= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
In what way does ID equate with Creationism? First define both, then state the correlation.
ID arose as a way to circumvent the Supreme Court decision Edwards v. Aguillard which banned the mentioning of deities in teaching of secular issues.
The creationist text book Of Pandas and People which was being written at the time of the trial subsequently underwent CTRL-H editing to exchange "creator" for "designer," leading to the hilarious chimera "cdesign proponentsists."
The people endorsing creationism and ID are more or less the same. By far, most types of argument put forth by IDists have previously been used by creationists. "Irreducible complexity" is merely a restating of Paley's Watch or, indeed, Darwin's own rhetorical reservations regarding the complexity of the eye.
Further, the vast majority of IDists have explicit religious motivation (pdf) for their viewpoints, and the ID community uses the same tactics of quotemining, making lists of non-biologist skeptics, and appeals to authority.
Finally, the leading ID "think"-tank, the Discovery Institute, has stated its ultimate goal in an internal workpaper, The Wedge:
- "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies"
- "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
I thought Torben explained well that there is no noticeable difference between the two camps, that they're essentially the same camp.
That he did, as have Barbara Forrest and many others, but those conclusions consist of 'blanket statements', and are subject to scrutiny. Many times when a statement of that ilk is made, there follows a link to one of the Creationist trials (Dover most often), the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, a critique of Forrest's book, 'Creationism's Trojan Horse', or links similar to those provided by Torben. These are just a few of the plethora of evolution supporting references, but the question we're addressing here is simply the "more or less" issue regarding the two camps.
Blanket statements abound in the media, an example being "The US has the best health care system in the world", courtesy of Sean Hannity, and almost on a daily basis. Even given the fact that the US is advanced technologically in many ways, would you buy that statement carte blanch?
First you define a philosophical or evidence based position. Then you debate the validity of its tenets. At that point you can more objectively discuss/ debate the merit of the conflation issue. A complicating factor here is the possibility that there are actually more than 'two camps', or that adherents (of either) may have altered their 'consensus' positions compared to say a decade ago.
After defining the two groups' seminal tenets, we can THEN discuss Dover, Demski, the Wedge et al. Any takers?