"And on the Sixth Day, Barbara Forrest was cross-examined regarding the term, 'Creationist'. Lo, God saw that it was 'not very good'."

"Christians should reject utterly the sort of lies, mendacity, and innuendo that not just characterize antievolution, but comprise it."

He owes me an apology. Not to mention a retraction of the above lie.

"I've been wondering what it means to be an anti-evolutionist since apparently, Mike, Krauze, me and the other members of telic-thoughts have been labeled such." - bipod's OP

What does it mean then, to be an anti-evolutionist, Mike, Krauze and bipod? Is there any part of you, even just a hint of a speck or a glimpse of a possibility that is against (even an aspect of) evolution?

~

Hello Pez,

Perhaps we've not yet formally met, but thanks for your comments also.

Greg

A universal ideological evolutionist, such as Mike Gene, would be highly unlikely to admit that anything to do with evolution might be untrue or exaggerated. Anti-evolution is, however, the topic of the thread. Bipod didn't even use the word 'creationist' in his OP.

Barbara Forrest
Day Six
Cross-examination
Page 110 +

Q:
Is Dr. Miller a Creationist?
A:
Dr. Ken MIller is an evolutionary biologist who is also a Roman Catholic.

Q:
Would you consider him a Creationist?
A:
Not in the sense, no, I would not.

Q:
Well Dr. Miller testified in this case that, quote, God is the author of all things seen and unseen, and that would certainly include the laws of physics and chemistry, end quote.
Is that a Creationist talking?
A:
In his own personal viewpoints, I understand Dr. Miller to be a theistic evolutionist.
And that is a position that intelligent design advocates vehemently object to. They do not consider it a valid position.

Q:
Michael Behe. Is he one of them?
A:
Michael Behe, as I understand him, is a Creationist.

A:
Dr. Miller as I understand him, is not a Creationist. He certainly believes in God. He has been very open and upfront about that. But his view about the science is that he accepts evolutionary biology, and he finds no inconsistency between his understandings as a scientist and his viewpoints as a Roman Catholic.
Q: Well, using your methodology then, and accepting what Dr. Miller has to say about God, the Creator of all things seen and unseen, should you disregard anything that Ken MIller says as unscientific?
A:
It would depend, sir, on a specific statement. …
Q:
And he's also testified, quote, God is the author of nature, and therefore, I believe that things that happen in nature are consistent with God's overall plan, and evolution is a natural process, end quote.

I have deleted my running commentary after I wrote this.
You may feel free to add your own.

It would be interesting to then watch them come up with a tailor-made definition that works to exclude Crick, Collins, Miller and others from the creationist label, yet include people like Behe.

I think Barbara Forrest already found a way at Dover.

A few years back, I wrote: "One may attempt to define "Creationist" as anyone who believes Nature or Life or some form of Life was "created" rather than emerging from non-intelligent forces. If one waters down the definition in this way, they end up ensnaring various theistic evolutionists and proponents of directed panspermy (such as Francis Crick) in the category of "Creationist." Yet imagine the ICR put out a pamphlet stating, "Creationist Francis Crick (who helped discover the Double Helix nature of DNA) was so incredulous of abiogenesis that he proposed the first life forms were designed and deposited on this planet." I think it obvious those previously proposing the watered down definition would now accuse the ICR of misrepresenting Crick as a creationist, indicating that they really don't take their watered down definition seriously. Clearly, if the definition of "Creationist" can include a proponent of Darwinian evolution, then the definition adds smoke, not light, to the debate."

Let's expand on this. Let's say AiG writes an article crediting Creationists for discovering the double helix and sequencing the human genome. Upon reading, we find that the creationists are Francis Crick and Francis Collins. How do you think the critics would respond? It would be interesting to then watch them come up with a tailor-made definition that works to exclude Crick, Collins, Miller and others from the creationist label, yet include people like Behe. I'm sure it could be done; but it would also be blatantly obvious that they were painting targets around arrows.

Or take it the other way. Derwood equates the critic's use of the "˜creationist' label with the creationist's use of the "˜Darwinist' label. If have long refrained from using this label because it does upset the critics. But if the critic is allowed to water down the term "˜creationist,' why does the critic think someone else is not allowed to water down the "˜Darwinist' label? Say we define a "˜Darwinist' as someone who believes the driving mechanism behind evolution has been variation and natural selection. So why would the critics complain if people label Elsberry, for example , as a Darwinist? It's okay to label Behe a "˜creationist,' but it's wrong to label Elsberry a Darwinist?

It would be quite helpful if TT's members could distinguish just which aspects of evolution they might be willing to disagree with or to reconsider in a different light. There are many more features of evolutionary theories than the 4 propositions represented, which in fact all deal with physical things (to speak rather crudely). For example, what about non-physical topics related to evolution?

The idea of 'intelligent causation' seems to over-lap with non-physical things. In fact, many people think it is entirely 'unreasonable' to posit that an 'intelligence' (choose a big I if you believe) caused biotic things to exist. That is not my view, but you or someone else will have to 'do the science' if that belief is to 'become' scientifically rigorous. Evolutionary theories sometimes include material, physical and ideological components and a person can be an anti-evolutionist in one dimension but not in another.

I asked MG awhile back and he came across as an almost universal ideological evolutionist if not as a universal physical evolutionist. Surely he and others here are not anti-evolutionist since taking 'ID evolutionist' as a more or less descriptive self-label.

For example, one may accept biological evolution, the evolution of plants and animals, of valleys and mountains, the evolution of genes and/or memes (whatever those latter things may be), but not accept technological evolution, the evolution of choices, love or the evolution of building a house.

Salvador Cordova, for example, is rather funny it seems in accepting technological evolution and linguistic evolution, but not certain aspects of biological or chemical evolution, specifically anything 'Darwinian' or 'neo-Darwinian' that implies 'chance' or 'random-ness' or that lacks 'purpose.' It seems this is one thing he shares in common with TT's that anything non-teleological about evolution is considered contrary to what he thinks theories of ID should promote.

Maybe the core folks at TT's could help creationists realize that there are features of evolution that they should (or must ultimately) accept, while at the same time admitting that evolution is not an absolute universal truth in all areas of science, faith and knowledge. This is not bait to reveal your anti-evolutionary components, but rather to uncover just where you may in fact be healthily non-evolutionary. In my case, I believe evolutionary theory is not a universal model to be used in all disciplines of the academy. Certainly though, it does have deep historical roots and connections in my main area of study; evolutionary theories have been abused there also.

For example, I am against evolution or anti-evolution in the sociological sense of the term used (or implied) in bipod's example below:

"I think Elsberry's use of principles like this in his reasoning are largely a result of his long involvement in anti-creationist activities. You can't blame him for it. We're products of our environment." - bipod

Yes, we are partly products of our environment, but it would be environmentally deterministic (cf. evolutionism) to deny individuals creativity to come to their own type of 'reasoning' independent of some party line. Internets and libraries, for example, are wonderful portals to getting outside of the environmental pressures of a certain social group or community of scholars. Probably bipod's phrase 'largely the result' gives him a buffer from commiting to such an evolutionary sociological (cf. deterministic) view. And I do believe even W. Elsberry could change his views/principles if the right idea, person or feeling overtook him.

Arago