>It depends on how you define creationist. If a creationist is one who
>believes in a creator, then Denton is a creationist. He said:
>"I tend to think that the evidence suggests a transcendant, Hebraic God,
>of the judeo Christian tradition. An external creator made the world
>and gave it its order, its pattern, and its end. And it's consistent I
>think, with the evidence though. It's consistent with it." Michael
>Denton, Biological Evidence of Creation "From a Frog to a Prince" Video
>Tape, Keziah Productions, 1998.
>Denton is a creationist.
>Now, do you have a reference and a quote for where he says he isn't a
>creationist? If you do, then Denton is trying to have it both ways. And
>I would like to have that in my database.
Hi Glenn. I give you three quotes from P.vviii, notes to reader, Nature's
...the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic
naturalistic assumption of modern science--that the cosmos is a seamless
unity which can be comprehended ultimately in its entirety by human reason
and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of
man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an
assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special
Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is
critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the
organic world--that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the
presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the
profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms,
waterfalls, or galaxies.
Ironically, both the Darwinian and the creationist worldviews are based on
the same fundamental axiom--that life is an unnecessary and fundamentally
contingent phenomenon. Whereas the creationist sees organisms as the
artifacts of God the supreme engineer, the Divine watchmaker, Darwinists see
them as the artifactual products of chance and selection. That both should
view life as contingent is not so surprising considering that both doctrines
developed in the early nineteenth century, the heyday of the machine age.
Denton apparently does not believe in a personal god, Glen, but I admit he is
not an Atheist. If you want to insist that everyone who isn't an Atheist is
a creationist, it's OK with me. Since the Darwinists are the ones battling
"creationism", maybe you should be allowed to define the terms. (You've
instantly increased the number of your adversaries by some huge amount.)
However every time I suggest "random mutation and natural selection" is an
Atheist explanation for the diversity of life, I get indignant protests from
I'm a little offended by your term Denton "wants to have it both ways". I
assume both Darwinists and creationists are sincere in their beliefs. I
respect your views and I respect those of creationists. I enjoy discussing
evolution because I consider it a fascinating mystery, but I see no point in
discussion with someone who might question my motives or sincerity.