Re: Dembski on the backlash against ID

From: Sarah Berel-Harrop <>
Date: Thu Apr 22 2004 - 09:56:33 EDT

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 09:14:58 -0400
  George Murphy <> wrote:

>& it's not hard to see that slipping in a
>reference to
>_Perspecives on an Evolving Creation_ is a not-too-subtle way of
>trying to discredit a
>resource that IDers no doubt find frustrating because it shows
>Evangelicals that there
>are good scientific and theological reasons for accepting evolution
>without ID
>reservations. (For full disclosure, I'm one of the authors.)

I agree. The effect of the anecdote, whether intended by Dembski
or not, is to portray ASA members such as those who wrote articles
for this book as motivated by a misplaced animus against "villain"
Phil Johnson. Would that instead he had noted the points raised
in the book and rebutted them. My "irony-meter" just about busted
when I first read this. This book contains substantive, well-
reasoned rebuttals, appealing to Logos and not Pathos, to several
of the so-called "weaknesses" of evolution such as the Cambrian
explosion. As such, it behooves supporters of "icons of Evolution"
to discredit the book, and this was done with an appeal to Pathos,
("phil was cast as a villain") and not Logos. Too bad. Larry
Witham also pointed out the cool reception ID has received from
ASA'ers in general but with nothing of this invective.
Received on Thu Apr 22 09:56:55 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Apr 22 2004 - 09:56:56 EDT