New CSICOP Column

| 38 Comments

Update (March 2, 2006): I owe an apology to readers of this entry for an error I made in its initial version. I originally presented two quotes, one of which I attributed to Henry Morris, the other to William Dembski. In reality both quotes were due to Morris. The point I was making was that both ID and scientific creationism assert that the question of the age of the Earth is independent of the scientific question of whether evolution is an adequate explanation for life’s complexity. But in writing this entry I carelssly misread what I had originally written in my essay. I am sorry for the error.

My new column for CSICOP’S Creation Watch web site is now available. This time we take a closer look at the question of whether there is any important difference between ID and scientific creationism. Turns out there’s even less of a difference than you think!

38 Comments

A) has to be Dembski because he says “point to creation” which is his lingo.

How you could think that the age of the earth is not important to evolution is beyond me though. How the Fork do they come up with this stuff? Lying liars. How much do they make for that?

I didn’t know it was the holy land but I believed from the minute the check left my hand

http://brainwashedgod.blogspot.com/[…]ower-in.html

Did I not read the article correctly or aren’t both statements from Henry Morris?. I am confused.

DaveClay: you’re right as well. They do both sound like something Dembski would subscribe to, but they’re definitely Morrisisms.

A web search finds both quotes attributed to Morris.

LOL part of me would laugh if, as a joke, Jason went all DaveScot on us, writing a bunch of editorial nonsense into our comments, then deleting half his original post and claiming subterfuge, then banning me, Corkscrew, and DaveClay, then finally expunging the thread from Panda’s Thumb.

Speaking of, I can’t log into AtBC. Did I do something wrong? Was it the 33 different user names? Was it my sharp tongue, quick to criticize and slow to compliment? It it my theistic interpretation of Ulysses (the Joyce version? DO I have bad breath? Or is it just down?

Example #2 is both verbose and stupid, so I guess Buffalo Bill Dembski.

Example #1 is just stupid, so I guess Morris.

AtBC has been slow recently, but Wesley put up a comment that he’s made alterations to the anti-spam devices, and some people might get sealed outside the airlock.

I was walking through the library yesterday, and I happened to pass a series of creation/evolution books. I picked one up one (copyright 1994) and read the forward to the book – which was written by Phillip Johnson. In a two page forward to the book, he used “supernatural” and “intelligent designer” pretty interchangably. He also stated that the age of the earth (either a few thousand or a few billion years) was really just details – it was the destruction of naturalism that was the target. I can get you a complete copy of the forward if anyone is interested. I was actually rather surprised that there was a total lack of pretense whatsoever that ID was about anything other than the promotion of theology.

Number 2 is from Dembski (I’m pretty certain) and the first is probably from Morris.

Not that it’s really possible to tell, the rhetoric is largely the same anyway.

Yeah, google seems to indicate think both quotes come from Parker & Morris (1982), What is Creation Science? This should be fixed

But Jason’s essay is great.

AtBC has been slow recently, but Wesley put up a comment that he’s made alterations to the anti-spam devices, and some people might get sealed outside the airlock.

I haven’t been able to get into AtBC for 5 hours. Is anyone getting in? Is this going to be fixed at some point?

You can easily check out if your IP address is being listed in a realtime blackhole list that I’m using for the AE BB.

Example:

http://antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ca[…]09.123.45.67

Output: 209.123.45.67

209.123.45.67 RBL filtered by block.blars.org 209.123.45.67 RBL filtered by blackholes.five-ten-sg.com child exited with value 1

Just replace the example IP address with your own, and you can find out which lists you need to talk to in order to get your IP cleared.

If it returns with a “0”, then your IP is fine.

Oh yeah. THanks. Easy. Now, what was my IP adress again? :)

This is what I get:

67.189.59.154

67.189.59.154 RBL filtered by blackholes.five-ten-sg.com 67.189.59.154 RBL filtered by dnsbl.sorbs.net child exited with value 1

blackholes.five-ten-sg.com gets me nowhere and dnsbl.sorbs.net doesn’t make sense.

That’s too frigging complicated. Is there any reason I can’t just rejoin under a slight variant of my old name? After all, I’m not spamming AtBC…

BWE’s IP is blocked by

block.blars.org blackholes.five-ten-sg.com dnsbl.sorbs.net

The “five-ten-sg.com” site has a handy form to find out why an address is listed. I plugged that in and got

IP address … is listed here as .…comcast.net misc.spam.

The misc.spam group is mostly (but not entirely) composed of entire addresses blocks that have a) sent spam here, b) have consecutive or missing reverse dns, and c) have no customer sub-delegation via either the controlling RIR (ARIN, RIPE, LACNIC, APNIC, etc) or an rwhois server referenced in the main RIR records.

In particular, … has no reverse dns. That needs to be fixed first. Any email sent to the address at the top of this page will be ignored until that is fixed.

Comcast is my cable connection. THe rest I dont get

BWE, the full domain name does not refer to a web page. It refers to the DNS server that provides the response for a blacklist. If you go to five-ten-sg.com and sorbs.net, you’ll get web pages that will direct you to the right spots.

Arden, this isn’t something that a different name will help with. This has to do with the status of the IP address that you connect from and whether it has been listed in any of several available blacklists as having sent spam or being from an open relay.

