ID Arguments from Creationist Sources

Ed at Dispatches from the Culture Wars has a post aboutID Arguments from Creationist Sources. Apparently, the UD people are whining:

If ID really is just repackaged Creationism, why not just expose the arguments for what they are and be done with it?


So here are three.
1) Lucy was a knuckle walker.
True Authority.com says:

So, in the final analysis, what was Lucy? Dr. Charles Oxnard, after conducting his multivariate analysis, stated that the australopithecine fossils “clearly differ more from both humans and African apes, than do these two living groups from each other. The australopithecines are unique.” Whether or not he’s right, one thing is certain: Lucy was in all likelihood a knuckle-crawling tree-dweller . . . yes, not an upright walker on the ground, but instead a stooped branch-swinger in the sky.

AIG says:

So what was Lucy? Oxnard’s multivariate analysis showed that Lucy could not possibly be an intermediate ‘missing link’ between humans and knuckle-walking ape-like ancestors. He found that the australopithecine fossils ‘clearly differ more from both humans and African apes, than do these two living groups from each other. The australopithecines are unique.’

The Institute for Creation reasearch says:

That’s because the australopithecines were decidedly chimp-like. “Lucy” was 3’6″ tall, with chimp-sized brain and chimp dentation, with long curved fingers and long curved toes for swinging in trees, and had a wrist structure only suited for knuckle-walking when on the ground.

What does Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute have to say about it? From his paper Human Origins and Intelligent Design?

Indeed, C. E. Oxnard commented in an article in Nature that, “it is perhaps inevitable that, believing
[australopithecine] relationships to man to be rather close, those particular features in which the postcranial [australopithecine] bones resemble man are most emphasized.”30 Oxnard goes on to point out that reconstructions from fossils are often inexact, allowing for preconceptions to lead to plausible, though incorrect conclusions:
A series of associated foot bones from Olduvai [a locality bearing australopithecine fossils] has been reconstructed into a form closely resembling the human foot today although a similarly incomplete foot of a
chimpanzee may also be reconstructed in such a manner.30 Using multivariate statistical analysis, Oxnard compared 11 key australopithecine skeletal characteristics to extant hominoids and found they were either unique or most similar to the orangutan.35 Oxnard concluded that the australopithecine mode of locomotion was most similar to that of the modern orangutan.35

and a little later:

Other recent studies have found that the handbones of Lucy are similar to those of a knucklewalking ape…

Is there a difference between these statements (incidently in support of the seceond statement Luskin cites a Richard Leakey article – which is discussed here).
2) Semicircular Canals
(Note: these first two quotes come from the smae articles linked to above)
From AIG:

Also, CAT scans of australopithecine inner ear canals (reflecting posture and balance) by anatomist Dr Fred Spoor and his colleagues at University College, London, showed they did not walk habitually upright.

From True Authority:

Fortunately, there is more evidence other than the wrists and feet of Lucy to build a case that she was, in essence, “chimp-like.” Anatomist Dr. Fred Spoor and his colleagues at University College, London, performed CAT scans on australopithecine inner ear canals (reflecting posture and balance) and came to the conclusion that they did not walk habitually upright.

From Casey Luskin:

…and that australopithecine inner ear canals, responsible for balance and related to locomotion, resemble small inner-ear canals of the great apes rather than larger canals found in humans and other members of the genus Homo

Still not seeing a difference between Creationists arguments and Intelligent design arguments.
3) Basic Types
From Luskin:

Such proponents have proposed a new taxonomic category, the “basic type,” which is a group of organisms related through ancestry that initially acquired their fundamental genetic programs through design, and not through ancestry with some other type of organism.3 Because their genetic architecture is distinct, members of one basic type cannot interbreed to produce offspring with members of another basic type.3 The converse is not necessarily true, as some species which cannot interbreed could be members of the same basic type.

From Duane Gish’s Evolution: The Challange of the Fossil Record:

A basic animal or plant type would include all animals or plants which were truely derived from a single stock. In present-day terms, it would be said that they have shared a common gene pool.

Other than fancier language, what is the difference?
So three cases of ID proponents using creationist arguements just from one paper. I wonder how many more I could find if I really dedicated myself to the search?

%d bloggers like this: