Replies

Darwinism is a perjorative term to refer to people who don’t ascribe to the faith-based rather than observationally based alternative. As soon as an article starts by pigeonholing and trivializing a particular viewpoint, you’re guaranteed to only get one cherry picked side of the argument. Communists have been doing it for years by labelling proponents of free market enterprise as “capitalists”. Now if you are a board certified cardiologist that one day decides that it’s all bunk and the right way to treat a myocardial infarction is praying over a bowl of chicken entrails like in a philippino village, then yes, you should be fired from John Hopkins or Bethesda. The theories of evolution and biological adaptations has practical implications: it makes your gasoline cheaper since it is used (in part) by petroleum geologists to figure out the best place to drill, and works.

Would you feel better about the discussion if, instead of “Darwinists,” the term “atheists” were used?

If you define the concept of “Creationist” to mean belief that the earth was created 10,000 years ago, with fossils already in place, and then you say that the theory of Intelligent Design must accept Creationism, then I have a problem with your premise.

I have seen too many discussions over the years of “intelligent design” to agree. Some intelligent design adherents appear to believe that Evolution, and almost all of Darwin’s principles, simply show how God has been working out creation. Five hundred million year old fossils don’t faze them in the least.

Blaise Pascal lived before fossils were completely understood, but consider his concept of the probability of finding a “naturally occurring” watch on a path in the forest to the the probability of the universe having no creator. In essence, isn’t that what many adherents of Intelligent Design are saying?

Your post seems to confuse the concepts of Creationism and intelligent design, as I read it.