Science and Religious Belief

[WalkerW]

Logical positivism wasn't/isn't self refuting

Many of the "failings" that you allude to down below certainly are.

over simplifications

True. Aspects of it are useful.

Scientism is not a label people give themselves

I know that. That is why I provided both terms: positivism and scientism. My use of "scientism" comes from Hayek.

I assume Walker linked it because of the short survey for the layman is provided

That is exactly why I linked it. Just an academic overview.

Large parts of Logical Positivism still exists and is used quite often (just not under that name), it's failings were tossed aside and it's those failings that people like to hone in on and pretend they are making a profound observation.

Perhaps they are honed in on when those failings are being used.

It's like someone attacking modern Cosmologists for a steady state theory that happened years ago.

Only if they are still using the arguments of the steady state theory.

[WalkerW]

For those who want to hear the very strong other side, I suggest "The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason" by Charles Freeman

And for some criticism of this particular work (and others), see David Bentley Hart, Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies (Yale University Press: 2009).

[WalkerW]

Unfortunately, it's not on-line. You could contact the secretary of the Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology, Dr. Benjamin Huff, through the Society's website or via Randolph-Macon College (where he teaches), or the editor of Element, Dr. Brian Birch, through Utah Valley University. Or, if I can find it, I could send you an electronic file of a slightly earlier version of the paper; I don't think I have the final version. But I would need your e-mail address for that.

choosedawright@yahoo.com

My favorite living author on Islam in English is Bernard Lewis, of Princeton. Anything by him is worth reading. Other good writers, representing various (sometimes clashing) viewpoints include John Esposito, Fouad Ajami, and Frederick Denny, and, from an earlier generation, A. J. Arberry, H. A. R. Gibb, Marshall G. S. Hodgson, etc.

Much appreciated.

[Tarski]

And for some criticism of this particular work (and others), see David Bentley Hart, Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies (Yale University Press: 2009).

That's quite a title.

1) Christian revolution? It's a revolution? Well I hadn't noticed but if it is a revolution then I might have to consider being a sort of enemy.

2) Christian revolution? Specifically christian?

I hope neither you or Mr. Hart (bless his heart) don't think that the alternative to atheism or even scientism is specifically Jesus on the cross.

Someone ought to write a book and title it "Christian Delusions: The Islamic Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies".

Or maybe hinduism is the cure for scientism. Perhaps just a belief in good old fashion magic is all we really need.

Is there really a Christian revolution? I hadn't noticed.

Tell me what effect the Christian revolution is having on society. Has there been an effect on crime yet? Is television getting more wholesome? Is there less gambling? Less divorce? Are people getting more honest. Is there an effect on banking practices? Is there less porn (well, no in fact it appears something strange is out there called "Christian porn". )

Maybe none of this matters- I guess the main point is for everyone to declare themselves Christian and don't be one of those darn atheists. After all, it seems most Christians (Hart included?) think they are just saved--no need for good works. Maybe the lack of effect on society isn't surprising afterall.

[JackNimble]

science is pretty sure about the reality of evolution.

evolution COMPLETELY destroys the church's explanation for the fall of Adam and Eve a few thousand years ago.

there is no way possible, to accept science and believe in the church.

anyone believing in Adam and Eve young earth theor should turn their computer off because they don't believe in the science required to have created it.

"Is there any conflict between science and religion? There is no conflict in the mind of God, but often there is conflict in the minds of men." --- Henry Eyring 1901-1981

[WalkerW]

That's quite a title.

1) Christian revolution? It's a revolution? Well I hadn't noticed but if it is a revolution then I might have to consider being a sort of enemy.

2) Christian revolution? Specifically christian?

I hope neither you or Mr. Hart (bless his heart) don't think that the alternative to atheism or even scientism is specifically Jesus on the cross.

Someone ought to write a book and title it "Christian Delusions: The Islamic Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies".

Or maybe hinduism is the cure for scientism. Perhaps just a belief in good old fashion magic is all we really need.

Is there really a Christian revolution? I hadn't noticed.

Tell me what effect the Christian revolution is having on society. Has there been an effect on crime yet? Is television getting more wholesome? Is there less gambling? Less divorce? Are people getting more honest. Is there an effect on banking practices? Is there less porn (well, no in fact it appears something strange is out there called "Christian porn". )

Maybe none of this matters- I guess the main point is for everyone to declare themselves Christian and don't be one of those darn atheists. After all, it seems most Christians (Hart included?) think they are just saved--no need for good works. Maybe the lack of effect on society isn't surprising afterall.

