RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

  Topic: ID-Friendly article in my newspaper, Am I interpreting its intent correctly?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 48
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2006,08:58   

I won't attempt to post it in its entirety, but I thought I should at least go over the highlights.

Title:  "A judge seeks to define 'creationism'"
By:  Richard N. Ostling
From:  The Associated Press

First it claims that Judge Jones' ruling has made the definition of 'creationism' cloudier.  It then says that most Americans are creationists, in the sense that they accept 'God' as a creator.  It cites a poll, conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, which claims that 42% of Americans hold the belief that "humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time", 18% think life evolved but was guided by a "Supreme Being", 26% accept natural selection, and 14% are unsure.
It then talks about how the narrower definition of 'creationism' was established in the 60's, and claims that Jones' ruling establishes a third meaning.

It talks about the Dover disclaimer, saying only that it noted that ID differs from Darwinism and that it urged students to keep an open mind.  If "students wanted to learn more", it directed them to Pandas, which it says was written by "credentialed biologists".

The next paragraph notes that the Supreme Court has forbidden "creation science" coursework, and says that Jones forbade ID as well.  It talks about how Jones discussed ID arising from "Christian fundamentalism" and that ID was "a mere relabeling of creationism" and a "religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory".

The article poses a question:  is ID merely creationism disguised slightly?

The paragraph after that asserts that most IDers aren't fundamentalists, that a few are non-religious or non-Christian.  It repeats the ID claim that ID is distinguishable from creationism, since it doesn't identify th creator as God.

A paragraph presents statements from Ronald L. Numbers, a science historian from U of Wis, saying that lumping ID and creationism is inaccurate and a way to discredit ID.

The next says two academic responses "indicate things are more complex than Jones acknowledged".

The first:  Kent Greenwalt makes a distinction between modern creationism and the "more plausible" ID.  He asserts presenting ID and problems with Darwinism is fair, but only if it's not the only presented alternative.

The second:  two paragraphs about Michael Ruse, who says this isn't about scientific theory but a religious struggle.  He claims ID is about opposition to the "secular relligion of Darwinism", and criticizes its reliance on "blind forces" and materialism.

The final paragraph discusses Cardinal Schonborn's statements.

I found the whole thing to be riddled with pro-ID bias.  This is a Pennsylvanian paper, and a significant percentage of the population here is ID-friendly.  Am I correct in interpreting this article as blatant pandering to misrepresentations of ID and evolution?

Dean Morrison

Posts: 216
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2006,13:10   

I would say so Caledonian...


Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2006,13:22   

write to the author of the article, and his editor, and show them the proveable fallacies in the article.

write a letter to the opinion section of the paper doing the same.

... and have fun ;)


Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 14 2006,19:28   

With all the publicity, analysis and commentary regarding Dover, someone who is writing stuff like that isn't concered with being objective.  No one other than the Disco is that mistaken.  

The author is trying to sell an idea.

Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson


Posts: 48
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 15 2006,03:52   

I found the article online.  I don't know how much longer it will remain, but here's the link:

A judge seeks to define 'creationism'

Sheikh Mahandi

Posts: 47
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2006,01:29   

Richard Ostling
Harper Collins Biography
and from TIME

"Love is in the air, everywhere I look around,.....Love is in the air, every sight and every sound,......"

  5 replies since Jan. 14 2006,08:58 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]