The Guardian Swallows Darwinian Myths About Academic Freedom Bills

_{Denyse O'Leary

January 31, 2013

News}

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

SB, The two scenarios are not analogous. If they were using gay as a pejorative term, as a hidden subtext, spoken of a large group of people, they would be pilloried.Mung_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT}

I’m willing to accept Eric Anderson’s statement as they farthest we can go on this topic: “I have no particular personal need to define myself as a “creationist” or not.” At least Eric has shown some reflexivity to express himself, even if it wasn’t with a clear Yes or No answer. I can respect that 'creationist' is a difficult label for him as it is for many in the ‘little-big tent’ of the IDM. It seems correct, neverthess, that I can stand safely behind my claim to him: “You either don’t personally know or won’t say clearly if you are or are not [a creationist]”…according to Eric's own definition and not to mine. Call that a semantic game if you want; I was able to answer the question directly. I’m not a ‘creationist’ and don’t think ‘creationism’ is a socially responsible or psychologically healthy position for believers in the Abrahamic faiths. This of course says nothing against believing in ‘Creation,’ which is part of the faith. Mung and BA77 in #22 & #23 are not in tune with how most people define the term ‘creationist,’ just as Timaeus has reminded them. Kantian Naturalist chimed in: “Surely, if one believes that the God of the Bible created the universe, then one is a creationist. But one can be a creationist without believing that.” I think KN’s got it backwards. In this case, ‘creationism’ finds a parallel with ‘intelligent designism/Intelligent Designism,’ the latter which is not a word on most peoples’ tongues. But if one fills forward the meaning and thinks ahead to what it will (and in some cases already does) mean, then it gives one pause for thought. Where does 'intelligent design/Intelligent Design' conceptually not belong; what are its ideological limits? ‘Creationism’ is the ideological over-reaching of ‘Creation’ into realms in which it doesn’t belong, which in the case of ‘creation science’ overlaps with the ideology of ‘scientism,’ i.e. 'creationist scientism'. ‘Creationists’ are ideologues that think they can ‘scientifically prove’ the Biblical narrative. 'Theistic evolutionism' is also an ideology, that (attempts to) combine(s) 'science and theology' into a single operative term/concept duo. The problem here is that proponents of Big-ID by fiat will not (yet) accept any coherent content to the term 'IDism,' because they think they haven’t (yet) gone too far with Big-ID. In some cases of course they haven’t, which is why the IDM leaders are walking such a fine PR line between Big-ID and small-id. In other cases, however, as with those who contend that *everything is designed/Designed* and that it can be *scientifically proven* (these two points are kept together), the term 'IDism' makes good sense to describe that ideological position. Of course, if one holds a pejorative or entirely negative definition of ‘ideology’ (cleaned or filtered of Marx, Adorno, Horkheimer, et al.) as not simply the organising and systematising of ideas, but rather as political distortion or ‘false consciousness,’ as Timaeus seems to define it, then they can easily get confused and just plain emotional about the suggestion that they’ve swallowed an ideology and not merely a scientific theory or a philosophy. I'm used to speaking professionally about 'ideology' enough that any anger or irritation ascribed to me when do so is simply misplaced or loose lips. I gather there’s either a difference in age or political views or both between Mung and Timaeus, such that Timaeus is more conservative (it's not gonna change!) and old-school (let's keep it as it was and just return to pre-Enlightenment classics). As for me, I accept both Mung’s obvious desire for a new term, for neology – in this case it seems to me that ‘neo-creationist’ would work better for his cause (and he used something like this in #14) – and Timaeus’ claim that Mung’s attempted definition would not suit me or most people as a sociological observation. I’m assuming that Mung fits into the roughly 35% of ‘creationists’ according to Timaeus’ definition and mine, which is similar. Does Mung believe in a Young Earth or Flat Earth or heliocentrism too? “if you tell the outside world that ID folks are “creationists” you will be undoing years of public relations work by the people at Discovery.” – Timaeus Yes, that is part of the DI's (attempted natural science-only) PR strategy. Timaeus, however, misrepresents me so often and puts words in my mouth out of his bad habits because he seems to realise better than most that I pose a unique challenge to the IDM and its Big-ID (half-pretending to be small-id) theories. And, of course, Timaeus is an IDist, according to his own words; i.e. he is a go-to-the-wall proponent of Big-ID, even if he is not a leading or even core theorist of it. I just think he’s got his priorities mixed up and couldn't wrestle out of a paper bag based on his lack of committment to Big-ID as a 'science-only' enterprise. (E.g. #50 shows how outdated his thinking is and how politically-oriented – which is not surprising.) I'm as much a ‘philosopher’ (with a graduate degree in the field) as Timaeus, but I am clearly not an IDist. “I more or less agree with Gregory over the *meaning* of creationism, I don’t share his *contempt* for creationism.” – Timaeus “I am talking about how to make the word “creationist” useless as a pejorative term to those who would attempt to use it for propaganda, well-poisoning or ad hominem purposes.” – Mung You should definitely leave from the United States on the next ship, if it is your earnest life-long goal of re-educating people to consider themselves as 'creationist'! I don’t have contempt for an ideology or for those who hold it, unless and until they are hurting people with it. As an ideology, creationism has damaged the credibility and 'validity' of countless Abrahamic believers in the United States alone. Creationists have distorted the educational system in that country in many ways. I am so relieved I was born in another country when it comes to that topic! And those who reject 'creationism' in the United States and elsewhere should applaud the efforts of BioLogos (and even yes, gasp, NCSE!) to talk some much-needed sense into 'creationists,' even if they reject BioLogos' anti-ID and anti-IDism. ASA wrote: "We believe in creation!" But not in 'creationism.' I do have respect for some of the motivations of creationists. Can people at UD really not see the elephant in the room that I am repeatedly promoting a science, philosophy, theology/worldview collaborative dialogue and reminding you folks that any ‘real theory’ of Big-ID simply must at one time or another go down this more holistic road if it is to gain credibility through honesty? It is possible to have respect for the theological voices in the creationism camp qua theology/worldview, even if I think they’ve got a twisted interpretation of science, philosophy and theology/worldview discourse collectively and in many demonstrated cases individually speaking. I don’t call all IDists as necessarily ‘creationists,’ even though a significant number of them (reflexively read: you folks at UD) are. That's why I asked Eric the simply question about what he considers himself, after he jumped in #5. And one simply cannot in good faith ignore the ‘proof’ of the disastrous EDITING mistake of ‘cdesign proponentsists’ for the IDM. They've really got to get better editors than that on their payroll, don't they! ;) That is a powerfully indicative fact of history about the familial or ‘extended’ connection between ‘creationism’ and ‘intelligent design’ (Big-ID written as small-id) that is not going away! It might help the conversation to address this from StephenB:
“In a philosophical/theological context, “Creationism” refers to the belief or argument that God created the universe “ex-nilio.” When one is arguing philosophically or theologically for God as creator against the atheistic idea that the universe can create itself, Creationism means what you have indicated.”
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? “When I write software I believe that I am in fact creating something. If I was of the sort to do so I would copyright my creations. Creating things is what intelligent agents do. If I take the time to “design” my software I am in fact creating a design.” – Mung But that is of course *not* what so-called ‘scientific ID theory’ is about! Ding-dong the Big-ID smuggled into small-id garb to look like a lab-coat wearing non-ideologue!Gregory_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT}

Mung, I think I understand your strategy and I can applaud the attempt to preserve the meaning of a word when sophists seek to change it in order to create confusion. On this matter, though, I agree with Timaeus. You pointed out that words derive their meaning “from context.” I agree with you as well, *in that context.* When a word (“creationism) is used to accuse someone of something, and if that accusation is tinged with a specific meaning, then one must respond to the meaning implied in the accusation. *That is the context.* When someone says, “ID is ‘creationism’ in a cheap tuxedo,” and when design haters use terms like ID/creationism, the contextual meaning of the operative word is “Creation Science,” or faith-based methodology. ID people have to respond to that contextual meaning and say, simply, “No, that isn’t true. ID is empirically based; it is not faith based." Time permitting, one might offer a footnote and say, “by the way, did you know that the word 'Creationist' can also refer to God’s 'ex nilio' creation. Indeed, one could go on at that point and dramatize the extent to which anti-ID partisans try to alternate the two meanings in order to create confusion. However, I don't think the discussion should begin with that approach. It is a question of setting communicative priorities. Returning to Timaeus’ example, let’s say someone says, “Mung, I just found out that you are gay. Why don’t you come out of the closet and stop hiding your true orientation.” Do you seriously believe that you can take control of the situation by saying, “Who’s hiding? You bet I’m gay, and I am proud of it. I am the most cheerful, jolly, and carefree person you ever met.”StephenB_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

