As further evidence that ID and creationists are not in bed together, and are ideologically different (though overlapping), Dembski and Answers in Genesis are arguing over the church fathers.
Link: Uncommon Descent ? [Tangentially Related:] Augustine and Origen in relation to YEC.
If the Old Earth Creationists cannot co-opt Augustine (and I never said that they could), neither can the Young Earth Creationists.
No one thinks there aren’t some differences between ID and old-school creation science. Personally, I find your types more honest, because you admit your motives and basis for believing as you do. But so have they, mostly in pandering to their base for funding, but then due to the legal obstacles constantly find themselves finding new
…finding new ways to justify what they think. In the end, scientists aren’t fooled, and neither are courts.
Well, I’m not sure you really understand what “my type” is, but, I assume that “your” type have little awareness of the strict orthodoxy of modern science, and it’s inability to separate science from philosophical and religious assumptions inherent in the evolutionary world view.
The real problem is not with true science, but with the stranglehold that the evolutionary mythos has on science and the interpretation of data. In our zeal to keep religion and superstition out of science, we are severely limiting, even hindering science by fearfully holding evolution close to our breasts as the only possible truth. It’s infantile, anti-intellectual, and certainly not open minded in the true sense.
Forgive me for presumption. You are a special creationist, right?
I suppose in the end evolution follows every method and interpretation that all of science does–natural expalantions for natural phenomena.
It is only that Ev just so happens to coincide with religious beliefs that it gets singled out (well, cosmology too).
I don’t think it’s infantile any more than religious interpretations are superstitious.
Well, what I meant by my pejorative “infantile” (sorry about that, didn’t mean to infer that YOU were such) is that I think that in our zeal to be rigoruosly naturalistic in our *science*, we have done that with our foundational *assumptions* also, which I don’t think is necessary to perform good science. In fact, much good science, maybe even superior science, has and is done based on a design assumption. But that opens up the whole question of whether that design is *imposed* by us in our efforts to organize what we see, or *discovered* by us. I think both occur.
I didn’t really explain “infantile” – I just have this picture of people hugging their evolutionary teddy bear to their chests in fear, hoping that it can protect them from other world views.