Re: Question for ID propopents--the demarcation question

From: George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
Date: Wed Nov 02 2005 - 17:12:10 EST

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Davis" <tdavis@messiah.edu>
To: <rjschn39@bellsouth.net>; <asa@calvin.edu>; <kbmill@ksu.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: Question for ID propopents--the demarcation question

>>>> "Robert Schneider" <rjschn39@bellsouth.net> 11/02/05 9:56 AM >>>writes:
>
> it is this kind of strategy that creates a problem for the ID movement,
> because when YECs tout ID arguments against "Darwinism," they are doing
> exactly what will convince mainstream scientists that ID is a form of the
> kind of creationnism they detest. While this may be a partnership of
> convenience (of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort) from which the
> YECs gain much, it cannot help ID at all in the world of science. I
> wonder
> if Dembski has really thought through the implications of this
> pas-de-deux.
>
> Ted replies:
> I agree with Bob's comments. I am responding in order to answer the
> implied question at the end: has Dembski thought this through?
>
> I have directly asked several IDs about this--Phil Johnson, Bill Dembski,
> some others. Here is their consistent response: Yes, we have thought this
> through. We have tried to find allies among the TEs, and they have let us
> down--which greatly disappoints us. Thus, we've had to turn in the other
> direction. Why weren't you TEs (they rightly include me with the group of
> TEs who have not been persuaded to join the ID movement) more supportive?
> Don't you agree with us about the backruptcy of materialism? Why won't
> you
> help us make the case for design?

When exactly was this moment of opportunity for TEs to ally themselves with
ID? & given the fact that the ID movement was itself identified from its
start with Johnson's contempt for evolution, what could such an alliance
have meant other than signing on their dotted line?

"Don't you agree with us about the bankruptcy of materialism?" If we (TEs)
didn't, we wouldn't be _theistic_ evolutionists. But the distinctive claim
of ID is the effective bankruptcy of _methodological_ naturalism, & that
claim is false. To pursue the metaphor, MN has some outstanding debts but
it's far from bankrupt.

I would like to put the best construction on what IDers say but they seldom
make it easy. E.g., Dembski's cordial statements about YEC which Bob S
quoted make me wonder if his (Dembski's) statements at the Messiah meeting
about the possible compatibility of ID & TE - which I found encouraging at
the time - were anything but a snow job.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Wed Nov 2 17:15:06 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Nov 02 2005 - 17:15:06 EST