Re: [asa] CDESIGN PROPONETSISTS

I think Michael's analysis below is insightful and important; the
documentary blurred this distinction.

Kirk

On Nov 14, 2007, at 11:16 AM, Michael Roberts wrote:

> 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. 

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 21:22:25 2007