It is one hell of a title. I was actually put off by it at first because it sounded like nothing more than a polemic. But I was pleasantly surprised that it was a very good historical and philosophical essay. And no: I don't think Christianity is the only alternative (considering I'm Mormon and he is Eastern Orthodox). It is titled as such because of the writings of the New Atheists who are historically challenged. And he gives his reasons for the term "revolution" and it is not a reference to any modern day one.

Thank you for making a ton of assumptions about the book and Hart's writings before taking the time to even research it or Hart. If you had taken just a little bit of time, you wouldn't be asking such asinine questions regarding his work. Here is a biography.

[Tarski]

It is one hell of a title. I was actually put off by it at first because it sounded like nothing more than a polemic. But I was pleasantly surprised that it was a very good historical and philosophical essay. And no: I don't think Christianity is the only alternative (considering I'm Mormon and he is Eastern Orthodox). It is titled as such because of the writings of the New Atheists who are historically challenged. And he gives his reasons for the term "revolution" and it is not a reference to any modern day one.

Thank you for making a ton of assumptions about the book and Hart's writings before taking the time to even research it or Hart. If you had taken just a little bit of time, you wouldn't be asking such asinine questions regarding his work. Here is a biography.

Have you ever wondered about the fact that history of the church was mostly written by the church or under the watchful eye of the church and its inquisition? Can we not assume a bit of sugar coating on the behavior of the church and Christianity --in particular regarding its role in science? So on top of that, a Christian theologian is telling us that things are even better with Christianity's track record with science than we thought? Hmmm.

I should mention that it was a very good academic historian that recommended Charles Freeman's book.

Not being a historian I guess I will have to look at the conflicting accounts, consider who is giving them and factor in my own experience with how religious dogma has interacted with science in my own life and times and make a judgment call. The possibility that Hart is spinning things seem quite high and some people are really good at it.

Of course, I can for example, read the translation of the transcript of the proceedings (available online) of the inquisition against Galileo for myself.

I'll be honest, I don't have time to read the apologetic works like Hart's book.

[Daniel Peterson]

I'll be honest, I don't have time to read the apologetic works like Hart's book.

A pity.

Hart is a brilliant thinker, and by no means to be written off as a mere "apologist" -- a term that, in any case, should not be, but in certain circles typically is, employed as a summary dismissal.

[Tarski]

A pity.

Hart is a brilliant thinker, and by no means to be written off as a mere "apologist" -- a term that, in any case, should not be, but in certain circles typically is, employed as a summary dismissal.

Perhaps I will find time in the future. I have no doubt that I would learn something.

I have no a priori reason to reject the idea of a positive role for the Christian religion in the rise of science. History is funny that way. Even counter-intuitive and ironic things happen. I suspect it was a mixed bag leaning to an overall negative, but I could be wrong and its kind of hard to rerun history anyway. If in the final analysis (if there can be such a thing), if I find out that the Christian religion provided a ladder to the level of science (perhaps to be discarded at some point or put to other uses) then so be it. The problem remains that the Christian religion is not really a unified thing and so I am not sure what the bottom line would be and precisely what it would apply to.

We also know that in an earlier phase, Islam did much for the fledgling scientific spirit.

We should also be careful to distinguish the personal spiritual side of religion from the usually dogmatic organized side (the church). There is the church and then there is the lone spirit whose worshipful attitude includes the desire to know the mysteries of creation. It may be cliche, but there is the devotion of the pews and then there is the devotion of the wilderness and mountain.

The fact that Newton was religious is often cited but it is also often left out that his religious writing showed him to be a heretic (as I understand it anyway). Not only that but his ego was a major factor and he was certainly not Christ-like. One wonders why God revealed himself to Newton like no other. (Perhaps there is no God and Newton was just a genius.)

You know, when I talk to some religious people (not LDS so much) I realize that they have such a vague and mystical notion of God expressed as the Numinous, the Mysterium Tremendum, the sacred aspect of nature or Being and so on, that I find that I might as well say I believe in God. Strangely, I guess I would suddenly be on the right side of the great intellectual divide as many perceive it, and without changing hardly a single concrete belief!

