The state of ID/YECism here at EvC

There are debates over how important PE is - Gould claimed that it was responsible for all major evolutionary change while others think that more gradual changes are important, too.I would credit Eldredge and Gould with drawing paleontologists' attention to evolutionary theory since, it seems, that many had a mistaken view of gradualism that they (wrongly) attributed to Darwin.l

They couldn't - that's why the bones are there

---

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

I haven't done a careful analysis. However, it is my distinct impression that the same thing has been happening on the usenet group talk.origins as we see here. That is, the number of creationist debaters is way down from what it had been.I'm not sure why that change. My guess is that the fundies had been putting their hopes and efforts into the ID movement. After their Dover debacle, I presume they will regroup. We should expect a change of strategy.

---

Impeach Bush.

My own opinion is that it is the change in emphasis from YECism to IDism that has caused the decline in participation by Creationists. With YECism there were literally dozens of topics to debate, such as the shrinking sun, the declining magnetic field, the variation in ¹²C concentrations, the unreliability of radioactive dating, the depth of moon dust, the lack of transitionals, white holes, hydrologic sorting, runaway subduction, accelerated evolution within kinds, and so forth. Creationists could visit any number of Creationist websites and get all charged up on any and all of these subjects so that they could then traipse into discussion boards like this one and display their ignorance.ID takes away all this easily comprehended ammunition. Any Creationist who decides that ID, while not ideal from a YEC perspective, is the best bet against evolution has to give up all those arguments. Those Creationists who expend the effort to familiarize themselves with the details of ID understand that they have to give up a young earth and concede that most of evolution occurred naturally. I think many do so very reluctantly, and so they cannot muster sufficient enthusiasm for it to participate in discussions about it at online discussion boards.I expect there will at some point be a backlash by traditional Creationists against ID, especially as they realize that ID has no better chance of overturning evolution than YECism.Those Creationists who are enthusiastic about ID, like Randman and Buzsaw, don't understand it. Mostly such people are YEC's who somehow don't perceive the contradictions between YECism and IDism.--Percy

I think that many of the arguments have been rehashed so long that many creationists have gone underground, with respect to open debates like EvC. They have their own forums to lambast proponants of the ToE and have retreated to those where they may feel more "at home."The other issue may be that ID needs to develop more sets of arguments, which YECism has in abundance. As you said, YECism has many topics it could debate. ID appears to me to be a somewhat younger movement, thus lacking the depth of criticisms that YEC's could fall back on.The Dover decision may have let a lot of air out of the ID movement, but I believe that it is likely not a dead issue. There are too many opponants of "Darwinism" (whatever that is) and their belief in its relationship with atheism, drugs, secularism, imorality, Clinton, the Liberal agenda, etc.What we are likely to see is just the calm before the storm. Either the ID movement will embrace their YEC roots and say "Yeh, we believed this all along, we just wanted to bring God into the science arena." or they'll evolve.

ID was always a strategy rathr than a coherent idea in itself. Part of that strategy was to form a "united front" between different groups of antievolutionists (mainly YECs and OECs). Another part was to try to avoid overt appeals to religious belief. Of course this removed all young-earth arguments and even made the group averse to putting forward anything but the vaguest or most tentative hypotheses as to what might have occurred.So there is no real contradiction between YEC and ID as positions. The disconnection is in the goals - many YECs want no compromise with old-earth positions and ID as it stands is just such a compromise. Even those YECs prepared to make such a compromise will do so only as a strategy - and if it that strategy fails there is no reason for them to support it.On the other hand if ID is to stand any chance of becoming a science it will have to divest itself of much of it's vagueness and become a clearer, more coherent position. But that would almost certianly force it to either endorse of deny YEC views - and neither option is likely to be acceptable to the current leadership.k

There were times where their was basically a land bridge in the north sea like Beringia..it was populated by mammoths, woolly rhinos and the rest of the Pleistocene megafauna you would find buried in other places. Fishermen find lots of fossil mammoths between Alaska and Russia where the Bering land bridge used to be as well.I did walk around the RLD for a while..I did not hear a scream but there was construction around one of the bridges which was really loud...when I got home I had a huge welt on my arm from the strap of my backpack caused by the weight of the fossils...some of the other visitors of the RLD probably had other kinds of marks or welts from their visit

Rest assured, chaps, numbers will be up in the New Year with the burst of Holy Joeism over Xmas and the fool factories of AIG and ICR in full production. Newbies will enter with the zeal of converts just inchin` to defeat the Evil Ones. Slightly polished versions will be presented to be demolished, bared teeth will substitute for reason (mebbe on both sides), and the invaders will depart in high dudgeon convinced of their grasp of the 'truth'.

Percy, this is just absurd. The fact is we understand ID, creationism and evolution whereas evos often understand neither Id, creationism, nor evolution, but just spout off their talking points with nary a hint they understand why thier critics disagree with them.

Sorry to dent your ego but I would be surprised if your grasp of the work of Behe or Dembski exceeded my own. You seem to prefer Wells who relies heavily on innuendo and misrepresentation to smear evolution and can't be considered as even reaching Dembski's level.You aren't that familiar with the evidence for evolution either given your repetition of the claim that there are only a very few transitional fossils.And the Kitzmiller trial made it quite clear that many opponents of evolution are against it for religious reasons.o

Really while it maybe OT, i really would like to see you post anything on ID,creationism or evolution , that isn't twisting the meaning of what people really said, or making things up or smoke screening because you get called out by someone who knows more about it than you doanything I've read posted by creationists seems to be the same twisted nonsense i've seen dozens of timesplus please back up everything you just claimed please, if you want i can give you all 3 definitions, though i doubt you would bother to agree with any of themThis message has been edited by ReverendDG, 12-23-2005 03:36 AM

---

"Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it."
"Nuke 'em in the name of Jesus!"

Yeah, arguing *Haeckel* from talking *Haeckel* points. How lame *Haeckel* is that?TTFN,WK

The quality of our contributions here is not for ourselves to judge. It's not really necessary for you to engage in continuous self-puffery and the denigration of others, and the latter is contrary to the Forum Guidelines.If you really feel your YEC beliefs are consistent with ID then feel free to propose a thread to discuss it.--Percy

If it is the bridge I am thinking of then you certainly passed by our apartment. If you were around the RLD then you really couldn't have been more than a block or two from my place anyway. Whad'ja think of the neighborhood?A man comes to the RLD and leaves with fossils, that's gotta be a first.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I don't mean to be part of the pile on, but I do want to make something clear. I agree that there are people on the evo side who don't really know what ID is about, but that does not mean that most or all do not.There are people here who are quite on top of ID and what it says and does not say. Another person has already noted that they are well versed in it, and I know that I am. I have not seen Percy stray too far from an accurate depiction of it either, and I am not sure how much he has read of the primary literature.Conversely there are Creos who clearly do not understand ID. That is they use a belief in design by an intelligence as if it were ID, when it is not. Buzsaw is without question on of those people. That's not to slam his specific position, but clearly defining it. Behe and even Dembski reject positions Buz discusses within their writings.The court transcripts contain obvious supports for claims made by evos here, and did show that some supporters of ID lacked knowledge of ID, and were only interested in creationism.If you haven't yet, I'd suggest reading through those transcripts. At least pick a few people (and they can even be the ID supporters like Behe) and see what was revealed.This message has been edited by holmes, 12-23-2005 11:30 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)