|
Author
|
Topic: Let us develop nomenclature.
|
Zia H. Shah
Member
Member # 284
|
posted 27. May 2002 10:52
Let us develop nomenclature.
We need precise terminology for the ease and precision of communication and clearing up the thought process. I am a physician and would be mostly talking about biological issues.
We are, probably, all believers in the theory of “Intelligent Design” (ID). That is why it seems we are all in this organization. A believer in the theory of ID could be agnostic to the details of as to how the designer designed the biological systems, for example. Or he could have certain preconceived biases.
I propose the following terms for the purposes of nomenclature.
A. Intelligent Designist
1. Agnostic- Intelligent Designist
2. Pseudo- Theistic Evolutionist
3. Theistic Evolutionist
4. Creationist
B. Darwinian Evolutionist
Let me briefly describe these terms as I see them.
As is obvious, that a designer could make a thing in one sitting or arrange it to evolve over time, so we need to formally include the possibility of a designer slowly evolving life.
I propose that we always use the qualifier “Darwinian” prior to Evolution when we talk about “Evolution” in the context of “Naturalism”, that is in the context when Intelligent Design is not invoked, and chance and natural selection seems to be the master. The term “Darwinian Evolutionists” will be reserved for biologists like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Gould etc.
Obviously the concept of “Theistic Evolution” will come in different shades and styles and we can have different names for those. Some of the “Theistic Evolutionists” may be totally in the camp of “Darwinian Evolutionists”. They may totally agree with the scientific materialists and completely agree with their style of pursuit of science and would mention God as an after thought. They may need to be put with the “Darwinian Evolutionists” or a name, for example, “Pseudo-Theistic Evolutionists” be reserved for them. Likewise, a name needs to be reserved for those “Theistic Evolutionists” who believe that hand of God is detectable through observation and science in the process of creation through evolution. I believe they deserve the formal term of “Theistic Evolutionist”.
Likewise, Creationists, believing in the literal 6-day creation and a short human history will come in different shades and styles and there could be specific sub-classes that they like.
I would belong in the camp of “Theistic Evolutionists” with the connotations that I have suggested. I have the prior bias that we should be able to show the intervention of God in the biological systems by using the proper science.
IP: Logged
|
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 27. May 2002 16:35
Dear Zia,
Please note that this is not a general discussion board for Intelligent Design. If you'd like to find such a board, please visit this site: http://www.arn.org.
I'm afraid I don't see your post contributing to the purpose of discussion here at Brainstorms which is to open up dialogue in part by breaking down stereotypes. Labeling people and fitting their ideas into categories often causes heated dispute and a filtering of ideas through stereotypes. At Brainstorms, we encourage people to present novel ideas and "brainstorms" about complex systems. What we want is for ideas to be assessed on their own merits rather than through the filter of stereotypes (which is a human method for simplifying via categorization).
So, I'm going to close this thread down. I don't see it leading anywhere positive. I for one don't fit into any of the categories you mention, and believe that many on this board probably feel the same.
For a good sense of how I moderate, please view the following document:
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000076
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic