Joy posted the blog entry Stop the Presses! It's all Over! citing questionable news coverage of a paper published by researchers at the University of Manchester. The university's press release titled St Bernard study casts doubt on creationism contains two paragraphs which I'll quote and comment on. The first:
"Creationism is the belief that all living organisms were created according to Genesis in six days by 'intelligent design' and rejects the scientific theories of natural selection and evolution.
Note an old debating tactic. Redefine a concept to make it an easier target to attack. The above definition applies to those who believe in the biblical account of Genesis and who take what has been described as a literal interpretation of it. By posing this definition one limits creationists to a sub-group within the two religions that view Genesis as scriptural- Christianity and Judaism. The definition excludes Muslim creationists from the mix as well as creationists of other faiths. The artificial definition also presents a false dichotomy. Not all creationists reject natural selection or evolution. A common denominator to creationists is the belief that God is nature's creator. Beyond that there are many variations not evidenced in the definition supplied by the University press release. The final paragraph reads:
"But this research once again demonstrates how selection "” whether natural or, in this case, artificially influenced by man "” is the fundamental driving force behind the evolution of life on the planet."
For the sake of argument let the reader presume the truth of the foregoing statement. Would this constitute a refutation of creationism? Does it preclude inferences of intelligent design? Would it even render us with a scientifically viable explanation for the origin and diversity of life? Finally, why embroil science in non-scientific matters when doing so does damage to science itself?