Weird huh?

[Daniel Peterson]

You know, when I talk to some religious people (not LDS so much) I realize that they have such a vague and mystical notion of God expressed as the Numinous, the Mysterium Tremendum, the sacred aspect of nature or Being and so on, that I find that I might as well say I believe in God. Strangely, I guess I would suddenly be on the right side of the great intellectual divide as many perceive it, and without changing hardly a single concrete belief!

Weird huh?

You're not actually as far from salvation as you think, or hope.

[MistahStokes]

Perhaps they are honed in on when those failings are being used.

Really? There are a lot of bad atheist arguments that get put up on this forum, but none of them even look like or follow what Ayer lays out in any edition of Language, Truth and Logic. Can you show me a post where someone spends pages laying out what exactly verification is and how that criterion might apply to a sentance? Just because someone says something like, " Show me God exists by some evidence that is verfiable" doesn't even put that line of thinking into the same realm as the empricism of the Vienna Circle and afterwards.

In fact, can anyone here even show me where 'Logical Positivism' becomes self refuting from the text of Language Truth and Logic? Or how about something Carnap wrote?

There is always a bunch of noise and bravado about the supposed problems of physicalism, naturalism or what ever secular ontology is offending people , but when push comes to shove, it always fades away.

ETA: Stark is terrible. He states flat out, in his Victory of Reason that the only thing that came after Aristotle was some advancements in geometery.

[Ralph Man]

Quite true. It has been dead in academic philosophical circles for decades. What I've really seen is a spike of its usage among laymen in the wake of the New Atheism. Forgive the slight inaccuracy of my post. The evidence against similar thinking in social sciences has also been around for quite some time. Its application (in business, for example), however, is only relatively recent.

You mentioned Quine: if anyone is interested, see his "Two Dogmas of Empiricism," The Philosophical Review 60 (1951). Despite his criticisms of logical positivism, Quine's roots were still in positivism. See Daniel Isaacson, "Quine and Logical Positivism," The Cambridge Companion to Quine, ed. Roger Gibson (Cambridge University Press: 2004).

Quine's roots are in logical positivism. He could be described as a positivist in a broader, non-Vienna circle, sense throughout his career. But that speaks to not confusing the phasing out of logical positivism with any ideas associated with it. As already said, most of what Ayers, Carnap, et. al. thought isn't all that off the mark compared to modern thought. We're just talking about the evolution of philosophy here. I haven't seen any spike in logical positivism in the wake of what sometimes is described as "new atheism." I do, however, see those same "new" atheists and people of their type often get illicitly charged with being logical positivists, so forgive me if I'm inclined to read your post as an implied example of that.

Accusing atheists of endorsing scientism has long been an arrow in the apologetic quiver. It's a common misperception usually done using lay language (Science is the atheist's God!), but as of late it seems more common to break out the actual term scientism. You said it was common on this board when it's not, so I'm again inclined to read your post this way. What's common is people like Tarksi getting accused of endorsing scientism for expressing entirely uncontraversial views on the nature of science or its application to certain religious beliefs.

P.S. Ron Numbers is one of the most highly respected historians of science alive. Thomas E. Woods is a fringe crank best known for neoconfederate revisionism. How you can just list them together as two respectable sources boggles my mind.

[Ralph Man]

The idea that logical positivism is self-refuting usually comes from the notion that verificationism is self-refuting. One can be a verificationist without being a logical positivist, but that's a separate matter. The logic goes that the statement, "a statement is only meaningful if it has truth-value and can be determined true or false either by being verifiable through observation or derivable from true axioms," cannnot meet its own criteria for meaning, and therefore is self-refuting. This proposes that many of the most important philosophers of the first half of the last century were bleeding idiots, but there you have it. I'd lay down money that's what Walker was referring to.

[MistahStokes]

The idea that logical positivism is self-refuting usually comes from the notion that verificationism is self-refuting. One can be a verificationist without being a logical positivist, but that's a separate matter. The logic goes that the statement, "a statement is only meaningful if it has truth-value and can be determined true or false either by being verifiable through observation or derivable from true axioms," cannnot meet its own criteria for meaning, and therefore is self-refuting. This proposes that many of the most important philosophers of the first half of the last century were bleeding idiots, but there you have it. I'd lay down money that's what Walker was referring to.

