He didn't like the fact that I define "creationism" as belief in a creator and anyone who believes in a creator is a creationist. I identified several flavors of creationism including Young Earth Creationism, Intelligent Design Creationism, and Theistic Evolution Creationism. This is exactly the same sort of definition used by many people and it's the one described in the Wikipedia article on creationism. (It has even more flavors.)
David Klinghoffer didn't like that so he decided to make an issue of it by posting on Evolution News & Views: What Is a "Creationist"? Let's take a look at what he says in order to learn a little more about the creationist mindset.
An astute Sandwalk reader pointed out that Theodosius Dobzhansky, the Darwinian biologist famous for an essay title often quoted by Darwinists, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution," described himself as believing in a creator. That would make him just another "creationist" in Larry Moran's book.That's absolutely correct and it's how Dobzhansky described himself.
So Moran is saying that no matter how committed a Darwinist you seek to be, no matter how firmly you hold the line against any critique of orthodox evolutionary theory, if you believe in a God as described by any religious tradition no matter how attenuated, you are hardly to be distinguished from those "creationists" who picture cavemen riding on the backs of tame dinosaurs some six thousand years ago when the earth was brand new.Nope. That's not what I said and it's not what the Wikipedia article says either. Like most intelligent people I can easily distinguish between Young Earth Creationists and creationists who call themselves Theistic Evolutionists. I can also distinguish between Christian creationists, Jewish Creationists, Hindu creationists and myriads of others.
I suspect that David Klinghoffer has difficulty distinguishing between Young Earth Creationists and the beliefs of some of his colleagues at the Discovery Institute who look, act, and talk like they are YECs. I sympathize, but it's not my problem.
I love this. It should serve as yet another reminder to any naïve theistic evolutionists still out there who think they are going to get a pass from Darwin enforcers. It demonstrates, in Larry Moran's artlessly frank prose, the assumption that lies hidden in much of Darwinist thinking: Any concession to religious belief, no matter how tiny, is a cause for expulsion from sclerotic Darwinism.The fight is between rationalism and superstition. Theistic Evolution Creationists try to accommodate their superstitious beliefs by making them compatible with science. They frequently use the same arguments used by other flavors of creationists. Things like Moral Laws, Fine Tuning, Sneaky Gods, Evidence of Design etc. I try to point out that such arguments make no sense. They don't get a pass fro me just because they pretend to accept evolution.
BTW, in case anyone is interested, I'm not a Darwinist. When it comes to evolution I'm just as much opposed to atheists who get it wrong as I am to creationists.
It also conclusively shows what a fringe community the Darwin faithful really are. This way of arguing, with its irresistible tendency to blanket condemnations, is endemic to the far Left and far Right. Among some fringe right-wingers, for example, anyone who accepts the necessity of any government social welfare program is, by definition, a socialist. That would make both the Democratic and Republicans parties alike "socialist" and therefore, on this bizarre extremist view, utterly and equally anathema.I am not a "Darwin faithful." I do not use the word "creationist" as a "blanket condemnation" (some of my best friends are creationists). I don't give a damn about stupid American Republicans or Democrats.
Why, indeed, stop at calling Republicans "socialists"? Anyone who sees virtue in community is a communist, so call Romney a Communist.
This would be a good time for David Klinghoffer to offer us his definition of creationism. He clearly wants it to be a word that distinguishes him from some really stupid people like some of his Young Earth Creationist colleagues in the intelligent design movement. Which ones, David?
This is a crazy way of thinking, but how is it different from lumping together anyone who varies from Larry Moran's version of evolutionary thinking as a "creationist"? It's not.Thank-you, David Klinghoffer, for giving us some insight into how creationists think. It's been very informative.
BTW, I'd love to add a comment to your blog just as you added to mine but there's a minor problem. Evolution News & Views doesn't allow comments. Why is that?
This is not a new topic. Here's some other posts I've made on creationism.
The "Intelligent Design" Version of Creationism
Theistic Evolution: How Does God Do It?
Theistic Evolution: The Fallacy of the Middle Ground
P.S. David, please let me know when you're ready to offer another definition of creationism. Since you clearly mean the term to be derogatory, you might want to check it out with Jonathan Wells, Bill Dembski, Paul Nelson and Howard Ahmanson, Jr.