Re: A reaction to ID

It was the refusal of ID to come clean over the age of the earth that
finished me with ID. I felt that muddied the whole issue.

I have long reckoned that the most important issue was the vast age of the
earth and universe and that evolution is a secondary issue.

There was an excellent article on ID in the Church Times (the Anglican
Horror comic) by Conway Morris this week. He sees ID as an argument for a
mechanistic and Computer age, but that is what Dawkins does as well. C-M was
at Baylor in 2000 for the Naturalism conference - possibly the high point of
the ID movement

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Davis" <TDavis@messiah.edu>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>; <dickfischer@earthlink.net>
Cc: <Tony.Ortega@pitch.com>
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 7:16 PM
Subject: Re: A reaction to ID

> The pitch.com essay
(http://www.pitch.com/issues/2005-02-17/news/strip.html)
> really is very interesting. It's actually doing what I have called upon
the
> IDers to do for several years: to draw a really sharp line between ID and
> YEC, or "garden variety creationism" as I often call it. Perhaps the
wedge
> is starting to find small cracks in the big tent itself?
>
> ted
>
>
>
Received on Mon Feb 28 17:58:52 2005