Too much Double Speak for me: Have we misunderstood Creationism?

[Synnical]

http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/Have_We_Misunderstood_Creationism.aspx?ArticleID=3599&PageID=11&RefPageID=5

Doubting Darwin, published on Monday by Theos, seeks to get beneath surface of the often intemperate conversation taking place between evolution’s most strident defenders and its harshest critics. The report, an analysis of 50 in-depth interviews with creationists and other evolution sceptics carried out by the independent ethnographic research agency ESRO, finds that things are not quite as people might think. Under the rubric of creationism lie a host of different hostilities, critiques and responses to evolution. The report suggests that there are a few myths which need to be debunked.

The first myth is that there is such a thing as a movement which we can legitimately call ‘creationism’. This implies a unity where there is, in fact, only divergence and disunity. On issues as broad as the interpretation and importance of Scripture, the philosophy of science, the geological age of the earth, the relationship between science and faith, and even the central question of descent with modification, there is considerable disagreement. “Discussions amongst creationists are some of the most aggressive I know”, said one interviewee.

Take, for example, Intelligent Design, which has been said to be a common denominator or strategy behind which most creationists could gather: “It provides a minimum commitment label for anyone who is sceptical about evolution… The bulk of those in ID are Christian but there are certainly Hindus, Muslims, Jews and agnostics, secularists – a good number, a surprising number, who don’t have theistic principles at all”, said one respondent.

But compare this with the views of another interviewee: “I am no supporter of the ID movement. One difference being that they say ‘you can tell there is a designer’ and I say that from the New Testament we can tell what the designer is like, and who he is.” Here, the ideological fault line is between those who believe that evolution scepticism is only a part of the work of an evangelist (in the words of one interviewee, “presenting the gospel of Jesus Christ…I want to present the designer as the Intelligent God of the Bible”) and those who believe that evolution scepticism ought to be “abstracted from religious dogma” in order that it might be addressed in the public square, even though they themselves may come from theistic traditions. Add the growing phenomenon of Islamic creationism into the mix, with which the Christian ‘Young Earthers’ are most unlikely to find common cause, and you begin to get the picture of the countervailing factors at play.

Much more seemingly intellectual words at link. Cripes.

-Cindy in Fort Lauderdale

[realisticphish]

1. agnostics in ID?

wtf?

[laconicsax]

2. You don't have to believe in a god to be an idiot.

[realisticphish]

3. true

but it seems like they would counteract each other.

I guess if its someone who self-describes as an agnostic but was actually a deist?

I don't know, it just boggles the mind

[laconicsax]

4. I've met people who bought the generic 'designer' idea without realizing what ID is.

Plenty of things come across as designed when you don't have a basic grasp of evolution. Lots of people don't have a basic grasp of evolution.

[realisticphish]

5. good point

i guess a lot of people just haven't thought about it, or cared enough to think about it

[skepticscott]

6. No, creationism has not been misunderstood

It's been well known for quite a while that there are all different stripes of creationists: Biblical young-Earthers, Biblical day-equals-agers, "scientific" creationists, ID creationists, and probably some others. And yes, there's far more disagreement among creationists than there is among evolutionists, but that's not surprising when their convictions are based on differences in faith and ideology and not on objective evidence.