I won’t spend much time on this, and I know it’ll probably come off sounding negative to some people… but why does it seem that ID proponents are all inane creationists?
Sure, most just don’t seem to understand a wit of science or biology; most are speaking out because of their religious conviction and not their interest in studying biology; and most are intellectually dishonest. But there are a few IDers out there that are actually honest, insightful, and interesting to talk to.
While I disagree with him on how we look at the ID/Evo debate in public discourse, I find MikeGene of Telic Thoughts to be chief among these honest and insightful IDers. Why? Because he takes the first step and admits the blatantly obvious: that the existence of God is not a scientific issue, but a theological one.
Others fall prey to the “fallacy of the middle ground” – pretending that their Designer is not God – simultaneously misconstruing science to support their claims, and denying the nature of their views. Was Jesus not disappointed for Peter, who denied knowing him?
And why, I ask, do creationists attack science so? I understand their reaction to atheism, even if I disagree with it, but not their attack of science itself. In Western democracies, at least, creationists have the right to their religious views, and nobody can take that away from them; they don’t have to become biologists or physicians, they don’t even have to study science if it so disturbs them, or use the drugs that are the fruits of medical research (research that makes sense only in the context of evolution).
Sigh…. this is an open question, of course – “ID” creationists will continue their crusade against science regardless of what I say.
But, if you still had any lingering doubts as to where the interests of IDers lay, just check out their choices in reading. Thus far at least, all of the books mentioned are either explicitly dealing with religious concerns, and/or are very misleading about science. the balance is decidedly towards the theological reading, with an occaisional farce like Darwin’s Black Box thrown in for good measure.
References:
“… but why does it seem that ID proponents are all inane creationists?”
You pretty much say it, but the short answer is, “Because they are.”
By: RPM on July 17, 2006
at 8:41 am
Are all Darwinists Intellectually Lazy? Or Intellectually Dishonest?
Dan of Migrations asks Are all IDers inane creationists? He says up front most creationists are intellectually dishonest. That fits arguments I’ve heard made by Young Earth creationists. But I wonder, is an intellectually dishonest creationist one who…
By: dangerous liberty on July 17, 2006
at 3:28 pm
Why do you consider _Life’s Solution_ to be very misleading?
By: Nat Whilk on July 17, 2006
at 3:46 pm
Sorry, I missed Life’s Solution in that list, and will edit the post to reflect this.
Todd from DL, theology or metaphysics, it’s still not science… for your booklist, Proverbs is something you rank high? And you object to being described as a Creationist???
By: Dan on July 17, 2006
at 4:57 pm
Are all Darwinists inane atheists?
I won’t spend much time on this, and I know it’ll probably come off sounding negative to some people… but why does it seem that Darwinists are all inane atheists?
Sure, most just don’t seem to understand a wit of real science or biology; most are speaking out because of their atheistic conviction and not their interest in finding real evidence; and most are intellectually dishonest. But there are a few Darwinists out there that are actually honest, insightful, and interesting to talk to.
While I disagree…
.
.
.
Sigh…. this is an open question, of course – “Darwinist” atheists will continue their crusade, under the mask of science, regardless of what I say.
By: Inane Creationist on July 17, 2006
at 5:04 pm
Actually, quite a few physicians are friendly to ID views. And maybe you could explain what you mean by “research that makes sense only in the context of evolution”. If by that you mean we wouldn’t have them without Darwinian theory, that’s quite absurd.
By: Roger Rabbitt on July 17, 2006
at 6:00 pm
Yes, it’s quite depressing that a Creationist could also be a physician. Orac of Respectful Insolence has had a nice series on Evolution and Medicine previously, that articulates the problems with this rather well, as does the website Evolution and Medicine.
As a biologist, I find creationist doctors to be about as distressing as creationist geologists and geocentrist astronomers. True, we don’t hear about them anymore, but the analogy is accurate – they’re all views based upon intuition, religion, and antiquated information.
And yes, regardless of whether we’re talking medicine or ecology, just as with gravity and physics, evolution and biology have been so resoundingly proven – the one does not make sense without the other. That’s why evolution is the accepted paradigm in biology – everywhere you turn, there’s evidence for descent with modification by natural and well-defined processes… processes which would not have been possible in the absense of common descent and the molecular plasticity of biology.
And it’s okay to be ignorant on that – it’s your right to deal with the theological and metaphysical issues at the expense of science – but when it comes to the science, let it be taught correctly, not with false science like Intelligent Design, Creation Science, or Special Creation of any kind.
By: Dan on July 17, 2006
at 6:17 pm
Dan, after a magnanimous gesture like that, I can’t help but reciprocate.
IOW, let Dan get his way. But Dan, you have to convince others that your ways are correct. Now, if you are as smart as you think you are, that should be a slam dunk. But, maybe you have a crisis of faith in your own abilities?
By: Roger Rabbitt on July 17, 2006
at 6:56 pm
Ah, put the burden on me to teach you the equivalent to Intro to Biology, eh? I only wish I had that much time on my hands; and even if I did, would anything I say change your mind, so that you cease your crusade against science?
By: Dan on July 17, 2006
at 7:03 pm
Well, if that’s what you think will do the trick. Me, I’m skeptical, but maybe you teach it better than others, and the light will go “on”.
Of course, the latter half presumes something not in evidence. Another tidbit for which you have yet to make a case.
As to whether anything you would say would convince me, I don’t know. I haven’t heard it yet. I can only say that I’m open to hearing. And I can point to the fact that I used to be a Darwinist, so I am capable of changing my mind based on what I hear and read.
And, of course, if it isn’t to be a “class”, but a dialogue, I think it is only fair that if you demand open mindedness from me, that you reciprocate.
By: Roger Rabbitt on July 17, 2006
at 7:32 pm
What insight into science and biology do you have that I should be open-minded about? Religion, metaphysics, etc. – those you might have some interesting insights on.
But on a science blog, creationist explanations of abiogenesis and biocomplexity do not belong.
By: Dan on July 18, 2006
at 10:16 am
Fascinating. You’ve already decided what I might have some interesting insights on, and what not, based on nothing I’ve yet said.
Apparently, implicit claims of mind-reading abilities “belong” on science blogs.
And you wonder why some intelligent people reject your arguments.
By: Roger Rabbitt on July 19, 2006
at 5:16 am
If you really have something intelligent to say about science, go say it on one of my Molecular Evolution or other cell science posts. But you don’t have anything to contribute to those, do you?
By: Dan on July 19, 2006
at 11:12 am
Having fun at the Evolution and Design course blog.
Salvador makes a claim about a “nonphysical quality of the mind”.
I call him on it
Salvador waffles
Don Baccus points out that Salvador is bluffing
get more specific in my request for substatiation
Salvador tries a snow job
I express my dissatisfaction with the answer
I figure the odds of this post working correctly with no preview function are pretty low.
By: ivy privy on July 19, 2006
at 12:59 pm
Ha – yeah, a few days ago I tried a couple replies to his IDiocy, which I think never got through properly, and gave up. It’s simply too aggravating talking to him, even though he offers some exceptional examples of inanity.
Again, we ask what such Creationists have to offer science in the way of a scientific theory, and all we hear are crickets chirping.
By: Dan on July 19, 2006
at 1:37 pm