That does not answer what I asked. The fact that you’re avoiding all the questions I asked, is telling.
Of course it’s creationist. That’s what the “C” is in 'Evolutionary Creationism. They’re creationists who don’t oppose evolution. Unlike the Discovery Institute, which is creationist but opposes evolution and keeps trying to tell people it’s a “theory in crisis”.
My field is information management. But it doesn’t matter what my field is or how close it is to evolutionary biology. I don’t need any expertise in evolutionary biology to read the tertiary literature. That’s what the tertiary literature is for.
When you can prove it’s unreliable in this case, do let me know. In this particular case what we find is IDers and other opponents of evolution consistently misrepresenting the literature (such as claiming that evolution is “a theory in crisis”), while people who are actually working in the field and who don’t carry an ID brief represent it accurately.
Straw man, I don’t have a trust in the 100% reliability of tertiary literature.
The quotation I provided actually addresses that specifically.
The proper thing to do is to point out that you are attempting to manufacture controversy. You are doing exactly what the Discovery Institute says to do, which is “teach the controversy”. There is no “debate” of the scale or significance you’re trying to imply. If there was, you would have evidence for it.
Yes I know that’s what you have said. But that is what you are doing.
So what?
I already know why. And I already know he exaggerates the significance of this difference.
…then I will read someone who writes reliably on them, and who isn’t trying to push an anti-evolutionary agenda and try to tell people that evolution is “a theory in crisis”.
This is what you failed to answer.
Are these statements saying that humans were created by God, in the image of God, or are they saying that humans are the product of evolution? This has nothing to do with whether they are for or against evolution.
Are these creationist statements or are they atheistic statements? This has nothing to do with whether they are for or against evolution.
Are these statements made in support of evolution, or are they not? If you think they’re something else, please say what it is.
No I’m not. That’s why I apply it to both you and I. That’s why I’m also not using it as a sneer or a derisive put down.
Sure. That makes the Discovery Institute a creationist organization. Why do you even try to pretend that they aren’t? It’s transparently obvious. They want to “replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God”, and you still try to claim they aren’t creationists.
I don’t claim they are creationists.
This is a non sequitur; the conclusion does not proceed logically from the premise. But look at what you’re doing. You’re saying Behe and Denton both affirm macroevolution, but you don’t say the Discovery Institute affirms macroevolution. That’s significant. The reason why you don’t say that is that you know you can’t. The Discovery Institute consistently argues against macroevolution, tries to claim that the modern evolutionary synthesis is a “theory in crisis”, and teaches the idea that “nature and human beings are created by God”, in opposition to evolution.
No I don’t.
When he says evolution is a theory in crisis, that’s misrepresentation.
And “Darwinian evolution” is not a “theory in crisis”.
[quote=“Eddie, post:65, topic:4380”]
Your author states a half-truth, probably in hope that the reader will not ask further questions about the debates in the field.[/quote]
It’s not a half truth, and the statement is in the context of a detailed discussion of the issue, in which he helpfully identifies the way IDers like you try to manufacture controversy. Unlike you and Denton, Coyne does not misrepresent evolution.
[quote=“Eddie, post:65, topic:4380”]
It’s this apologetic motivation that I’m against…[/quote]
But you’re an apologist.
That is not all you have done. You have misrepresented the scale and scope of the discussion over macroevolution in order to give the impression that there is a serious debate in the literature as to whether or not macroevolution accounts for the diversity of species, and as to whether macroevolution is on a continuum with microevolution. That’s a classic IDer apologist tactic.
[quote=“Eddie, post:65, topic:4380”]
Are you accusing me of deliberately misleading people here about my actual views on evolution and creationism? Of pretending that I support evolution when I really do not, and of pretending I am not advocating creationism when I really am?[/quote]
No, you’ve made your views on evolution and creationism very clear; you’re a creationist and you oppose evolution.
Strike one; avoiding the question.
Strike two; avoiding the question.
Strike three; avoiding the question.
No I am not. I have read plenty of Ted Davis, and I own and have read most of the books written or co-authored by Ronald Numbers. Trying to change the subject to “creationism as a movement” will not fool me. When you, and I, and the Discovery Institute say we believe God created humans in His image, we’re creationists. All three of us.
That’s not an admission, that’s something which was never in dispute. But they’re IDers, so they’re not just “evolutionists”, and Denton in particular opposes the modern evolutionary synthesis.
I don’t think that. You just quoted me saying you have never said that.
It’s entirely incorrect. Please try reading what they write. Why do IDers even try to pretend Discovery Institute is objective, as if it isn’t pushing the standard North American evangelical agenda?
No I am not doing that. I have said the opposite.
You quote from Jonathan’s email … but mistakenly put my name in your post. You should probably edit that.
Since you know that what I mean by “evolution” here is not the “evolution” that you endorse, there’s nothing wrong with my statement. Please stop falsely accusing me of claiming you’re trying to mislead people into thinking you support evolution when you don’t. I have never suggested anything like this. On the contrary, I have said the opposite.
@Eddie I think about three times in this thread Jon has said he considers TE/EC, YEC, and ID to all be creationist in the sense of believing God created humanity in his image, and he isn’t using it as an insult. I’m an “anyone” and I think you are manufacturing accusations and charges here. You do oppose Neo-Darwinian evolution. All the time. Why is this such a feather-ruffling thing?
Eddie I have made it very clear which version of evolution you reject, and the reason why I call you a creationist the same way I call myself a creationist. It has nothing to do with idiosyncratic definitions; when someone believes God created humans in His image, they’re a creationist. Christy has already demonstrated that she understood me perfectly well and has not fallen into the confusion you claim would result from my words. This is good evidence that your fears are unfounded.
Firstly, the term “creationist” is commonly understood in a broad sense, not a narrow sense, within the North American Christian community, and especially here on these forums. That’s why people call themselves Young Earth Creationist, or Old Earth Creationist, or Evolutionary Creationist.
Secondly, you haven’t presented any evidence that anyone on this forum is experiencing the kind of confusion over your views which you fear. On the contrary, no one has asked me to clarify myself or to be more specific about what I mean.
Thirdly, the fact that Christy, as an observer of this discussion, has not fallen into the confusion you fear, is evidence that your fears are unfounded.
Finally, I have very obviously not been using the term “creationist” in a pejorative sense, since I have applied it consistently to myself.
I responded to it with this.
[quote]Firstly, the term “creationist” is commonly understood in a broad sense, not a narrow sense, within the North American Christian community, and especially here on these forums. That’s why people call themselves Young Earth Creationist, or Old Earth Creationist, or Evolutionary Creationist.
Secondly, you haven’t presented any evidence that anyone on this forum is experiencing the kind of confusion over your views which you fear. On the contrary, no one has asked me to clarify myself or to be more specific about what I mean.[/quote]
I would welcome a return to content-oriented discussion. Feel free to read and comment on the article with which I opened this thread in the first place.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.