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT
Gregory:
Because to me, ‘creationism/Creationism’ is an ideology first and foremost.
This no doubt explains a great deal. For most people the idea comes first, then the ideology.Mung
February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT
Gregory believes in BIG C Creation but he is not a little c creationist. So what is he, a Big C Creationist? When he says he is not a creationist according to his own personal definition of how he defines creationist as it applies to himself, who cares? Only Gregory has access to his own mind, and no one else, so we can't peer in there and discern his meaning. We have to do it from context, and that's why context is so important for discerning meaning. NEWS FLASH! The first thing that pops into the head of some perceived majority is not what determines the meaning of a word. If someone reads 'x' and reflexively thinks 'y' that is an error in hermeneutics. They need education. Or, you can go about trying to change the meaning of the word so that x always and only at all times and in all contexts can only mean y. And I'm the one accused of wanting to change the meaning of words. The irony. Stop. You're killing me.Mung
February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply