Are creationists returning to their YEC roots?

quote:

---

ID is neither pro evolution or anti evolution

---

If ID isn't "anti evolution" then can you tell me why ID proponents spend more time attacking evolution than developing their own proposals ?

quote:

---

Perhaps a bit unfair. The majority of people who consider themselves ID proponents are likely either deists or theistic evolutionists, and they do not spend any time attacking evolution, nor do they try to inject their ID views into the classroom.

---

I would like to know which ID proponents you have in mind. Certainly not Jonathan Wells, or Michael Behe or William Dembski or Philip Johnson - or David Berlinski. Indeed it seems that the original point of ID is to get its ideas into schools.Indeed, ID has retreated from that, instead favouring the "teach the controversy" strategy. Which involves teaching anti-evolution arguments instead of pro-ID arguments. Hardly something that supports the idea that ID is not anti-evolution.

quote:

---

Your earlier post was a response to GDR. There must be many like him who believe that there was an intelligent designer, but who do not attack evolution.

---

But he is hardly a proponent of ID. He may beleive that the universe is intelligently designed but he isn't - so far as I know - involved at all in the ID movement.

quote:

---

Come now. There were people who believed in an intelligent designer, long before Philip Johnson was born.

---

But there wasn't an Intelligent Design movement. That was essentially founded by Philip Johnson.

quote:

---

Sure, ID as a right wing political movement is new and dishonest. But when most people hear the term "ID" they think of it as belief that there was an intelligent designer.

---

I really find that hard to believe. There is a very vocal Intelligent Design movement, and to the best of my knowledge that specific term originated with them. I don't believe that anyone would be referring to Intelligent Design as such without the movement. And I should add that William Dembski has stated that Intelligent Design is "no friend" to theisttic evolution so it is at the least questionable whether people whose views tend more to the latter should be counted as believing in Intelligent Design.

I have to say that this conclusion is belied by your actual arguments.

quote:

---

As an Atheist he assumes that there is a natural way that cultural information is passed between generations. He used his reasoning to come up with the idea of memes.

---

You could substitute "scientist" for atheist in that sentence and it would be equally reasonable - and true. If Dawkins view were as unscientific as YEC you certainly couldn't do that. And I would be very surprised if you truly beleive that there is no communication between generations using natural means (such a view is clearly false - if there were no such communication, education would be impossible).Moreover Dawkin's idea is NOT restricted to inter-generational communication - the examples given certainly do not recognise such a limit. Which leaves you with the prospect of either arbitrarily assuming that inter-generational communication is fundamentally distinct from communication within a generation or suggesting something like the idea that God personally propagates catch-phrases and popular fashions.

quote:

---

Dawkins is probably the main proponent of methodological naturalism. His explanation for that is his theory of memes. Percy's point here is, I think, that science embraces methodological naturalism as being scientific but it does not see design that way.

---

Quite frankly you are talking nonsense. Memes are not an explanation for methodological naturalism. Even if your criticism of memes as unscientiifc were valid - and it is not, you would still need to take into account the actual claims that are made for memes before you were in a position to make a valid classification.

Do you mean the Theistic Postion - including various forms of Theistic Evolution or do you mean ID. They aren't the same thing. (And I don't see how a theistic position could win even in a philosophy class - let alone a science class But that's another thread).

So, what you are saying is that you describe yourself as supporting a religious and political movement because you like the name. Intelligent Design with capital letters was a term invented to disguise the next creationist strategy after the failure of "Creation Science" in court. If you simply agree with "intelligent design" you should say that - don't use the capitals - and you should probably look for a term that better describes your position instead of borrowing one from people who you don't really support.

So you can find a reference to lower case "intelligent design" in a few old works - specifically noted as being "urelated to the current use of the term".Which supports what I said - use the lower case version if you really must but it's better to use a term that more clearly describes your position. Do you really believe that people are more likely to know about old and obscure sources (the latest being 1967) than the widely publicised ID movement ?

Which is why you shouldn't use the abbreviation. Or use lower case in the abbreviation. Or better yet use a different term and abbreviate that (e.g. if Theistic Evolution better describes your beliefs, you can use TE).

I'm afraid that GDR's idea of reasoning appears to be "start with a conclusion and come up with excuses for believing it". For instance he claims that "God dunnit" is the most reasonable answer to the question "why is there something instead of nothing" - but he hadn't even realised that "God" would be a something - his "most rational" answer wasn't even an answer. That isn't something I could call rational.