Hi everyone,
I have to agree with James here. What seems to be true, however, is
along the lines of what Keith Miller said. These guys have no place
for a theistic evolution that looks very similar to atheistic
evolution with respect to the science (it doesn't seem to me that
they are particular interested in theology). If you can't use
irreducible complexity to argue against "naturalistic" explanations,
then you're not on our side! Michael Robert's comments about the
difference between Asa Gray and Mike Behe are apropos. I've argued,
based on my theological perspective, that everything is designed.
This drives these guys crazy and while I have pleaded with them (with
Phil at least) to keep the focus on philosophy and religion, they
insist on focusing on the science. As such, I can't join in and they
don't want me because I defend the enemy. You don't know how much
flack along those lines I have received since 1994 for my anti-Behe
article. Well, maybe some of you do...you see I both hand out and
collect "guilt trip tickets" =;-)>
TG
>Folks,
>
>In a recent post, Dick F. Said
>"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. "
>
>Lets be fair. I thought I read their position in both Behe and
>Johnson. I took a look and I was right. In Darwin's Black Box Behe
>says, "further I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms
>share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular
>reason to doubt it. p. 5.
>I don't think he says anything about being a Roman Catholic in the book
>but I suspect he thought that was not germane to his argument.
>Certainly if he wanted to attract the YEC crowd he would have mentioned
>his faith commitment.
>
>Phil Johnson makes it rather clear in his introduction to Darwin on
>Trial that his own position is NOT YEC. He says, "I am not a defender
>of Creation Science and in fact am not concerned in this book with
>addressing any conflicts between the Biblical accounts and the
>scientific evidence.' (p. 14) Yes as Davis indicated, Johnson as a
>leader of the ID movement want YEC to feel welcome in the ID tent and in
>my conversation with ID folks, they purposefully avoid arguing about YEC
>OEC stands. In a few sentences before this Johnson says, "I am a
>philosophical theist and a Christian. I believe that a God exists who
>could create out of nothing if he wanted to do so, but who might have
>chosen to work through a natural evolutionary process instead."
>
>I don't find either hiding their own belief. They are attractive to
>evangelicals because of their opposition to a SECULAR evolutionary
>theory that leaves God out.
>
>I do not agree with everything the ID movement says, but I have and
>continue to have interaction with many in the movement. I find this
>forum VERY critical of ID misquotes so I did not like the assertion that
>leaders in the ID are hiding their own positions.
>
>James Mahaffy (mahaffy@dordt.edu) Phone: 712 722-6279
>Biology Department FAX : 712
>722-1198
>Dordt College, Sioux Center IA 51250
-- _________________ Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist Chemistry Department, Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 grayt@lamar.colostate.edu http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/ phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 10 2002 - 12:49:08 EDT