In a message dated 12/9/01 8:04:11 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
<< I'm not sure that I'd call myself a "TE," it depends very much on the
definition one uses (as we all realize, this can get real tricky), but for
the purpose of this question let's say I am. I have strongly criticized
both ID and scientific naturalists in the same space--see the article, a
fuller version of a cover story I wrote for The Christian Century, that is
on my webpage here: >>
Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I meant to ask why TEs (for want of a
better term) do not criticize evolutionary biologists as vociferously as they
criticized IDers and
YECs. I'm not including scientific naturalists.
You gave your article on your webpage as an example of criticizing both ID
and scientific naturalists in the same space. I looked at the article, which
I had read before. I also printed it out for closer scrutiny. For the life
of me, I can see no criticism made by you of scientific naturalists, let
alone evolutionary biologists, or even evolutionary philosophers, such as
Ruse. For your criticism of Darwinists you rely almost exclusively on
Charles Hodge. You devote just one or two paragraphs at the most to his
critique and even then you show how his critique is flawed. The rest of
your paper, about five pages of my copy, is devoted to your critique of
Johnson, Behe, and Moreland.
You wrote <<let me just point to Van Till's book, Science Held Hostage, as
an ideal example of just this.>> An example of what? A critique of
evolutionism? It has been a long time since I read Howard's book, and my
copy is still in storage. But as I recall it, it was a criticism of creation
scientists, YECs, who were the ones holding science hostage. Howard can
correct me if I am wrong.
Your review of Ken Miller's book is important. I want to read it, but I did
not find any attachments that you said were in your e-mail. Can you try
sending it again?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Dec 11 2001 - 10:49:36 EST