" As I've said many times
before, the critique that we ought to be making of the atheistic
community is at the philosophical/theological level and not at the
practical science level. On the fundamental philosophical/theological
issues I agree whole-heartedly with Phil Johnson and eagerly desire to
ranks with him, but he does not welcome me, but rather actively opposes
(calls my views "vacuous", claims that I'm duped by the secular
establishment, accuses me of fearfully trembling before the secularly
controlled granting agencies and scientific journal editors, etc.)."
The last conversation I've had with Phil on that subject was at the NTSE.
It was then that he predicted publicly that the TE position would be null
within 18 months. I argued with him on that prediction, even commenting
that if ID was wildly successful beyond all his dreams that positions did
not erode as quickly as all that. He was adamant.
It has bee four years now since the NTSE. I see some gains for the ID
movement, but also some losses. I surely do not see anything really new
that is empirical science yet.
Johnson is so right when he goes after Dawkins, Sagan, et. al. and so
bollixed when he writes and talks of people such as Van Till and
yourself. I do not understand that.
Burgy (John Burgeson)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 09 2001 - 15:52:52 EDT