Just a few extra comments on the roots of ID and my argument for the origin of ID in the Chicago conference on Inerrancy.
As usual I agree with George!
Michael
WE DENY that the teachings of Genesis 1-11 are mythical and that scientific hypotheses about earth history or the origin of humanity may be invoked to overthrow what Scripture teaches about creation.
Since the historicity and the scientific accuracy of the early chapters of the Bible have come under severe attack it is important to apply the "literal" hermeneutic espoused (Article XV) to this question. The result was a recognition of the factual nature of the account of the creation of the universe, all living things, the special creation of man, the Fall, and the Flood. These accounts are all factual, that is, they are about space-time events which actually happened as reported in the book of Genesis (see Article XIV).
The article left open the question of the age of the earth on which there is no unanimity among evangelicals and which was beyond the purview of this conference. There was, however, complete agreement on denying that Genesis is mythological or unhistorical. Likewise, the use of the term "creation" was meant to exclude the belief in macro-evolution, whether of the atheistic or theistic varieties.
This affirmed the factuality of Genesis and denied that it could be either mythical or that "scientific hypotheses" could "overthrow what Scripture teaches about creation." The article seems to point to a literal Genesis, but Norman Geisler made it clear in his commentary that 'The article left open the question of the age of the earth on which there is no unanimity among evangelicals' but 'the use of the term "creation" was to exclude macro-evolution'. In the volume Hermeneutics, Inerrancy and the Bible produced for the Council, Walter Bradley and Roger Olsen claimed that Progressive Creation was the best combination of 'the biblical and scientific particulars', thus giving semi-official support to the refusal to espouse YEC[1]. However responding to Bradley and Olsen, Henry Morris called progressive creation an 'old time-worn, compromising hermeneutical system' and refused to sign the declaration.
Thus on early Genesis the 1982 Council failed to resolve anything, as evolution was stated to be contrary to Inerrancy but old-earth ideas were not excluded. This, in itself, marked a considerable hardening of the definition of inerrancy from that of Warfield a century earlier and also James Packer, who wrote a classic defence of inerrancy in the Fifties. Though the statement was equivocal, it undermined those who accepted evolution and gave YECs confidence. Since then, if not before, YECs have insisted that the only right view of the Bible is Inerrancy and Inerrancy implies YEC. This is a powerful debating tactic and gives immediate advantage to the YEC, who can then charge any "Old Earther" as "Liberal".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] We shall come across Bradley and Olsen again in chapter as pioneers of Intelligent Design.
Though Intelligent Design came to prominence in the late 90s, its roots go back to the early 80s, especially in two books; Origin Science, a proposal for the Creation-Evolution controversy (1987) by Norman Geisler and Kerby Anderson and secondly, Bradley, Olson and Thaxton The Mystery of Life's Origin (1984). The two books rejected both a young earth and theistic evolution. The latter three authors, all scientists, argued that the self-organisation of molecules was incapable of producing life, thus pointing to a non-naturalistic origin of life. The common YEC/ID division of science into Operation and Origin science stems from Geisler and Anderson. This is not widely accepted, though it is part of the "controversy". In 1981 Bradley and Olson were involved in the Chicago Declaration on Inerrancy, when they argued that inerrancy allows geological time but not evolution. It seems that their search for a non-naturalistic explanation of life was predicated by a belief in inerrancy.
Superficially it may seem that Intelligent Design - the "New Creationism" resulted from the Edwards v. Agoullard judgement and is clearly "descent with modification" from the old creationism, i. e. YEC. But it is not the whole story as there has been the transference of ideas as Barbara Forest and Paul Gross have demonstrated in the replacement of the term "creation" by "design" in the biology text Pandas and People in 1987. This was part of the plaintiffs' presentation at Dover and I cite from the Memorandum Opinion of December 20, 2005;
As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas
went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after
the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards, which held that the Constitution forbids
teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of
Pandas [in 1987], three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in
early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation
(creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were
deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes
occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and
cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards. This word
substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words
was effected without any corresponding change in content, which directly refutes
FTE's argument that by merely disregarding the words "creation" and
"creationism," FTE expressly rejected creationism in Pandas. In early pre-
Edwards drafts of Pandas, the term "creation" was defined as "various forms of life
that began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features
Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 32 of 139
33
intact - fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc," the
very same way in which ID is defined in the subsequent published versions. (P-
560 at 210; P-1 at 2-13; P-562 at 2-14, P-652 at 2-15; P-6 at 99-100; P-11 at 99-
100; P-856.2.). This definition was described by many witnesses for both parties,
notably including defense experts Minnich and Fuller, as "special creation" of
kinds of animals, an inherently religious and creationist concept. (28:85-86
(Fuller); Minnich Dep. at 34, May 26, 2005; Trial Tr. vol. 1, Miller Test., 141-42,
Sept. 26, 2005; 9:10 (Haught); Trial Tr. vol. 33, Bonsell Test., 54-56, Oct. 31,
2005). Professor Behe's assertion that this passage was merely a description of
appearances in the fossil record is illogical and defies the weight of the evidence
that the passage is a conclusion about how life began based upon an interpretation
of the fossil record, which is reinforced by the content of drafts of Pandas.