SB, Thanks for your comments. I'm well aware of the terminological wars. I was arguing on the net back when we used newsgroups and newsreaders. I've also chastised Gregory for failing to recognize that words derive their meanings from context. But you seem to be agreeing with my point that the word has more than the narrow meaning that Gregory and Timaeus are trying to force it into and that I am not therefore attempting to 'change' or 'broaden' it's meaning. I'm suggesting a way to dull it's pejorative 'sting.' Pretty much all atheists already believe we're all creationists because we believe in God. Do you really think they make the distinction that Gregory and Timaeus are trying to make? They feel they can call Behe a 'creationist' because technically he does in fact fit at least one definition of the word. Then they rely on the ambiguity in meaning for the smear. "I'm not a creationist" just isn't believable. So we lose, because we're seen as the liars. My strategy is to turn them into the liars, then they lose. Feel free to accept or reject my recommendation. When I write software I believe that I am in fact creating something. If I was of the sort to do so I would copyright my creations. Creating things is what intelligent agents do. If I take the time to "design" my software I am in fact creating a design. Pardon me for having the temerity to mention the obvious, lol.Mung_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

Timaeus:
I’ve understood perfectly well all along that you are talking about broadening the meaning of the word rather than simply changing the meaning.
You'll have to explain for me how one can "broaden" the meaning of a word without "changing" it's meaning. Not only did I specifically state that I was not trying to change the meaning of the word 'creationist,' but I also explicitly stated that my interest was to make more people aware of it's multiple existing meanings. That's a far cry from trying to 'broaden' the meaning of the word. Please revisit Eric's post @10. See also:
Versions of what we call the "creationist" option were widely favored by the major thinkers of classical antiquity, including Plato, whose ideas on the subject prepared the ground for Aristotle's celebrated teleology. But Aristotle aligned himself with the anti-creationist lobby, whose most militant members—the atomists—sought to show how a world just like ours would form inevitably by sheer accident, given only the infinity of space and matter. This stimulating study explores seven major thinkers and philosophical movements enmeshed in the debate: Anaxagoras, Empedocles, Socrates, Plato, the atomists, Aristotle, and the Stoics. Creationism and Its Critics in Antiquity
Mung_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT}

Since the paragraphs @58 are jumbled, I repeat them here with the proper punctuation so they are easier to read: In our “Frequently Raised But Weak Arguments Against Intelligent Design,” we take up this issue in Questions 5 and 6. I would invite you to read it. Meanwhile, I will make a couple of comments that are not found in that section In a philosophical/theological context, “Creationism” refers to the belief or argument that God created the universe “ex-nilio.” When one is arguing philosophically or theologically for God as creator against the atheistic idea that the universe can create itself, Creationism means what you have indicated. In a scientific context, however, Creationism refers to the faith-based methodology of “Creation Science” as opposed to the empirically based methodology of “Intelligent Design” So when the subject of evolution or OOL is on the table, it is the second definition that counts. Creationism (Creation Science) = Bible first; Intelligent Design = Observation first. Our enemies seek to discredit ID’s scientific design inference by characterizing it as a religious presupposition. The tactic is to blur the distinction by distorting word meanings. You will find anti-ID websites, for example, that use the phrase ID/Creationism. Accordingly, they will lie and say “ID is Creationism in a cheap tuxedo.” I am sure that you have heard that phrase. The one response we cannot make is, “You bet it is. We couldn’t be prouder. That monkey suit fits us like a glove.” On the contrary, we have to confront the misrepresentation for what it is and make the critical distinctions.StephenB_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT}

Mung @55, In our “Frequently Raised But Weak Arguments Against Intelligent Design,” we take up this issue in Questions 5 and 6. I would invite you to read it. Meanwhile, I will make a couple of comments that are not found in that section In a philosophical/theological context, “Creationism” refers to the belief or argument that God created the universe “ex-nilio.” When one is arguing philosophically or theologically for God as creator against the atheistic idea that the universe can create itself, Creationism means what you have indicated. In a scientific context, however, Creationism refers to the faith-based methodology of “Creation Science” as opposed to the empirically based methodology of “Intelligent Design” So when the subject of evolution or OOL is on the table, it is the second definition that counts. Creationism (Creation Science) = Bible first; Intelligent Design = Observation first. Our enemies seek to discredit ID’s scientific design inference by characterizing it as a religious presupposition. The tactic is to blur the distinction by distorting word meanings. You will find anti-ID websites, for example, that use the phrase ID/Creationism. Accordingly, they will lie and say “ID is Creationism in a cheap tuxedo.” I am sure that you have heard that phrase. The one response we cannot make is, “You bet it is. We couldn’t be prouder. That monkey suit fits us like a glove.” On the contrary, we have to confront the misrepresentation for what it is and make the critical distinctions.StephenB_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT}

"I’m talking about broadening the understanding so that more people understand it has more than one meaning and that to call someone a creationist is really to say very little at all about what they actually believe." I've understood perfectly well all along that you are talking about broadening the meaning of the word rather than simply changing the meaning. But as long as the two meanings exist side by side in American culture, the YEC meaning will overwhelm the other meaning, as "homosexual" has overwhelmed the other meaning of "gay." Behe will *never* be able to call himself a "creationist" without adding a footnote every single time he does so, because the predominant meaning is so well-established that it will always be just below the surface in his listeners' mind unless he actively dispels it. And it is a pointless waste of energy on the part of Behe, Meyer, etc. to have to qualify "creationist" every time they use it, to protect themselves from misunderstanding. It's smarter -- more efficient, more practical -- for them simply not to call themselves creationists in the first place. TE Ken Miller believes entirely in "creationism" in your sense, but he does not want to be called "creationist," nor is he pushing to rehabilitate the word "creationist" with a wider meaning; that's because he, after 15 years of combat, understands the ground-level situation in the culture wars. I'm saying that you do not. Why do you think that so many political parties in the free world that used to describe themselves as "socialist" now define themselves as "social democratic" (or some other euphemism)? Why don't they take your advice, and spend years, and millions of advertising dollars, trying to rehabilitate the term "socialist" so that it no longer entails odious associations of authoritarian state control and hints of Soviet and Chinese communism? I'll tell you why. Because it would be good money thrown after bad. Politicians instinctively know what will "sell" in their cultures and what won't, and they know that "socialism" doesn't sell (at least in English-speaking democracies), and that "social democrat" does. Basically, you are advising the ID movement to swim upstream, against overwhelming linguistic usage, when there are other routes to the destination which will allow it to swim downstream, in harmony with linguistic usage. Your advice is impractical. I therefore reject it, and I hope everyone else in the ID movement will reject it. My firm rebuttal here is nothing personal; I just think you have a faulty "read" on this culture, and an unrealistic estimation of the possibilities of short-run or even medium-run change in how the vast majority of Americans hear the word "creationism."Timaeus_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT}

Mung: I already explained why your approach will not work: "But I’ve just told you — and I’ve been studying this phenomenon for about 45 years now — that most Americans involved in these culture wars DON’T define “creationism” as you do. And you are not going to change the working definition of a word that has been ingrained in the American folk-mind since the time of the Scopes trial, 80 years ago, and especially since the publication of *The Genesis Flood* in 1960. Usage is against you. You have about as much chance of getting all the participants to start using the word “creationism” differently as you do of getting everyone in America to go back to using the word “gay” in the original sense." It would take years of hard work by scores of writers in influential places (and most ID proponents have no position in the influential journals, publishing houses, TV show production, etc., and none of them to my knowledge are leading novelists or playwrights etc.) to achieve the broadening of the term that you wish to see -- if it can be done at all. And I think my analogy with "gay" is pretty close regarding the difficulty of the task. Do you think that you and your allies for linguistic change could accomplish the same thing with the word "gay"? If so, try it, as a field test. Then get back to me, after your efforts have reversed the trend of the last 45 years, and "gay" once more can be used to mean "light-hearted, cheery, playful, bouncy" without people snickering. If you can accomplish that, then I will believe you can accomplish the other, and I'll join hands with you in trying to do so. Until then, I think you are seeing pink elephants and mermaids. And now I'm signing off.Timaeus_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

You have about as much chance of getting all the participants to start using the word “creationism” differently as you do of getting everyone in America to go back to using the word “gay” in the original sense.
Oh. So it is possible to change the meanings of words in the popular mindset? Though you're still missing my point. I'm not talking about changing the meaning of the word. I'm talking about broadening the understanding so that more people understand it has more than one meaning and that to call someone a creationist is really to say very little at all about what they actually believe.Mung_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT}

