Given this sentence by a DP/creationist, a normal English reader would wonder if it was taken out of context, as is the case for so many sentences quoted in isolation with no link.
On checking, they would find that it is indeed quote-mined.
The original passage in full:
Don’t forget that this ruse has already been exploded. You confined yourself to the use of the word “creationism” by itself, whilst totally ignoring over 100 years of the use of the words “creationist” and “creationism” in adjectival noun phrases.
1.Young Earth Creationism.
2.Old Earth Creationism.
3.Intelligent Design Creationism.
So all you did was cherry picking. The actual phrase in question, “Intelligent Design Creationism”, is philologically valid as demonstrated by over 100 years of examples (which you ignored).
In context, the “100 years of examples” are examples of adjectival noun phrases containing “Creationism”, and not examples of that exact phrase.
Having found this, the normal English reader would then disbelieve anything else the quote-miner wrote.
Intelligent design proponents are careful to say that they cannot identify the designer at work in the world, although most readily concede that God is the most likely possibility. And they offer varied opinions on when and how often a designer intervened. Dr. Behe, for example, said he could imagine that, like an elaborate billiards shot, the design was set up when the Big Bang occurred 13.6 billion years ago. “It could have all been programmed into the universe as far as I’m concerned,” he said. But it was also possible, Dr. Behe added, that a designer acted continually throughout the history of life.
Do you think your quotations contain an assertion by Behe of miraculous intervention? They don’t. He offers the possibility that the designer acted continually throughout the history of life. He does not assert that this is what happened. In fact, he give an alternative of non-intervention, where everything occurs through a sequence of natural causes, as in a billiards shot.
The same thing is said in the longer article.
You’ll have to do some more reading in Behe, I’m afraid, if you want to find the statements you’re looking for. Over the past 10 years, I’ve challenged every TE and atheist both on BioLogos and here to come up with a clear, unambiguous assertion of miraculous intervention by Behe, and scores of rabidly anti-Behe posters have failed to come up with one. It’s most unlikely that you will be the successful one. But hey, if you’ve got time to spend, go ahead and try. It will have the good effect of forcing you to actually read Behe’s books and articles. You’ve admitted you’ve hardly read any ID stuff; here is your chance to fill the gap in your education.
Most of us are able to see thru Behe’s duplicitous wordplay. Most of us, not all of us.
Which is entirely consistent with the claim I and most other opponents of creationism are making here: The ID creationists are very careful to avoid making clear, unambiguous statements that expose their creationist ideology. The most they’ll do is make not-so-cleverly concealed statements about Divine Billiard Shots and the like. Their rich Christian Fundamentalist donors can hear that dog whistle.
That would have been a much more effective argument if actual ID and creationist arguments on the origin of the eye had been presented, rather than invented ones.
These two, for example.
Thus, although evolutionists claim that optimized designs, like human eyes, were “honed by evolution,” no naturalistic mechanism or principle among all the legal limits of nature has been found to actually build such remarkably efficient machinery. In fact, what science does observe and measure is the sometimes slow breakdown of efficiency and organization. This means that eyeball evolution lies outside of those natural legal limits. The New York Times reported that biophysicists have calculated that some biological systems, such as eyes, “couldn’t get faster, more sensitive or more efficient without first relocating to an alternate universe with alternate physical constants.” This level of quality design is best explained by a quality Designer.
Arguably, biological forms–such as the structure of a chambered nautilus, the organization of a trilobite, the functional integration of parts in an eye or molecular machine–attract our attention in part because the organized complexity of such systems seems reminiscent of our own designs. Yet, this review has argued that neo-Darwinism does not adequately account for the origin of all appearances of design, especially if one considers animal body plans, and the information necessary to construct them, as especially striking examples of the appearance of design in living systems.
On second thoughts, using actual ID and creationist arguments produces a very different outcome.
Meyer pointed to a book which was all about Special Creationism and confidently assured people that it was presenting “the modern ID theory”. You agreed with him; in fact you deliberately linked to his article and encouraged us to read it. So we can say for absolute certain that the modern ID theory is Special Creation by an supernatural Creator external to the cosmos, who is identified explicitly as God.
Not only that, but we know Special Creation is ID, because ID proponents keep referring us back to examples of historical arguments for Special Creation when they tell us that ID is not a new modern argument but nothing other than a historic argument which has been made for centuries.
