"Howard J. Van Till" wrote:
> From: John W Burgeson <email@example.com>
> Howard, your reply puzzles me. Bill Dembski is asserting a
> claim about the "Darwinian establishment," by which he
> clearly is referring to people such as Puglicci, Dawkins,
> Schafersman, Provine, and others of their ilk. Now his claim
> may, or may not, be correct (I think it is, based on
> conversations I had with Schafersman at the NTSE in Austin
> about 3 or 4 years ago), but it is hardly criticism of
> theistic evolution to note what some misguided atheists say
> about theistic evolution.
> Now if Bill were to write that he endorses that view, that
> would be another thing.
> By ascribing these sentiments to other unnamed members of a
> hypothetical "Darwinian establishment" Bill was able technically to
> claim no responsibility for these sentiments and their tone of voice.
> However, by choosing not to quote any representative member of this
> "establishment" and to craft his own concept of what "their" attitude
> was, Bill chose not to distance himself more that a micron from that
> same judgement.
It's also worth noting that Dembski doesn't attempt to engage
any arguments of "theistic evolutionists" themselves, but essentially
allows the "Darwinian establishment" to represent them. In the Appendix
of _Intelligent Design_ he responds to a number of "objections to
design" but gives no hint that there are any _theological_ objections to
George L. Murphy
"The Science-Theology Interface"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 09 2002 - 16:47:55 EST