Timaeus:
If that is the case, there is no reason why he should EMBRACE creationism.
I did not say Behe should embrace "creationism," however you're using that term.
Your policy of “EMBRACE creationism” is based on the assumption that others define the word as you do.
No, it isn't. I am talking about how to make the word "creationist" useless as a pejorative term to those who would attempt to use it for propaganda, well-poisoning or ad hominem purposes. You do this by including more classes of persons within the coverage of the term thus making it ineffective for distinguishing any particular group among that larger class. I'm sorry if this is too subtle, but I really don't think it's that difficult a concept to grasp. Consequently, you allow the propagandists to make fools of themselves. At some point some idiot claims Behe believes in a 6000 year old earth and rejects common descent because he's a "creationist." Then they get exposed as liars as well, making their efforts even less effective.Mung_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT}

Mung: I don't want to sound sharp or impatient, but you aren't thinking clearly, or else you are replying to me too quickly without thinking about the implications of what you are saying. It does not seem to occur to you, for example, that Mike Behe himself might *share* the definition of "creationism" that Eugenie Scott employs, and might *want* the world to know that he is not a "creationist." In other words, for Mike Behe, it might be that "believing in creation" is not the same as being a "creationist." If that is the case, there is no reason why he should EMBRACE creationism. Your policy of "EMBRACE creationism" is based on the assumption that others define the word as you do. But I've just told you -- and I've been studying this phenomenon for about 45 years now -- that most Americans involved in these culture wars DON'T define "creationism" as you do. And you are not going to change the working definition of a word that has been ingrained in the American folk-mind since the time of the Scopes trial, 80 years ago, and especially since the publication of *The Genesis Flood* in 1960. Usage is against you. You have about as much chance of getting all the participants to start using the word "creationism" differently as you do of getting everyone in America to go back to using the word "gay" in the original sense. Linguistic usage is not always governed by logic or etymology or anything sensible. It is often governed by accidents, ignorance, and cultural politics. I wish it were otherwise. I wish "creationism" meant what you wish it to mean. But it doesn't. I'm not going harp on this any more. If you use "creationism" in your own way here, I can adjust, and understand your meaning. But if you use it in that way in the outside world, you will be misunderstood. And if you tell the outside world that ID folks are "creationists" you will be undoing years of public relations work by the people at Discovery, and (if kairosfocus will allow this language), you will piss off a good number of people -- including the ID leaders -- by rolling the stone of Sisyphus back down the hill when they were just about over the top with it. So I beg you to keep your private definition among close friends, and not use it in broader public contexts.Timaeus_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

Timeaus: Why does Behe need to qualify what he means? That entirely misses the point. New Republic: So, Michael Behe, are you a creationist? Behe: Yes. If everyone claims to be a creationist, it is hardly effect as a label to divide and conquer. At some point the questioner then is forced to ask a more penetrating question because "creationist" on it's own becomes Gregoryized (meaningless). They want people to RUN from the title. I say EMBRACE it. New Republic: So, Michael Behe, are you a creationist? Behe: Of course! Aren't you?Mung_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

Mung: Embracing the appellation rather than running from it won't work. You forget the complete dishonesty of the mainstream media, which aid and abet the Darwinists, and have it in for ID. Imagine an interview: New Republic: So, Michael Behe, are you a creationist? Behe: Well, being a Roman Catholic, I accept the Creeds and I believe that the world is God's creation. In that sense, I suppose all Catholics and all Christians and even all monotheists are "creationists," and I'm a creationist, too. But I don't embrace Biblical literalism, if that's what you mean." A week later, commenter on Panda's Thumb: "Behe admitted that he was a creationist." A month later, on the Huffington Post: "I'm a creationist, too," Behe said in a recent interview in The New Republic. Six weeks later, on Jeffrey Shallit's website, headline of column: "'I'm a creationist,' Says Behe". Etc. We live in a world of sound bites; most news organizations present truth in sound bites, and most people listening or reading aren't energetic enough to look beyond the sound bites. That is why the tactic of labelling people works so well. There's no time to qualify a statement in a sound bite. The NCSE people are shrewd and have learned how to manipulate this system to their advantage. And the culture-war Darwinists who live on Wikipedia, Pharyngula, etc. have no interest in cautioning people to look beyond the sound bites. Sensibly, ID leaders have decided not to invite such manipulations, and therefore don't speak of "creationism" in any of their technical writings, and sharply distinguish ID from creationism in articles on the Discovery site, etc. If the population of the USA comprised 300 million academics who were used to debating about the meaning of words, such defensive tactics would not be necessary. Mike Behe could call himself a creationist, and a reporter would give him lots of time to explain what that meant to him, and people quoting the discussion would always include the qualification, and people who heard part of the discussion while driving their car would automatically ask themselves "In what sense does he mean 'creationism'?" But America isn't like that. America contains a million atheist intellectuals and journalists who would willfully manipulate the truth, and millions more people with small attention spans who absorb truth only through the use of catchwords, shibboleths, slogans, cliches, etc. The latter group is easily manipulated by the former. So your advice would be fine for a society of philosophers. It might have been fine in the early days of America, when the country was being built by statesman with a high degree of literacy and acquaintance with the latest science and philosophy of Europe. But it's bad advice for today. ID people have to avoid the label "creationism" until such time as social and linguistic change remove the fundamentalist associations of the word.Timaeus_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

