On the current usage of the term "creationist" as applied to ID

[Jonathan_Burke]

@Eddie

Define, in your own words, out of your own knowledge, “evolution.”

The process described by the modern evolutionary synthesis.

@Eddie

Anyone who does not accept “the modern evolutionary synthesis” does not accept evolution?

Anyone who does not accept the modern evolutionary synthesis, does not accept evolution as I am using the term “evolution”.

@Eddie

So if Dawkins disagrees on some significant point with “the modern evolutionary synthesis,” he doesn’t accept evolution?

No. As usual you are trying to change the subject.

@Eddie

How many boxes of “the modern evolutionary synthesis” does one have to tick before one counts as an orthodox supporter of evolution? All of them? Most of them? Half of them?

It isn’t a matter of checking boxes.

@Eddie

Which boxes of “the modern evolutionary synthesis” does Michael Denton fail to tick?

1. He falsely claims evolution is “a theory in crisis”. It is not.
2. In “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis” he rejects any evidence for gradualism, and claims natural selection can only account for microevolution. This is a rejection of the modern evolutionary synthesis.
3. In “Nature’s Destiny” he claims evolution can only have taken place through the direction of a supernatural designer, and through mechanisms he identifies as non-Darwinian. This is a rejection of the modern evolutionary synthesis.

The Disco Institute is very helpful here. They take pains to assure people that Denton still rejects “Darwininan evolution”.

As a result, we occasionally hear rumors promulgated by ID critics claiming that Michael Denton is no longer skeptical of Darwinian evolution, or even that he has abandoned the argument in his influential 1985 book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Such rumors are quashed by Denton’s article in Inference , where he observes:

They then quote him writing this.

In Evolution: A Theory in Crisis ( Evolution ), published in 1985, I argued that the biological realm is fundamentally discontinuous. The major taxa-defining innovations in the history of life have not been derived from ancestral forms by functional intermediates. … The contrary view remained predominant among evolutionary biologists until, at least, the 1980s, and remains predominant as the view offered the public today. There have been massive advances and discoveries in many areas of biology since Evolution was first published. These developments have transformed biology and evolutionary thought. Yet orthodox evolutionary theory is unable to explain the origins of various taxa-defining innovations. This was my position in Evolution. It remains my position today.

Read the entire article.