Re: [asa] Another Nice Bashing Post from Denyse O'Leary

From: Rich Blinne <>
Date: Thu May 03 2007 - 15:36:43 EDT

On 5/3/07, David Opderbeck <> wrote:
> Donald, if they were fair criticisms on the merits, I think you would have
> a point. But they are not, IMHO.
> How can anyone say what she did given that the most active thread on this
> list over the past couple of weeks has been one attacking, very
> robustly, Dawkins and his defenders? And of course, this is just an email
> list, and as has been said many times, it represents only a handful of
> people within the organization and includes people who aren't part of the
> organization and who might not even be Christians in any orthodox sense (as
> again, the recent Dawkins thread shows).

This just goes to show Denyse's lack of skill as a journalist. She saw all
the traffic Pim generated. If she had read and understood what was said she
would have realized there were so many responses to Pim because we all
disagreed with him. Contrast that with comments on PT when Pim posts there.
To have this list as a PT for believers is just facially ridiculous. If she
considers this list her beat, so to speak, and we know that her "journalism"
bears no resemblance to reality then her conclusions about things we don't
know about should also be just as suspect.

There is one substantive misperception that Denyse has that I want to
correct. As many of you know one of the founders of ID, Walter Bradley, will
be the next ASA president. What he has done recently has gained a lot of
good will amongst secular scientists but it has nothing to do with ID. It's
the work Walter is doing concerning sustainable development across many
departments at Baylor. Add to this the work done by the organization that
ASA member (fellow?) Cal DeWitt is president, the Academy of Evangelical
Scientists and Ethicists. This organization has a number of ASA members
along with Sir John Houghton. The work this group has done with respect to
climate change again has gained the notice of the secular scientists and has
been greatly appreciated by them. (See: )
This is what Randy was mentioning in the newsletter that Denyse quoted. By
not focusing on where we may differ from secular scientists but by focusing
on what we have in common, this is where the good will is gained.

ID has its wedge and we have ours. Our wedge seeks to split the scientific
establishment from -- as the AAAS people put it -- the "vocal minority" of
radical atheists. It is this latter group that are largely responsible for
the persecution of scientists who hold to Intelligent Design. Lately, we
have been gaining traction splitting the EO Wilsons from the Richard
Dawkinses of the world. By doing what Scripture tells us to do we gain the
respect of a growing proportion of the scientific establishment. Note that
this is not accommodation at all because we are denying nothing concerning
Scripture. If some ASA members are not TE because they believe that it would
cause them to deny Scripture than I say don't be TE. It is when those
selfsame members obey Scripture, like Walter Bradley, that they become part
of the solution, even reducing the persecution of believing scientists by
the materialists and atheists.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu May 3 15:37:27 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu May 03 2007 - 15:37:27 EDT