<$BlogRSDURL$> abbr, acronym { cursor: help; font-style: normal; font-weight:bold; color: #2a548d; /*border-bottom: 1px solid; */ }

Eminent Domain Stuff

New London Update (2/24/06)
Coverage of the Rally at New London's City Hall (w/ pics)

Thursday, September 09, 2004


Evolution vs. Creationism: Round 3

I'm going to stay with this subject (rounds 1 & 2) for at least a little while longer both because it fascinates me and because it has generated some interest and hey...I give the people what they want =).

This evening I received an email from CJ (of The Unmentionables fame) directing me to a post at World Magazine Blog on this very topic. Here's one thing in the post that caught my eye:

A respected biology journal recently published an article that favored the design hypothesis over natural selection.
The link was to the very The Scientist article I linked to here. I don't know anything about the blogger, Bergin, but I'll tell you one thing...although Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington may very well be "respected" in some circles, it is not widely read in the scientific world. And, while I am be just a youngin', I'll tell you that I had never heard of it before The Scientist sent me there.

Now to the important part. One of the commenters, DanF (commented September 9, 2004 12:00 PM since there are no permalinks), made a great point:

One popular tactic is to call the ID movement, creationism. The IDers are suggesting there may be some kind of intelligence behind the universe instead of pure chance. And this is creationist religion? I mean, can there be a more all-inclusive term for God then "intelligence". Other than some Eastern religions and agnosticism/atheism, what belief system does not fit into this definition? Even Aristotle's Unmoved Mover could fit into this.
I must admit that I tend to lump "Intelligent Design" and "Creationism" into the same pot...but I do not do so out of intentional bias. Rather, the very adherents of such thinking do not, in my experience, differentiate between the two labels. However, as DanF suggests, there should be a distinction made between the two. To save myself some time, here's what I had to say in the comments section (September 9, 2004 08:26 PM):

...I don't think that it's only the fault of the supporters of evolution. I think it's yet another case of muddied waters simply because the argument has gone on for so long in so many different venues. The fact is the true Creationism (as defined as a literal reading of Genesis) is absolutely not "Science". If one wishes (as does Kenneth Miller in "Finding Darwin's God") to posit a Creator, God, Whatever, who set the initial conditions and rules for the universe and then stood aside...then fine. That viewpoint is totally consistent with a 'natural' origin of life and with subsequent evolution. As a matter of fact, Evolution would find it's rightful place as a physical phenomenon rather than some quasi-religious thingy (for lack of a better term =)) that it seems to have become.

On the other hand, those who would rather take Genesis literally are taking a stance that is mutually exclusive with Evolution…and not “Science” to boot.

I think that the discussion would benefit greatly if people would apply the correct terms to each side and then let the chips fall where they may.
I will do my best to distinguish the two in the future, and I will also hold whomever I can to the same standards. As Dennis Prager says: I'm not trying to make you change your mind. I'm only striving for clarity so that at least we understand each other. Words by which to live and argue.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?