Re: Dembski and Morris

I very much agree with this. Fine tuning convinces me, blood-clotting does
not as it is god of the Gaps at best.

What finished me off with ID 4 years ago was their studied avoidance of the
age of the earth as if that didnt matter. See my chapter in Ruse and dembski
Debating Design. By ignoring all evidences for the age of the earth ( and
geologists and cosmologists have found a couple!!) all arguments for ID must
be invalid as much evidence is ignored.

This also means ID can have nothing to say about the environment and climate
change as we then cannot talk about the yo-yoing temperature of even the
last 200,000 years. (Does that fit in the DIs right wings non-environmental
views?)

Michael

PS I chuckled when Pinnock reckoned Van Till was brushing up against
creationists. His stuff is shoddy - not Howard's
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Davis" <TDavis@messiah.edu>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>; <bdffoster@charter.net>; <kbmill@ksu.edu>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 6:53 PM
Subject: 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 Tue Feb 15 03:04:13 2005