RE: Where is evolutionary theory?

Pim van Meurs (entheta@eskimo.com)
Mon, 15 Feb 1999 12:16:43 -0800

>Pim: Does this explain why Philip Johnson is so succesful in the field if
ID ? When in fact the field is totally lacking in scientific foundation ?
But unlike in ID, there are thousands of other people working in the field
of evolution. Me thinks Horgan has become a victim of his own rethoric.

Andrew: I think that the above sweeping remark on ID is useless. Johnson aside
there are many men and women in the "ID" movement with many varying
definitions and views.

Amazing how they all manage to publish little to nothing then.

While I lie somewhere in between here and there anyone with a reasonable perspective can see the validity in the questions being asked. Even if all you wish is a more perfect naturalistic God-free
darwinism ID is the perfect refiners fire for removing what is shakeable.

Darwinism is not "God free" but "God neutral". After all the suggestion itself that if something is naturalistic that it therefor is God free is silly. Nature is per definition God created.

Besides once you are done with the refining you can use the old thousands
in the field to dismiss any thing you can't answer yet. Though I see the

There will undoubtably be many issues that cannot be answered yet. But that is not the issue here.

shortcomings in Johnson's work I begin to think there is more to all this
than just honest data and the best working theory. One does wonder why
anyone claiming to be basing their lives on the God of Abraham,Isaac,and
Jacob would find the concept of that God meddling in their beautiful chains
of naturalistic just so stories so objectionable. In the end any limiting
of "science" to the rules of the materialist will eventually exclude some
portions of truth.

How is "truth" defined ? And what is so limiting to restrict science to issues related to science ?

Again I am not sold on the death of Darwinism but I assure you there are
many in the ID movement that are as strong on descent as many of you but
maybe still feel that we are missing something important.

Undoubtably we are missing a lot. But we also already know a lot. However ID is NOT the answer to scientific inquiry, merely a thinly veiled attempt to include creation "science" into science. Also ID would at least be taken more seriously if it were less based on rethoric and more on scientific research and evidence.

Of course if our science builds an environment unpleasing to the Creator and leading the little ones away from Him we might not find him so easily dismissed at the end.

Something that worries me about the presumptions by some YEC"ers who dismiss God's evidence in favor of their interpretation of His Word.