Re: [asa] restatement on ID as a "proof" of God (defense ofBehe)

From: Michael Roberts <>
Date: Wed Apr 29 2009 - 18:08:47 EDT

Let me add to this by giving examples from this side of the pond of those
who have done the same as Hyers Bube etc

First in the 60s to 80s Donald Mackay was very active and others from CIS

In 1986 A Peacocke invited about 20 clergy with science qualifications to a
meeting in Windsor Castle to share his idea of the Society of Ordained
scientists to combat scientific atheism. This was triggered off by his
concern at people like Dawkins and Atkins. Among those was a country vicar
called John Polkinhorne who several years before wrote The Way the world is
to explain his faith against scientific atheists - ok more physics but
touched on evolution.
Of those there most tried to get on with his vision and the 2Ps became
well-known. It is irrelevant whether one likes Peacockes liberal theology.
The 2Ps later drew in Keith Ward

Others in Britain have also tackled this eg McGrath, Conway Morris, Sam
Berry, Hapgood and there is a whole bevy of lesser fry, who often pass on
the message and challenge to "evolutionism " at a local level..

Perhaps before making such statements you should ask what people are doing
on both sides of the pond.


PS I am sure if I checked out my books I would be able to add many more
names of all perspectives from liberal to evangelical.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Davis" <>
To: <>; "Schwarzwald" <>;
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 4:00 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] restatement on ID as a "proof" of God (defense ofBehe)

>>>> Gregory Arago <> 4/29/2009 10:00 AM >>> says:
> Hi Ted,
> Now if only TEists and ECists would pull up their boots (have some
> courage)
> and criticise 'Darwinism' as an 'ideology' and *NOT* as a science, then
> we'd
> have some progress, wouldn't we Ted? I've even been responded to by people
> on this list equating 'Darwinism' with 'evolutionary biology.' They see no
> difference - this is completely absurd! With such a perspective,
> 'Darwinism'
> (as ideology) simply cannot ever be criticised by TEists or ECists.
> ***
> Ted responds:
> To borrow my words from a few days ago, Gregory, in a different
> conversation we had: where have you been these past many years? I have no
> idea why you could think this.
> Obviously you don't know the first thing about the ASA (I am specific here
> about who we are historically, b/c we own this site), for example. If
> there
> is anything at all that characterizes ASA thinking on this issue
> historically, it is that our members have always (for decades) opposed
> efforts to conflate evolutionary science into "ideology." The evidence
> for
> this is ubiquitous in our own journal, which can be search on our web
> site.
> Please spend a few hours there reading or skimming numerous articles and
> you
> will see why I am so puzzled by your claim.
> To repeat: ASA members, including many who have held a TE or EC position,
> have *always* criticized the ideology of what we have often called
> "evolutionism," --long before (incidentally) Michael Ruse used that word
> in
> a similar way in his book, "The Evolution-Creation Struggle." (I sense
> that
> Ruse is unaware of previous uses referred to here.) When that term has
> been
> used (a prominent example by former PSCF editor Richard Bube is at
>, it can refer to a
> variety of specific things, but in general it has meant the unwarranted
> extrapolation of the science of evolution into a religious or
> quasi-religious worldview of naturalism.
> Another splendid example is Conrad Hyers' wonderful article, "Dinosaur
> Religion," in which he uses that term to label the kind "ideology" you are
> probably thinking of in your statement. Have a look and let me know,
> please, whether or not I understand what you are referring to by
> "ideology."
> Also see for a
> very interesting account of C.S. Lewis' response to science as ideology.
> If you don't agree, Gregory, that Hyers is talking about "ideology" with
> his term "dinosaur religion," then I have no idea what you mean by the
> word
> "ideology" and you'll have to spell it out for me by giving some specific
> examples of what it looks like. This is all I plan to say about this,
> until
> you've become more familiar with what ASA members have said about this.
> Ted
> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Apr 29 18:09:14 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Apr 29 2009 - 18:09:14 EDT