An Attempt to Discredit ID

Denyse O'Leary illustrates how eagerness to discredit intelligent design leads to a misrepresentation on the part of someone who should know better. Here is a snippet from her post on which my comments are clearly identified. From the following website:

http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/

'Pagans and intelligent design:'

"In one of yesterday's posts, I commented on Vatican astronomer Guy Consolmagno claiming that six-day creationism was a form of "paganism," which is clearly erroneous. It is a form of fundamentalism (literal interpretation of the Bible), which originated with Christianity and other "religions of the Book" and has no pagan roots whatever. Nor could it have such roots."

[Bradford]: One would think a Vatican astronomer would be able to distinguish between biblical and pagan influences. O'Leary is right on target. Six day creation is a belief held by those who hold to a literal or (as they would likely assert) straightforward interpretation of Genesis. The belief clearly results from a reading of scripture rather than a pagan influence.

"The pagans' only book is nature itself (the "book of creation," as it was formerly called). However, once an actual book is accepted as a divine revelation (Torah, Bible, Koran), it can be quoted with authority. But such books only came into existence with monotheistic religions.

The fact that Consolmagno can get away with such misrepresentations shows how eager many in the science community are to hastily shelve the discussion of intelligent design, citing any old nonsense that sounds pleasant to digest."

[Bradford]: Exactly.

"For anyone who wants to know facts in this area, there are actually "pagans" (sometimes called "heathens") in North America. To my knowledge, they are not particularly friendly to creationism (young earth or ancient earth) or to any type of intelligent design. (Scroll down or search on the term "intelligent design.")"