9 ms·

I too agree wholeheartedly. It took me many years (35yo now) to learn this, the very hard way, on internet and specially in life. A MD in Philosophy helped a lo

I too agree wholeheartedly. It took me many years (35yo now) to learn this, the very hard way, on internet and specially in life. A MD in Philosophy helped a lot, or it's been actually essential for my life path. Interesting, given that I'm a 'creationist idiot' (I won't go into details), I never actually debate this with anyone that doesn't have the theological (and hermeneutical skills) necessary to understand WHY on this old Earth someone would think it's young. It's a complex problem, touching on many areas and, yes, very stupid arguments can be brought up in favor and against specific flavors of creationism. BUT, regarding ID (which is often breathlessly conflated with creationism), when I talk with people that have the philosophical expertise to understand it (but not agree with it), I have only met respectful attitudes. This is not to say that it convinces me I'm right in what I believe. I'm still the kind of skeptics that gives plausibility percentages to his beliefs. Regarding life in general, no amount of patience will harm you.

dalke 10y ago
> "ID (which is often breathlessly conflated with creationism)," I think you do a misfavor by using the phrase "breathlessly conflated" in a comment which supports being aware that others may be "starting from a different premise", etc. It doesn't help that the authors of a "Of Pandas and People", an ID textbook, effectively did a search and replace in early drafts of "creationism" with "intelligent design", and "intelligent creator" to "intelligent agency", after Edwards v. Aguillard settled that teaching creationism in public schools was not constitutional. One of the famous examples is how "creationalist" became "cdesign proponentsists". https://ncse.com/creationism/legal/cdesign-proponentsists https://ncse.com/creationism/legal/cdesign-proponentsists . Quoting the judge in Kitzmiller v. Dover: > By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times, were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards. This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content .... While certainly ID is different from creationism (it can allow extraterrestrials as the intelligent designer, and not just a deity), it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." (Quoting Dover.) Those starting from a different premise from you, that is, that ID is a smokescreen for creationism which uses the language of science to get around constitutional restrictions of what can be taught in schools, would not consider this as a real distinction but rather a deliberately introduced confusion. For them, it would not be a breathless conflation, but an indicator that the social and religious basis of ID as a creationist movement is more relevant than the details of its doctrine, which they also believe to be a incorrect interpretation of the evidence.
- DigitalJack 10y ago
  There are no constitutional restrictions on what can be taught in schools.
  - annnnd 10y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard "Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) was a U.S. Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of teaching creationism. The Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public schools, along with evolution, violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion." In the spirit of the OP's article, let me say that I wholeheartedly agree with you, but you might want to look at this from another perspective... ;-D
    - DigitalJack 10y ago
      The constitution has meaning apart from whatever a given Supreme Court says. They try to decipher it, but they don't create its meaning. We may be bound legally by their ruling, but that is simply a matter of law and tradition. The Supreme Court does not itself have a constitutional mandate to decide on the meaning of the constitution and the constitutionality of laws. It started when a chief justice decided that is what the court was going to do in 1803, and everyone went along with it. The concepts of case law and judicial review are simply traditions of our legal system. The constitutional clause in question says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." That to me seems to say the government shouldn't be screwing with it one way or the other.
      - emodendroket 10y ago
        It seems a little unreasonable to insist on a way of thinking about Constitutional law that has been moribund since John Jay's term and this role of the Court's fits fairly well into the common-law framework we've inherited from England. It also doesn't seem clear to me how setting up a curriculum (a legal act, after all) can't be covered by that text, unless you want to go back and argue it is only concerned with preventing a church becoming literally "established" like the Anglican Church is in England.
emodendroket 10y ago
I'm curious what your position is. Young-Earth creationism plus evolution? Or something different? I can't quite discern it from your post.
- jandrese 10y ago
  It's probably best not to go any further down this discussion tree in this thread. This issue has a tendency to dominate the discussion whenever it appears, derailing the original conversation entirely.
  - woodandsteel 10y ago
    Perhaps you could post a link to some place that expresses a view similar to yours.
BatFastard 10y ago
>Regarding life in general, no amount of patience will harm you. It depends on what you consider "harm", while you may not physical be harmed, you can sure waste a lot of your life trying to explain concepts that people are not willing to hear.

dalke 10y ago

> "ID (which is often breathlessly conflated with creationism)," I think you do a misfavor by using the phrase "breathlessly conflated" in a comment which supports being aware that others may be "starting from a different premise", etc. It doesn't help that the authors of a "Of Pandas and People", an ID textbook, effectively did a search and replace in early drafts of "creationism" with "intelligent design", and "intelligent creator" to "intelligent agency", after Edwards v. Aguillard settled that teaching creationism in public schools was not constitutional. One of the famous examples is how "creationalist" became "cdesign proponentsists". https://ncse.com/creationism/legal/cdesign-proponentsists https://ncse.com/creationism/legal/cdesign-proponentsists . Quoting the judge in Kitzmiller v. Dover: > By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times, were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards. This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content .... While certainly ID is different from creationism (it can allow extraterrestrials as the intelligent designer, and not just a deity), it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents." (Quoting Dover.) Those starting from a different premise from you, that is, that ID is a smokescreen for creationism which uses the language of science to get around constitutional restrictions of what can be taught in schools, would not consider this as a real distinction but rather a deliberately introduced confusion. For them, it would not be a breathless conflation, but an indicator that the social and religious basis of ID as a creationist movement is more relevant than the details of its doctrine, which they also believe to be a incorrect interpretation of the evidence.

DigitalJack 10y ago
There are no constitutional restrictions on what can be taught in schools.
- annnnd 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard "Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) was a U.S. Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of teaching creationism. The Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public schools, along with evolution, violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion." In the spirit of the OP's article, let me say that I wholeheartedly agree with you, but you might want to look at this from another perspective... ;-D
  - DigitalJack 10y ago
    The constitution has meaning apart from whatever a given Supreme Court says. They try to decipher it, but they don't create its meaning. We may be bound legally by their ruling, but that is simply a matter of law and tradition. The Supreme Court does not itself have a constitutional mandate to decide on the meaning of the constitution and the constitutionality of laws. It started when a chief justice decided that is what the court was going to do in 1803, and everyone went along with it. The concepts of case law and judicial review are simply traditions of our legal system. The constitutional clause in question says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." That to me seems to say the government shouldn't be screwing with it one way or the other.
    - emodendroket 10y ago
      It seems a little unreasonable to insist on a way of thinking about Constitutional law that has been moribund since John Jay's term and this role of the Court's fits fairly well into the common-law framework we've inherited from England. It also doesn't seem clear to me how setting up a curriculum (a legal act, after all) can't be covered by that text, unless you want to go back and argue it is only concerned with preventing a church becoming literally "established" like the Anglican Church is in England.

emodendroket 10y ago

I'm curious what your position is. Young-Earth creationism plus evolution? Or something different? I can't quite discern it from your post.

jandrese 10y ago
It's probably best not to go any further down this discussion tree in this thread. This issue has a tendency to dominate the discussion whenever it appears, derailing the original conversation entirely.
- woodandsteel 10y ago
  Perhaps you could post a link to some place that expresses a view similar to yours.

BatFastard 10y ago

>Regarding life in general, no amount of patience will harm you. It depends on what you consider "harm", while you may not physical be harmed, you can sure waste a lot of your life trying to explain concepts that people are not willing to hear.