Dembski
wrote: "Not to put too fine a point on it, the Darwinian establishment
views theistic evolution as a weak-kneed sycophant that desperately wants
the respectability that comes with being a full-blooded Darwinist but
refuses to follow the logic of Darwinism through to the end"
Howard replied: "...Given that a typical dictionary definition of
sycophant is a self-seeking, servile flatterer; a fawning parasite, I can
scarcely imagine needing to resort to criticism any more caustic than
that."
Howard, your reply puzzles me. Bill Dembski is asserting a claim about
the "Darwinian establishment," by which he clearly is referring to people
such as Puglicci, Dawkins, Schafersman, Provine, and others of their ilk.
Now his claim may, or may not, be correct (I think it is, based on
conversations I had with Schafersman at the NTSE in Austin about 3 or 4
years ago), but it is hardly criticism of theistic evolution to note what
some misguided atheists say about theistic evolution.
Now if Bill were to write that he endorses that view, that would be
another thing. I talked with Phil Johnson on this very subject at the
NTSE; it was clear that he would not make that claim, even though he
thinks the TE position to be incorrect.
John Burgeson (Burgy)
http://www.burgy.50megs.com
(science/theology, quantum mechanics, baseball, ethics,
humor, cars, God's intervention into natural causation, etc.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 09 2002 - 11:01:43 EST