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

[Faizal_Ali]

@Eddie

Faizal is unwilling to even consider masses of evidence for established usage, and he is determined to count the very recent and partisan usage that is itself under challenge as if it were established usage.

Yes, masses of evidence. Like this, for example:

@Eddie

Stephen Jay Gould, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory :

(p. 981) “But creationism surged again in the 1970s… Creationists enjoyed a second round of success in the late 1970s, culminating in the passage of ‘equal time’ laws for creationism and evolution in the states of Arkansas and Louisiana.”

[Eddie’s Note: the context implies that “creationism” is a competing theory against “evolution.”]

(p. 989) “… the Arkansas trial permitted full scale testimony about creationism in a court of law. I feel honored that I had the opportunity to present the case for evolution as natural knowledge, and for creationism as pseudoscience …”

[Eddie’s Note: the context makes clear that “creationism” refers to the views of anti-evolutionary fundamentalists, not a broad general belief that God created the world.]

@Eddie

Now, let’s look at some book titles :

Did Man Get Here by Evolution or by Creation? (Watchtower, 1967)

[Eddie’s Note: the argument of the book implies polar opposition throughout.]

Creation or Evolution? , by David D. Riegle (Zondervan, 1972)

[Notes from Eddie: Quote from inside the book: “… the true antitheses that exist between anti-Biblical evolutionary theory and the Biblical account of creation found in Genesis”; further, the book was edited by and endorsed by John N. Moore, leading exponent of “Creation Science” – which is explicitly anti-evolutionary creationism.]

Now, here is an assortment of examples from various sources, all non-ID or anti-ID sources :

Eugenie Scott, National Center for Science Education , The Creation/Evolution Continuum | National Center for Science Education

“Many — if not most — Americans think of the creation and evolution controversy as a dichotomy with “creationists” on one side, and “evolutionists” on the other.”

[Eddie’s Note (to avoid charges of out-of-context quoting): It must be added that Scott goes on to indicate that she wishes this were not the case; nonetheless, she starts out by describing what is the case, regarding current usage.]

Ken Miller, Finding Darwin’s God , p. 63:

“I first approached the creationist literature … The very first time I read through the creationist literature on this subject … I dug into Henry Morris’s Scientific Creationism …”

[Eddie’s Note: Henry Morris is adamantly anti-evolutionist.]

Edward Larson, Summer for the Gods :

(p. 258) “… some fundamentalists called for balancing instruction in evolution with creationist teaching as a supposedly constitutional alternative to excluding any one theory.”

[Eddie’s Note: Obviously the fundamentalists here understood creationism and evolution as opposing theories.]

(p. 265) “… the amens for creationism have increased in both number and volume over the years since 1955 … a vast number of Americans still believe in the Bible and accept it as authoritative on matters of science… [and] accept the biblical account of special creation over the scientific theory of evolution.”

Edward Humes, Monkey Girl (HarperCollins, 2007):

(p. 135) “Yet a steady stream of controversies continued, as the underlying conflict remained as strong as ever. Each side had its victories during the next quarter century, with the evolutionists prevailing in court, but the creationists winning in the court of public opinion…”

[Eddie’s Note: Obviously this implies stark opposition between “creationism” and evolution.]

(p. 137) “In 1996, Pope John Paul II dealt creationists a blow when he released a formal Vatican position paper stating the the human body might not, after all, be an immediate creation of God , but the product of a gradual evolutionary process.”

[Eddie’s Note: If “creationism” meant merely “affirmation of God as Creator,” then the Pope would be a “creationist” and would never “deal creationists a blow”; obviously, then, “creationist” here means something narrower, i.e., that the human body is “an immediate creation of God” rather than “the product of a gradual evolutionary process.”]

[Note that Humes comes to anti-ID conclusions in his book, so these definitions of “creationism” come from a source hostile to my position.]

Exactly what kind of “evidence” was all that supposed to be? Do you think we are debating whether evolution and creationism are the same thing?

You talk about the “stark opposition” between evolution and creationism, and then in the next breath say that Michael Behe and Michael Denton fall under the category of “evolution” along with Ken Miller, Joshua Swamidass, Jerry Coyne and Richard Dawkins.

You’re very confused.