Comments on: Doomed

By: Irishman

Irishman — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 20:03:42 +0000

No, Ross, “Intelligent Design” does not remove the God reference, it just buries it in nebulous wording.

I’m thinking more along the lines of “Instantaneous Appearance” or “Unique Origins” or “Static Life Forms From Independent Origins”. I realize those labels aren’t catchy, but they more accurately describe the mechanism being compared against “descent with modification from common ancestry”, i.e. “Evolution”.

Maybe we can call it “*Poof* Theory”.

By: Folcrom

Folcrom — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 00:32:52 +0000

Ross,
Thank God, that the “Intelligent Designer” thought to create evolution as part of his/her tool set.
If God does exist, he was obviously a scientist and would be the first to strike down the book of Genisis as complete rubbish.
Folcrom

By: Ross

Ross — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 22:18:45 +0000

They did come up with a new label: “Intelligent Design”. Unfortunately, nobody trusts the people who use it.

By: Irishman

Irishman — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 19:59:35 +0000

r337ard, the use of “Creationist” is an unfortunate choice of words. The intent behind the word is to mean something beyond just “Christian” or “theist”. If that was the intent of the word, then we would use one of those words.

Creationist is used to imply a step beyond “God being involved”. Rather, it is a description of the mechanism of origins. It is an attempt at a juxtaposition to Evolution. Evolution is, at root, a description intended to mean serial change over time, development from one thing to another. Creationism is the opposite case, static life forms, no developmental change. It is also an assertion of a sort of appearance by fiat, the *poof* of instantaneous appearance in final form.

The notion of God playing a directing hand in Evolution is still a form of Evolution, and is not Creationism.

With that clarification of terminology in hand, it is easier to see why scientists oppose Creationism so strongly. Creationism is premised on a notion that is strictly contradicted by strong scientific evidence. It is also possible to understand why Old Earth Creationism is still opposition to science.

Of course I would be ecstatic if we could come up with a new label for the scientific discussion of the mechanism of Creationism that did not have an overt God reference in it. That is because the overt God reference hijacks the argument to be over God’s existence rather than the science of how life diversified. Unfortunately, I have not been able to come up with a good term, much less get anyone else to use it. I suspect even if I did, the Creationists would avoid it because it would make clear the obvious conflict of the position with nature. They would rather cloud the issue with God, so moderate Christians will think they are being attacked by those opposed to Creationism.

By: One Eyed Jack

One Eyed Jack — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 19:22:54 +0000

I can’t speak for Phil. Personally, I find YEC annoying because it is an insult to science, something I hold dear. The lies they spread and the methods they use (bastardizing good science) are offensive.

But that’s just me.

OEJ

By: Sticks

Sticks — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 16:07:16 +0000

With his constant digs at creationists I sometimes wonder if Phil has had a personal run in with a YEC who was in some position of authority over him, and the YEC abused their authority. Sort of like the animosity towards the RC church some experience because they were taught by Nuns who abused their power.

Yes I remember the fiasco at the Dover School board where they tried to impose the fatally flawed ID on to school teachers. (It is the kind of thing that makes me wince)

Are YEC’s wielding so much power in the US?

To my knowledge that does not happen in the UK

By: Quiet Desperation

Quiet Desperation — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 08:12:52 +0000

>>> please stop assuming we all think Jesus rode a dinosaur.

But I’d totally make a movie about that if I could get the funding.

The Raptor Of The Christ

Dude. It would rule! There’d be lasers and ’splosions and all sort of noisy crap.

JESUS: You turned to the dark side!
JUDAS: Jesus, join me.
JESUS: Never!
JUDAS: Jesus, I am your father.

>>> what is with all the captions in pseudo-baby talk?

I think it was supposed to be the cats talking, hence a primitve sort of pidgin english. It’s actually developed an ad hoc set of grammatical rulez- er, rules.