Yet another poll, or rather this time a nascent one being run by the boyos at TelicThoughts who mailed myself and more than a few other science bloggers to see what our answer to the question "On which points are intelligent design and creationism identical?" given the following definitions:
"creationism" will be defined as "a belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible" (source: Dictionary.com). "Evolution" will be defined as "the theory that all modern life forms are derived from one or a few common ancestors via descent with modification".
Firstly, that a very restrivtive definition of creationism as it only encompasses young-earth creationism and ignores a number of viewpoints that are proudly creationist (day age, gap, etc). Secondly, what's the definition of intelligent design? We're not told, but are lead to believe that it is different from evolution (it is) or creationism sensu lato (it is not).
In any case, they provide the following options:
- A. Both creationism and intelligent design require one to have a particular interpretation of the Biblical creation account.
- B. Both creationism and intelligent design require one to accept a particular age of the Earth and of the universe.
- C. Both creationism and intelligent design require one to reject evolution.
- D. Both creationism and intelligent design identify the Christian God as the creator.
- E. Both creationism and intelligent design hold that there is an intelligence behind certain features of nature.
- F. There are no points of similarity between creationism and intelligent design.
- G. None of the above options accurately describe the relationship between creationism and intelligent design.
The answer is, of course, 'G' and 'G' alone. As Wes Elsberry points out, there should be an option "H. 'Intelligent design' is a subset of the arguments previously labeled 'creation science'."
Comments
Yup, I cut and pasted "H. 'Intelligent design' is a subset of the arguments previously labeled 'creation science'." into the email and sent it back...
Posted by: afarensis
| January 29, 2006 4:24 PM
My guess is that this is a fishing expedition for out-of-context "quotes" like "50% of science bloggers think that ID is not creationism" or somesuch. I won't answer it myself, nor should anyone else. It's a case of dissembling by questionnaire.
Posted by: John Wilkins
| January 29, 2006 6:49 PM
the 'dear recipient' form suggests they might have used a generic script to send it out. it isn't a Bcc, the To: header is specific to my weblog. i might have thought about answering it if they were polite enough to address me by name :)
btw, thanks for the link john w.
Posted by: razib
| January 29, 2006 8:20 PM
Manual trackback:
"Activism and the problem with blog polls" at Telic Thoughts
Posted by: Krauze
| January 30, 2006 9:30 AM
Oh, come on Krauze. No need to spin because no one will play along with your badly concieved abuse of the "scientific method".
And as for "A well-known problem with on-line polls is when special interest groups attempt to sway the outcome." What is the DI and "x00 Scientists Who Don't Understand Darwinism" but a special interest group attempting to sway the outcome?
Posted by: John Lynch
| January 30, 2006 10:00 AM