I thought that same thing too, but I think WalkerW deserves the benefit of the doubt. Mormon beliefs are so often maligned by people who can't accurately represent them that I hope a Mormon wouldn't perpetuate that cycle when dealing with other belief systems.

[Greg Smith]

Have you ever wondered about the fact that history of the church was mostly written by the church or under the watchful eye of the church and its inquisition? Can we not assume a bit of sugar coating on the behavior of the church and Christianity --in particular regarding its role in science? So on top of that, a Christian theologian is telling us that things are even better with Christianity's track record with science than we thought? Hmmm.

You obviously haven't read the book. Hart is quite condemnatory of the behavior of a great number of Christians. And, he isn't really out to trumpet science. He's more interested in the moral and intellectual revolution wrought by the Christian world-view.

His "revolution" is about this change in world view. (It can be very profitably read along with Charles Taylor's A Secular Age, which likewise details the way in which Christianity (especially the Reformation) prepared the way for a different view of the self and the world, which led to atheism not only being a possible world-view, but a particularly viable one for a good chunk of humanity.)

If one wants to hear about the role of Christianity in the rise of science, a better book would be sociologist Rodney Stark's The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led To Freedom, Capitalism, And Western Success.

But, Taylor's Secular Age is simply wonderful--compassionate, magisterial, and beautifully written--and though a Roman Catholic, he argues very cogently for the moral and ethical issues which made (and make, I suspect) atheism or agnosticism so compelling. Simply a wonderful, friendly sort of book. (Plus, he's Canadian!)

The only flaw may be that he is completely bilingual in French and English, and so he often cites things in French. He usually provides a translation for them, but occasionally doesn't (forgetting, I suspect, that everyone isn't completely functionally bilingual. All other languages stuff cited has a translation, but there's a few French passages that are just thrown out there. (Speaking French, this didn't bother me.)

I should mention that it was a very good academic historian that recommended Charles Freeman's book.

Not being a historian I guess I will have to look at the conflicting accounts, consider who is giving them and factor in my own experience with how religious dogma has interacted with science in my own life and times and make a judgment call. The possibility that Hart is spinning things seem quite high and some people are really good at it.

Again, you are mistaking the main thrust of Hart's argument--he is more interested in the change in world view which Christianity wrought on the paganism of late antiquity, and its view of the human self, the Good, etc.

Of course, I can for example, read the translation of the transcript of the proceedings (available online) of the inquisition against Galileo for myself.

One of the leading scholars of the Gallielo affair is Maurice A. Finocchiaro, who analyzes how the Galileo affair itself has been used, refracted, etc. from the very earliest days--it is fascinating how difficult it was even very early on to get an exact bead on what happened, and why.

See: Retrying Galileo, 1633-1992. I look forward to his volume presenting his own interpretation of the affair. He's also edited some of the critical text stuff on it. And, he is not (so far as I can tell) a believer; he is certainly not an apologist for Catholicism. But, the book is a wonderful example of disciplined textual analysis of both primary and secondary works, and not going beyond the evidence--something from which the "New Atheists" could learn a great deal.

But, when you compare people like Dawkins and Hitchens with people like Hart, Stark, Taylor, or Finocchiaro, it is simply embarassing. The former can't even be bothered to get even basic facts right, or show any insight into the positions of those with whom they disagree. Taylor and Finocchiaro are particularly good at this, but all four leave "Ditchens" in the dust. And, they all write like a dream.

GLS

[Ralph Man]

For what it is worth, Ron Numbers is the world's foremost expert on the history of creationism. Here would be a short, cliff notes summary of history as told by him re old earth vs. young earth creationism.

As creationism coalesced around the turn of the century, it was dominated by old earth creationists. Fundamentalist evangelicals and their proto-equivalents, if you can believe it, were almost exclusively old earth creationists. They either were day-age creationists who argued that the "days" in genesis referred to creative periods of indeterminate time or gap creationists who argued that there was an indeterminate period of time from when God created the heavens and the earth and when he created the life that populates it. If you read debates over creationism in the culture wars of the 1920's, you'll notice that the creationists are overwhelmingly represented by these views. It's what William Jennings Bryan famously argued at the Scopes Monkey Trial, for instance. However, there was a minor religious sect that developed what we've come to view as the standards of young earth creationism: The Seventh Day Adventists.

