Re: Dembski and Morris

I saw this exchange a few days ago, when someone sent me Dembski's response
to Morris and one of my colleagues gave me Morris' review from Acts & Facts.
 As Keith and others have pointed out, this is really very interesting. The
"old earth" majority in the ID movement (and I'm quite sure it's a very
large majority, at least among the most visible IDers) doesn't speak much
about this anymore. They don't (e.g.) often refer to what I believe is
their strongest argument for design, namely the cosmic fine-tuning as it
relates to the big bang cosomlogy (which most of them accept). I do wonder
whether this is b/c they are increasinly reluctant to offend the YECs who
make up much of their support at the grass roots level.

This hypothesis is also consistent with the fact that, last fall, Phil
Johnson took a long speaking tour of England with creationist David Tyler,
speaking about how ID and YEC can work together (at least for the time
being).

This type of thing--the deliberate avoidance of speaking about an important
piece of science that most IDers accept--makes it only that much easier for
their critics to call ID "intelligent design creationism," a label that in
some ways is unfair and inaccurate; they're really only asking for this,
IMO.

ted
Received on Mon Feb 14 13:55:27 2005