Re: [asa] CDESIGN PROPONETSISTS

> > But the point in the Dover trial, has nothing to do with the age of
> > the Earth. The point is whether or not ID, specifically the form of
> > ID present in the Panda's and People textbook, is an attempt to
> > establish a religion. Clearly in this case it was.
>
> It looked to me like they were trying to show that ID was religious by
> equating it to YEC, YEC having been found religious in a previous court
> decision. While they made a good case that the textbook was tied to
> both ID and YEC, this does not warrant the conclusion that ID and YEC
> are the same thing.
>

Which highlights that it was a bad idea for mainstream ID advocates to
identify themselves with the Dover effort, if they want to be seen as
different from creation science. It looks as though the problem is
wanting to appeal to all the folks already taken in by YEC while
evading some of YEC's deservedly bad reputation. Some other YEC
sources also have taken up "intelligent design" as a catch phrase,
while attacking standard ID for being old-earth friendly, and the
average person who has fallen for the false dichotomy of creation
science versus athestic evolutionism (whichever side they adhere to)
will generally put ID in the creation science category. Add to this
the inconsistent self-definitions given by the ID movement, and
there's a lot of confusion as to what it is. (It's OK to be a big
tent, but it's not OK to msrepresent the big tent as agreeing to
something that it doesn't, and especially not OK to represent the
entire tent as holding different positions as the occasion suits.)

-- 
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.