They held on to a young earth view of genesis because their prophetess, Ellen White, received a revelation that strongly indicated a young earth. Their apologists set out to defend this notion. They developed much of what we think of as the standards of young earth creationism, including the "flood geology" that attempts to explain geological features in terms of Noah's flood. In the above mentioned early culture wars over creationism, their apologists were a strong ally of the more traditional creationists. They were regarded as weird but appreciated and relied on for the support. A modern equivalent might be how evangelicals treat Mormons for their anti-gay marriage advocacy. More specifically, a adventist apologist by the name of George McCready Price ended up gaining prominence as an ally in creationist advocacy.

While the creationists remained overwhelmingly old earthers during this time, a funny thing happened. Price's intellectual descendants ended up gaining increasingly strong influence in the "bible college" movement. By the 1950's, it was a well-respected albeit minority view. Among those influenced were two fellows by the names of John Whitcomb and Henry Morris. They ended up publishing the most influential creationist work of all time, The Genesis Flood, in 1961. It advocated the basic form of the old Adventist creationist apologetics. By the end of the decade, the strong majority of evangelicals would be young earthers as a consequence of its success. Many of the leading fundamentalist intellectuals would be as well, though old earthers remained a staunch minority view within the broader tent of creationism.

During this evolution, the legal fortunes of creationists were not going well. The bans on teaching evolution in public schools were struck down as unconstitutional. Then teaching Biblical creation was also struck down as the same. For evangelicals motivated to get their religious views taught in public schools, an interesting legal strategy was developed. They argued that while it might be unconstitutional to teach religious views as such in school, it wouldn't be unconstitutional to teach science that just happened to be favorable to their Biblical views. Thus the branding of "scientific creationism" as an effort to teaching children the "controversy" over evolution and evidence of creationism was born and advocated from the late 60's into the 70's. While this was devised in a coalition between young and old earthers, since creationist apologetics at this time had come to be dominated by young earthers, initially what was advocated for public policy was the content of those apologetics. However, by the late 70's, it became increasingly clear that this was going to go down in flames in court. As a result, the young earth legal strategy was backed off in favor of a lighter, more gentle touch. The issue of the age of the earth was left alone to broaden the tent, as was flood geology, in favor of mutually agreed upon arguments from old earthers and young earthers against evolution and in favor of a generic creator of life that isn't necessarily God (but totally is if you read in-between the lines). This was advocated as the content of "scientific creationism" going into important legal battles of the 1980's.

Unfortunately for them, these arguments were blasted in court, ultimately being struck down by the SCOTUS in 1987. This group of creationist leaders facing the prospect of being forbidden in public schools and developing an increasingly negative reputation amongst a lot of the public rebranded themselves as "intelligent design proponents" changing virtually nothing but their name. By this time, the group was mostly controlled by old earth "progressive" creationists with minority participation from young earthers (which is true to this day). Since creationism was already defeated in court, it became important to distinguish themselves as something other than creationists despite the content of their arguments being nothing but creationist apologetics. So most of the old earth contingent developed the strategy of arguing that creationism just referred to the entire content of young earth creationist apologetics and therefore they weren't creationists, but something else entirely.

DCP, being deeply influenced by intelligent design creationists, adopts this strategy, perhaps naively, and uses it in this thread. It's a bit baiting and off-topic, but hey, what the heck?

[Daniel Peterson]

DCP, being deeply influenced by intelligent design creationists, adopts this strategy, perhaps naively, and uses it in this thread. It's a bit baiting and off-topic, but hey, what the heck?

There wasn't a thought of or about "intelligent design creationists," and I was employing no "strategy," whether "naively" or not.

I was responding directly to an explicit comment of yours that was aimed at me, so if it was "off-topic" -- and don't forget that this is my thread -- the responsibility for taking things off-topic was yours.

And "baiting"? Not even slightly.

You should probably stick to conventional reading -- if you need a touch of beyond-the-ordinary, aspire to nothing higher or more exotic than a Nook or a Kindle -- and not presume to read minds.

[Ralph Man]

There wasn't a thought of or about "intelligent design creationists," and I was employing no "strategy," whether "naively" or not.

I was responding directly to an explicit comment of yours that was aimed at me, so if it was "off-topic" -- and don't forget that this is my thread -- the responsibility for taking things off-topic was yours.

