Re: [asa] Short reply to Timaeus, on ID and TE

Hi Don,

No, I said 'different context.' Just read the essay and then read the
comments.

Mike

> Mike has just made a very interesting statement. I would like to ask him
> if "the ID folks" include Dembski, who in the past has made statements
> that TE's are no friends of ID's.
> Don
>
> Nucacids wrote:
>> Hi Ted,
>>
>>> I've very often said the same thing about Behe, here and at least a
>>> couple
>>> of times on UcD. But I think in the latter case, I was not met with
>>> much
>>> approval. Behe there is an ID and NOT a TE, for most people; it's all
>>> politics. Which is probably why id (as above, my view) is not ID.
>>> Politics. But real politics that we seem unable to get past, from
>>> either
>>> side.
>>
>> Good point. I made the case that Behe was a TE back on Telic Thoughts
>> over a year ago:
>> http://telicthoughts.com/behe-and-theistic-evolution/
>>
>> Different context, different result - the ID folks had no problem with
>> accepting Behe as a TE; the critics did.
>>
>> -Mike
>>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Nov 4 07:07:15 2008