Creationists come in several varieties, both Old Earth (non-Biblical literalist) Creationists and New Earth (Biblical literalist, Earth not more than 10k years old) Creationists. You pretend that all Creationists are of the YEC variety, because the existence of OECs undermine your argument.
If ID is not a form of Creationism, how then do you explain the provenance of the phrase "cdesign proponentsists"? If you've never heard the phrase, you can look it up.
To put a finer point on it, prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards v. Aguillard, the working draft of the book "Of Pandas and People" contained this definition:
"Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc."
Immediately after the Edwards decision which outlawed the teaching of Creationism in public schools, the authors of "Pandas" revised it to contain this definition:
"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc."
Where's the difference? If, as you claim, ID is not simply a form of Creationism, then how do you explain these definitions, which were written by the creationists themselves?
Isn't it obvious that the authors of this book simply relabeled Creationism as "Intelligent Design"?
Professor Dawkins can be quite justifiably described as an Atheist Supremacist as well. . .
'The Atheist Supremacist's Song'
aka 'I Am The Very Model Of An Atheist Supremacist'
I am the very model of an Atheist Supremacist I'm an Intellectual, Evangelical, Godless Evolutionist I know the crimes of Christians, and I quote their fights historical From Jerusalem to Ireland, in order categorical
I'm very well acquainted, too, with matters biological I understand equivocation, both scientific and theological About the "Holey Bible" I'm teeming with a lot o' news With many fearful facts about Christians and the Jews
With many fearful facts about Christians and the Jews With many fearful facts about Christians and the Jews With many fearful facts about Christians and those darn Jews
I'm very good at bigotry and anti-religious insults I know the scientific names of beings animalculous In short, in matters biological, theological, and religious I am the very model of an Atheist Supremacist
In short, in matters biological, theological, and religious He is the very model of an Atheist Supremacist
I know God's mythic history, from Osiris to the (Day of Yule) I answer to my critics, I've a petty taste for ridicule I quote in elegiacs all the crimes of Heliogabalus In comics I will fight those other gods who are so fabulous
I can't tell undoubting Muslims from Bahá'ís or Zoroastrians But know the croaking chorus from those corpse-cold Unitarians Then I can hum a fugue of which I've heard the music's Rapical And whistle at the "fairy tales" of infernal nonsense Biblical
And whistle at the "fairy tales" of infernal nonsense Biblical And whistle at the "fairy tales" of infernal nonsense Biblical And whistle at the "fairy tales" of infernal nonsense oh so Biblical
Then I can write a bashing book of Biblical enormity And tell you ev'ry detail of Creationism's deformity In short, in matters biological, Biblical, and religious I am the very model of an Atheist Supremacist
In short, in matters biological, Biblical, and religious He is the very model of an Atheist Supremacist
In fact, when I know what is meant by "Babylon" and "churlish" When I can tell at sight a Mormon from a Whirling Dervish When such affairs as prayers and "crackers" I'm more wary at And when I know precisely what is meant by "Eat your hat"
When I have learnt what progress has been made in modern funnery When I know more of tactlessness than a novice in a nunnery In short, when I've a smattering of fundamental strategy You'll say a better atheist had never spat at G
You'll say a better atheist had never spat at G You'll say a better atheist had never spat at G You'll say a better atheist had never ever spat at G
For my religious knowledge, though it's narrowy and shallowy Has only been brought down to the early Nineteenth century But still, in matters theological, minimal, and religious I am the very model of an Atheist Supremacist
But still, in matters theological, minimal, and religious He is the very model of an Atheist Supremacist
Robin Edgar, You’re a mad man, keep up the good work (and set that to music).
C. David Parsons, Interesting info.
John the Skeptic, Thanks for the good comments and information. I was actually not pretending anything. The term “Creationists” and “Creationism” has, for decades, referred to correlating the Bible with science in whatever form - YEC or OEC. So yes, ID is a form of Creationism. I have never claimed that it was not and I have previously stated that it is. Yet, now we are using creationism (lowercase) as a generic term. But who was the creator, how did the creator create, all at once – gradually, etc., etc., etc. are the questions that differentiate ID proponents beyond that which differentiates YEC from OEC. This is why there are ID proponents that are atheists, agnostics, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Moonies, etc. ID does not necessarily equal biblical. It only does so for those ID proponents who are also Christians. aDios, Mariano
Two major out-of-context quotes from Dawkins in a single post!
Too bad the recipient of the Casey Luskin Award for Prevarication has already been named for 2008. (Well, not named personally, to safeguard his reputation.)
