Question: Creationism vs ID
Blazin...@a.mail.sonic.net
A friend and I were having an argument, well more of a discussion
since neither of us thought he was right and the other wrong.
My question is: What is the difference between creationism and
intelligent design? Are they both exactly the same thing? Or is it
that creationism requires a completely literal interpretation of
Genesis and ID is less specific, leaving the door open to alternate
narratives and theories? Is ID a 'fallback position'? I mean you
don't hear anyone advocating 'creationism' any more, has it been given
up, or is it just that nobody uses the term anymore?
And a follow-up question, does ID admit the possibility that natural
selection is only the creator's chosen mechanism for the development
of species of life on earth (i.e. that Darwin and ID are not
necessarily incompatible)?
I'm most interested in hearing from believers in one or the other, or
both. I'm not a believer on one side or the other, only curious.
The Pooflinger
Greg G.
Creationism is the belief that God created the Earth and all life.
Some believe that all happened 6,000 years ago some say 10,000. For
those types, creationism is mostly evolution didn't happen and I
didn't come from no monkey. The laws of the US don't allow any one
religion to be taught in school. Creationism is purely religion, thus
cannot be taught in school.
Intelligent Design is creationism in a ghillie suit. It is an attempt
to have some form of creationism taught in schools by taking out the
religion and not making any claims about the designer. This is known
as the "Wedge Strategy". Once they could teach there was a designer,
they would then be able to expand on it, but they had to wink when
they said the designer may have been God or UFO aliens until it got
past the judge.
For a while, creationism was creation science which was nothing more
than rhetoric about the perceived shortcomings of evolution.
Intelligent design used the same tricks. About seven years ago, the
proponents of intelligent design stopped trying to get it into schools
as they recognized they had no science to back it up so they fell back
to the "teach the controversy" strategy, which was basically creation
science. The only controversy is not whether evolution happens, but
how fast it happens.
When an IDist says ID is not creationism or religion, it is a part of
the scam. They may have been scammed into believing themselves. The
support for ID is nearly 100% religious, though some fundamentalists
oppose it because it doesn't give their god enough credit.
--
Greg G.
I was trying to swipe my credit card in the checkout line when the
clerk said, "Strip down, face toward me." So I did.
John Harshman
Both terms are ambiguous, but both have common meanings. Creationists
are generally those who think that evolution just doesn't happen, or at
least not much of it; i.e., "kinds", whatever those are, were created
separately. ID is a big tent that includes creationists and certain
sorts of theistic evolutionists. One feature of the ID movement is that
they don't care or don't want to discuss how old the earth is, or
whether life is descended from common ancestors; for political reasons,
they want to gloss over all disagreements with fellow anti-evolution
folks. (Creationists do not return the compliment, though -- most
creationist organizations condemn ID as wishy-washy.) Anyway, the
central belief of IDists is that natural processes are insufficient to
account for life as we know it, and that some intelligence (which they
all know is God but all pretend at times not to be concerned with
identity) is necessary.
A person who thinks that natural selection is the creator's chosen
mechanism is neither a creationist nor an IDist, but a theistic
evolutionist. You might think that the difference between a young-earth
creationist and an IDist who accepts most of evolutionary theory except
for the occasional need for a tweak from you-know-who would be greater
than the difference between the IDist and that theistic evolutionist who
thinks that natural selection is God's mechanism. But they don't think
so. I think what this shows above all is that ID is a
political/religious movement, not a scientific one.
Luminoso
>Pardon me if this has been discussed to death, but I'm new here.
>
>A friend and I were having an argument, well more of a discussion
>since neither of us thought he was right and the other wrong.
>
>My question is: What is the difference between creationism and
>intelligent design? Are they both exactly the same thing?
'ID' is a form of 'creationism' - a 'stealth' approach
intended to circumvent certain US legal issues.
>Or is it
>that creationism requires a completely literal interpretation of
>Genesis and ID is less specific, leaving the door open to alternate
>narratives and theories ?
Strictly speaking, 'ID' could be done by non-'divine' beings
and it would still be 'ID' ... although that's not the 'ID'
the creationists are selling. They're not interested in the
notion of little grey alien guys using the earth for various
experiments.
'Creationism' doesn't necessarily require a perfectly
literal interpretation of certain scripture, but it helps.
