Eureka! A silver bullet against creationists!

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Although the chief ID celebrity that believes in evolution is Michael Behe ...

He believes in evolution, as long as some biochemical mechanisms are given special dispensation to have arisen by other means. Unfortunately, the set of those special mechanisms is quite slippery.

~~ Paul

 

[Meadmaker]

For very good reason, did you watch the full length video?

No. Did the full length video discuss Behe? (Or anyone else who claims that they believe both ID and evolution)


The reason this matters is that when you are arguing the point, and someone tells you what he believes, and you insist he doesn't really believe that, you've already lost the argument, regardless of what else you say.

 

[RandFan]

No. Did the full length video discuss Behe? (Or anyone else who claims that they believe both ID and evolution)

The reason this matters is that when you are arguing the point, and someone tells you what he believes, and you insist he doesn't really believe that, you've already lost the argument, regardless of what else you say.

Thank you for the fair warning. I was speaking to Judge Jones contention that defendants had lied about the purpose of ID in the schools and that they lied specifically about ID not being about creation. This WAS about creation and there was no ambiguity about that fact. It was demonstrated that ID had simply became a substitution for creationism. I don't know to what extent that Behe was involved with the lie and I'm not saying that he lied about what he believes only that the purpose for ID was about getting creationism into classrooms.

Let's keep some things in perspective. The judge is a conservative republican appointed by Bush. The judge is a theist. The judge found that the defendants lied.

Watch the video.

 

[Dog Boots]

Yup, since the dawn of the internet, people have been sending evolution vs. ID arguments and porn.

Sometimes both.

Yet intelligently designed porn has not emerged. By Kent Hovind's logic that would prove that Intelligent Design is bull...

 

[Dog Boots]

Ok, a few answers have been presented in reply to the video, now after the creationists realized I wasn't letting it go.

Two different defences so far:

1. Who is Ken Miller?

and

2. Ken Miller is presenting the evidence in a way that makes it look as if two chromosomes fused, which they didn't.

 

[Meadmaker]

Thank you for the fair warning. I was speaking to Judge Jones contention that defendants had lied about the purpose of ID in the schools and that they lied specifically about ID not being about creation.

And I was speaking to Judge Jones' contention that Michael Behe, who was not a defendant, lied about his own beliefs when he said that he supported intelligent design, and believed in evolution.

This WAS about creation and there was no ambiguity about that fact. It was demonstrated that ID had simply became a substitution for creationism.

There's a certain irony here. This idea comes primarily from "Of Pandas and People", the book at the heart of the Dover Trial. In an early manuscript of the book, it describes creationism, by name. In the published version, the word "creationism" is removed and the phrase "intelligent design" is substituted. This was taken by Judge Jones and many on JREF as irrefutable proof that the two are the same thing. It's ironic, to me, because it means so many people are citing creationist literature as their proof.


(I may have some details slightly wrong. It may have been an earlier published version. Or it may have been a different book. At any rate, at the trial, the earlier version described creationism as saying fish were created with fins. The later described ID as saying fish were created with fins. They were wrong. ID doesn't make that claim.)

Behe testified at the trial that the authors of "Pandas" were wrong in their definitions. Behe was correct, but Judge Jones decided that Behe must be lying.

... the purpose for ID was about getting creationism into classrooms.

There's no doubt that a lot of creationists have changed their colors and latched on to ID for exactly the purpose you describe. However, this description is so greatly oversimplified that it is inaccurate. In my opinion, the inaccuracies are sufficient to damage the argument, and render it less effective.

And, in case anyone wonders, I think that's a bad thing. I would prefer effective arguments against ID and creationism. I just don't think it's a good start to get the definitions and beliefs wrong.

 

[DeviousB]

Two different defences so far:

1. Who is Ken Miller?

This is Ken Miller.

and

2. Ken Miller is presenting the evidence in a way that makes it look as if two chromosomes fused, which they didn't.

Then explain this and this.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Devious, those weren't Dog's excuses. They were the excuses of creationists.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

There's a certain irony here. This idea comes primarily from "Of Pandas and People", the book at the heart of the Dover Trial. In an early manuscript of the book, it describes creationism, by name. In the published version, the word "creationism" is removed and the phrase "intelligent design" is substituted. This was taken by Judge Jones and many on JREF as irrefutable proof that the two are the same thing. It's ironic, to me, because it means so many people are citing creationist literature as their proof.

So if I take a copy of a book and globally replace foo with bar, you're going to argue that the two terms are not synonymous?

From the ruling:

As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards, which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards. This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content ....

~~ Paul

 

[sphenisc]

So if I take a copy of a book and globally replace foo with bar, you're going to argue that the two terms are not synonymous?

~~ Paul

If I take "The Blind Watchmaker" and replace "evolution" with "creationism" are you going to argue that they are?

 

[Darat]

...snip..


There's a certain irony here. This idea comes primarily from "Of Pandas and People", the book at the heart of the Dover Trial. In an early manuscript of the book, it describes creationism, by name. In the published version, the word "creationism" is removed and the phrase "intelligent design" is substituted. This was taken by Judge Jones and many on JREF as irrefutable proof that the two are the same thing.


...snip...

Any chance you'll back up your claim that that "This was taken by Judge Jones and many on JREF as irrefutable proof that the two are the same thing. "?

 

[DeviousB]

Devious, those weren't Dog's excuses. They were the excuses of creationists.

Yes. I know. It was an impersonal dialectic.

(The third link is also superfluous, I've just noticed it's linked to from the second.)

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

If I take "The Blind Watchmaker" and replace "evolution" with "creationism" are you going to argue that they are?

If you were the author, yes I would. Unless the book is entirely content-free, the important vocabulary must be defined in it, at least by context. If you substitute one word for another, leaving the definitions alone, then I can only assume you were simply making a terminology change.

Creationism vs. intelligent design is nothing more than logomachy.

~~ Paul

 

[sphenisc]

If you were the author, yes I would. Unless the book is entirely content-free, the important vocabulary must be defined in it, at least by context. If you substitute one word for another, leaving the definitions alone, then I can only assume you were simply making a terminology change.

Creationism vs. intelligent design is nothing more than logomachy.

~~ Paul

Certainly, but if I made that change in the context of a book, that doesn't justify the argument that they are synonomous in the wider world.

I strongly suspect that if I produced such a book, I would be decried for obfuscation and conflation of the important differences between evolution and creationism, probably by both sides. No-one who was paying attention would be convinced that I had demonstrated that evolution and creationism were synonymous. Nor do I think that one book should be the basis for concluding that "Creationism vs. intelligent design is nothing more than logomachy."

 

[Oxymoron]

Wonderful arguement! Bravo!!! Creationists everywhere are scurrying. At least I think they are. So if they believe that this is all the result of the "designer", does that imply that god is really an ape? I mean, they do boast that man was made in the likeness of him, right? Oh boy, I knew I liked Planet of the Apes for a reason!

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Certainly, but if I made that change in the context of a book, that doesn't justify the argument that they are synonomous in the wider world.

If your book is one of the few defining tomes on the subject, I think it does. What defines the similarity/difference between creationism and ID if not the major works on the subject?

I strongly suspect that if I produced such a book, I would be decried for obfuscation and conflation of the important differences between evolution and creationism, probably by both sides. No-one who was paying attention would be convinced that I had demonstrated that evolution and creationism were synonymous. Nor do I think that one book should be the basis for concluding that "Creationism vs. intelligent design is nothing more than logomachy."

I'm not talking about someone trying to convince me that creationism and intelligent design are the same thing. I'm talking about someone literally replacing one word with the other. What am I to infer from this? The person must think they are the same thing. I suppose he could be a liar trying to fool people, but then all the other creationists and IDers would have jumped on him, as you suggest would happen in your scenario.

I apologize that my statement "So if I take a copy of a book and globally replace foo with bar, you're going to argue that the two terms are not synonymous?" was too glib.

I have not concluded that creationism vs. inteligent design is wordplay based only on this one instance.

~~ Paul

 

[RandFan]

And I was speaking to Judge Jones' contention that Michael Behe, who was not a defendant, lied about his own beliefs when he said that he supported intelligent design, and believed in evolution.

I don't know that particulars but if Jone's made the statement I would put money on it that Jones was right. I'm just not sure how to prove Jones unless there is some testimony where Behe was caught in a lie.

There's a certain irony here. This idea comes primarily from "Of Pandas and People", the book at the heart of the Dover Trial. In an early manuscript of the book, it describes creationism, by name. In the published version, the word "creationism" is removed and the phrase "intelligent design" is substituted. This was taken by Judge Jones and many on JREF as irrefutable proof that the two are the same thing. It's ironic, to me, because it means so many people are citing creationist literature as their proof.

Meh.

(I may have some details slightly wrong. It may have been an earlier published version. Or it may have been a different book. At any rate, at the trial, the earlier version described creationism as saying fish were created with fins. The later described ID as saying fish were created with fins. They were wrong. ID doesn't make that claim.)

Plaintiffs subpeoned the earlier editions of pandas and found that all the references to creation were substituted with ID. Whether ID makes that claim or not Pandas did.

Behe testified at the trial that the authors of "Pandas" were wrong in their definitions. Behe was correct, but Judge Jones decided that Behe must be lying.

Judges are tryers of fact. They are not perfect but as I said before I would happily bet on Jones. I'll do some research and see if Behe was caught in a lie. Maybe someone else here knows.

There's no doubt that a lot of creationists have changed their colors and latched on to ID for exactly the purpose you describe. However, this description is so greatly oversimplified that it is inaccurate. In my opinion, the inaccuracies are sufficient to damage the argument, and render it less effective.

And, in case anyone wonders, I think that's a bad thing. I would prefer effective arguments against ID and creationism. I just don't think it's a good start to get the definitions and beliefs wrong.

I'm not sure I understand you. I don't see a problem. Could you expand?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

People should understand that Of Pandas and People is the definitive textbook on ID. I'm not sure there is another textbook. Possibly Icons of Evolution might be considered one.

~~ Paul

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Thank you, Dog Boots, for that link. I'm fist pumping for minutes now. Boo yaa!

(P.S.: Do you like Planet X?)

 

[Merko]

I think there's a difference between Intelligent Design (tm) and intelligent design in general. One is a more or less well defined, specific theory. The other is just any theory that involves an intelligent designer. This designer may have designed only the fundamental forces of nature, which is pretty hard to disprove. Though it seems quite unlikely to me.