Fw: Apology for intemperate comments

> Can you chapter and verse from IDers why there is no godofthegaps and why
> I
> have been too dense to misunderstand them! I have looked at Behe again and
>
> still feeel that he is g of g .
>
> Ted replies:
> A very good question, Michael. How about these lines, from Dembski's "The
> Design Revolution," pp. 179 and 181 in order:
>
> "Indeed, intelligent design is perfectly compatible with all the design in
> the world coming to expression by the ordinary means of secondary causes
> over the course of natural history...."
>
> "design can be real and discernable without requiring an explicit 'design
> event', like a special creation, miracle or supernatural intervention."
>
> Now, I suspect that Bill himself does not favor an approach that
> emphasizes
> "front loading," but esp in this second quotation he does explicitly
> answer
> your request. Yes?
>
> You have my permission to share this with the list, if you wish.
>
> ted
>
>
 Then why is ID so opposed to "Darwinism"? From these quotes there is little
difference between Dembski and Orr and Gray in the 19th C or the likes of
RJBerry now. I don't think there is much difference between As a Gray and
myself or you or two K Millers.

Is all this a controversy of ID's making ? Sort of accidentally designed to
cause divisions among Christians, or ID by the devil. I can have fun here
but behind the humour a serious point.

When I first read Dembski in 2000 I found he made more sense than all other
IDers, but the behaviour and ideas of theirs in the big tent, pushed me
away. I cannot accept YEC or Well's Icons or this nonsense about Naturalism
or Johnson's send up of Darwinism , nor what has gone on in Ohio or Kansas.
My contacts with those attracted to ID show that they do not share dembski's
viewpoint on this.
 You will find more of my ramblings in the chapter in Ruse/Dembski Debating
Darwin, centrering on geol age, and naturalism
Michael
Received on Tue May 24 13:22:28 2005