RE: Question for ID propopents--the demarcation question

From: Glenn Morton <>
Date: Thu Nov 03 2005 - 20:20:57 EST

You misunderstood because I wrote sloppily. I was on Phils list, other
people were saying silly things about geology. You have heard them all
before-they were YEC like things.



From: [] On
Behalf Of Michael Roberts
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 1:56 AM
Subject: Re: Question for ID propopents--the demarcation question




What are Johnson's silly things he says about geology. In a couple of books
of his I have read I have only found distortions of evolution and his crude
(dishonest?) parody of Darwinism. I havent found anything on geology.


I am surprised this hasn't been picked up before, but then I look first at
what is said about geology before evolution



----- Original Message -----



Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 10:35 PM

Subject: Re: Question for ID propopents--the demarcation question


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.

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


Received on Thu Nov 3 20:24:24 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Nov 03 2005 - 20:24:24 EST