Saletan: Creationists are becoming us.

[funflower]

http://slate.msn.com/id/2118320/

(snip)

It's the creationists in Kansas who are evolving. And it's the evolutionists who can't see it.

(snip)

Like its creationist forebears, ID is theistic. But unlike them, it abandons Biblical literalism, embraces open-minded inquiry, and accepts falsification, not authority, as the ultimate test. These concessions, sincere or not, define a new species of creationism—Homo sapiens—that fatally undermines its ancestors. Creationists aren't threatening us. They're becoming us.

(snip)

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KittyWampus]

14. ID Does NOT Necessarily Posit A Designer... Just As Natural Selection

doesn't necessarily posit a 'selector'.

Nature certainly may have an inherent capacity for Intelligence/Consciousness.

And, in fact, positing that answers quite a few questions that Darwin's Materialistic theory does not.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[funflower]

15. It mirrors my own evolution

from a Bible-believing childhood to an adult admiration of Darwin.

If you read the entire article, Will Saletan essentially says ID represents exactly what the most fundamentalist creationists fear: that they are slipping "down" the slippery slope away from Biblical literalism toward an ability to analyze the question based on the evidence.

The article is not a defense of ID or of the idea that it should be taught in school science classes. He's basically saying that, slowly but surely, science is winning.

I think it is an interesting and encouraging observation.

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. I am a theistic evolutionist. I believe God created everything, including

evolution. Furthermore, I am not the least bit offended that my acnestors may have looked like apes.

Drive my fundagelical family members nuts with that. ;)

[Dr.Phool]

6. Beliefs are not science

One big circular argument.

[GreenPartyVoter]

7. But my beliefs don't contradict the science. which is what sets

me apart from my dark ages brothers and sisters in faith.

[KittyWampus]

11. Do You Believe Consciousness Arises From Physical Matter?

Can you prove it?

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Rex]

4. HAHAHA

Let's get something clear right now, creationists don't know about cells or chromosomes. Creationists, you see, believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible. You do see the word LITERAL, yes? The total slam against ID is that it does NOT accept the Universe as a multi-teared realm with an unimaginable amount of celestial bodies, some probably inhabited with life.

Creationists have used smoke & mirrors (boy doesn't that sound familiar) to change the words of their core ideology into something that sounds more, for lack of a better word, scientific. Creationists come from a bygone era of witch burning, torture, heresy, and just overall death and destruction (crusades) in the name of the PRINCE OF PEACE.

Sorry, but I don't buy shit like this because of that obvious discrepancy.

[Tux]

8. Interesting

That ID appeared less than a year after Supreme Court ruled against teaching creationism in schools. Fundies will always try to dominate our society and we must fight the Christian Taliban.

What would Jesus do? Take out a baseball and smack sense into their heads.

[Rex]

20. Jesus would probably hop up on the cross and say

"beam me up Scotty, there is no intelligent life to be found!" Wait...no that's Captain Kirk! Sorry Jesus.

Here's a better one - what if Jesus starred in the next Star Trek series! Captain Christ as you've never seen before! Boldly going where no faith has ever gone...to Pluto! Now who would be Mr. Spock? (I'm torn between saints and angels on that one).

[funflower]

31. I think Jesus would say "Forgive them Father, for

they know not what they do."

[megatherium]

9. Actually, this new crew of creationists does know a little biology.

They admit the Earth is 4,500 million years old. Some of them even believe in a common origin of species.

You know the picture that shows human evolution from the ape up through modern man? Right now, the creationists are at about the point in the picture where the hominid is beginning to stand completely upright, but before the hominid that is brandishing a spear. Figure skull capacity maybe 800 cubic cm, a bit short of the modern 1500.

The previous generation of creationists were all the way back at the beginning, at the ape still walking on its knuckles. Dr. Duane Gish, one of the leaders of the original crew of young-earth creationists, even looked simian. I saw this guy debate a biology prof back in '78. Slick slides, folksy humor. Complete bullshit. I asked him if the universe is only 6,000 years old, how can we see the Andromeda Galaxy, which is 2 million light years away? He replied that he didn't know much astronomy but he figured God must have created the light in transit so we could see it.

[Fire Walk With Me]

5. Ah, so now they pretend to be scientists. The mask doesn't fit well.

Just more selfish types with an agenda, painting themselves all pretty while they're hoping to control.

"people who wrap themselves in precious animal fur, hoping the beauty wipes off upon them (or that they're perceived as better through association)."

