Re: Jim said

John W. Burgeson (johnburgeson@juno.com)
Tue, 13 Jan 1998 16:18:00 -0700

>>True only to a point. Yes, their motivations are not particularly
important by themselves. But when these "wrong" reasons are transmitted
to the church, leading Christians into God-of-the-gaps theology (or
reinforcing what already exists), then it is a big problem. Whether this
problem is due to Behe or Johnson transmitting bad theology which they
themselves hold or whether the fault is in the communication is perhaps
the part that is of secondary interest.

Face it, within the church Johnson is *not* perceived as somebody just
trying to improve science. He is perceived as the guy who is showing
that Christianity is not falsified after all,...>>

I have two quotations from Nelson and Johnson, from e-mail messages
recently received from them by me, which they have allowed me to use on
the LISTSERV:

IDQUOTE1.TXT

>I'm interested in, and work on, ID because I think it's *good
>science* and *true* -- not because I want to steamroll anyone in[to]
>a sterile rationalistic theism with scientific evidence.

Paul Nelson (quoted with his permission from a private communication)

IDQUOTE2

>There is nothing about the intelligent design concept or evidence which
>necessarily requires the designer to be supernatural. Christians
>(including myself) will naturally think that the designer is the God of
>the Bible, but this is for reasons other than that the scientific
evidence
>for design inherently requires that conclusion. Behe has a whole
chapter on
>this subject in Darwin's Black Box.

>Phil Johnson (quoted with his permission from a private communication)

I picked these two out of other communications because I think they
fairly assert the positions I have heard them say before -- at the NTSE
and otherwise.
Burgy