"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."

This apparently from Dr Klingenberg, leader of the team of "biologists at The University of Manchester [who] say that changes to the shape of the breed's head over the years can only be explained through evolution and natural selection."

As to "Natural History" consider (e.g.) Maupertuis' derivation of the laws of motion (and thereby the history of the universe) from an extremum principle. For Maupertuis it is the supreme proof of the existence of the Supreme Being.

In the practice of reconstructing molecular phylogenies Maupertuis' principle is invoked in the derivation of one lineage from another. The obvious difference being that molecular phylogenists hardly ever argue as Maupertuis did. Why not?

You can answer that for yourself.

You not only would struggle to come up with an example of a Creationist who accept the fact that we are African apes, cousins of monkeys, descended from fish, you failed. In striking contrast, watch how EASY it is for me to provide a list of famous Creationists who reject human evolution. Let's start with Duane Gish, Henry Morris, John Morris, Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, James Kennedy, and Jerry Falwell.

You seem to have changed the requirement. You originally asked me for

examples of Creationists, who take the early chapters of Genesis as literal, true guides to history (including human history)

now it is simply famous creationists. Now the answer depends on your definition of creationist. If you define creationist to be someone who believes in a literal interpretation of genesis then of course all creationists will reject human evolution (and also reject a lot of established science e.g. the age of the earth). If you define creationist to mean anyone who believes that a deity has designed and is controlling the evolutionary process (for example) then it would include William Dembski and Michael Behe. I am not over familiar with the beliefs of other famous IDers but browsing around the web it seems Jonathan Wells and Stephen Meyer are ambiguous on the subject - human evolution is not central to their beliefs.

I am dropping out of this topic from now on - I don't see it leading anywhere interesting.

I thought the key question was "is it sloppy thinking to call someone a creationist who accepts human evolution". I cannot see that it is relevant that extreme creationists reject this idea. (Which is why I did not respond).

Extreme creationists? Let me repeat my point a third time - We need to remember that we are not talking about defining things for an obscure philosophy or history journal (where responsible scholars would define the term anyway). We are talking about the rhetorical use of this label in the wider public arena.

Since we are talking about labels, and their rhetorical use, we have to factor the most common way a label is interpreted. For example, pay attention to a claim from Richard Dawkins: "Do his creationist fans know that Behe accepts as "trivial" the fact that we are African apes, cousins of monkeys, descended from fish?" Writing for the mainstream NYT, Dawkins is clearly implying that Behe's "creationist fans" would have a problem with this. This is because Dawkins understands the common meaning of the word. But I have established this all before.

You not only would struggle to come up with an example of a Creationist who accept the fact that we are African apes, cousins of monkeys, descended from fish, you failed. In striking contrast, watch how EASY it is for me to provide a list of famous Creationists who reject human evolution. Let's start with Duane Gish, Henry Morris, John Morris, Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, James Kennedy, and Jerry Falwell.

There is a simple explanation for both your failure and my easy success "“ creationists reject human evolution. Only a ham-handed or propagandistic approach would label someone who accepts human evolution as a creationist.

It is not the motive that is relevant; it's the effect that is relevant. Whatever the motivation, the fact remains that creationists reject human evolution.

In my last reply, I noted:

Why not list ten examples of Creationists, who take the early chapters of Genesis as literal, true guides to history (including human history), and also embrace and advocate that humans are related to baboons on the evolutionary tree? Your ability or inability to come up with this list is crucial to your case, as it will help us gauge how Creationism is represented and perceived in our social reality.

You failed to come up with a list. Perhaps this was an oversight, so please try again.

I would struggle to come with a single one. I would also struggle to come up with a creationist who takes the early chapters of Genesis as literal, true guides to history (including human history) and also:

believes the earth was created 4 billion years ago

accepts that morality is a human creation

speaks Serbo-Croat

So what?

I thought the key question was "is it sloppy thinking to call someone a creationist who accepts human evolution". I cannot see that it is relevant that extreme creationists reject this idea. (Which is why I did not respond).

In the end your accusation is about the motivation of people who call Behe creationist. It is really hard to prove what people's motivation is - so I suggest this is a sterile topic and best left.

First to respond to what Fodor wrote

"They didn't like our being just one branch among many in the evolutionary tree;"

i.e. it is a statement about what motivates some or most creationists. It is not a statement about what creationism means. Fodor's statement might well be true. The way to find out would be to survey the writings of a wide range of creationists or conduct an opinion survey.

It is not the motive that is relevant; it's the effect that is relevant. Whatever the motivation, the fact remains that creationists reject human evolution. In my last reply, I noted:

Why not list ten examples of Creationists, who take the early chapters of Genesis as literal, true guides to history (including human history), and also embrace and advocate that humans are related to baboons on the evolutionary tree? Your ability or inability to come up with this list is crucial to your case, as it will help us gauge how Creationism is represented and perceived in our social reality.

You failed to come up with a list. Perhaps this was an oversight, so please try again.

I think you are saying that some people call Behe a creationist knowing that he is only a creationist in a broad sense but hoping that people will associate him with creationism in a narrower sense.

Is that fair statement of your concern?

Sure. But often times, I think it is more sloppy than that. For example, critics call Behe a creationist because other critics call Behe a creationist. You seem to think people always put great thought into their labels.

If this is your concern than I am not sure why this is sloppy thinking. It might be dishonest, but it seems to require rather careful thinking.