Let's see. Someone points out that smart people can believe in weird things, presumably in a reasonable effort to deflate the mere pointing out that some well-educated scholars buy into Mormonism. That person points out those people tend to read from the same argumentative playbook. He offers two examples, creationists and holocaust deniers per Shermer.

You respond by pointing out that you believe in an old earth and that the holocaust occurred and thus disassociate yourself from those particular weird beliefs. So, by implication, you are implying that creationism implies a young earth. But it does nothing of the sort. There are and always have been numerous old earth creationists. You've favorably cited Hugh Ross in the past, and he still is clear to call himself a old earth creationist as far as I know. In any case, you point out to me that you reserve the term creationism for young earth creationists.

I simply point out that you do so following intelligent design proponents (i.e. creationists) who have consciously adopted this as a strategy to disassociate their argumentation from the term "creationism." You quite clearly are heavily influenced by their works, and I left whether you do this as a strategy or because you naively believe in that distinction up in the air. In any case, you then automatically leap to the alternative to defining creationism as young earth creationism to incorporating theistic evolution too. In doing so you imply that I might regard all belief in God as a creative force behind life as "creationism." While that probably would be unreasonable if I held such a view, let me helpfully point out that I do not. But if you were to believe that there is empirical evidence of that proposition in the features of life, especially if the content of that evidence has something to do with the inadequacy of evolution to explain those features, then you certainly are a creationist.

I called this a off-topic as it is trailing further down an off-topic tangent. I called it baiting as your post conspicuously lept to expanding creationism from young earthers to theistic evolutionists when you very well know there are old earth creationists who are decidedly not theistic evolutionists in between.

Have fun and post often.

[semlogo]

For what it is worth, Ron Numbers is the world's foremost expert on the history of creationism. Here would be a short, cliff notes summary of history as told by him re old earth vs. young earth creationism.

As creationism coalesced around the turn of the century, it was dominated by old earth creationists. Fundamentalist evangelicals and their proto-equivalents, if you can believe it, were almost exclusively old earth creationists. They either were day-age creationists who argued that the "days" in genesis referred to creative periods of indeterminate time or gap creationists who argued that there was an indeterminate period of time from when God created the heavens and the earth and when he created the life that populates it. If you read debates over creationism in the culture wars of the 1920's, you'll notice that the creationists are overwhelmingly represented by these views. It's what William Jennings Bryan famously argued at the Scopes Monkey Trial, for instance. However, there was a minor religious sect that developed what we've come to view as the standards of young earth creationism: The Seventh Day Adventists.

They held on to a young earth view of genesis because their prophetess, Ellen White, received a revelation that strongly indicated a young earth. Their apologists set out to defend this notion. They developed much of what we think of as the standards of young earth creationism, including the "flood geology" that attempts to explain geological features in terms of Noah's flood. In the above mentioned early culture wars over creationism, their apologists were a strong ally of the more traditional creationists. They were regarded as weird but appreciated and relied on for the support. A modern equivalent might be how evangelicals treat Mormons for their anti-gay marriage advocacy. More specifically, a adventist apologist by the name of George McCready Price ended up gaining prominence as an ally in creationist advocacy.

While the creationists remained overwhelmingly old earthers during this time, a funny thing happened. Price's intellectual descendants ended up gaining increasingly strong influence in the "bible college" movement. By the 1950's, it was a well-respected albeit minority view. Among those influenced were two fellows by the names of John Whitcomb and Henry Morris. They ended up publishing the most influential creationist work of all time, The Genesis Flood, in 1961. It advocated the basic form of the old Adventist creationist apologetics. By the end of the decade, the strong majority of evangelicals would be young earthers as a consequence of its success. Many of the leading fundamentalist intellectuals would be as well, though old earthers remained a staunch minority view within the broader tent of creationism.

