“The Latest Face of Creationism in the Classroom”

This entry is part 1 of 8 in the series Is ID Creationism?

Glenn Branch and Eugenie C. Scott write in a Scientific American article dated today, Creationists who want religious ideas taught as scientific fact in public schools continue to adapt to courtroom defeats by hiding their true aims under ever changing guises Such is the expected stance from leaders of the National Center for Science Education, …

December 16, 2008 – 10:46 pm | By Tom Gilson | Posted in Origins and Science | Tagged , , , , | Comments (31)

Creationism and ID: Definition or Rhetoric?

This entry is part 2 of 8 in the series Is ID Creationism?

Yesterday I tried to set aside a question about the relation between creationism and intelligent design, but bobxxx commented, I have a few things to say about creationism and intelligent design. I think people who pretend these are different ideas are being dishonest. Invoking creationism is the same as invoking supernatural magic. Invoking intelligent design …

February 3, 2009 – 9:53 am | By Tom Gilson | Posted in Origins and Science | Tagged , , , | Comments (17)

Maybe They Really Can’t Tell the Difference

This entry is part 3 of 8 in the series Is ID Creationism?

Several times in the last few days the term “Intelligent Design Creationism” has crossed my line of sight. It’s a misnomer, a duct-taped concatenation of concepts that overlap somewhat, but not enough to merit being stuck together the way ID opponents have done. Robert Pennock is perhaps the worst, but Barbara Forrest, Richard Dawkins, and …

October 11, 2009 – 5:25 pm | By Tom Gilson | Posted in Origins and Science | Tagged , | Comments (228)

Questions For Those Who Believe ID Is Creationism

This entry is part 4 of 8 in the series Is ID Creationism?

Yesterday in the thread on ID and creationism, a commenter using the handle “Wheels” pointed out, The starting point [for both ID and creationism] is with religion, namely Christianity in this case. The arguments used in Pandas were all Scientific Creationism arguments. The terminology used in Pandas‘ early drafts were all old-hat Creationism. When ID …

October 13, 2009 – 1:13 pm | By Tom Gilson | Posted in Origins and Science | Tagged , | Comments (62)

ID and Creationism: Learning As I Go

This entry is part 5 of 8 in the series Is ID Creationism?

A few days I posed a tentative question, wondering whether some of those who do not distinguish Intelligent Design from creationism may be exhibiting a kind of worldview blindness, one that causes them to see everyone different themselves as being all the same. That led to one of the highest-velocity discussions I can remember having …

October 14, 2009 – 12:56 pm | By Tom Gilson | Posted in Origins and Science | Tagged , | Comments (54)

“ID Creationism:” The Communication Question

This entry is part 6 of 8 in the series Is ID Creationism?

Cameron said this morning, in the thread, “Maybe They Really Can’t Tell the Difference,” The relevant purpose here, per the OP, is to determine if ID shares enough similarities with creationism to justify using the term “ID creationism.” That’s an excellent clarifying point, so thank you, Cameron. The answer is quite simple. The point of …

October 16, 2009 – 7:12 am | By Tom Gilson | Posted in Origins and Science | Tagged , | Comments (24)

Who Defines ID?

This entry is part 7 of 8 in the series Is ID Creationism?

In my earlier post this morning I covered definitions of creationism quite thoroughly but I didn’t include a definition of Intelligent Design. There was one in the post I wrote last Sunday, but not all readers would know that. I wrote: ID sees phenomena like the high information content in biological organisms, instances of apparent …

October 16, 2009 – 10:40 am | By Tom Gilson | Posted in The Faith | Tagged , | Comments (76)

Concluding Unscientific Postscript

This entry is part 8 of 8 in the series Is ID Creationism?

Commenter John on one of the recent Intelligent Design threads said that science never interprets results after bringing them in. I think there’s truth in that as a general principle, though its extreme nature makes it subject to frequent exceptions, and not the absolute truth he seemed to want it to be. Anyway, I’m about …

October 19, 2009 – 5:20 pm | By Tom Gilson | Posted in Origins and Science | Tagged , | Comments (32)