Wednesday, November 22, 2006

To be or not to be… a creationist

Link to: original blogpost - comments

Categories : Intelligent Design, Creationism, The Critics

Editor :

published: mercredi 22 novembre 2006 18:57:05

The contention that intelligent design is a form of creationism is popular in anti-ID circles. Here's Ed Brayton from his latest response to me:

I could, if I wanted to bother doing so, take each and every major ID argument and trace it back to its creationist ancestors. They're all there, from irreducible complexity (including the specific examples Behe uses, like the flagellum) to peppered moths to Haeckel's embryos to specified complexity, and they are all routinely used in creationist journals long before they were coopted for use in the ID programme. But this is well known and so obvious as to be indisputable.

Now, I could quibble with the accuracy of Brayton's statement - for example, the bacterial flagellum was first used by the agnostic ID supporter Michael Denton in 1985, whereas creationists seem to first have discovered it almost ten years later, in 1994, where it was featured in the Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal. But I won't, as this will only play into the illusion that this game of "who thought up which argument first?" actually helps us learn anything about the logic of intelligent design.

, , , ,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home