Not, I am sure, to anyone who does not share your peculiarly narrow Bataan-style definitions of certain terms.
I’m just automatically supposed to know what the phrase “Bataan-style definitions” means?
In any case, unless by “creationist” you mean something very different from Ken Ham, Hugh Ross, Scopes Trial creationists, etc., your original claim can’t be sustained; it’s just historically incorrect.
Thanks for the clarification.
Seeing as it is a reference to something just a few messages up, yes.
I see. So every time someone uses an unfamiliar phrase here, it’s my obligation to search, not only the previous posts of that person, but of other persons, in case some other person has said something that could explain the meaning? Ain’t gonna happen. Why don’t you just write directly, instead of allusively?
Your continued dodge of my challenge regarding your use of “creationist” is registered.
Note also that you never defined “fundamentalist”, even when I requested the definition.
You seem to prefer leaving “loaded” terms undefined, whereas I am of the opposite intellectual temperament.
I find that you usually raise questions of definition for silly reasons. I decline to take them up, because they are silly. If somebody said that Chamberlain’s signature on the Munich agreement was like a love letter to the Germans, you’d demand to know exactly who was included in the term “Germans,” and stomp about as you are now doing. It would be every bit as substantive, and as helpful.
You may consider other people’s unwillingness to take up these asinine sidebars a “dodge” if you like. Nobody can control your impulses there. But nobody, equally, will be terribly impressed with these niggling obsessions with form over substance.
No, I wouldn’t, and you should know that I wouldn’t, so why are you making this false charge? You’re not discussing in good faith.
When you and I were discussing Discovery’s recent position, it was not I but John Harshman who first pointed out that it was not clear that you and I meant the same thing by “fundamentalist.” I thought he was making a good point, so I asked for clarification. It would have been easy enough for you to give your working definition of “fundamentalist”; you could do it in one sentence, or at most two or three. And it would be easy now, in our current discussion, for you to do the same for the term “creationist.” So you’re being conversationally uncooperative, for no good reason.
I believe you said you were trained as a lawyer. That perhaps goes a long way toward explaining your attitude here. Most people, if asked to define a term, would simply define it; a hair-splitting lawyer, on the other hand, might avoid the question by giving an argument why he should not be required to define it. And that’s exactly what you’ve done.
Luckily, I’ve now learned to stock up on Irony Meters TM before reading “Eddie’s” comments. But the supply is dwindling.
Well, if we’re going to talk about the fine points of the art of advocacy, I will reiterate that it is best, when someone who hasn’t got a damned thing to say that will help him on the principal points at issue starts throwing up chaff like “define fundamentalist!” and “define creationist!” when those terms have no bearing on the points at issue, to ignore it.
This is, indeed, a repeated issue when one deals professionally in argument. Motions for Summary Judgment, which I have discussed here with reference to Kitzmiller, present the problem all the time: you’ve made the points which are genuinely and properly before the court, and when the opposition has nothing worthwhile to raise, out comes a wheelbarrow full of all manner of things: little side issues on which there is dispute but on which nothing actually depends, non-issues on which there’s really no dispute but on which some verbal ambiguity might be constructed, pseudo-issues where things are rephrased (I remember one municipality arguing very heavily on the point that the seizure of my client’s assets wasn’t a “seizure,” it was “securing” them. That didn’t work very well.), and the like.
Now, as I have said, it is best to ignore it. That’s what I did, and it was certainly the right thing to do. Having ignored it, I was met with the claim that I’m dodging it; having then pointed out that all of it is irrelevant, I am met with a repeat of that claim. How silly, and how unnecessarily contentious. But since neither of these definitional issues has anything plausibly to do with any point I raised (they do have something to do with the bizarre distraction-points raised by you, such as whether, by your peculiar definition, any of the toga-clad ancients were creationists) it remains the case that it is best to ignore it. You may, if you like, reiterate your claim that my refusal to acquiesce in your desire for lively debate over your distractions is somehow avoiding the issue; and that will be as credible a claim the next time, and the next time, and the next time around as it has been from the outset.
