Clem said:
Taningia,
This is the first I've heard of Creationists appropriating TFIW ideas, for purposes of argument. To be fair (and to gift the curious) I've embedded a link to
an outfit doing just that sort of work.
Give the Fundamentalists their due, however: they should be recognized for the forthright clarity of their beliefs, so unlike the "Intelligent Design" proponents seeking to re-introduce Genesis into classrooms by stealth.
Clem
Very interesting link, and I was surprised to see it was sponsored by Muslims rather than Fundamentalist Christians.
I do credit Scientific Creationists for clarity of beliefs, but not for logic. Did you know, for instance, that many of them explain away fossils by contending they were placed in the earth by "satan" to test the faith of "true Christians"? I know this because I have a traditionalist Catholic netpal -- otherwise a brilliant and well-educated man -- who stands by that argument. (I am BTW a liberal-progressive Catholic.)
I also agree with you about the Intelligent Design movement. It especially bothers me that they have co-opted the term "intelligent design" for their own. Like many liberal Christians, I accept the
original concept of intelligent design to support what is already known about evolution -- i.e., I believe that the "big bang" and evolution (including the recent concept of punctuated equilibrium) are the mechanisms by which the Deity effected the creation of the present-day universe and present-day life on Earth, respectively. I also fully accept the time-frame given by cosmologists and evolutionary scientists for the age of the universe and of our planet.
I would of course respectfully disagree with Stephen Hawking and the late Stephen Jay Gould (both of whom I respect profoundly) about their
philosophical interpretations of the "big bang" and evolution / punctuated equilibrium -- i.e., that these facts necessarily imply a random and mindless universe. So yes, I believe in intelligent design, but in the literal sense, not as a thinly-concealed re-packaging of "Creation Science".
BTW, as you might know, in Hinduism -- and Theosophy, the western esoteric movement which incorporates many esoteric Hindu and Buddhist concepts -- there exists the idea of the "day of Brahman" and "night of Brahman", which is the much earlier predecessor of the "pulsation theory" of the universe, i.e., an endless, beginningless universe alternately expanding and contracting throughout eternity. (Implying that the "big bang" is a non-unique event.) Considering that as far as I know no one has determined exactly what preceded the "big bang", there may indeed be room for the Hindu concept of creation in modern cosmology as well.
Fascinating stuff!
Taningia