This is what I wrote in my review of Darwin on Trial by Phi Johnson
http://www.asa3.org/gray/evolution_trial/dotreview.html in the section
"The Science"
It was an okay summary of the arguments for evolution and all the
criticisms seemed weak and insignificant.
I guess not much has changed in 20 years.
TG
On Apr 24, 2009, at 3:11 PM, Dehler, Bernie wrote:
> Gregory said:
> “Please excuse the strong language, but you've been demolished in
> this discussion. Why would the Discovery Institute itself publish a
> book called "Explore Evolution" and explicitly state their desire to
> better teach (e.g. more responsibly wrt to the ideology of
> Darwinism) evolutionary scientific theory, rather than to not teach
> it at all or to offer an alternative to it? Why Ted? You've closed
> your eyes and heart if you haven't noticed this.”
>
> I have “Exploring Evolution” and it is a perfect example of the ID
> group shooting themselves in the foot. I was unbiased when I
> started reading it, even anti-evolutionary. It make me start to
> accept evolution. Their hope is to get to people who already accept
> evolution and they want to open a crack to suggest maybe there’s a
> controversy over evolution with lots of hidden problems. However,
> when I read it, it showed me more how reasonable evolution was.
>
> This is a very dangerous book for those against evolution if they
> read it. It will teach them a lot. They will more easily accept
> evolution. I think the ID people don’t want anti-evolutionists to
> read this.
>
> For those who accept evolution, this would probably actually enforce
> that belief. The doubts they raise against evolution are small and
> insignificant. Maybe they shot themselves in the back as well as
> the foot…
>
> ,,,Bernie
>
>
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]
> On Behalf Of Gregory Arago
> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 7:23 AM
> To: Cameron Wybrow; Ted Davis
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu; Nucacids
> Subject: Re: [asa] ID/Miracles/Design
>
> Hi Ted,
>
> Please excuse the strong language, but you've been demolished in
> this discussion. Why would the Discovery Institute itself publish a
> book called "Explore Evolution" and explicitly state their desire to
> better teach (e.g. more responsibly wrt to the ideology of
> Darwinism) evolutionary scientific theory, rather than to not teach
> it at all or to offer an alternative to it? Why Ted? You've closed
> your eyes and heart if you haven't noticed this.
>
> “Explore Evolution will improve the teaching of evolution by
> providing teachers and students with more information about
> evolution than they are likely to find in any other textbook written
> at the same level.” - John West (Discovery Institute - http://www.discovery.org/a/4096)
>
> I've been in the bird's nest and I don't consider myself an IDist,
> Ted, but let the truth be out! 'More information about evolution'
> and not 'an alternative theory to evolution.'
> Flash news: Darwin's theory of evolution is already partially
> eclipsed (e.g. the "Celebrating Darwin's Errors" thread posted here
> some months ago) and one day it will by fully eclipsed because that
> is what science is all about! A great scientist, but not forever
> valid.
>
> http://www.tc.umn.edu/~allch001/papers/D-errors-NYU.pdf
>
> O.k., let's ask Mike Gene, as he is sometimes participating right
> here on this list (so, I've CC'd him). Will you agree to test what
> you say is the truth Ted? He is an Front-Loaded-ID-Evolutionary-
> Theist. Do you think Mike is seeking an 'alternative theory to
> evolution'? Suggesting that 'Darwin's ideas are incomplete' is not
> the same as saying 'alternative to evolution.' I know you can't
> answer this Ted because it contradicts not your science (i.e.
> history), but your philosophy and theology.
>
> There are few ID advocates on this list because ASA regulars have
> generally, with a few exceptions, shown that their minds are closed
> to 'following the evidence where it leads,' that is, while taking
> into account a mature, up-to-date philosophy of science. Keith
> Miller's failure to confront the bankruptcy of MN as if that's 'what
> science is' by not answering a simple question, i.e. to distinguish
> 'non-natural' from 'supernatural' is a tell-tale sign of this. He
> thus showed that his philosophy of science is simply not up to
> standard to address what I said.
>
> Sorry to be blunt, but that's the way the record stands at your exit
> from this thread.
>
> With all due respect to a historian of science and a Christian
> brother,
> Gregory
>
> --- On Fri, 4/24/09, Ted Davis <TDavis@messiah.edu> wrote:
> From: Ted Davis <TDavis@messiah.edu>
> Subject: Re: [asa] ID/Miracles/Design
> To: "Cameron Wybrow" <wybrowc@sympatico.ca>, gregoryarago@yahoo.ca
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Received: Friday, April 24, 2009, 4:59 PM
> Gregory,
>
> As for ID not trying to provide an alternative theory to evolution,
> where
> have you been these past two decades? I agree that ID hasn't been
> able to
> get anywhere near that, but I've been chastised numerous times by ID
> proponents for saying just that: and why would that happen, if it
> wasn't a
> goal in their own minds, to be an alternative to evolution that can be
> taught in high school biology classes?
>
> I have nothing further to say, Gregory, in response to your various
> points.
> I have stated my views clearly enough.
>
> Ted
>
> Yahoo! Canada Toolbar : Search from anywhere on the web and bookmark
> your favourite sites. Download it now!
________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D.
Computer Support Scientist
Chemistry Department
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
(o) 970-491-7003 (f) 970-491-1801
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Apr 25 14:14:04 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Apr 25 2009 - 14:14:04 EDT