Thursday, December 20, 2007

Why Barbara Forrest Is a Bad Philosopher

This from Socrates:
The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms.

If you watch the PBS Nova show on ID (and see previous posts) recently, you could see Barbara Forrest using the term "creation" as if it had the same meaning as "creationism." In other writings she calls ID "Creationism's Trojan Horse." She and others of her ilk want to convince others that intelligent design is the same thing as young earth creationism.

One of her tricks is to use the word "creationism" in two different ways. It can sometimes be used broadly, and with a broad meaning it includes Ken Miller and Francis Collins, who are well known proponents of evolutionary theory (for the most part- Francis Collins does not believe that Darwinian theory fully explains all aspects of biological life). However, it usually refers to young earth creationists or "creation science" proponents. She uses a fairly broad definition when she wants to convince you that ID proponents are creationists, and she uses the narrow definition when she wants to scare you and make you paranoid. She uses both definitions to convince you of her conspiracy theories.

In all this, she shows little interest in exploring the important differences between ID and young earth creationism. Another mark of a bad philosopher, a bad historian and a bad thinker.

8 Comments:

At January 02, 2008 10:11 PM, Blogger Jim Sherwood said...

Darwinists claim to believe that everyone else is a "creationist." Somehow!

When David Berlinski's essay "The Deniable Darwin" was published in "Commentary" in June 1996, Dawkins promptly wrote to the magazine and claimed that Berlinski is a "creationist!"

Actually, he's an agnostic who doesn't even endorse intelligent design theory, much less creationism. He is simply an all-around skeptic. And his view of how species arose is "intelligent uncertainty:" or, we don't know the answer. Clear enough, Richard?

Berlinski's answer to the clueless Dawkins was entertaining.

 
At January 02, 2008 10:30 PM, Blogger Jim Sherwood said...

Darwinists also often claim that Michael Denton is a "creationist" or an "intelligent design creationist."(Daniel Dennett, Larry Moran.)

Denton believes that evolution was driven in a predetermined direction by "laws of form" which exist in nature. And his essay "Laws of Form Revisited" appeared in "Nature:" in 2001.

Not exactly a "creationist" journal!

 
At January 20, 2008 1:13 AM, Anonymous victoria said...

>>In all this, she shows little interest in exploring the important differences between ID and young earth creationism. Another mark of a bad philosopher, a bad historian and a bad thinker.<<

Bad as in incompetent or bad as in malicious? I tend to think the latter.

 
At February 11, 2008 1:22 PM, Blogger chriss said...

Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha. Sad, silly scared little people.

 
At February 11, 2008 2:27 PM, Anonymous lawrence said...

Chriss,

Do you really think Forrest is that scared? Perhaps. But let's stick to civil discourse. Comments like yours are just, well, silly.

Lawrence

 
At February 11, 2008 2:30 PM, Anonymous lawrence said...

Victoria,

I prefer to reserve judgment rather than try to guess what is in someone's heart and mind. It is a valid question though.

Lawrence

 
At March 14, 2008 3:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Davis Berlinski an anostic? Not a supporter of ID?

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=51&isFellow=true

 
At March 15, 2008 9:32 AM, Anonymous lawrence said...

Anonymous,

Was that link supposed to prove something? One thing your comment and the link suggests is that you do not know what Berlinski believes, and you do not know what the Discovery Institute is all about.

I encourage you to read more.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home