> Now I'm confused. What could Johnson not believe? Did he just think
> Behe was coming from a different direction, or was Johnson himself
> rejecting an apologetic role for ID? This report makes it sound like
> the
> latter, but that seems hardly possible.
>
> In some messages from Johnson relayed to the ASA list a couple of
> months
> ago, he seemed to see the ID movement as primarily apologetic. For
> example, I have a message archived in which he says his approach is
> more
> successful than theistic evolution "in converting unbelievers and in
> keeping Christian college students from sliding into naturalistic
> thinking." And in interviews with Johnson such as recent stories in
> Radix and Christianity Today, he is portrayed as a defender of the
> faith
> rather than somebody trying to improve science, and he seems to accept
> this characterization. So if Phil Johnson thinks pushing ID for
> apologetic reasons is wrong, he had better track down that evil twin
> who
> is writing in his name.
>
Phil had been telling us that Behe's position was based on
science, that it had nothing to do with Mike's faith.
Phil also told us that he would be willing to accept
"non-Darwinian" evolution.
> Jim Behnke, Asbury College, Wilmore, KY 40390
> james.behnke@asbury.edu
>