During this evolution, the legal fortunes of creationists were not going well. The bans on teaching evolution in public schools were struck down as unconstitutional. Then teaching Biblical creation was also struck down as the same. For evangelicals motivated to get their religious views taught in public schools, an interesting legal strategy was developed. They argued that while it might be unconstitutional to teach religious views as such in school, it wouldn't be unconstitutional to teach science that just happened to be favorable to their Biblical views. Thus the branding of "scientific creationism" as an effort to teaching children the "controversy" over evolution and evidence of creationism was born and advocated from the late 60's into the 70's. While this was devised in a coalition between young and old earthers, since creationist apologetics at this time had come to be dominated by young earthers, initially what was advocated for public policy was the content of those apologetics. However, by the late 70's, it became increasingly clear that this was going to go down in flames in court. As a result, the young earth legal strategy was backed off in favor of a lighter, more gentle touch. The issue of the age of the earth was left alone to broaden the tent, as was flood geology, in favor of mutually agreed upon arguments from old earthers and young earthers against evolution and in favor of a generic creator of life that isn't necessarily God (but totally is if you read in-between the lines). This was advocated as the content of "scientific creationism" going into important legal battles of the 1980's.

Unfortunately for them, these arguments were blasted in court, ultimately being struck down by the SCOTUS in 1987. This group of creationist leaders facing the prospect of being forbidden in public schools and developing an increasingly negative reputation amongst a lot of the public rebranded themselves as "intelligent design proponents" changing virtually nothing but their name. By this time, the group was mostly controlled by old earth "progressive" creationists with minority participation from young earthers (which is true to this day). Since creationism was already defeated in court, it became important to distinguish themselves as something other than creationists despite the content of their arguments being nothing but creationist apologetics. So most of the old earth contingent developed the strategy of arguing that creationism just referred to the entire content of young earth creationist apologetics and therefore they weren't creationists, but something else entirely.

DCP, being deeply influenced by intelligent design creationists, adopts this strategy, perhaps naively, and uses it in this thread. It's a bit baiting and off-topic, but hey, what the heck?

Fascinating!

[Daniel Peterson]

In any case, you point out to me that you reserve the term creationism for young earth creationists.

That's how I use it, and how it's been typically, even overwhelmingly, used in my experience.

I simply point out that you do so following intelligent design proponents (i.e. creationists) who have consciously adopted this as a strategy to disassociate their argumentation from the term "creationism."

Whether they've actually adopted that as a strategy or not, I cannot say. I can't recall ever seeing a discussion of that matter by any of them, though I've seen the accusation you level a few times. I think it reasonable to assume, absent evidence to the contrary, that they use the term creationism more or less as I do, which would obviate the felt need for any such "strategy."

Since I'm unaware of their alleged strategy on the matter, it's problematic (unless, of course, you choose to assert that I'm lying, which is a common approach among many of my critics) to declare that I'm "following" them in it -- unless, by following, you simply mean to say something about chronological sequence. (In that case, you may want to clarify your intention, though, lest you appear to commit the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc.)

You quite clearly are heavily influenced by their works, and I left whether you do this as a strategy or because you naively believe in that distinction up in the air. In any case, you then automatically leap to the alternative to defining creationism as young earth creationism to incorporating theistic evolution too. In doing so you imply that I might regard all belief in God as a creative force behind life as "creationism." While that probably would be unreasonable if I held such a view, let me helpfully point out that I do not. But if you were to believe that there is empirical evidence of that proposition in the features of life, especially if the content of that evidence has something to do with the inadequacy of evolution to explain those features, then you certainly are a creationist.

I may well prove to be a "creationist" in the expanded sense of the term that applies to anybody who sees indicators of divine action in the physical-biological world or, expressed negatively, declines to dogmatically assert that there are none. It's a venerable tradition, and I'm not afraid of being included within it.

In any event, I suggest that you leave the hostile faux-clairvoyance to my Malevolent Stalker. (You're too inclined to substance to be he.) C'est son m

[thesometimesaint]

Ralph Man:

Depending on how loosely the term "old earth creationist" is used persons of any faith could be said to believe it.

As a wise old man once told me. "I look to the Scriptures to tell me why God did it, and look to the Sciences to tell me how".

[WalkerW]

The idea that logical positivism is self-refuting usually comes from the notion that verificationism is self-refuting. One can be a verificationist without being a logical positivist, but that's a separate matter. The logic goes that the statement, "a statement is only meaningful if it has truth-value and can be determined true or false either by being verifiable through observation or derivable from true axioms," cannnot meet its own criteria for meaning, and therefore is self-refuting. This proposes that many of the most important philosophers of the first half of the last century were bleeding idiots, but there you have it. I'd lay down money that's what Walker was referring to.

Quite right. I should have been more specific. My apologies. It would be unfair to equate positivism as a whole with this portion of it.