I've encountered non-literalist creationists who are
willing to say that the biblical account may be a bit
fuzzy insofar as the exact details - but they are still
convinced that the overall theme is correct. Fairly
recent surveys have determined that about 60% of
Americans think the evolutionary perspective is wrong
or seriously defective and lean towards some kind of
supernatural explaination. Clearly we don't have THAT
many bible literalists in the USA.
>Is ID a 'fallback position'? I mean you
>don't hear anyone advocating 'creationism' any more, has it been given
>up, or is it just that nobody uses the term anymore?
It's a term the creationists don't use - because of its
legal ramifications. If it's "religion" then you can't
preach it in the public schools.
About 15 years ago, the favored term was "creation
science" - and they had their little cadre of "brave
scientists" willing to blow the whistle on their
conspiring fellows. Well, they didn't manage to
extract enough of the religion from their 'science'
so it failed the legal test. So, they tried again.
And they'll keep trying - they're on a 'crusade' and
neither lawyers or inconvenient facts will deter them.
>And a follow-up question, does ID admit the possibility that natural
>selection is only the creator's chosen mechanism for the development
>of species of life on earth (i.e. that Darwin and ID are not
>necessarily incompatible)?
Good question. 'ID' does not deny the possibility of
Darwininan evolution - but it restricts the SCALE of
such processes to minor feats of adaptation. It denys
that any COMPLEX biological system or form could have
come into being without outside help. Google the term
"irreductable complexity" and see what you get. It's
an old argument, a wrong argument, but they've put a
shiny new coat of paint on those dusty notions.
>I'm most interested in hearing from believers in one or the other, or
>both. I'm not a believer on one side or the other, only curious.
Well, if it's a contest like your title suggests, ID -vs-
Evolution, then all evolution need to is pass gas and ID
will crumble in defeat. ID has *nothing* beyond its one
overt assertion about 'complexity'.
Thurisaz the Einherjer
> What is the difference between creationism and
> intelligent design? Are they both exactly the same thing?
After you've torn away the masks, yes they are the same. The only
"difference" is that babblical cretinism openly claims "Gawd created...",
and after about 5 billion times the cretinists finally realized that they
will never manage to sneak their crappy dogma into public schools if they
openly speak of any gawd... so they invented IDiocy with its core claim
"(whatever) created... you know what it was but I can't say or else no one
will fall for this".
Actually, still no one (with half a brain and education) falls for it, but
then to realize that you'd need a double-digit EduQ, and we all know that
total braindead idiocy is considered the highest virtue among morontheists.
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
Desertphile
wrote:
> Pardon me if this has been discussed to death, but I'm new here.
>
> A friend and I were having an argument, well more of a discussion
> since neither of us thought he was right and the other wrong.
>
> My question is: What is the difference between creationism and
> intelligent design?
The latter is the currently popular politically dishonest version
of the former. "Intelligent design" is Creationism godded-down
under the pretense of being "secular" so that it could be forced
into the USA public school system. As such, it is an arrogant
blasphemy, since it denies the hands of the gods in the creation.
> Are they both exactly the same thing? Or is it
> that creationism requires a completely literal interpretation of
> Genesis and ID is less specific, leaving the door open to alternate
> narratives and theories? Is ID a 'fallback position'? I mean you
> don't hear anyone advocating 'creationism' any more, has it been given
> up, or is it just that nobody uses the term anymore?
>
> And a follow-up question, does ID admit the possibility that natural
> selection is only the creator's chosen mechanism for the development
> of species of life on earth (i.e. that Darwin and ID are not
> necessarily incompatible)?
>
> I'm most interested in hearing from believers in one or the other, or
> both. I'm not a believer on one side or the other, only curious.
>
>
--
"If a man dresses up like an Indian to rob a gem exchange,
I say he's strange. But if he also brings his coyote along,
then I say he's an Indian." -- Carl Kolchak
Steven J.
> Pardon me if this has been discussed to death, but I'm new here.
>
> A friend and I were having an argument, well more of a discussion
> since neither of us thought he was right and the other wrong.