Hello, I just wanted to tell you, I've read some of your posts and I'm really liking your blog. I think Richard Dawkins is possibly the most overrated atheist out there, he is in fact a hypocrite that doesn't realize he's the atheist equivalent of a religious fanatic. Yet, he says he's the good guy and religious people are the bad guys.
One thing that I've realized most (if not all) Richard Dawkins critics have missed are the arts. They all go into a scientific discussion about the existence of God. Dawkins mentioned that the world would've been much better without religion... Well, if there hadn't been any religion in the first place, there wouldn't be such beautiful works of art like la Pietá, The Last Supper, The Sistine Chapel, The Divine Comedy, and the list goes on and on.
Of course, probably Richard Dawkins has never cared about art, I don't think he's ever cared about anything rather than selling his books and making money (just as atheists hate that "the church makes money out of the followers", see the irony?)
It would be great if you could make one post that doesn't focus on science, one that you could see such holes in Dawkins' way of thinking from different angles such as arts or philosophy (for example, he always says there's no proof of God and that's why no one should believe. Yet there's no proof of life in other planets either and that doesn't mean there isn't... Something a little hypocritical for him to say after all these panspermia comments).
Anyway, keep up the good work!
Sincerely,
A non-religious person who believes in evolution and also in the existence of a god.
Morius, I am so glad that you are enjoying my chicken scratch :o) I will keep what you recommended. I should say that you may be surprised that Prof. Dawkins really enjoys the Christian arts in particular. For example, you should read where he states, “I'm a cultural Christian.” He particularly likes singing Christmas carols and sees in them historical/cultural meaning. I can understand his point but think it odd that he would sing such words while thinking that they are devoid of meaning. I could not you imagine myself singing, “Oh nothing. Oh no-one. Random change explosion. Oh bio-genesis. Lighting stuck a pond. Here we are and then we’re gone.” aDios, Mariano
Professor Richard Dawkins is not only a scientist but a celebrity. He is not only lecturer but a debater. He is not only a teacher but an author.
Prof. Richard Dawkins has long been one of the world’s leading voices for the activists atheist movement, one of the leaders of the “New Atheists.”
This blog, Richard Dawkins : Scientist or Activist?, which was established in Nov. 2007, provides a careful dissection of his various statements on a wide range of issue: biology, evolution, morality, abortion, religion, the Bible, and much more.
Get my ebook, "The Apocryphal Jesus," here
Creationists come in several varieties, both Old Earth (non-Biblical literalist) Creationists and New Earth (Biblical literalist, Earth not more than 10k years old) Creationists. You pretend that all Creationists are of the YEC variety, because the existence of OECs undermine your argument.
ReplyDeleteIf ID is not a form of Creationism, how then do you explain the provenance of the phrase "cdesign proponentsists"? If you've never heard the phrase, you can look it up.
To put a finer point on it, prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards v. Aguillard, the working draft of the book "Of Pandas and People" contained this definition:
"Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc."
Immediately after the Edwards decision which outlawed the teaching of Creationism in public schools, the authors of "Pandas" revised it to contain this definition:
"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc."
Where's the difference? If, as you claim, ID is not simply a form of Creationism, then how do you explain these definitions, which were written by the creationists themselves?
Isn't it obvious that the authors of this book simply relabeled Creationism as "Intelligent Design"?
Professor Dawkins can be quite justifiably described as an Atheist Supremacist as well. . .