What’s sad is that you should make such a ridiculous statement and then have the chutzpah to accuse ME of not discussing in good faith. As I am sure you already realize, I chose the analogy because it fits precisely what you did. My statement about fundamentalism was that the TE book “was an interesting moment in the development of the DI’s deepening commitment to hard-core fundamentalism.” That’s it. Nothing else. It’s quite obvious that the statement is true whether one uses the term “fundamentalism” in its strictest and narrowest historical sense, or in any broader sense. And so we have a precise parallel:
“The book was an interesting moment in the development of the DI’s deepening commitment to hard-core fundamentalism.”
is dead square with:
“That Munich agreement Chamberlain signed was like a love-letter to the Germans.”
Now, that’s probably a deeper dive into your diversionary nonsense than I ought to have taken. Better judgment might have been just to let you go on and on and on and assume that, since others can read and since what you’re doing is not only obvious but quite typical, nobody will miss the true import of what’s happened.
I know at least Faizal was a frequently poster on Larry Moran’s blog. Larry defined creationist as one who believes in God. Ken Miller who was an avid defender of evolution in 2016 was accused of being a creationist by Larry. That was the last post Ken participated in. This definition would label every Christian including @RonSewell and all at Bio logos creationists.
The label ID Creationist is very important to these guys as a legal argument to try to keep any discussion of ID out of schools by using the establishment clause as a shield.
My conclusion here is that the scientific curriculum in schools is a least being partially driven by politics. Science at least the biological sciences have become a tool for political indoctrination vs real legitimate critical thinking.
You’re not entirely wrong here. And the converse is definitely true: The coining of a new term that does not include the word “creationist” was a ploy to circumvent the very legal issue you identify. So it all comes down to whether a particular claim is genuine science or merely religious apologetics masquerading as science.
There is a direct historical line, in terms of beliefs, philosophy and even the very individuals involved from the “scientific creationism” of the 1970’s to the ID movement. This is something that has happened during my lifetime, so I have been a direct witness to it. Anyone who tries to pretend this is not the case is just engaging in historical revisionism and denial.
Here you are back to form and just 100% wrong. The goal of the ID movement is to subvert the scientific curriculum and use it to promote their own fundamentalist Christian political agenda. They explicitly admitted as much in the Wedge Document. It’s strange that some insist we take the ID’ers at their word when they deny being creationists, then claim that the ID’ers didn’t really mean what they were saying in the Wedge.
As usual, your conclusion bears no relation to the evidence advanced. Can we agree that you at least are a creationist?
You then contradict yourself by identifying the oppositions political motivation.
You think you are trying to block political indoctrination and in reality you are blocking open discussion. The fear you have is that ID is a very powerful tool for seeing design in the universe and this will empower the religious right.
At what point does truth matter?
As usual you are clinging to labels such as nested hierarchy, TSS and creationist vs making real rational arguments on their own merits.
So you avoid answering the question. Incidentally, your penchant for complaining about labels instead of making a real argument is itself an example of labeling. As long as the label has a clearly understood meaning, it’s perfectly fine to use it. In fact all nouns are labels, without which language is impossible.
We all know you’re a creationist. Why are you reluctant to say so?
I do not consider myself a creationist as I am open to scientific discovery and I don’t look at the Bible as solely a scientific document. I believed in evolutionary theory (UCD) for 59 years until I discovered the problems with molecular evolution.
Are you really a Marxist as you mentioned previously?
To the best of my knowledge, the term Intelligent Deign was first given a definition in Of Pandas and People. Although those words were previously used in various earlier texts, I know of none that explicitly defined it.
See also Matzke.
They don’t use it currently, although it is difficult with the DI to be sure what their actual views are. Behe did contribute to the 1993 version of OPaP, so presumably had no objection to that definition in 1993.
Now there was a weaselly denial. Creationists always say they’re open to scientific discovery, and your insertion of “solely” into the disclaimer invalidates it. What you did for 59 years is also irrelevant to questions about your current state. Let me disabuse you: you are a creationist. You believe in separate creation of “kinds”. And you appear to believe that the bible is at least partially a scientific document.
Yes. I follow Groucho and Harpo, and have no issues with Chico. I draw the line at Zeppo, though.
Did the 1993 version contain that definition? It originated in the 1989 edition. I can’t see that definition as compatible with Behe’s acceptance of common descent and of the evidence for it.