Browsed by
Tag: Creationism

Discovery Institute: Indiana Bill “Bad Science and Bad Education”

Discovery Institute: Indiana Bill “Bad Science and Bad Education”

A press release that just came from the Discovery Institute: Indianapolis – A bill approved today by the Indiana Senate to allow the teaching of creationism in public schools is being criticized as bad science education by Discovery Institute, the nation’s leading intelligent design think tank. [From Discovery Institute – Article Database – Leading Intelligent Design Think Tank Condemns Passage of Creationism Bill by Indiana Senate as Bad Science and Bad Education] I’m afraid a lot of prejudiced people are…

Read More Read More

“What Is Pseudoscience?: Scientific American”

“What Is Pseudoscience?: Scientific American”

So far so good from Michael Shermer, writing at Scientific American, as he quotes Michael D. Gordin in an excellent, pithy analysis: “individual scientists (as distinct from the monolithic ‘scientific community’) designate a doctrine a ‘pseudoscience’ only when they perceive themselves to be threatened—not necessarily by the new ideas themselves, but by what those ideas represent about the authority of science, science’s access to resources, or some other broader social trend. [From What Is Pseudoscience?: Scientific American] But after that…

Read More Read More

SciAm Endorses Teaching the Controversy?

SciAm Endorses Teaching the Controversy?

Could this be? Looks like John Rennie, who until recently was the long-time Editor-in-Chief of Scientific American, thinks it’s a good idea to teach the controversy! The roughly 60 percent in the mushy middle steered around conflicts between evolution and creationism or taught both and let students draw their own conclusions. (Always such a good idea….) [From Teachers Fail Evolution Education: Scientific American Podcast]

More evidence for miscommunication

More evidence for miscommunication

Thank you, Larry Fafarman, for answering this, written by Nick Matzke at Panda’s Thumb: Just last week over at the Thinking Christian blog there was a huge stink raised over the alleged inappropriateness of linking ID to creationism. After much argument the anti-linkage people more or less conceded that there were some good reasons to link ID to a somewhat generic definition of creationism (relying on special creation), but still protested loudly about how inappropriate it was to make the…

Read More Read More

Concluding Unscientific Postscript

Concluding Unscientific Postscript

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 to make an interpretation after the results, and it’s by way of a postscript to all this recent discussion, so by John’s standard this might…

Read More Read More

Who Defines ID?

Who Defines ID?

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 irreducible complexity, or fine-tuning of the cosmos for life, and argues that the best explanation for them is to be found in a designing intelligence….

Read More Read More

“ID Creationism:” The Communication Question

“ID Creationism:” The Communication Question

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 putting words in sentences is to communicate through them. It is a communication issue. From a communication perspective, what does “creationism” contribute to the term,…

Read More Read More

ID and Creationism: Learning As I Go

ID and Creationism: Learning As I Go

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 on this blog, continuing also here. I posed it as a question, not a dogmatic statement, and I am committed to remaining a learner in…

Read More Read More

Questions For Those Who Believe ID Is Creationism

Questions For Those Who Believe ID Is 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 was substituted, the arguments and substance of Pandas did not change. Then he asks why I say the current question is not about Of Pandas…

Read More Read More

%d bloggers like this: