Re: ID, TE and the sizes of the tents

From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Tue Apr 09 2002 - 17:41:56 EDT

  • Next message: Dick Fischer: "FWD: Evolution Series to Rebroadcast Nationwide"

    Just from comments from a pom who first went round the USA in a tiny tent
    much to the amusement of Americans when we pitched our two man tent on a Nat
    park campsite.

    > I say all that to establish some basis for my comments. I entirely agree
    > that ID is a "big tent"--I've used that phrase often myself--for it
    includes
    > YEC, OEC, at least one geniune TE (Michael Behe, whose views are pretty
    > close to those of Asa Gray--but by gosh don't tell anyone that he fits
    this
    > category),
    There are two main differences between Asa Gray and Mike Behe.
    First Gray did not wear blue jeans on every possible occasion.
    Secondly they had a very different concept of design. Behe's tends to be
    that which he cannot explain naturalistically whereas Gray had an
    over-arching view of design with God behind everything. See my Darwin's
    doubts about Design in Science and Christian Beleif in oct 1997 and Sarah
    Miles recent paper in PSCF.

    >
    > Indeed, in my forthcoming book
    > I will argue that perhaps the largest driving force behind fundamentalist
    > opposition to evolution in the 1920s, was what they perceived to be (and I
    > share their perception in several cases) the excesses of liberal
    > interpretations of evolution. You can find almost anything you can
    imagine
    > under that label.
    Is not the abhorrence of liberal theology why many conservatives are
    attracted by YEC or ID, at least they cannot be charged with guilt by
    association as can TEs and we can all give examples of TEs who believe
    virtually nothing. I tis easy to argue that TEs like Kieth and Ken Miller,
    me and others are well on the slippery slope to an extreme liberal theology.

    A good comment Ted

    Regards

    Michael;

    Asa Gray affirming the "compatibility" (his
    > word) between evolution and the Nicene Creed; or, on the other hand, Edwin
    > Grant Conklin denying a personal God, immortality, and the efficacy of
    > prayer, all on the basis of what he himself called (as many others did)
    "the
    > religion of science." And yet both saw themselves as religious
    > evolutionists, in some sense as Christians. And you have people who call
    > eugenics the way of salvation (I kid you not). So it's a huge tent.
    >
    > Ted Davis
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 09 2002 - 17:43:11 EDT