>
> My question is: What is the difference between creationism and
> intelligent design? Are they both exactly the same thing? Or is it
> that creationism requires a completely literal interpretation of
> Genesis and ID is less specific, leaving the door open to alternate
> narratives and theories? Is ID a 'fallback position'? I mean you
> don't hear anyone advocating 'creationism' any more, has it been given
> up, or is it just that nobody uses the term anymore?
>
variants of the idea that miracles (suspensions of or exceptions to
the laws of nature) are necessary to account for the diversity and
complexity of life on Earth. So "creationism" isn't even exactly the
same thing as "creationism" (e.g. the Vedic creationism of _Forbidden
Archaeology_ is a very different thing from the Biblical creationism
of _Scientific Creationism_. However, all forms of creationism are
positions. They may be rather vague positions (just as one can
arrange creationists according to how much they are willing to distort
science to fit it to their scriptures, one can arrange them by how
important their creationism is to their religion and how much thought
they've bothered to put into it), but they hold views on, e.g. how old
the Earth is, how old the human species is, and (this is likely to be
the vaguest part of their position) how much evolution can actually
take place.
ID, on the other hand, is an apologetics technique. Some of its
problems arise because it wishes to pose as a scientific theory or
research program, and nothing particularly to do with religion, but
it's basically a type of argument *for* creationism and miracles. As
such, it takes no position on the various details of creationism, any
more than, e.g. the cosmological argument for theism takes a position
on whether the Deity is Allah, YHWH Sabaoth, or Shiva. It's a god-of-
the-gaps argument, applicable to whichever God you prefer and
whichever gaps you wish to stuff Him into.
>
> And a follow-up question, does ID admit the possibility that natural
> selection is only the creator's chosen mechanism for the development
> of species of life on earth (i.e. that Darwin and ID are not
> necessarily incompatible)?
>
ID is compatible with the idea that natural selection is *a* mechanism
used by the Creator, but ID arguments invariably purport to show that
unguided mechanisms cannot account for some aspects of life (and/or
the universe). ID is, in the opinion of virtually all ID proponents,
not theistic evolution; ID holds that God does not employ *only*
"naturalistic" mechanisms. For that matter, while in principle ID is
compatible with common descent with modification, most ID proponents
want schools to teach "evidence against evolution," not merely
(purported) evidence against the sufficiency of natural selection and
genetic drift.
>
> I'm most interested in hearing from believers in one or the other, or
> both. I'm not a believer on one side or the other, only curious.
-- Steven J.
Steven J.
>
> A friend and I were having an argument, well more of a discussion
> since neither of us thought he was right and the other wrong.
>
> My question is: What is the difference between creationism and
> intelligent design? Are they both exactly the same thing? Or is it
> that creationism requires a completely literal interpretation of
> Genesis and ID is less specific, leaving the door open to alternate
> narratives and theories? Is ID a 'fallback position'? I mean you
> don't hear anyone advocating 'creationism' any more, has it been given
> up, or is it just that nobody uses the term anymore?
>
variants of the idea that miracles (suspensions of or exceptions to
the laws of nature) are necessary to account for the diversity and
complexity of life on Earth. So "creationism" isn't even exactly the
same thing as "creationism" (e.g. the Vedic creationism of _Forbidden
Archaeology_ is a very different thing from the Biblical creationism
of _Scientific Creationism_. However, all forms of creationism are
positions. They may be rather vague positions (just as one can
arrange creationists according to how much they are willing to distort
science to fit it to their scriptures, one can arrange them by how
important their creationism is to their religion and how much thought
they've bothered to put into it), but they hold views on, e.g. how old
the Earth is, how old the human species is, and (this is likely to be
the vaguest part of their position) how much evolution can actually
take place.
ID, on the other hand, is an apologetics technique. Some of its
problems arise because it wishes to pose as a scientific theory or
research program, and nothing particularly to do with religion, but
it's basically a type of argument *for* creationism and miracles. As
such, it takes no position on the various details of creationism, any
more than, e.g. the cosmological argument for theism takes a position
on whether the Deity is Allah, YHWH Sabaoth, or Shiva. It's a god-of-
the-gaps argument, applicable to whichever God you prefer and
whichever gaps you wish to stuff Him into.
>
> And a follow-up question, does ID admit the possibility that natural
> selection is only the creator's chosen mechanism for the development
> of species of life on earth (i.e. that Darwin and ID are not
> necessarily incompatible)?
