Creationists on BloggingHeads?


Will writes from Washington, D.C. (well, Arlington, Virginia). You can reach him at willblogcorrespondence at gmail dot com.

Related Post Roulette

9 Responses

  1. John Cain says:

    I eagerly await the League’s reply to this situation, which I’m sure will blame the evil atheists for not being “serious” enough to engage such complex theological arguments as Behe’s.Report

  2. Chris Dierkes says:

    Intelligent Design is not creationism. I think both positions are wrong (creationism seriously so), but they are different. But Zimmer and Carroll don’t make that distinction. Zimmer says ID is the “progeny of creationism” which is bogus. There are lot of creationists attempting to piggyback on ID as a way to get into the public school system, and I think that’s wrong and should be ferreted out. But ID is basically just a form of deism. That view has been around for a long time–it’s just been spruced up with some new data in ID. Creationism is at most a hundred years old only.Report

    • Chris Dierkes in reply to Chris Dierkes says:

      And before someone throws Bishop Ussher in my face, he wrote in the 17th century before Lyell’s discoveries about the (much longer than previously thought) age of the earth. So Ussher doesn’t constitute creationism. Creationism only exists as a response to the rise of the much longer scientific era (Lyell, Darwin, and Hubble).Report

  3. Chris Dierkes says:

    Whether they should or shouldn’t have made the decision they did, I have no idea. Their grown men and can make up their own minds. And if they feel like this crossed their boundaries and they need to act accordingly, bully for them for standing up for their beliefs, but please get the criticism right.Report