BWE, mine came back with the same fault yours did, only from mindspring. Wesley, Our individual IP’s can be corrected on an individual basis if we communicate that to the blacklisters. Why should they take our word for it?

I agree this is way more complicated than someone who is not a technoweenie wants to deal with. I use technoweenie in the best possible way ;)

Um, I can’t understand what I’m supposed to do. Is this going to change on its own eventually, or is it just like this from now on?

If a lot of other people are also blocked out and also have to go thru these contortions, I don’t think this was very well done.

I have trimmed back the blacklists to three pretty conservative ones, so give things a try now.

THanks. Much better. :) keep up the good work.

Dembski’s criteria for what constitutes creationism and ID are taken verbatim from Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook. Written, of course, by 3 Discovery Institute fellows. (One hopes he gave proper attribution.)

The criteria for “scientific creationism” are taken from the Edwards case, but that was simply what was written in the text of the bill that was being challenged. Other creationist bills, and the work of creationist authors, contain different definitions. It’s rather silly of Dembski (and the authors he cribs from) to suggest that this is the One True definition of creationism, whether you’re talking about for legal purposes or just the bare concept.

Sailed right in. Thanks much!

YEC, ID and the “designer-free phony critical analysis” all misrepresent evolution and lead unsuspecting audiences to infer their favorite origins myth. And among most American nonscientists it’s usually some poorly-thought-out YEC scenario. If the quotes are supposed to make me think that IDers are closet YECs, it doesn’t work. If anything, much of what I read from professional YECs lately leads me to believe that many of them do not believe their YEC account either. They may believe in a Creator, but so do many of their critics.

No. Anti-evolution, in whatever form, is primarily about misrepresentation. All strategy and no science. If professional IDers truly believed in an alternative explanation for the origin of species, they’d fall all over each other trying to support it, and not by misrepresenting evolution. The age of the earth question may be independent of evolution, but if IDers had another explanation, they’d vocally support it just like YECs. Instead they know that the earth is 4.55 billion years old, sometimes admit it, but mostly evade the question because they need the political support of rank and file YECs.

I take it the folks on the Panda’s Thumb are aware that Henry Morris has died on the 25th Feb. after suffering a stroke a few weeks ago ? I just thought I would mention that since no-one has brought the subject up.

I’ve read some very similar statements on the AIG website which are identical to both, so in my opinion either could have come from Morris. For example one AIG article states “The age of the Earth. It’s not the issue” which is strange since they make such a big deal out of the Earth being young and why Christians shouldn’t and can’t believe in “millions of years” as they put it.

I assume the point you are trying to make Jason is that it’s very difficult to tell the difference between ID and so-called scientific creationism (YECism) when examined closely ?

BWE, the full domain name does not refer to a web page. It refers to the DNS server that provides the response for a blacklist. If you go to five-ten-sg.com and sorbs.net, you’ll get web pages that will direct you to the right spots.

Arden, this isn’t something that a different name will help with. This has to do with the status of the IP address that you connect from and whether it has been listed in any of several available blacklists as having sent spam or being from an open relay.

Wesley, I’m getting a return of 0, but I still can’t into the Bar.

Do I need a driver’s license or something? Do I have to flirt with the bouncer?

“I take it the folks on the Panda’s Thumb are aware that Henry Morris has died on the 25th Feb. after suffering a stroke a few weeks ago ? I just thought I would mention that since no-one has brought the subject up.”

Here is his obituary at The Plain Dealer.

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plain[…]l&coll=2

I did indeed make an error in my original version of this entry. That error has now been corrected. I humbly apologize for my carelessness. Please read the update I just tacked on to this entry for some more details.

Are there any other quotes Jason, that Demski has made that do bear a similarity to those of Morris ?

I listened to the whole of Ken Miller’s talk from Ohio and I know he was trying to make the same point. I seem to remember him saying that earlier versions of the ID book “Of pandas and people” contained numerous references to creationism.

Do I have to flirt with the bouncer?

Er, no, but telling me what error message you get may help.

Sorry, you are not permitted to use this board

You are NOT logged in

And I can’t log in.

Am I doing something wrong?

Jason, LOL! I just caught your apology for misquoting Dembski / Morris! The first time - ever I am sure - that Dembski or Morris have ever been linked to honest error!

Peter Henderson Wrote:

I listened to the whole of Ken Miller’s talk from Ohio and I know he was trying to make the same point. I seem to remember him saying that earlier versions of the ID book “Of pandas and people” contained numerous references to creationism.

You might say that. See Missing link and Why didn’t they.

Interestingly AIG have a supposed feedback article on their website today about an ID proponent looking for evedince for a young Earth.(I’m often suspicious of AIG feedback as more often than not they appear to be contrived and not really genuine but that’s only my opinion)

I defintely think they must read the Panda’s Thumb as these types of essays often appear when a similar topic has been raised here !

It’s strange that they’ve latched on to IDers and the age of the Earth as well.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Jason Rosenhouse published on March 1, 2006 8:34 PM.

Ruse on Kitzmiller v. Dover was the previous entry in this blog.

ID battle in The Stanford Daily is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter