Re: [asa] ID/Miracles/Design

From: Gregory Arago <>
Date: Fri Apr 24 2009 - 10:22:46 EDT

Hi Ted,
Please excuse the strong language, but you've been demolished in this discussion. Why would the Discovery Institute itself publish a book called "Explore Evolution" and explicitly state their desire to better teach (e.g. more responsibly wrt to the ideology of Darwinism) evolutionary scientific theory, rather than to not teach it at all or to offer an alternative to it? Why Ted? You've closed your eyes and heart if you haven't noticed this.
“Explore Evolution will improve the teaching of evolution by providing teachers and students with more information about evolution than they are likely to find in any other textbook written at the same level.” - John West (Discovery Institute -
I've been in the bird's nest and I don't consider myself an IDist, Ted, but let the truth be out! 'More information about evolution' and not 'an alternative theory to evolution.'

Flash news: Darwin's theory of evolution is already partially eclipsed (e.g. the "Celebrating Darwin's Errors" thread posted here some months ago) and one day it will by fully eclipsed because that is what science is all about! A great scientist, but not forever valid.
O.k., let's ask Mike Gene, as he is sometimes participating right here on this list (so, I've CC'd him). Will you agree to test what you say is the truth Ted? He is an Front-Loaded-ID-Evolutionary-Theist. Do you think Mike is seeking an 'alternative theory to evolution'? Suggesting that 'Darwin's ideas are incomplete' is not the same as saying 'alternative to evolution.' I know you can't answer this Ted because it contradicts not your science (i.e. history), but your philosophy and theology.
There are few ID advocates on this list because ASA regulars have generally, with a few exceptions, shown that their minds are closed to 'following the evidence where it leads,' that is, while taking into account a mature, up-to-date philosophy of science. Keith Miller's failure to confront the bankruptcy of MN as if that's 'what science is' by not answering a simple question, i.e. to distinguish 'non-natural' from 'supernatural' is a tell-tale sign of this. He thus showed that his philosophy of science is simply not up to standard to address what I said.
Sorry to be blunt, but that's the way the record stands at your exit from this thread. 
With all due respect to a historian of science and a Christian brother,

--- On Fri, 4/24/09, Ted Davis <> wrote:

From: Ted Davis <>
Subject: Re: [asa] ID/Miracles/Design
To: "Cameron Wybrow" <>,
Received: Friday, April 24, 2009, 4:59 PM


As for ID not trying to provide an alternative theory to evolution, where
have you been these past two decades? I agree that ID hasn't been able to
get anywhere near that, but I've been chastised numerous times by ID
proponents for saying just that: and why would that happen, if it wasn't a
goal in their own minds, to be an alternative to evolution that can be
taught in high school biology classes?

I have nothing further to say, Gregory, in response to your various points.
 I have stated my views clearly enough.

Ted __________________________________________________________________ Reclaim your name or Get your new email address now! Go to

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Apr 24 10:22:56 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 24 2009 - 10:22:56 EDT