Re: Guilt by association

From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Sat May 10 2003 - 17:44:55 EDT

  • Next message: D. F. Siemens, Jr.: "Re: "Design up to Scratch?""

    I am afraid the good professor has misunderstood what I was driving at.
    There is no need for me to condemn IDers by guilt by association. Dear Mr
    Pennock has done that and wonderfully described Van Till as brushing up
    against creationism. I am sure Howard laughed at that.

    My aim was to point out that IDers consistently avoid the issue of the age
    of the earth and thus the historical nature of the fossil succession. I base
    this on what they say or avoid saying and not whether or not they associate
    with YECS. As I associate with YECs I must be guilty by association too.

    Everything I have read by IDers is very iffy about the age of the earth and
    consequent implications, and thus presents unreasonable critics like Pennock
    with good grounds for certain accusations.

    My point is that arguments about ID are futile when it is presented in an
    ahistorical way and does not take account of the succession of life over 4
    by .

    I am well aware of Behe's Johnson's and other IDers positions, and judge
    them on what they write.

    I am also aware that many laypeople are repelled by the reductionism of much
    evolutionary thinking especially that of Dawkins and Jones and thus any form
    of creationist or ID has an appeal. I can also understand why. However that
    does not make ID or YEC right,despite its full-frontal attack of
    reductionism.

    I hope this makes my position clear. I think you might like my sermon
    tomorrow on Acts 4.12

    Michael

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "James Mahaffy" <mahaffy@mtcnet.net>
    To: <asa@calvin.edu>
    Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2003 8:45 PM
    Subject: Guilt by association

    > Roberts wrote:
    > >
    > > IDers are ambivalent on the age of the earth and many like
    > > Johnson,Pearcy try to say that it is
    > > not an important issue. By doing that they in fact swing the argument in
    > > favour of YEC. After all
    > > if all life is approx only 10,000years old then evolution by any means
    > > (bar the miraculouis ) is
    >
    > Folks,
    >
    > As someone who is not ID but respects some of the IDer a bit more, let
    > me differ with good vicar. I do NOT like adhominens and I do not like
    > guilt by association. Both Behe and Johnson (but not some of the others
    > in the ID camp) are not YEC but are old earthers. Behe in fact sees no
    > problems with most of life originating by evolution.
    >
    > Behe in fact had an impact because he is a good scientist and he
    > highlights an area he knows something about and which is not easily
    > explained (the origin of complex molecular structures).
    >
    > Yes ID's believe in a big camp (including YEC), but sometimes I think
    > groups like this would have more of an impact if they understood why
    > layfolks often do not like the explanations of mainstream science when
    > it talks about origins.
    >
    > Lets judge Behe or Johnson on what they say and not because they talk
    > with YEC. We all belong to the same association of those who have been
    > saved by the blood of the lamb.
    >
    > Enough. I must get back to grading those biology finals.
    >
    > --
    > James and Florence Mahaffy 712 722-0381 (Home)
    > 227 S. Main St. 712 722-6279 (Office)
    > Sioux Center, IA 51250
    >
    >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat May 10 2003 - 17:46:34 EDT