You must have missed my ending"¦." Well"¦'sloppy' is a nice way of putting it.

What would be sloppy would be to genuinely think that because Behe was creationist-broad he was therefore creationist-narrow. Evidence for this would be observations of people making such deductions. Have you some examples perhaps?

That's one form of sloppiness, but surely you do not think there is only one way to be sloppy. Another form of sloppiness is to believe the two definitions differ in insignificant, trivial ways. Another form of sloppiness is the failure to consider how words are commonly interpreted when used as labels. Another form of sloppiness is to join in on the group think and use labels the way the rest of your tribe does without giving it much thought. I'm sure there are other ways that I cannot think of now.

You are ignoring one of my points. As someone who has watched the rhetorical landscape for years, I have come to conclude the broad definition functions primarily as cover for ad hominem attacks. In fact, given its superficial essence, the broad definition is well-suited for such rhetorical moves. There are two indicators which will help others see what I see.

1. With the exception of the hardcore extremists, note that most critics do not label Ken Miller or Francis Collins as Creationists. If the critics were truly relying on the broad definition, what explains their strong reluctance to publicly label people like Miller and Collins as Creationists?

2. The broad definition would mean that close to 40% of scientists are Creationists. Yet why is it that the critics do not acknowledge the existence of so many Creationists and praise them for their on-going contributions to science? Why don't the critics publicly acknowledge that a Creationist played a lead role in sequencing the human genome? Why don't they publicly acknowledge that one of the world's leading experts on the Cambrian explosion is a Creationist paleontologist? Why don't they express gratitude for the fact that it was a Creationist who played a lead role securing the victory in Dover? Or a Creationist who gave us the most powerful theory in biology?

For people who claim to be using a "broad definition," there is an odd reluctance to use it as such.

You also seem to suggest that the quote from Fodor identifies the critical factor behind creationism. He is only talking about what motivates creationists but I guess you are suggesting that the belief that humanity is special is necessary for real creationism.

No, he is not just talking about motivations, he is identifying the effect.

As this belief is only found among creationist-narrow people you then deduce that creationist-broad people are not really creationist.

Exactly. Only a ham-handed or propagandistic approach would label someone who accepts human evolution as a creationist. We need to remember that we are not talking about defining things for an obscure philosophy or history journal (where responsible scholars would define the term anyway). We are talking about the rhetorical use of this label in the wider public arena.

Obviously that belief is an important part of many forms of creationism but it is not the only component.

Remember we are talking about the rhetorical use of this label in the wider public arena. As such, it's an important component in all forms of creationism.

For example, another belief that seems equally important is: a deity has intervened at least once and maybe multiple times in the evolution of life to make the current range of life, including humanity, possible.

Since creationists deny human evolution, of course they invoke divine interventions. But that doesn't mean anyone who invokes divine interventions is a creationist. If one invokes such interventions in the context of a rich, evolutionary past, that person is more properly labeled a theistic evolutionist. I successfully argue this point here.

I don't believe that Miller holds this view (I don't know anything about Collins). I think Behe does believe it because it appears to be a logical deduction from what he has written.

Miller invokes divine interventions in the form of virgin births and resurrection. He also remains open to it throughout evolutionary history; he argues only that it is situated in quantum reality and thus cannot be scientifically detected. Collins invokes intervention to explain the origin of the universe and the origin of morality.

P.S. It is, however, a frank admission of the fact that Dembski sees CSI as coming from a transcendent, supernatural source.

What's this world coming to?:shock:

I think you are saying that some people call Behe a creationist knowing that he is only a creationist in a broad sense but hoping that people will associate him with creationism in a narrower sense.

Is that fair statement of your concern?

If this is your concern than I am not sure why this is sloppy thinking. It might be dishonest, but it seems to require rather careful thinking.

Mark, do you seriously think accusers are parsing different shades of meaning to the term creationism when they bandy about labels? When the same individuals devote great effort to be precise about the significance of scientific meanings and studies don't you think it would be second nature to approach definitions with that kind of rigor? In any case why use a single word that is so ambiguous that it can cover Duane Gish and Francis Collins?

I think Behe does believe it because it appears to be a logical deduction from what he has written.

That is a logical deduction, and Behe's writings support that interpretation.

On the other hand, you have the following odd statement from Bill Dembski (Intelligent Design, section 6.5):

Given an instance of CSI, these corollaries allow but two possibilities: either the CSI was always present or it was inserted. Intelligent design theorists differ about which of these possibilities obtains for the universe taken as a whole. On the one hand are those like Michael Denton and, to a lesser extent, Michael Behe, who see all of the CSI of the universe present at its start. On the other hand are those like Stephen Meyer, Paul Nelson and myself who who see CSI emerging in discrete steps, with no evident informational precursors, and thus through discrete insertions over time. This debate is not new — German teleomechanists and British natural theologians engaged in much the same debate, with the Germans arguing that teleology was intrinsic to the world, the British arguing that it was extrinsic. However this debate gets resolved, CSI is an empirically detectable entity that transcends natural causes.

That statement has never made sense to me in light of Behe's writings. And what does it mean to believe "to a lesser extent" that all of the CSI of the universe was present at its start? Does anybody have a plausible interpretation?

P.S. It is, however, a frank admission of the fact that Dembski sees CSI as coming from a transcendent, supernatural source.