RE: [asa] Fw: November Newsletter from Reasonable Faith

From: Dehler, Bernie <>
Date: Thu Nov 12 2009 - 11:39:15 EST

"Does that mean ID automatically becomes the default position if doubts are cast on Darwinian accounts of evolution? "

This all plays into the new trends that I said I've been seeing.

1. Recognize that macro evolution actually happened (humans from an apelike creature) because of pseudogene evidence.
2. Oppose "Darwinian evolution" because it is naturalistic and has no place for God as a creator.
3. Therefore- evolution is correct, but Darwin falls short because he can't see God's hand in the work. Therefore, "Darwinian evolution" falls short as an explanation. "The edge of evolution" (Behe) is a help to explain where "Darwinian Evolution" can't do the job.

The above makes it easy for OEC's to transition into, and accept, evolution.

Crisis: OEC is opposed to evolution for the creation of humans from apelike creatures.

Solution: A new camp called "ID" (accepts some sort of God-involved evolution, is against a purely naturalistic "Darwinian evolution")

The OEC camp will always be there, even if major players move out (someone new will move in to take over).

I think leaders in the OEC group like/accept Francis Collins and are looking for some way to adapt evolution into their thinking.

WLC has always tried to avoid talk of evolution, in my experience. But people are now being flushed out of the bushes, which will increase as they try to counteract Dawkins "The Greatest Show on Earth." More people like WLC (and Behe) may come out of the closet and say they accept evolution. This is suiting Dawkins' agenda to clean up the YEC-friendliness in the general population... too many are wrongly deluded regarding a 'de novo' creation for humans.


From: [] On Behalf Of Thomas Pearson
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 6:46 AM
To: AmericanScientificAffiliation
Subject: RE: [asa] Fw: November Newsletter from Reasonable Faith

On Thursday, November 12, John Walley reported the following quote from William Lane Craig:

>>>First, I argued that Ayala fails to disqualify ID scientifically because he cannot show that the Darwinian mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection are capable of producing the sort of biological complexity we see on earth.<<<

Do proponents of ID routinely argue that if Darwinian mechanisms of RM and NS are inadequate as explanations, that constitutes a failure to disqualify ID scientifically? Does that mean ID automatically becomes the default position if doubts are cast on Darwinian accounts of evolution? It seems like a non sequitur to me. What am I missing here?

Tom Pearson

Thomas D. Pearson
Department of History & Philosophy
The University of Texas-Pan American
Edinburg, Texas

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 12 11:39:28 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Nov 12 2009 - 11:39:28 EST