Mung: You wrote: "think words that end in ism that have nothing to do with ideology" rheumatism, for starters. Then embolism, criticism, pointillism (a technical approach in art), schism, prism ... Had enough? Also, though Gregory, as a sociologist, might be incapable of recognizing the distinction, there is a difference between "ideology" and "philosophy." So you have Platonism, Aristotelianism, Cartesianism, Spinozism, etc. -- which are all philosophies, not ideologies. (Fascism, feminism, communism, capitalism, etc. are ideologies -- though "capitalism" isn't an ideology when it refers merely to the technical description of how an economic system works.) Then there religious practices, such as quietism. All of this would enough to make any normal person yield the point. But Gregory is not a normal person. Gregory is "light years ahead of" everyone else on the planet when it comes to the meaning of words. He therefore will not accept correction. So when you show him counter-instances that falsify his claim, he flies into a rage, or changes the topic, or goes silent. Hope this clarifies.Timaeus_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT}

Timaeus:
That is why Eugenie Scott and the NCSE and all the foes of ID go out of their way to portray ID as “creationist.”
And if people embraced the appellation rather than running from it (I'm not one of those creationists!) it would take all the sting out of the NCSE's attempts to divide and marginalize. Don't you think? p.s. think words that end in ism that have nothing to do with ideology.Mung_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

Mung: re #44: Your remark is (by design, I presume) enigmatic. Why bother making it, when you know in advance that no one here but yourself will understand it? re #47: If Gregory said "I am not a creationist," he would of course not be using the definition of creationist that you have set forth. He would be using a definition closer to the one I myself use, the one set forth in 33 above. But while I more or less agree with Gregory over the *meaning* of creationism, I don't share his *contempt* for creationism. I of course disagree with much of the *contents* of creationism (its mechanical reading of Genesis, for example), but I have a respect, which Gregory does not have, for its *motivation*. Conversely, with most forms of TE, I can agree with some of the *contents* (God uses evolution as a means), but have little respect for the *motivation* (which is to get the living God of the Bible as far out of the picture of the origins as possible, out of deference to the scientific consensus, before which most TEs cower). Just as a *sociological* point, Mung, your definition of "creationism," though logically sound, is not the prevailing definition within American religious discourse. When most people in America hear the word "creationism" they hear *much more* than your minimalist definition implies. They understand a commitment to a certain way of reading Genesis. I don't know whether or not you are an American, but in any case, I'll just caution you that if you say in America that you are a "creationist" -- and fail to define the term -- they will assume that you take Genesis more or less literally, perhaps allowing for an old earth but certainly not for macroevolution or the evolution of man, and that you believe that Genesis rather than scientific investigation is the authority when it comes to explaining origins. You don't have to like the prevailing definition, but that is the sociological reality. That is why Eugenie Scott and the NCSE and all the foes of ID go out of their way to portray ID as "creationist." They know that readers and listeners will understand far more than "believe that the world is not its own cause"; they know that the readers and listeners will understand ID people to be Bible-thumpers. The idea is to get educated suburban people to think of ID people as backwoods hicks, so that they won't read Behe and Dembski and Meyer and discover that none of their arguments even mention the Bible, but rest on scientific data. Again, you don't have to accept the prevailing definition for your own usage, but, to use my previous example, you can call yourself "gay," meaning "light-hearted, cheery" -- the original and correct meaning to people of my generation -- and how do you think people will understand you today? If you use a word in public, it isn't enough to know what *you* mean by the word; you need to know how the people you are talking to will understand the word; otherwise, no communication of thought is achieved. So I'll adjust to your meaning of "creationism" when I'm reading your posts in our in-house discussion here, but in the outside world, use "creationism" at your own peril!Timaeus_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

