Re: Question for ID propopents--the demarcation question

From: <glennmorton@entouch.net>
Date: Wed Nov 02 2005 - 17:35:23 EST


George wrote:

>>>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.

<<<

George is absolutely correct.  When I first got on the evolution reflector--Phil Johnsons old email list, I found the most incredible things being said about geology. My first post tried to address some of the silly things that had been said.  Phil then privately emailed me and he was convinced that geology, like biology and the medical community (aids) was equally wrong in their conclusions. For those who don't know, Phil was very active in a movement to dismiss the conclusion that HIV causes AIDS.  I think this is because Phil not only rejected  MN but the scientific method itself. And that makes it hard for this TE to join such a movement. 

I would also note, that I do beleive in design and have written on it, but, it seems that believing in design outside of biology doesn't seem to qualify me in their minds as being an advocate of ID.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/casino.htm

They only accept design if it is in biology and thus, is antievolutionary.

 


Received on Wed Nov 2 17:36:23 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Nov 02 2005 - 17:36:23 EST