>
ID is compatible with the idea that natural selection is *a* mechanism
used by the Creator, but ID arguments invariably purport to show that
unguided mechanisms cannot account for some aspects of life (and/or
the universe). ID is, in the opinion of virtually all ID proponents,
not theistic evolution; ID holds that God does not employ *only*
"naturalistic" mechanisms. For that matter, while in principle ID is
compatible with common descent with modification, most ID proponents
want schools to teach "evidence against evolution," not merely
(purported) evidence against the sufficiency of natural selection and
genetic drift.
>
> I'm most interested in hearing from believers in one or the other, or
> both. I'm not a believer on one side or the other, only curious.
-- Steven J.
Perplexed in Peoria
"Steven J." <stev...@altavista.com> wrote in message news:1171003040.3...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Hmmm. Worth a POTM nomination? Well, ... not quite.
A very nice posting though.
Rolf
<Blazin...@a.mail.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4hhns295gl6s92lp5...@4ax.com...
> Pardon me if this has been discussed to death, but I'm new here.
>
No need for any excuses, discussing creationism to death is what we are here
for.
Looking through the other responses so far, I thought perhaps it might be
appropriate to point ot that ID-guru Michael J. Behe, author of 'Darwins
Black Box' is not as candid as most of his followers; he has expressed as
his personal belief that the Designer is God himself. It seems that most of
the people active in the ID.movement share that same faith but as has been
pointed out, the official argument is more like the designer could just as
well be the little green men or whatever - anything but god, to sneak it
through our defences against religious fundamentalism.
Rolf
[snip]
TomS
<532qm1F...@mid.individual.net>, Rolf stated..."
Did you make a typo there, and mean to say that Behe is *more*
candid?
--
---Tom S.
"...when men have a real explanation they explain it, eagerly and copiously and
in common speech, as Huxley freely gave it when he thought he had it."
GK Chesterton, Doubts About Darwinism (1920)
Tracy P. Hamilton
google "cdesign proponentsists" and see where it came from. It will
answer your question, and give you a very interesting moral fable on
honesty.
Tracy P. Hamilton
Ferrous Patella
[...]
> My question is: What is the difference between creationism and
> intelligent design? Are they both exactly the same thing?
[...]
They are close enough to being the same thing that the creationist authors
of "Of Pandas and People" did a wholesale substitution of "Intelligent
Design" for "Creation Science" between revisions of the text.
--
"Her vocabulary was as bad as, like, whatever."
Annual English Teachers' awards for best student
metaphors/analogies found in actual student papers
Frank J
Since most critics of ID/creationism shoot themselves in the foot with
"ID *is* creationism," allow me to offer a different perspective.
Among defenders of science, "Creationism" has come to mean any
strategy that misrepresents evolution and promotes some design-based
alternative (pseudoscientific) "explanation." And that would include
the ID strategy. Unfortunately most people still equate "creationism"
with not only belief in a literal Genesis, but the YEC interpretation
in particular. Anti-evolution activists love to bait-and-switch the 2
definitions, and sadly, most critics let them get away with it.
With that in mind, note the different *mutually contradictory*
creationist positions:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html
Another mistake that fellow critics make is to assume that ID was
"created" *only* to leave out references to "creation" or the designer/
creator's identity, as necessitated by court rulings that prohibit the
teaching of "creationism" in public schools.
The fact is that ID plays "don't ask, don't tell" not only with the
designer's identity, but with the scientifically relevent issues of
"what happened, when, and how" in biological history. That's because
IDers know that none of "what happened, when" claims stated or implied
by the "classic creationisms" (YEC, OEC, FEC...) stand up to the
evidence. The mutual contradictions alone are enough to make most
people suspicious of them. Ergo, "don't ask, don't tell". IOW, it was
the *scientific* failure of classic creationism, more than the *legal*
failure, that begat ID.
As for your follow up Q, that is the "theistic evolution" position. ID
doesn't rule it out, but ID doesn't rule *anything* out except its
caricature of "Darwinism."
Although ID and TE are "adjacent" on the "continuum" (see the above
link), they are in fact the polar opposites in terms of strategy.
One more point that is made much too seldom: Don't confuse honest
believers "on the street" who are mostly misled about evolution and
the nature of science with the anti-evolution scam artists who mislead
them.
