From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Wed Jul 30 2003 - 16:27:41 EDT
This was badly expressed by me. I should have said that they should start
emphasising the vast age of the earth as a starting point and not to regard
it as irrelevant.
Yes many do say the believe that the earth is ancient but they play down its
significance, undermining any possible case they have
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sarah Berel-Harrop" <sec@hal-pc.org>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 7:53 PM
Subject: Re: The Aphenomenon of Abiogenesis
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 16:23:10 +0100
> "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >I see little hope for ID until they stop talking about
> >design in vacuo and
> >start recognising that the earth is billions of years
> >old. They do this to
> >keep in with YECs and undermine what good ideas they may
> >have had in the
> >beginning.
>
> There are OEC Id'ers. Stephen Meyers, author of
> "Return of the God Hypothesis" available online,
> and probably Behe as well, who purports to accept
> common descent. Chuck Colson has picked up the
> refrain. The basic idea is that in the context
> of the Big Bang, God is an inference to the best
> fit, the other (naturalistic explanations) lack
> coherence.
>
> >
> >I think the polarisation of Dakins and Dennett with yEC
> >and Id has throttled
> >much scientiifc discussion.
>
> One of my favorite comments about Dawkins, "Many
> intelligent
> people who know nothing about evolution like Dawkins"
> (posted
> by a molecular biologist, a regular, on Talk.Origins).
> This
> sentiment was also expressed by Richard Lewontin in his
> review of Carl Sagan's Demon-haunted world in the NYT
> Review
> of Books. Something like, "I hope that [scientists
> outside
> the field of evolutionary biology] don't get their
> information
> about evolution from Richard Dawkins and EO Wilson."
> Phillip
> Johnson has used this specific quote in his articles, so
> he
> has to be aware of the criticism.
>
> It is curious then why ID'ers spend so much time
> criticizing the
> popular works of Richard Dawkins and so little time
> discussing
> the nuts and bolts of evolutionary biology, as seen in say
> textbooks and journals. At the least they should consider
> "why" some folks feel this way about Dawkins.
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jul 30 2003 - 17:32:37 EDT