The weight of the evidence clearly demonstrates, as noted, that the systemic
change from "creation" to "intelligent design" occurred sometime in 1987, after
the Supreme Court's important Edwards decision. This compelling evidence
strongly supports Plaintiffs' assertion that ID is creationism re-labeled.
Importantly, the objective observer, whether adult or child, would conclude from
the fact that Pandas posits a master intellect that the intelligent designer is God.
There is much in favour of this claim but it is only a partial explanation, and it is not correct to state that 'ID is solely creationism re-labeled'. For a start, against that, Philip Johnson had no YEC roots and became convinced of ID sui generis in Britain in 1987. Several other leaders of ID have no roots in YEC as with Behe, Dembski, Thaxton, Bradley and Pattle Pun and most continue to distance themselves from YEC. But Nancy Pearcey and Paul Nelson are clearly YEC as well as ID.
However the replacement of "creation" by "design", the refusal to come clean over the age of the earth, and the association of YEC and ID makes it difficult for observers to distinguish between the two. I hope that by dealing with the historical order of events, rather than an assessment of ID arguments, has indicated both how ID came about in the last 25 years and its relationship with YEC. ID may not be an evolved version of YEC, but many of its genes have been spliced in from YEC.
----- Original Message -----
From: George Murphy
To: Dick Fischer ; ASA
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 4:53 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] CDESIGN PROPONETSISTS
One of the worst things that's happened in the history of the ASA, at least during my ~30 years membership, was Johnson getting smuggled onto the program at that 1990 annual meeting. I was on the program committee & we had 2 good invited speakers, David Livingstone and Duane Priebe. I've never found out who put Johnson on the program & am frankly just as happy not to know because I'd have to tell him/her what a wretched thing it was to do. ASA members at that time were gradually realizing that they had to take evolution seriously & then this incompetent was brought in to tell them that they could go back to sleep. I still don't think we've completely recovered.
Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Fischer
To: ASA
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 9:36 AM
Subject: RE: [asa] CDESIGN PROPONETSISTS
"Pandas" was presented to an ASA conference when it first came out. We got copies in advance. Some of the authors were there and so was Ken Miller. I marked up my copy in advance highlighting discrepancies and flatly unscientific junk. In general, nearly everybody there panned it. Whether they incorporated any of our critical comments in later editions I don't know, I've never looked at a succeeding edition. But ASA members were heavily involved in the project at the inception and throughout. Remember, ID was presented first at an ASA annual convention. At first blush it was generally warmly received. Phil Johnson was some kind of hero in the ASA at that time much as Jimmy Swaggert was to the Charismatics. Lawyers turned science critics should give us a clue right from the start shouldn't it?
Dick Fischer
Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Jack
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 8:06 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: [asa] CDESIGN PROPONETSISTS
I do not know if this is old news or not, but did anyone see Nova last night? It was a short documentary about the Dover trial.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/
It is worth watching if and when they broadcast it again.
One of the more illuminating and ironic segments regarded the different drafts of Pandas and People. The lawyers for the plaintiff were trying to prove that ID was just a repackaging of what had previously been called creationism. One of the pieces of evidence was text from comparing pre and post Edwards editions of Pandas and People. After the Edwards decision the editors wanted to take "creationism" out of the book. One of the witnesses for the plaintiff found a couple of example where creationism/creator was changed to ID/design, with otherise identical wording. But the most humorous and ironic example was an attempt to remove the word creationist with the words design proponents. But something went wrong in the editing, and the actual wording in the post-Edwards draft was cdesign proponentsists. So, unkowingly, they created a "transitional form", and clear evidence that the authors of Pandas equate ID with creationism.
I had never heard that little detail before, and thought it was worth mentioning here.
I think CDESIGN PROPONETSISTS would make a great bumper sticker.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Nov 14 14:22:14 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Nov 14 2007 - 14:22:22 EST