But That Would Be Unfair to Sophomores

Another witty and pithy comment on Richard Dawkins latest book. This one comes from noted philosopher Alvin Plantinga:

Now despite the fact that this book is mainly philosophy, Dawkins is not a philosopher (he's a biologist). Even taking this into account, however, much of the philosophy he purveys is at best jejune. You might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside), many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class. This, combined with the arrogant, smarter-than-thou tone of the book, can be annoying.

It may be overkill, but I cannot resist.

Hat tip to Telic Thoughts, if I recall correctly.

Who Is Calling Whom What?

On reviewing my last post, I decided that I should clarify the title. I then saw Greg Laden's friendly comment to that post, which confirmed the need. Laden was just "suggesting" or perhaps "insinuating" that Mooney might be a Creationist.

However, in one of the comments (which I recommended to readers), PZ Myers calls theistic evolutionists "Creationists":

Oh, come on now. I know Mooney isn't a creationist — I read the book. The problem is that if you look at Mooney/Nisbet through the lens of their recent publications, all you can see on this issue is sympathy and support for theistic evolutionists.

And, I'm sorry, but theistic evolutionists are creationists.They're just creationists who accept evidence and readily back off from specific claims about their creator god, but they still place faith in unwarranted assumptions about the existence and interventions of a supernatural being, they just tuck it into the gaps in our knowledge. What makes theistic evolution somewhat acceptable to scientists is that its proponents are so willing to run away from their faith when challenged.

Theistic evolutionists would include people like Ken Miller, who has been a very prominent and vocal proponent of teaching only Darwinian orthodoxy in schools.

Therefore, I think the title is accurate.

When Activist Evolutionists Call Other Activist Evolutionists "Creationists"

What is a "Creationist"? Answer: anyone who is less of a proselytizing atheist or dogmatic evolutionist than the person speaking.

There is a hilarious exchange between two people who are both Darwinian activists here and here. The comments to the first post are especially amusing, and show that the word "creationist" has lost any reliable meaning in our culture.

For commentary from the Telic Thoughts folks, look no further than here and here.

For the Washington Post article by Chris Mooney and Matthew Nisbet that sort of spawned this, look here.

For my previous post on evolutionists who love to "lump" people into simplistic categories and remain in blissful blindness to distinctions, read here.

Perhaps we should use sub-categories to distinguish: Hard Core Creationist, Mainstream Creationist, Theistic Evolutionist Creationist, Agnostic Creationist, Evolutionist Creationist, Atheistic Creationist, Militant Atheistic Creationist, Creationist Classic, CINO (Creationist In Name Only), Log Cabin Creationist, Punctuated Creationist, Creationist Lite, Cheap Tuxedo Creationist.

Update: I have clarified the title of this post in a follow up post here.