Surely this is the whole problem with ID as they try to portray the age of the earth as an unimportant issue. By doing that they play right into the hands of YEC because to be ambivalent on the age of the earth makes abrupt appearance seem very likely.
As Nancy Pearcey wrote, 'For too long, opponents of naturalistic evolution have let themselves be divided and conquered over subsidiary issues like the age of the earth'. Like Pearcey, who is a Young Earth Creationist, most intelligent designers simply ignore issues of age as irrelevant. This can be seen in many books, articles and websites devoted to Intelligent Design. The issue of the age of the earth and the succession of life through the 4.6 billion years of time clearly has an effect on how one will conceive how any life form will have come into being. If the aeons of geological time are correct, and Pearcy, Nelson and Wise consider that to be wrong, then lifeforms have appeared during time and have gradually changed either through an outside force or naturally. If the earth is only 10,000years old, then there is insufficient time for changes through natural means and thus it is reasonable to hold the abrupt appearance of species so poetically expressed by Milton;The grassy clods now calved, now half appeared
The tawny lion, pawing to get free
His hinder parts, then springs as broke from bonds,
And rampant shakes his brinded mane;Paradise Lost; Book VII, l463-6.
I cannot see how you can discuss design in such an ahistorical way
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Fischer
To: asa@calvin.edu ; Michael J. Behe ; Michael J. Behe ; Skip Evans
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 7:22 PM
Subject: RE: Claims Intelligent Design Scientists Author Bibliography Papers
Norm Woodward wrote:
Dick Fischer wrote:
It is of little wonder why the intelligent design movement seems to find it difficult to take positions on basic concepts like the age of the earth and descent with modification when their leading organization suffers so much confusion.
________________________
I guess I am admitting more ignorance that I should, but does the ID movement take any position on the age of the earth? I thought their arguments concerned the complexity of micro-biology, and macro-evolution, not cosmology.
Actually, Skip Evans wrote that. He is with the NCSE. However, I will offer a bit of commentary. If you know Behe's position, he believes in an old earth and even mutual shared common ancestry between humans and primates. I know, I asked him. He says not one word about his evolutionist beliefs in his book on ID. Why? Phil Johnson has no illusions about the age of the earth. Again, his books say nothing about it. Again, why?
Simply put, creationists buy books. Why risk alienating them with the truth? It is just this duplicity coming from those who call themselves "Christian" that gets right up my nose.
Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution - www.orisol.com
"The answer we should have known about 150 years ago"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 08 2002 - 17:55:55 EDT