The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Religion & Culture / Creation vs. Evolution


Subject:  Re: Ohio setback for ID Date:  2/16/2006  3:55 PM
Author:  bdhinton Number:  7943 of 27171

Ok, but Dembski is an IDist and a creationist (according to you), so the important thing is how HE uses the word, and apparently you acknowledge that he makes a distinction.

I don't know how you even GOT that from my post. I don't see how I could have gotten much clearer than "To them, Darwinism is a derogatory word for evolution."

If you're going to argue cute semantic points, I'm already bored.

Its a cute LOGICAL point. I take that as a challege. I accept. Let's review the discussion so far.

I started by claiming:

"Including design theory" does not sound like "throw evolution out on it's ear" to me.

to which you responded:

"Governing Goals:
* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God."
-- The Wedge Strategy

"If fully successful, Intelligent Design will unseat not just Darwinism but also Darwinism's cultural legacy."
-- William Dembski

Gee, that DOES sound like "throw evolution out on it's ear" to me.

I pointed out, in response:

Now you must have noticed that "evolution" does not appear anywhere in the material you quoted.

Are you now conflating evolution with Darwinism? The fact that change happens is not the same thing as explaning how that change occured. Darwinism is just one explanation. That explanation can be tossed, and replaced with something better, but you will still be dealing with the same facts of the fossil record and DNA.

My point is obvious. Dembski, and the wedge document, use the terms "Darwinism" and "materialism", as you quote. It is my contention that these terms are distinct from "evolution".

You picked up on one part in your response:

Are you now conflating evolution with Darwinism?

You're splitting hairs. It's creationists and IDists who do that. To them, Darwinism is a derogatory word for evolution. In the sense that any scientist would use the word, "Darwinism" is not taught in schools anyway.

Thus you claim that in making a distinction between "evolution" and "darwinism", I am splitting hairs. Further, you claim that creationists and IDists do that (ie split hairs, make distinctions between those words).

So when I point out to you that Dembski is one of the people you claim make such a distinction, ie a creationist/IDist, logically (if what you say is true), he must make such a distinction between evolution and Darwinism. If a distinction, then "evolution" is not equal to "Darwinism" in Dembski's vocabulary.

But you're absolutely right. It's boring to argue such things.

More importantly, I say that he has a different definition of "Darwinism" than what you attribute to him, and I ask you to please offer evidence that Dembski uses the term as you claim, as a derogatory word for evolution. I'll ask again: what evidence do you offer that Dembski means "evolution" when he says "Darwinism" or "Materialism"?

This is a very important point. You and others have claimed that ID proponents like Dembski and Behe in effect want to ruin science as we know it by removing all mention of evolution from public school science curriculum and teaching. This is utterly and obviously false to anyone who cares to read the record and not distort what is being said.

You are making such a distortion when you claim that Dembski means "evolution" when he says "Darwinism".

Please back up your assertion. I'd also like an answer to the other questions I asked you (if you haven't yet):

Next, tell me please what Darwinism means "in the sense that any scientist would use the word", and what points in Darwinism are "not taught in schools".


Copyright 1996-2022 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us