ReplyDelete'The Atheist Supremacist's Song'
aka 'I Am The Very Model Of An Atheist Supremacist'
I am the very model of an Atheist Supremacist
I'm an Intellectual, Evangelical, Godless Evolutionist
I know the crimes of Christians, and I quote their fights historical
From Jerusalem to Ireland, in order categorical
I'm very well acquainted, too, with matters biological
I understand equivocation, both scientific and theological
About the "Holey Bible" I'm teeming with a lot o' news
With many fearful facts about Christians and the Jews
With many fearful facts about Christians and the Jews
With many fearful facts about Christians and the Jews
With many fearful facts about Christians and those darn Jews
I'm very good at bigotry and anti-religious insults
I know the scientific names of beings animalculous
In short, in matters biological, theological, and religious
I am the very model of an Atheist Supremacist
In short, in matters biological, theological, and religious
He is the very model of an Atheist Supremacist
I know God's mythic history, from Osiris to the (Day of Yule)
I answer to my critics, I've a petty taste for ridicule
I quote in elegiacs all the crimes of Heliogabalus
In comics I will fight those other gods who are so fabulous
I can't tell undoubting Muslims from Bahá'ís or Zoroastrians
But know the croaking chorus from those corpse-cold Unitarians
Then I can hum a fugue of which I've heard the music's Rapical
And whistle at the "fairy tales" of infernal nonsense Biblical
And whistle at the "fairy tales" of infernal nonsense Biblical
And whistle at the "fairy tales" of infernal nonsense Biblical
And whistle at the "fairy tales" of infernal nonsense oh so Biblical
Then I can write a bashing book of Biblical enormity
And tell you ev'ry detail of Creationism's deformity
In short, in matters biological, Biblical, and religious
I am the very model of an Atheist Supremacist
In short, in matters biological, Biblical, and religious
He is the very model of an Atheist Supremacist
In fact, when I know what is meant by "Babylon" and "churlish"
When I can tell at sight a Mormon from a Whirling Dervish
When such affairs as prayers and "crackers" I'm more wary at
And when I know precisely what is meant by "Eat your hat"
When I have learnt what progress has been made in modern funnery
When I know more of tactlessness than a novice in a nunnery
In short, when I've a smattering of fundamental strategy
You'll say a better atheist had never spat at G
You'll say a better atheist had never spat at G
You'll say a better atheist had never spat at G
You'll say a better atheist had never ever spat at G
For my religious knowledge, though it's narrowy and shallowy
Has only been brought down to the early Nineteenth century
But still, in matters theological, minimal, and religious
I am the very model of an Atheist Supremacist
But still, in matters theological, minimal, and religious
He is the very model of an Atheist Supremacist
Robin Edgar,
ReplyDeleteYou’re a mad man, keep up the good work (and set that to music).
C. David Parsons,
Interesting info.
John the Skeptic,
Thanks for the good comments and information.
I was actually not pretending anything.
The term “Creationists” and “Creationism” has, for decades, referred to correlating the Bible with science in whatever form - YEC or OEC.
So yes, ID is a form of Creationism. I have never claimed that it was not and I have previously stated that it is. Yet, now we are using creationism (lowercase) as a generic term.
But who was the creator, how did the creator create, all at once – gradually, etc., etc., etc. are the questions that differentiate ID proponents beyond that which differentiates YEC from OEC.
This is why there are ID proponents that are atheists, agnostics, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Moonies, etc.
ID does not necessarily equal biblical. It only does so for those ID proponents who are also Christians.
aDios,
Mariano
Dawkins says he tried to carve an olive branch from science fiction.
ReplyDeleteSeems not to have worked.
I'll propose an alternative:
www.starlarvae.org
Two major out-of-context quotes from Dawkins in a single post!
ReplyDeleteToo bad the recipient of the Casey Luskin Award for Prevarication has already been named for 2008. (Well, not named personally, to safeguard his reputation.)
Hello, I just wanted to tell you, I've read some of your posts and I'm really liking your blog.
ReplyDeleteI think Richard Dawkins is possibly the most overrated atheist out there, he is in fact a hypocrite that doesn't realize he's the atheist equivalent of a religious fanatic.
Yet, he says he's the good guy and religious people are the bad guys.
One thing that I've realized most (if not all) Richard Dawkins critics have missed are the arts.
They all go into a scientific discussion about the existence of God. Dawkins mentioned that the world would've been much better without religion... Well, if there hadn't been any religion in the first place, there wouldn't be such beautiful works of art like la Pietá, The Last Supper, The Sistine Chapel, The Divine Comedy, and the list goes on and on.
Of course, probably Richard Dawkins has never cared about art, I don't think he's ever cared about anything rather than selling his books and making money (just as atheists hate that "the church makes money out of the followers", see the irony?)
It would be great if you could make one post that doesn't focus on science, one that you could see such holes in Dawkins' way of thinking from different angles such as arts or philosophy (for example, he always says there's no proof of God and that's why no one should believe. Yet there's no proof of life in other planets either and that doesn't mean there isn't... Something a little hypocritical for him to say after all these panspermia comments).
Anyway, keep up the good work!
Sincerely,
A non-religious person who believes in evolution and also in the existence of a god.
Olorin,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your readership and comment.
A mere assertion does not demonstrate un-contextual quotation.
aDios,
Mariano
Morius,
ReplyDeleteI am so glad that you are enjoying my chicken scratch :o)
I will keep what you recommended.
I should say that you may be surprised that Prof. Dawkins really enjoys the Christian arts in particular.
For example, you should read where he states, “I'm a cultural Christian.” He particularly likes singing Christmas carols and sees in them historical/cultural meaning. I can understand his point but think it odd that he would sing such words while thinking that they are devoid of meaning.
I could not you imagine myself singing, “Oh nothing. Oh no-one. Random change explosion. Oh bio-genesis. Lighting stuck a pond. Here we are and then we’re gone.”
aDios,
Mariano