But we’re not talking about that kind of book, are we? We’re talking about a book which argued specifically and exclusively for Special Creation by an supernatural Creator external to the cosmos, who is identified explicitly as God, a book which was identified by Meyer as presenting “the modern ID theory”.
But it doesn’t look like it.
Then why did you even use it? The entire point you were trying to demonstrate is that ID arguments are easily differentiated from the arguments of creationists. Incredibly, you attempted to do this by presenting a traditional creationist argument and calling it an ID argument. As I have said before, you have immense difficulty telling the difference between creationist arguments and ID arguments. There’s a reason for this; the arguments are invariably the same.
I guess that’s why you called it “an ID argument”. That makes sense!
I didn’t say anything about a permanent academic position. This is a weasel word inserted by you. As I have noted more than once in the past, you have repeatedly tried to give the impression of holding an academic position which you’ve never qualified as non-permanent, when in actual fact it increasingly appears that you do not hold any academic position at all, and quite likely never have.
But you work in all these departments, so just get access through them. Or just go to your university library. Simple.
To late, you already did comment on them. You told me with the greatest confidence and tones of triumphalism that only one of the articles used the term “ID creationism”. Your attempt at a “gotcha” backfired spectacularly when it was revealed that all you were doing was demonstrating your eagerness to comment on, assert the contents of, and dismiss completely out of hand, articles which you had never even read. The irony was even more piquant given your previously enthusiastic condemnation of anyone who did so.
This again just shows how totally out of step you are with the current leading individuals and organizations of ID, who continue to quote Johnson’s writings as relevant in current year. You didn’t even know that Discovery Institute was still using Johnson’s definition of ID (the one you totally disagreed with), and displaying that definition on its website, as recently as 2014. In December 2019, the Discovery Institute was still promoting Johnson’s book “Darwin on Trial”, despite the fact that it was published all the way back in 1991.
There’s a common pattern of you making ad hoc claims and statements about ID which other ID proponents and organizations are not making. In some cases your statements completely contradict what they’re saying. Then when this is demonstrated, you make frantic efforts to try and backtrack on what you’ve said. It goes something like this.
ID critic:
Eddie: Why are you quoting Johnson? No one uses his works anymore. He’s old and dumb. Also, he’s fat and he smells.
ID critic:
Eddie: When I said no one uses his works anymore, I meant his works are still in common use by ID organizations, despite being surpassed by more recent superior works. When I said Johnson was old, I meant he was venerable, and when I said he was dumb, I meant he choose to maintain a dignified silence when criticized uncharitably by his enemies. When I said he was fat, I meant his arguments were weighty, and when I said he smelled, I meant his works have helped place ID in a good odor. A charitable reading by any normal person with a proper grasp of the English language would understand what I meant to say, regardless of what I actually wrote.
You’re simply an unreliable source for the definition, arguments, and aims of ID as an idea and a movement.
This is a classic example of what I’ve just said. One minute you say it’s false, the next minute you say it’s correct.
That is not what he said. This is another strategy of yours. Not content with telling us that your words don’t mean what they appear to say, you also try to tell us that other people’s words don’t mean what they appear to say (without providing any evidence for this).
No, I have pointed out that ID proponents claim the designer’s God is not tied to any specific religion. But of course for ID proponents it most definitely is. The ID designer is the Christian God.
I haven’t ever seen you show any such concern. In fact I’ve never seen you show any concern for Jews at all. In fact the most recent explicit references to Jews that you’ve made have been in the context of complaining about them.
And the “alt-right” wants us to stop calling them neo-Nazis. That isn’t going to happen either.
Then how do you explain that Meyer has been very clear that life would require massive transfusions of new information at various points? That does imply direct action of an intelligent mind on matter. Yet Behe has never said that.
You’re avoiding the fact that you have no evidence for your claim. You want to convict on the basis of suspicion alone. With a mindset like that, you’d have been a very successful prosecutor back in the days of the Salem witch trials, where that was considered good legal practice.
No, because the passage you quote speaks of the opposition of ID not to “evolution” but to “materialistic scientific theories,” and, as the quotation from Jonathan Burke shows, Johnson said that if evolution was guided by an intelligent mind, that would be an affirmation of design, not materialism.
Since he routinely affirms common descent, there is no reason to assume he is talking about anything but natural processes unless you can produce specific passages where he makes exceptions. And no one here can produce such passages.
Simple: He maintains an element of plausible deniability by not outright stating his belief that it’s Baby Jesus who’s transfusing that “information”. He knows it’s not people with my level of critical thinking skills he needs to fool.
Let’s be clear here: Is this another of your patented backtracks? All along you’ve been saying that creationism requires an overt admission of God being the “intelligent designer” in order to be considered creationism. Now it seems you’re changing your tune and saying that Meyer is a creationist because he speaks of “infusions of information.”
The Discovery Institute views evolution as a “materialistic scientific theory”. They refer explicitly to “Darwinian materialism”. The Discovery Institute is not neutral on evolution; they challenge the truth of particular scientific theories (such as neo-Darwinism and the theory of chemical evolution).
No. Since he affirms ID, there is every reason to assume he is not simply talking about “natural processes”. The fact that he affirms ID means that he is talking about natural processes plus the intervention of an intelligent designer.
If design is not materialism, does that mean it is supernatural?
Common descent is just one part of it. Where does Behe think genetic variation comes from? Where does he say that all variation comes about through natural process?
False again. It was not “all about Special Creationism,” as that term is normally used in popular American discourse. In popular American discourse, Special Creationism refers to a Bible-based view in which revelation is considered divinely inspired and authoritative. No appeal to any such view is made in the book, nor is the Bible even indirectly alluded to. The closest the book gets is a mention of “theism,” and even then it specifies that there are several types of theism. All the book means by “Special Creation” is the direct action of an extra-cosmic mind on matter. Nothing Jesus-y, nothing churchy, nothing more than straight theism. Your attempts to deceive the readers here by misrepresenting what is argued in the book will not succeed.
Misrepresentation again. You know perfectly well that often they have in mind ancient Greek and Roman writers who had never heard of the Bible and didn’t mean “Special Creation” with the Biblical aroma. To call the arguments of the Stoics arguments for “Special Creation” is to seriously mislead someone who will hear the phrase with a modern ear.
The most that can be conceded is that the use of the term “special creation” by the authors was not a wise choice, given their argument. Since they were arguing only for a generic theism, they should not have chosen a term which might be heard by many readers as Christian in its contents. But while I concede that was not the best word choice, the context of the book makes clear that nothing in the argument depends on any input from Christianity and the Bible. The book is an argument for generic theism or deism, not for Christianity. And the argument is entirely based on what we know from the facts of nature, not on any religious considerations.
If the authors really wanted to argue full-out Special Creationism, they would have gone on with a discussion of the Bible. You are seizing upon a mere term, and reading it out of context, for your own anti-ID polemical ends.
You’re badly confused. You have confused “the arguments of creationists” with “traditional natural theology.” Traditional natural theology doesn’t make any use of the Bible at all, whereas creationism – as I’ve established beyond doubt from my broad-based survey – is intrinsically tied to the Bible in American popular debates.
I have never made a false statement about academic positions I have held. When I say that I have taught Greek and Hebrew at a proper academic seminary, it’s because I have. When I say that I have taught courses on science and religion at proper universities, it’s because I have. When I say that I’ve taught dozens of courses, it’s because I have. And I’ve been hired for this work because my competence in those areas is respected by my academic peers. But I’m under no obligation to anyone here to provide a detailed summary of times and places. Nor do I care in the slightest whether certain people here doubt my qualifications, since the ones who have expressed doubt about my qualifications are themselves utterly unqualified in the fields in which I work and teach, having no degrees beyond the B.A. in any Arts subject and, at least in your case, have never having been engaged to teach even a single course in any institution of higher education. There is no reason why an accomplished scholar in religion should care what an autodidact academic wannabe thinks about his achievements.
No, you presume too much. Because of rules which are out of my control, I do not have access from the home. And I am not about to drive an hour each way to the research library where I do have access in order to look up articles which likely don’t say what you claim they say. I have better things to do with two hours of driving time (in currently bad weather conditions) than to prove a hobbyist wrong.
I specified that I was referring only to the titles, which was at that point all you had given me. But I have said that I will look at the contents if you give me the links. Since you refuse to do so, that’s the end of it.