That's one definition of creationism. But as KN pointed out (#34), correctly, there are versions of creationism that do not require creation out of nothing by God. Here's my definition: creationism - the belief that the universe is not the cause of its own origin and/or the cause of its own continued existence creationist - a person who believes that the universe is not the cause of its own origin and/or the cause of its own continued existence So what's the point of all this? If someone (Gregory, for example) says, "I am not a creationist," they have said nothing meaningful. They are speaking nonsense. Let's not confuse nonsense with rational discussion.Mung_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

According to Merriam-Webster, creationism is:
The belief that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing.
Out of nothing?William J Murray_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
02:13 AM
2
02
13
AM
PDT}

Please don't feed the troll. http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/please-do-not-feed-the-troll_002.jpgsagebrush gardener_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
12:23 AM
12
12
23
AM
PDT}

He has argued (wrongly) that any word ending in “ism” implies an ideology...
I really had to bite my tongue here.Mung_{February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
09:14 PM
9
09
14
PM
PDT}

I like the title of Part Three in Denyse O'Leary's By Design or by Chance? In the Beginning, There Was... Creationism!Mung_{February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT}

Regarding Gregory's complaint in #37: Yes, Eric *could* answer the question: "according to your own chosen language, do you consider yourself to be a ‘creationist’?" On the other hand, Gregory *could* respond to Eric's suggested resolution: "It is therefore perfectly reasonable for me to ask you what you mean by the word. If you do so, I will gladly tell you whether it applies to me or not." If Gregory's goal is to find out whether or not Eric accepts a particular understanding of "creationism," Gregory can obtain that information by going along with Eric's suggested route of conversation. So why not go along? Is it sheer conversational stubbornness? Or is it that Gregory is not at all interested in what *beliefs* Eric has, but only in what *label* Eric applies to those beliefs? If that's what Gregory is trying to find out, the most obvious response is "Who cares?" Why be obsessive about labels, if you know all you need to know about the substance? It is as if Gregory raised the question of favorite breakfast dishes, and Eric, viewing three unlabelled photographs, indicated, by pointing to the photos and saying, "hate, hate, love!", that he preferred pancakes to waffles or French toast, and Gregory insistently demanded, before serving Eric, to know whether Eric would call pancakes "flapjacks." What difference does it make? Gregory would still know not to serve Eric French toast or waffles, but to serve him the pancakes, flapjacks, or whatever else they are known as in various parts of the world. The obsession with labels is typical of Gregory's writing. In one of the most amazing examples of "theater of the absurd" on record, he kept posters on this site going for a preposterously long time on the question whether or not BioLogos should have a capital L in the middle of the word. And he has a dozen times or more wrangled with various people here about whether they are "Big-ID" or "small-id," insisting that they answer with one of those choices, even when they indicate that they think the distinction confusing or useless. He has argued (wrongly) that any word ending in "ism" implies an ideology, and his posts often digress into endless lists of Gregory-constructed words ending in "ism." He wants to talk all the time about labels -- what people call themselves, what they call the positions of other people, etc. The rest of us want to talk about the substance of the positions. Eric has given a lengthy explanation of his position. I know pretty much what he thinks about creation and evolution from what he wrote. Armed with such knowledge, I consider the question whether he would call his position "creationist" as a useless inquiry after inessential information.Timaeus_{February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT}

Hey Eric, did you chose your language? Maybe in Korean you are a creationist but in Tagalog you are not. http://www.tagalog-dictionary.com/cgi-bin/search.pl?s=creationistMung_{February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT}

Gregory @37: Let's try this one last time to see if it sinks in. I have already made clear that I do not have a single definition of "creationist" that I have personally adopted and adhere to. Rather, I recognize (what should be obvious fact to anyone, I should think) that different definitions are possible. You have not provided any valid reason for why I should adhere to a single definition, and I feel no obligation to satisfy your rather illogical position on this point.
The issue is not that there are multiple definitions of ‘creationist’, it is that you seem to hold no definition for yourself.
No. You are wrong. That is precisely the issue. It is quite evident to any rational person that there are multiple definitions. I am aware of them. And I am not foolish enough to stubbornly pick one and only one definition and eschew all others. You asked me if I was a 'creationist' and insisted on a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer. You have not provided any definition yourself and have not provided any rational reason why I must adopt and adhere to a particular definition. As a result, it is evident that you have no interest in the substance, but are interested in a semantic game. Keep on playing if you like, but the discussion won't hold my interest much longer.Eric Anderson_{February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