Frank J
> <Blazing.La...@a.mail.sonic.net> wrote in message
With the caveat that IDers' choices of words are deliberately
slippery, my take is that all the major IDers said one time or another
that they *believe* (on faith? in spite of no evidence??) that the
designer they nabbed is the Judeo-Christian God. But none ever said
that they had conclusive evidence of God. In fact the only "conclusive
evidence" they have is against something, and that "something" is not
even evolution itself, but their shrewdly crafted caricature.
Perhaps much more importantly, Behe admitted at the Dover trial that
the designer who is responsible for IC systems might no longer be in
existence. I seriously doubt that he'd say that, under oath and with
God listening, if he truly thought that his "god of the gaps" argument
was real evidence of his God.
IOW the designer's identity might be the one thing that IDers are
actually honest about.
RAM
All very good points. Well done!
catshark
Just futher on that point, there is also William Dembski's piece, "What
every theologian should know about creation, evolution and design," where
he writes:
Design theorists are no friends of theistic evolution. As far as
design theorists are concerned, theistic evolution is American
evangelicalism's ill-conceived accommodation to Darwinism. What
theistic evolution does is take the Darwinian picture of the
biological world and baptize it, identifying this picture with
the way God created life. When boiled down to its scientific
content, theistic evolution is no different from atheistic
evolution, accepting as it does only purposeless, naturalistic,
material processes for the origin and development of life.
As far as design theorists are concerned, theistic evolution
is an oxymoron, something like "purposeful purposelessness."
If God purposely created life through the means proposed by
Darwin, then God's purpose was to make it seem as though life
was created without any purpose. According to the Darwinian
picture, the natural world provides no clue that a purposeful
God created life. For all we can tell, our appearance on planet
earth is an accident. If it were all to happen again, we wouldn't
be here. No, the heavens do not declare the glory of God, and no,
God's invisible attributes are not clearly seen from God's
creation. This is the upshot of theistic evolution as the design
theorists construe it.
<http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-theologn.html>
And the best word for how design theorists construe it is _anathema_.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
In the name of the bee
And of the butterfly
And of the breeze, amen
- Emily Dickinson -
Do you think everyone should have a blog?
Here is the counter-evidence: <http://dododreams.blogspot.com/>
Desertphile
<mail1...@pop.net> wrote:
> news:4hhns295gl6s92lp5...@4ax.com by :
> [...]
> > My question is: What is the difference between creationism and
> > intelligent design? Are they both exactly the same thing?
> [...]
>
> They are close enough to being the same thing that the creationist authors
> of "Of Pandas and People" did a wholesale substitution of "Intelligent
> Design" for "Creation Science" between revisions of the text.
And swapped "intelligent designer" for "god." And then lied under
oath about the swap. Golly, those silly Creationists---- no
morals, no ethics.
Lorentz
> selection is only the creator's chosen mechanism for the development
> of species of life on earth (i.e. that Darwin and ID are not
> necessarily incompatible)?
My favorite intelligent design theory is actually comes from a
rabid atheist. The famous astronomer, Hoyle, didn't believe in
evolution. I don't think his biology was quite on par with his
astronomy, but he had a theory. Life on earth was designed by aliens
from a different planet. Now, where did these aliens from outer space
come from. They had been earlier created by aliens from a third
planet. Where did these aliens from the third planet come from? You
got it!
In his theory, the creation process is an infinite loop. There
is always another group of aliens ready to create the next group of
aliens.
What happened to Big Bang? Fred Hoyle didn't believe in Big Bang.
He was a believer in the Steady State Theory of the universe. That
theory says that the universe was eternal and maybe infinite. In fact,
one could conjecture that life would be practically unavoidable in an
eternal and infinite universe.
Hoyle's theory is a type of panspermian hypothesis, although not
all panspermian theories postulate an infinte chain. If you go for his
theory, you end up having to postulate a lot of things that the Young
Earthers have to postulate. The red shift is an observational
artifact, that a complex strurcture has to have a Designer, etc.
However, it satisfies most of the "scientific" arguments put forth by
Intelligent Design advocates. And it does so with no supernatural
diety, monotheistic or otherwise. I would like to see a Biblical
literalist and a Hoyle panspermian in a formal debate.