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[funflower]

33. If you're talking about William Saletan

his article (linked above) is NOT about creationism or ID. It's about CREATIONISTS and how they have changed in recent years. It's sociology - no scientific credentials required.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[megatherium]

12. I don't usually fall all over myself defending pseudoscience,

but some of these guys actually are scientists, or at least, they're credentialed. There's Michael Behe, who is a molecular biologist at Lehigh University; Dean Kenyon, another molecular biologist, at San Francisco State; and William Dembski, who holds PhDs in mathematics and in philosophy. Kenyon, by the way, was a leader in the study of the biochemical origins of life. Now his colleagues won't let him teach intro biology, because he is anti-evolution.

The truth of the matter is this: Given any belief, one can find a PhD who holds it. I swear to God!

[Fire Walk With Me]

26. Didn't the man who invented the catscan also believe in creationism?

I know that there are some high-level folks involved, which is all the more baffling when they do such a hard right-turn. Reminds me of the "precious bodily fluids" moment in Strangelove.

I've got an open enough mind to wait for more evidence on EITHER of these issues: science as supreme, or creationism. I wish others would as well instead of trying to force it upon others.

[megatherium]

28. right now, ID is more about politics than it is about science --

it's being promoted by some serious money from the right.

[megatherium]

13. self-deleted duplicate post nt

.

[KittyWampus]

18. Well The Existing Scientific Establishment Certainly Has Control

doesn't it?

All the millions of dollars pouring from government into corporate/collegic coffers for research.

The Science Establishment has a lot invested in keeping the status quo. And that means discrediting ANYTHING that might threaten their grip.

I'd say the Medical and Pharmaceutical industry is a perfect example.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Inland]

19. ID is bad science without the grace of being religion. No, thanks.

If I am going to be against science, I'm going to do it for the Lord.

[BillZBubb]

22. Bad interpretation of the facts.

The author seems not to understand that positing a "designer" of any type is unscientific from the get go.

There's no difference scientifically from the ID crowd and the Biblical literalists. It's all pseudoscience.

[funflower]

24. From a fundamentalist point of view, it's quite a slide

When an individual concedes that the Bible does not tell the story of creation in an historically accurate way, that person has given up Biblical literalism. As many a fundy has told me, without a literal interpretation of the Bible, the whole house of cards is on pretty shaky ground.

[Jackpine Radical]

23. I think the worst case you can make against ID

is that it doesn't meet Occam's standard of simplicity, nor Popper's criterion of falsifiability. But, basically, so what? Positing or not positing the extra non-testable entity of a deity would not lead one to make any different predictions as far as I can see. And even if it did, the different predictions would have to be testable in order to have any meaning for a Popperian. I'm perfectly happy to cohabit the universe with ID types.

[funflower]

25. It's a big change since the Scopes trial.

Give 'em another 50 years.

P.S.: These folks have never heard of Occam.

[Jackpine Radical]

27. Well, personally, I've always sided with Occam's beard.

My own dictum is, "Thou shalt not needlessly delete entities." Things are just a lot more fun with all the nature spirits and whatnot hanging around.

[funflower]

30. Obviously, you have a lot more fun than Occam!

B-)

[TimeChaser]

32. Testable

But science must be testable, particularly if they want ID to be taught along side evolution. It's a nice philosophy, but it doesn't belong in a science class.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eridani]

29. Call it what it is--Stupid Design

The problem with creationism is not that it posits the existence of a higher power, but that it posits constant diddling with an inadequate system by said power, with the explicit intent of promoting biblical literalism at some level. Intelligent Design is more appropriately called Stupid Design, because it assumes that a Higher Power smart enough to author the operating system of the universe is nevertheless too stupid to get the job done right the first time--it's still and must always be in the beta test mode.

The computer analogy is modern, but the basic idea certainly isn't. Newton personally believed that God could and did intervene in the workings of the universe to keep the planets on track, but his minister friend Thomas Burnet strongly disagreed. In the 18th century they used clockwork rather than computers for the analogy.

Thomas Burnet sez "We think him a better Artist that makes a Clock that strikes regularly at every hour from the Springs and Wheels which he puts in the work, than he that hath so made his Clock that he must put his finger to it every hour to make it strike: And if one should contrive a piece of Clockwork so that it should beat all the hours, and make all its motions regularly for such a time, and that time being come, upon a signal given, or a Spring toucht, it should of its own accord fall all to pieces; would not this be look'd upon as a piece of greater Art, than if the Workman came at that time prefixt, and with a great Hammer beat it into pieces?"


And that's far from the oldest assertion of the concept. Augustine of Hippo and several Islamic scholars had similar notions.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/medieval.html