Gregory wrote: "Why else has Timaeus even entered this thread if not other than simply to try to argue with me because I’ve asked a simple question to Eric Anderson?" No, I have no desire to argue with Gregory; he is welcome to ask Eric any question that he likes, and to badger Eric for an answer as long as he likes. My point was not that he should not have asked his question, or even that he does not deserve an answer. My point was that it shows incredible chutzpah (and anyone who writes G-d should know what "chutzpah" means) for Gregory to feign righteous indignation that someone is evasive or will not answer reasonably put questions, when Gregory himself is one of the worst offenders on the internet in that regard.Timaeus_{February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT}

Gregory's idea of disclosing his ideas about God, design, and evolution is to tell everyone what he is *not*. By his account, he is not a TE, or an atheist, or an ID proponent, or a YEC, or and OEC. If you ask him what he *is*, however, he heads for the tall grass. His idea of rational dialogue is to scrutinize without submitting to scrutiny. His idea of holding others accountable is to falsely accuse them of wearing the same protective mask that he wears. It appears that Gregory is trying to camouflage his intellectual timidity by posing as a bold interrogator. To be sure, this is a dubious strategy for someone who cannot formulate a meaningful question. Clearly, it makes no sense to ask if Eric is a "Creationist" without first defining "Creationism." After being reminded of this glaring omission, Gregory invites Eric provide his own definition, as if the answerer was responsible for making the questioners incomprehensible inquiry comprehensible. It doesn't get any better than that. This takes me back to last week when Gregory asked if ID proponents have "developed a theory for humanly-designed artifacts," leaving it to the poor reader to decide which aspect of design is being alluded to. To help him along, I provided a list of twelve possible ways that a reader might interpret his unintelligible formulation, asking him to simply pick the one that came closest to the idea he was trying to express. In typical fashion, he fled the scene. Audacity should be made of sterner stuff.StephenB_{February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

Eric, Eric, Eric: Are you so self-fragmented that you hold no definition of anything? The issue is not that there are multiple definitions of 'creationist', it is that you seem to hold no definition for yourself. And that is why you have so far refused to categorise yourself and why you brought up the topic in the first place. Anyone can see this in #5. A simple question that a school kid could answer (but Eric so far cannot): according to your own chosen language, do you consider yourself to be a ‘creationist’? Do you actually not see how this caters to your own personal thoughts by openly asking you to state them by answering this question? Forty times, gotta ask the same simple question. Define 'man' however you want. Are you not still a 'man,' Eric? Define 'creationist' however you want, cowboy. Are you or are you not, according to your own definition, a 'creationist'? I have expressed myself clearly and unequivocally on this topic already. The burden is on you; answer or dodge yet again.Gregory_{February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

Gregory, Gregory, Gregory: You're jumping up and down and protesting so loudly you can't hear yourself. Simple Logic 101 question: Is it required that a word in the English language have only one, unalterable definition? (a) If so, please explain on what basis you take this position. (b) If not, please explain why you are so worked up over the fact that I have pointed out that different definitions of "creationist" exist. If you choose (b), then please also pause for a moment before you shoot off your next reply and ask yourself on what basis I should be required to have, and adhere to, a single personal definition of the word. Look, the only way two people can communicate is to make sure we are talking about the same thing. I believe that the word "creationist" may have multiple (and somewhat ambiguous) meanings. It appears that you think it must have some kind of single, specific meaning. I have given you several examples of possible definitions. It is therefore perfectly reasonable for me to ask you what you mean by the word. If you do so, I will gladly tell you whether it applies to me or not. Pretty simple.Eric Anderson_{February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

Why else has Timaeus even entered this thread if not other than simply to try to argue with me because I've asked a simple question to Eric Anderson? So what if Timaeus is not a 'creationist'. He does not actively assert himself to publically differ with fellow IDists at UD who are creationists. So his fence-sitting views are a non-issue here. The term 'creationism' was offered by the OP. It is not up to me to now define it for you happy-clappy trappers! The point of contention here is Eric Anderson's absurd claim in #5. My point in #3 of course still remains. Timaeus in his metal-heart of heart knows about the mind numbing creationists who promote Big-ID. Yet he doesn't bother to disabuse them of their 'moron' approach. This is because of his marginal IDist agenda. What is really new here? Timaeus says: "I’m not a creationist." But more importantly, because of the waffling so far: What does Eric Anderson say? As for "co-opted by people with certain agendas," obviously Timaeus wants 'intelligent design/Intelligent Design' to be imaginatively excluded from such ideological committments. His delusion is demonstrated by the mask that he requires himself to wear, avoiding humanity in the public sphere.Gregory_{February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply