Stephen Jones wrote:
[...]
WE>I use the "IDC" term based upon the evidence, not "in spite of"
>the evidence. Stephen is welcome to differ in his interpretation.
>As he notes, convincing the ideologically committed is
>unnecessary.
SJ>There is no need for "interpretation" in this case. The plain
SJ>fact is that Todd Moody is an *agnostic* professor of
SJ>philosophy and a valued member of the ID movement. Here is the
SJ>"evidence" again:
[...]
The existence of fellow-travelers (I figure that phrase is
less objectionable than the similar and possibly more
applicable phrase "useful idiots") like Moody doesn't set
aside the fact that the IDC movement is primarily populated by
people whose religion underlies their anti-evolutionary
activity and which finds its largest base of support among
theistic anti-evolutionists. The IDC concepts are constructed
with regard to the legal problems encountered by YEC
activists. The property of "traveling light" with regard to
theology stems from a purposeful attempt to evade one of the
prongs of the Lemon test. While these demographics apply to
ID proponents, I feel no problem at all in using the IDC
label to characterize them. Get back to me when the theistic
anti-evolutionist proportion of the ID crowd drops below 50%.
Wesley
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 09 2000 - 22:03:01 EDT