In case anyone wonders about the public understanding of the label "creationist", check out this screen shot from Family Guy.

Nice find! They often say a picture is worth a thousand words. That picture explains exactly why Aegeri and Leon insisted on clinging to this label.

"Special creation of some biological system = creationist."

A quote and a question for Leon:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one …"
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 6th ed., p. 429

Is the position expressed in this statement a creationist position?

But Mike Gene, you don't really believe this promotional schtick, do you?

No. My thoughts are spelled out here. To this, you can add the warning sticker on my web page.

Laid the foundations!? Intelligent agency and biology? Uh, well, most biologists haven't bought in. And it sounds here like you're saying the reasons for this are 90% (or more) political. Can't natural scientists/biologists judge this topic for themselves?

No, what I am pointing out is that once you insist that everyone views an ID argument through a political prism, you become a political animal. And yes, natural scientist can judge this topic for themselves.

Touche. But so what? You've said ID isn't science. You've said ID shouldn't be taught in schools. You've said you're not towing Dembski's line. Then why not promote your actual Telic Thoughts (about ID) here rather than merely railing against critics of ID theories? Especially since most ID theories are not even your own and with which you don't agree.

You think any of that matters? You don't seem to know where the lines are drawn. I'm the Enemy of Science unless I proclaim, from the top of the mountains, that ID is Dangerous, Dishonest Nonsense. I can ignore this part of reality or draw people's attention to it.

Is it not ironic that Mike Gene attempts to present ID theory and the IDists who promote it as so innocent. "˜Objectivity' and "˜let the facts speak' are the claim to fame in his scientific imagination.

I'm not promoting innocence. I'm challenging simple-mindedness rooted in conspiracy theories and stereotypes (although, I don't think this is true in your case). "Sinister vs. Innocent" is just black and white thinking imposed on a very complex human reality.

But M. Behe believing in "˜creation' at least gives us a clue. In this sense he is a creationist, if not in other senses. You've even admitted this! Saying evolution is applicable to everything, however, is vastly different. Please say that you see this.

You water down a definition and get a reality; I water down a definition and get a reality.

Well then, for the record, I don't think you are a creationist, M. Gene. :-> Does that help? And I gather that you are not an atheist. Call it an immaterial, inward feeling I have about you. Though still I wonder why you didn't answer my simple and sweet question, "˜do you believe in creation?'

Because, as I said, I'm not the topic in this thread.

Then again, I'm sure we'd have great discussions about it over a beer (or tea) someday. It doesn't seem that here is the appropriate place for that. In cyberspace maybe then, or in person? Therefore, I will rest my comments for now.

Yes, I would be great to discuss such things in person.

Lastly, please don't put Leon and I in the same camp. This is perhaps a convenience, no doubt. Still, it is largely innacurate from what little I've read by Leon. I don't have any hesitation to be labelled a "˜creationist' in a certain limited sense. I believe in the verb "˜to create' and in "˜creativity' and in "˜creative-ness,' and I'm not American. Likely Leon wouldn't want to be called a "˜creationist' at all. Please note the difference.

You are probably right. You are not a dime-a-dozen critic. I like you because you seem to have a unique perspective, and most importantly, I have seen you make several critics on ARN very uncomfortable. This tells me you are far more objective than most critics, which causes me to value your criticism of my views. In your case, I would say you are sincere in labeling Behe a creationist simply because he believes in Creation. But that's not the harmless reason many critics in America have chosen the label. In America, the term is chosen because it communicates unmentioned concepts like "Fundamentalist," "Religious Right," "Stupid," and "Dishonest," especially among the audience Shanks and Joplin are writing for. If you want to put a public label on someone, I maintain you can't just use philosophy. You have to consider what the label will communicate to the larger audience.

"intelligent design has laid the foundations for a general biology whose fundamental organizing principle is intelligent agency"

Laid the foundations!? Intelligent agency and biology? Uh, well, most biologists haven't bought in. And it sounds here like you're saying the reasons for this are 90% (or more) political. Can't natural scientists/biologists judge this topic for themselves?

"ID can no longer be viewed as creationism" - M. Gene

Touche. But so what? You've said ID isn't science. You've said ID shouldn't be taught in schools. You've said you're not towing Dembski's line. Then why not promote your actual Telic Thoughts (about ID) here rather than merely railing against critics of ID theories? Especially since most ID theories are not even your own and with which you don't agree.

You've heard of the book, right: THE DESIGN REVOLUTION?