There’s a common pattern of you refusing to acknowledge the very clear and direct statements on the Discovery website in articles specifically devoted to explaining the difference between ID and creationism. They show that all your charges are false, but you pretend they aren’t there.
Nope. I said that what he was getting at is true, but that he said was misleading without context. Why are you misrepresenting this as a contradiction?
Already disproved, by the existence of Jews, Hindus, Muslims, and other who in important ways conceive of God in a non-Christian manner but support ID.
No, I’ve never said anything like that. I gave my understanding of creationism in the detailed article above, which apparently you either have not read or have not understood. “Intelligent design” does not figure into the definition at all.
I’ve said all along that Meyer is a creationist. I’ve said all along that most ID supporters are creationist. But I’ve also said that not all ID supporters are creationist. It’s because you disagree with me about the last point that you’re wrong, and demonstrably wrong.
There’s a straight line there, but I won’t touch it.
Even if that was true, it doesn’t change the fact that it was all about Special Creationism. This book specifically uses the term Special Creation, complete with capitals. We know how "that term is normally used in popular American discourse”.
“Similarly, teaching that humans arose through blind, purposeless Neo-Darwinian processes conflicts with the religious beliefs of many theist students who believe that God supernaturally intervened to make humans or other organisms through “special creation.””
So you should be blaming the authors of the book for using this term, not me.
No, it mention “God” very explicitly, along with “Special Creationism”, and “supernatural Creator”. It specifically excludes anything but Special Creation by a supernatural Creator outside the cosmos, who is identified specifically as God. This is everything you have said that ID is not, yet Meyer tells us this is “the modern theory of ID”.
I have not misrepresented the book at all, and no one here is going to be “deceived” by what I say. Go ahead and ask anyone here.
I said nothing about a “Biblical aroma”. They often have in mind Greek and Roman writers who had never heard of the Bible but still wrote of a Special Creation. They also have in mind centuries of Christian writers who very obviously had heard of the Bible and made specific teleological arguments aiming to support the Special Creation of the Bible.
It was a very wise choice, given their argument was specifically affirming Special Creation by a supernatural Creator outside the cosmos, who is identified specifically as God. What was not a wise choice, was Meyer citing this book as presenting “the modern ID theory”, and concealing all the details which reveal this was arguing for Special Creation. That left cdesignproponentists such as yourself in the uncomfortable position of defending as ID, a book which uses all the language and arguments which you have always told us are not ID.
Secondly, creationism always postulates some kind of a supernatural or divine creator. Intelligent design does not try to speculate about the nature or identity of the designer because it recognizes that the scientific data alone cannot answer questions about whether the designer is supernatural. Thus ID attempts to limit its claims to what can be verified via the scientific data. That is a crucial distinction between ID and creationism, because creationism often goes beyond the scientific data and makes philosophical or religious claims about the identity of the designer.
According to this definition, the Thaxton book is not only creationism, it is not ID.
Of course traditional natural theology doesn’t make use of the Bible. You are still trying to avoid the point. Traditional natural theology attempts to provide evidence supporting the Bible, and the teleological arguments of natural theology attempt specifically to provide evidence supporting the traditional Special Creation reading of the Bible. Have you even read Paley? He argues specifically for Special Creation, that’s what he was supporting with this arguments for natural theology. It’s literally in his writings.
Again these are weasel words. I am not claiming you have ever made a false statement about academic positions you have held. I am saying you have deliberately used wording intended to give people a false impression about your academic career, while carefully avoiding actually making factually false claims.
Not because you have any qualifications or publications in those areas. So you’ve probably been an assistant tutor, or SAT coach, or something similar.
Which you are not. I even have a verifiable academic publishing record; you do not.
Yes, as I said you made bold claims about the contents of the articles without even having read them, despite pompously telling everyone else not to do this. So much for your academic research practices.
On the contrary, I have quoted from them and commented on them. I have even quoted from statements on their site which you have never shown any knowledge of, and which they’ve taken down later.
What you said first was “False”, and then later said “misleading without context”. You later had to scrabble desperately to try and backflip on what you had said while trying to make it look like it wasn’t a complete reversal.
That doesn’t disprove anything. But I note you’ve backflipped again and you’re now saying that statement of Dembski’s is wrong.
When you complained that “Religion departments are very largely staffed now by agnostics, atheists, liberal Christians, liberal or secular Jews, etc”.
