First of all, calling a person dishonest is not an ad hominem. Second of all, I was just pointing it out to Judas as something he might find interesting, not presenting it as an argument at all. It was an aside. You guys CHOSE to take offense to it and jumped down my throat about something that I didn’t even care to talk about that much. Take a chill pill.
The issue is one of clarity. It is an issue that presents itself in the thread title as well as in your contributions.
“Evolution” is a “catch-all” phrase that could have a number of implications. Ditto with the words “creation” and “intelligent design.”
If you believe that God brought the universe into existence by creating it, you are, by definition, a
creationist. Does that make you a young-earther, and old earther, a theistic evolutionist, or what?
If you believe God ordered the cosmos and created the universe according to a “plan” with an end in mind, you must subscribe to some form of intelligent
design. You couldn’t claim God created the universe, but left its “evolution” to random and blind processes with only a hope and a prayer that human beings would come about. Or do you think that is what happened?
The point is that evolution, creation and intelligent design each allow extensive and often divergent viewpoints. It is not helpful to dismiss any of those viewpoints by a label such as “creationist,” and even less helpful to tar a viewpoint because of an ill-conceived attempt by a few individuals to promote some version of that viewpoint. Bringing up the “Wedge” document and claiming its promoters were dishonest does not help to clarify the topic of the thread.
That one-third of Americans reject “evolution” says absolutely nothing about what it is that they are rejecting and even less about their capacity to make reasoned judgements about it. The common misconception (promoted by people like Dawkins) is that anyone who does not accept all the implications of the theory lack intelligence, yet there are many brilliant and gifted scientists who are demonstrating why the “theory” is not adequate and does not explain a great deal about life on earth.
What I object to is hiding behind “labels” that denounce by “lumping together” all individuals who hold a perspective in order to prejudicially dismiss their (often) valid points without due consideration. We should be honest enough to listen to what these people are saying and answer them point for point in order to arrive at understanding. That is good science and good philosophy.
Neither good science nor good philosophy are being practiced when we seek to portray “creationists” as “dishonest.”
If you haven’t read Meyer, I suggest you do. He is not a fool and his tenacity and clarity on the issue of intelligent design go a long way to raise valid concerns. If you have given him an honest reading and disagree with him for valid reasons, then show cause.
If you simply want to dismiss “creationism” because it contradicts “evolution,” then be prepared to explain how your belief in God can plausibly be reconciled with the claim of many vocal atheistic “evolutionists” that blind processes of random selection and mutation solidify a positive case that God does not exist.
When your children lose faith because some atheist has presented compelling, but fallacious, “proof” that God does not exist because “evolution” has proven design unnecessary you might want to look more seriously into the claims about “evolution” and where evidence of design exists.
Before throwing out the bath water, I suggest that you check to see that the baby has been safely removed.
By the way, take this post as not “jumping down your throat,” but as a caution regarding what implications might be drawn by readers from your comments on this thread regarding “creationism” and its proponents.
