An Intentional Rhetorical Strategy Intended to Confuse Issues

Tom Gilson has observed another example of Darwinian fundamentalism, in the form of gross obscurantism. Some excerpts (emphasis mine):

[Calvert] mentioned “materialism” several times. [Rehm] asked him once, about halfway through, what he meant by it. She cut him off in the middle of his answer. It became apparent later on that she really knew nothing about philosophical materialism, and that she thought he was talking about buying expensive things. Near the end he almost had another chance to explain it, and she cut him short again. In spite of this she was ready at the end to pronounce him wrong and his disputants right.

. . .

True to the typical course of these things, however, ID was in fact badly misrepresented throughout. Real ID proponents bear no resemblance to the show’s straw-man stereotypes.

Toby Horn was the one who said “creationists” are confusing children about what science is. I’d like to talk with her about what confusing means. She and the other Academy representatives misused terminology throughout the whole discussion. For them, Intelligent Design = Creationism. I’ve observed this misuse often enough to be convinced that for many, it’s an intentional rhetorical strategy intended to confuse issues. Creationism is a word with a distinct meaning. Intelligent Design is a term with a distinct meaning. Their meanings are not identical. Intelligent Design is not Creationism. Now, is that hard?

The hearty support of such gross obscurantism by many in the scientific community is truly tragic. It hurts the cause of science in America.