[Daniel Peterson]

Depending on how loosely the term "old earth creationist" is used persons of any faith could be said to believe it.

Precisely.

There is no need to invoke Intelligent Design theorists to account for what I posted here. Genesis, the Book of Abraham, the Book of Moses, and a few significant other things are quite sufficient.

"Entia," said the inimitable William of Ockham, "non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem."

[WalkerW]

I thought that same thing too, but I think WalkerW deserves the benefit of the doubt. Mormon beliefs are so often maligned by people who can't accurately represent them that I hope a Mormon wouldn't perpetuate that cycle when dealing with other belief systems.

The difference is some do it unintentionally (as I have) and are willing to take correction (as I am). It makes for a clearer, more fruitful dialogue.

[Ralph Man]

That's how I use it, and how it's been typically, even overwhelmingly, used in my experience.

It would seem your experience has not adequately been represented by the whole of creationism or its history then. This is a tad strange as you've directly and favorably cited Hugh Ross who runs an explicitly old earth creationist apologetics organization. Why do think terms like "day-age creationist," "gap creationist," "progressive creationist," and even "young earth creationist" exist if not to distinguish between the sub-varieties of creationism?

Whether they've actually adopted that as a strategy or not, I cannot say. I can't recall ever seeing a discussion of that matter by any of them, though I've seen the accusation you level a few times. I think it reasonable to assume, absent evidence to the contrary, that they use the term creationism more or less as I do, which would obviate the felt need for any such "strategy."

Or there could be an extensive body of evidence that this what they've done. It doesn't take Encyclopedia Brown to figure out what is going on when people who used to call themselves creationists, write creationist works, and participate in creationist gatherings all of a sudden insist they aren't creationists, that creationism just refers to YEC, and they are instead "ID proponents" who just happen to use the same arguments they used to call creationism right after creationist advocacy in public schools is defeated in court. Ron Numbers would be an appropriate citation here, but I think I'll go with Barbara Forrest's expert testimony in the Dover trial. But in my experience, when the details of these sort of things are brought up, you end up being much, much to busy to participate. So in anticipation of that, I wouldn't want to bring down your busy schedule. I hope you enjoy the opera, poetry reading, or academic conference that you'll be attending shortly.

Since I'm unaware of their alleged strategy on the matter, it's problematic (unless, of course, you choose to assert that I'm lying, which is a common approach among many of my critics) to declare that I'm "following" them in it -- unless, by following, you simply mean to say something about chronological sequence. (In that case, you may want to clarify your intention, though, lest you appear to commit the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc.)

I'm accusing you of being influenced by intelligent design writing milieu that proposes all creationism really is young earth creationism. This is wrong on several levels, the one of which I focused on being historical. I think this is likely because you show a history of being influenced by ID writings and that is the primary source that myth flows from. I think you can believe that reasoning without being part of, or even, aware that this is a conscious strategy to dissociate for ID from creationism for legal and rhetorical purposes. I'm consciously avoiding that question. If you choose to continue on this point, we can adopt the more conservative statement that you misunderstand the history, relatively recent no less, of the term creationism and creationists.

I may well prove to be a "creationist" in the expanded sense of the term that applies to anybody who sees indicators of divine action in the physical-biological world or, expressed negatively, declines to dogmatically assert that there are none. It's a venerable tradition, and I'm not afraid of being included within it.

So even right after I point out this is a strawman argument that misrepresents my views, you continue to use it. That that's gusto. Here are the alternatives for the definition of the word creationism you are allowing on the table:

1) Young earth creationism.

2) Any view that holds that God acts as a creative force in the biological world.

Since I disagree with 1, I somehow must be endorsing two. It's an fun tactic, but after it's been corrected, you're supposed to stop doing it. For those who think that old earth creationism is just to vauge to be useful, it bears repeating that it approximately refers to the types of beliefs and arguments found in a social/apologetic movement that called/calls itself creationism and accepted/accepts an old age for the earth. If you want a generic definition creationism that avoids both these categories, it is a system of thought closely associated with anti-evolutionism that argues life or some aspect of it was designed and there is empirical (read: scientific) evidence of this. Hopefully that will be sufficient to keep you from arguing that rejecting defining creationism in terms of young earth creationism implies that anyone who believes that God created life must be a creationist.