Blazin...@a.mail.sonic.net
> In his theory, the creation process is an infinite loop. There
>is always another group of aliens ready to create the next group of
>aliens.
> What happened to Big Bang? Fred Hoyle didn't believe in Big Bang.
>He was a believer in the Steady State Theory of the universe. That
>theory says that the universe was eternal and maybe infinite. In fact,
>one could conjecture that life would be practically unavoidable in an
>eternal and infinite universe.
The 'Abrahamic' Religions are all apocalyptic, they believe that
history has a trajectory--the universe began -here-, we are -here- ,
and the end is -here-. The idea of a Big Bang' could be seen in this
light. I mean, you could just as well ask 'Well what happened BEFORE
the Big Bang?'
Hindus believe the universe is infinite, it always was and always will
be. Everything is cyclical. So they might be better disposed to
believe believe in aliens creating aliens creating aliens in an
infinite process.
> Hoyle's theory is a type of panspermian hypothesis, although not
>all panspermian theories postulate an infinte chain. If you go for his
>theory, you end up having to postulate a lot of things that the Young
>Earthers have to postulate. The red shift is an observational
>artifact, that a complex strurcture has to have a Designer, etc.
>However, it satisfies most of the "scientific" arguments put forth by
>Intelligent Design advocates. And it does so with no supernatural
>diety, monotheistic or otherwise. I would like to see a Biblical
>literalist and a Hoyle panspermian in a formal debate.
Yes that might be fun!
Ron O
> On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 02:46:47 GMT, John Harshman
>
>
>
>
>
Philip Johnson said about the same thing, but didn't dwell on the
ridiculous reasoning behind it. Theistic evolution is itself a pretty
broad category, and beats me if there are any like Dembski is positing
to exist. Most probably have some notion of God's hand on creation,
and the largest fraction probably believes that humans are a
purposeful result of that creation. Humans might not be the only
reason for the creation of the universe, but they are probably part of
God's plan. I don't think that I have ever met a Christian that
believes that humans are a total accident of creation. Dembski is
just creating a strawman. Dembski and Johnson's real beef is that
there are religious people that accept the findings of science and are
not afraid to alter their world and religious views based on the
creation itself and not just what is written about the creation in
some old book. For some reason these two have the same quirk that we
see so often around here. You accept the biblical interpretation
(whatever it is at the moment) because if one thing is not true the
whole thing is suspect.
These guys know better than anyone that more than one thing probably
isn't "true" in the Bible, but they draw the line at a different place
than others draw the line. For example Dembski and Johnson are
probably old earth creationists (Dembski may be backsliding after
being exposed as the liar that he has been for over a decade).
Obviously they have a problem with the seven day creation story. They
probably also don't think that there was a single worldwide flood, so
why knock the theistic evolution group that just accepts more about
what we have learned about the creation than they do?
Some people think that it is a political control deal. They don't
believe the junk they spew themselves, but they believe that if the
masses don't believe what they are selling, society will go to hell in
a handbasket. This is a pretty cynical view, but ID turned out to be
just a dishonest political scam, so how cynical is it?
Ron Okimoto
Frank J
>
> - Show quoted text -
Rhetorical Q: Is it still cynical if it's true?
As you probably know, I am perhaps more conivnced than anyone that
these guys privately accept 100% of evolution, but would never dare
admit it. OK, maybe nonscientist Johnson really isn't sure that
species didn't originate independently, but Dembski surely is, and so
is Behe, who in fact admitted it. Dembski just plays dumb for the sake
of the big tent, and has even expressed more politcal sympathy for
YECs while admitting an old earth (if that's what you mean by
Backsliding).
I have often thought that a more "friendly" analogy of their
"Straussian" tactics is that of a parent telling their child fairy
tales. Such stories teach the morals more efficiently than "messy real
life." In contrast to classic creationism, which tells the fairy tales
directly, risking that some more "mature" audiences might dismiss
story and moral alike, ID allows the audience to infer whatever fairy
tale it finds convincing, or commit to none (but still rejecting the
"Darwinism" caricature). Nevertheless, to extend that analogy to
Ronald Bailey's ironic comparison of anti-evolutionists and the late
Pope John Paul II, the latter, in his acceptance of evolution, treated
his audience not like young or "slightly more mature" children, but as
adults.