"when I teach Creation Science, I teach ID first"¦" "“ S. Cordova

Is this yet another revolutionary?! This is not putting words into anyone's mouth, and no, it is not 'politicking,' as Mike Gene likes to label it. It is simply repeating what came from the typer's fingers, in this thread even! Is it not ironic that Mike Gene attempts to present ID theory and the IDists who promote it as so innocent. 'Objectivity' and 'let the facts speak' are the claim to fame in his scientific imagination.

"Intelligent design theory has implications for virtually all humane studies, including philosophy, theology, literary criticism, history and more. It promises to be a clarifying lens through which to view issues of interest to the public in general and to Christians in particular…" (Foreword to Intelligent Design, 1999)

LOL!! And people should reach out for Salvador's support, when there is no possible way to defend some things Behe says? Salvador is a nice guy, it appears, likewise drawn in to ID evangelism, as is Behe.

"It's about as ridiculous as Behe being a creationist." - Mike Gene

But M. Behe believing in 'creation' at least gives us a clue. In this sense he is a creationist, if not in other senses. You've even admitted this! Saying evolution is applicable to everything, however, is vastly different. Please say that you see this. Behe, for example, isn't quoted as saying 'everything creates or is created.' (Aside: btw, I really recommend the short story by F.M. Dostoevsky, translated as "The Dream of a Ridiculous Man" - I think you'll deeply appreciate it Mike)

"If you are not an atheist, but propose ID, you automatically become a 'Creationist.'" - M. Gene

Well then, for the record, I don't think you are a creationist, M. Gene. :-> Does that help? And I gather that you are not an atheist. Call it an immaterial, inward feeling I have about you. Though still I wonder why you didn't answer my simple and sweet question, 'do you believe in creation?'

Then again, I'm sure we'd have great discussions about it over a beer (or tea) someday. It doesn't seem that here is the appropriate place for that. In cyberspace maybe then, or in person? Therefore, I will rest my comments for now.

Lastly, please don't put Leon and I in the same camp. This is perhaps a convenience, no doubt. Still, it is largely innacurate from what little I've read by Leon. I don't have any hesitation to be labelled a 'creationist' in a certain limited sense. I believe in the verb 'to create' and in 'creativity' and in 'creative-ness,' and I'm not American. Likely Leon wouldn't want to be called a 'creationist' at all. Please note the difference.

Don't feed into it! (Notorious Big)

With respect,

G. Arago

And it's not me making this claim about Pandas being first work of "intelligent design" in the modern sense. It's the IDers themselves. Here's Jon Buell of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, the organization that invented "intelligent design" and produced Pandas:

A decade has passed since Of Pandas and People's second edition appeared in print. Written by Percival Davis and Dean Kenyon, this book was the first intelligent design textbook. In fact, it was the first place where the phrase "intelligent design" appeared in its present use.

(This is from Jon Buell's Preface to the third edition of Pandas..)

Leon is quote-mining. Let's also include the following material that he cut out:

A decade has passed since Of Pandas and People's second edition appeared in print. Written by Percival Davis and Dean Kenyon, this book was the first intelligent design textbook. In fact, it was the first place where the phrase "intelligent design" appeared in its present use. Since the second edition of Pandas, intelligent design (or ID as it is now
abbreviated) has gone from a small and marginalized protest against Darwinian evolution to a comprehensive intellectual program for reconceptualizing biology. Ten years ago intelligent design consisted mainly of sporadic criticisms of Darwinism and offered only vague glimmers of what a positive science of intelligent design might entail. Since then, intelligent design has laid the foundations for a general biology whose fundamental organizing principle is intelligent agency and not blind natural forces.

ID thus originally appeared as "sporadic criticisms of Darwinism." This all makes sense in light of my unchallenged explanations offered above. As one example, I have just shown many scientists would consider evidence against Darwinism as evidence for ID. Thus, even if we accept the premise that creationists spawned the term "˜intelligent design,' they were simply beginning to think like many scientists. From there, Behe looks to Darwin, who tells us how we should challenge/falsify his theory. Like a scientist, Behe accepts the challenge. Dembski then steps in and significantly alters the focus in way that ID can no longer be viewed as creationism by any fair-minded thinker.

I think I'm going to start labeling ID critics as Embryos, as they are in fact connected to their embryonic existence.

There is no need to view everything in terms of sinister conspiracy theories. Unless of course, if you are a conspiracy theorist hip-deep in a political battle.

Or should we ignore the fact what happened to the authors of Pandas and People. They were treated as badly as Sternberg:

1. Perceval Davis was a respected author of college biology textbooks. After the publication of Pandas, his career as biology textbook author was destroyed.

2. Dean Kenyon, prior to that publication, after rejecting the theory of Chemical Evolution in favor of II was barred from teaching intro biology. The Wall Street Journal, called Kenyon's case, "Scopes in Reverse".

Good catch! Yes, we're supposed to ignore this also. It comes with the politically-motivated tunnel vision.

To summarize: It seems to me that Shanks's use of "creationist" was reasonable, given that 1. the ID Movement (which does not include mikegene, but definitely includes Behe) started with Pandas, a book aimed at the public schools which was well-known to creationism watchers as a creationist work, 2. Behe publicly endorsed Pandas as "top-notch" and has participated in numerous other ways in the ID Movement's political campaign, and 3. As you put it, "Behe's IC argument is essentially an argument for "˜sudden discontinuities.'", and Behe thinks that God is the explanation for these sudden discontinuities. Recent developments that Shanks presumably didn't know about seem to strengthen his judgement, namely 4. Behe wrote part of Pandas, 5. Pandas really was a creationist book after all, and 6. Behe is defending said book in court.

We can now see that I was right when I kicked off my replies to Leon by noting: "You are fabricating. You've begun with the need to attach the label "˜creationist' to Behe and then cherry-picked from the world the things that support your preconceptions." We can see that Leon has ignored the points I have raised and the questions I have asked. Instead, he had relied on a stubborn tunnel-vision that paints a one-dimensional world in accord with his political needs.

Most of this seems to have been new to you,

Indeed. But I just factored it into my thinking and explained its trivial nature. The only thing of relevance is that I now understand how a certain blog got its name.

so I think it was worth posting, even though this is all a rather obtuse meta-argument about bias,

Since Leon cannot answer the questions I asked or the points I raised, he resorts to a new label "“ "obtuse meta-argument." LOL

rather than, say, a discussion of Shank's actual arguments, which still make up most of paper despite the fact that Shanks accused Behe of being a creationist at the beginning.

As I noted, in time, we'll get to Shanks actual arguments against supernatural design.

If Shanks had said "Behe is a creationist, therefore his claims are wrong, end of paper", then you would have a more legitimate complaint.

I'm trying to help people think about the reasons why Shanks chose sentence A instead of sentence B. Why did they use the label in the 2001 article, but not the 1999 article?

In this case, I would argue that Shanks does think along these lines: "Behe is a creationist, therefore his claims are wrong, now let me turn to them to find where they are wrong." Furthermore, we know Shanks is not going to acknowledge that Behe makes a good point anywhere, as that would help the Wedge.

But as it is, he spent a lot of ink addressing a Behe argument (see talkorigins.org for endless ink spent addressing all kinds of creationist arguments"”certainly "creationist" is not an argument-ender!).

Creationists have spent of lot of ink "addressing" the arguments of evolutionary scientists. Ink means very little.

You've just disqualified Michael Behe, William Dembski, and basically everyone else, including yourself to a lesser extent, from making a worthwhile comment.

Shanks already disqualified Behe by insisting we view his arguments in the light of the political prism. What's "news" is that he doesn't realize he has disqualified himself as a consequence of this action.

The whole premise of this thread, and all of the Telic Thoughts blogging about the biases of ID opponents, is weird:

But it's not weird for Shanks to publish about the biases of Behe (which is exactly what labeling him is all about)? Sorry, but why did you think you could play with a stacked deck?

by alleging bias in ID critics, you attempt to weaken their credibility and argue that they are not treating the ID arguments objectively. But by obsessively focusing on this meta-issue, you yourself are emphasizing biases over arguments, and thereby not treating the critics' arguments objectively.

LOL. This is even better. Leon doesn't seem to appreciate just how much the issue of bias factors into the ID critic arguments. The whole "ID=Creationism=Wedge" is one BIG argument about bias. Actually, it's worse "“ it is an appeal to a sinister, threatening bias. So let's change a couple of words to help us understand Leon:

by alleging bias in ID proponents, you attempt to weaken their credibility and argue that they are not treating the ID arguments objectively. But by obsessively focusing on this meta-issue, you yourself are emphasizing biases over arguments, and thereby not treating the proponent's arguments objectively.

Of course, Leon would probably not see things like this.

All I can tell you is that it all looks like an attempt to come up with a extended psychological explanation for why people reject your ID arguments.

Leon finally lets the cat out of the bag. While complaining about psychological explanations, he launches a psychological attack.

Based on me looking at your IDthink website, I speculate that maybe you take this track you also obviously don't have much confidence in the ID arguments of Behe and Dembski"”you seem to admit that irreducible complexity can evolve. Therefore you don't really have a coherant empirical case,

Keep your eye on the game ball. In Leon's mind, I don't have a "coherent, empirical case" because IC can evolve. Thus, to have a "coherent, empirical case" I must show that IC cannot possibly evolve. But if I try to show this, I become a "Creationist." Heads Leon wins, Tails Mike Gene loses. Nice game.

and focus on psychology instead in order to argue that the evidence for ID is "subtle" and only allegedly "unbiased" people can see it.

No, I "focus on psychology" in order to provide balance to the critics who have always "focused on psychology." That is, some us are intrigued by the way so many critics focus on psychology and give it some thought. For example, when Leon wants to label ID proponents as "˜creationists,' he is doing more than labeling them as "˜biased'; he is trying to label them as "˜stupid' or "˜dishonest' (remember the importance of common perceptions, people). It's also so important to him that he must rely on stubborn tunnel-vision to make it stick (as documented above). So why is only Leon allowed to "focus on psychology?" If people like Leon would cease focusing on psychology, there would be no need for such balance.

As for the evidence for ID, it may indeed be subtle. This is a realization that came from seriously thinking about the notion that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Can only "unbiased people" see the evidence? It's hard to say. But if the evidence is subtle, then people who are deeply invested in a political and/or metaphysical sense are unlikely to appreciate any data as subtle evidence for ID. Those on the ID side may see things that don't exist, while those on the anti-ID side may not see things that exist.

You are welcome to this strategy, but I think it is a complete waste of time in advancing the case for ID.

I know "“ you want me to come up with something that evolution cannot explain so that you can label me a "˜creationist.' I understand how the game is played.

You would be better off taking Shanks's route: a brief introduction to your view of the opponent, and a long discussion of primary arguments.

That's not Shanks route. Shanks route is the route you have been complaining about "“ he sets it up so that we are supposed to consider Behe's arguments in light of his biases (or worse).

Extensive meta-discussion about bias is basically wheel-spinning, and doesn't do anything at all to resolve the science issues.

Which explains why so many critics have made such a huge fuss out of biases and motivations. Such hypocrisy.

Or should we ignore the fact what happened to the authors of Pandas and People. They were treated as badly as Sternberg:

1. Perceval Davis was a respected author of college biology textbooks. After the publication of Pandas, his career as biology textbook author was destroyed.

2. Dean Kenyon, prior to that publication, after rejecting the theory of Chemical Evolution in favor of II was barred from teaching intro biology. The Wall Street Journal, called Kenyon's case, "Scopes in Reverse".

So not only are those who accept ID papers for publication punished, so are those who publish or speak their dissent in popular books. Behe was thankfully tenured.

No, I wasn't considering that DI document when I suggested you to publish your potential science of ID.

I don't think ID is science. But notice how labels define everything. You want me to label my views "˜science,' but an attempt to secure this label will instead get it the label "˜Wedge.' You, G. arago, don't have to consider that DI document as the act of labeling is not dependent on you. There is an army of people with label-makers just itching to label everything.

Ground shaking, revolution-making scientific "˜progress' needn't so carefully dance around scientific credibility and collegial acceptability. Who cares what you're labelled;

I never said my views amounted to ground shaking, revolution-making scientific "˜progress'. They amount to a different perspective of an ambiguous reality.

if it's publishable then just do it!

So what's "publishable?" Why is that so important? So we can add the "˜published' label to it? LOL

I'm a neo-evolutionist, neo-IDist, although of course there are other suitable labels as well. It's just that no one else (that I'm yet aware of) fits this category and so I go it somewhat alone, for now.

That's cool. But I have no idea what a neo-evolutionist, neo-IDist is.

This is rather Dennett-like, or something T. de Chardin might write.

Hey, I'm just following the lead of you and Leon. But instead of selectively watering down the term creationism for the purpose of attaching a label, I'll spread it out and play fair, watering down "˜evolution' as part of the game. Evolution = change over time.

On the other hand, it is also ridiculous, a mere remnant of neo-Enlightenment absolutism to suggest everything evolves.

It's about as ridiculous as Behe being a creationist.

Yes, that's a rap! And all that needs to be said to know "˜why' S&J used the label "˜creationist'. (Behe believes) God is both a creator and a designer.

Sure. If you are intent on labeling Behe a creationist from the start, you have this option, while ignoring all the points I have raised and the questions I have asked. It's fabrication. Notice how G. arago has things set up. The only ones allowed to propose ID are the atheists. If you are not an atheist, but propose ID, you automatically become a "Creationist." And from there, G. arago washes his hands and walks away.

Because the latter wouldn't be true.

That depends on how you look at it. After all, it's true for the prestigious Professor for the Public Understanding of Science and the way he looks at the world. And as you said, we don't have any responsibility to consider how labels are commonly interpreted. So what's the problem?