Re: Fwd: Well-financed creationists?

Stephen E. Jones (
Wed, 13 Oct 1999 05:31:09 +0800


First a bit of "housekeeping" I am fine-tuning my argument against theistic
evolutionists having been taken "captive through [a] hollow and deceptive
philosophy" (Col 2:8), namely scientific materialism-naturalism.

The reason for this is that I am aware there are godly TEs like Anglican
theologians John Stott and Derek Kidner. It seems to me therefore that
there are two sorts of theistic evolutionists - THEISTIC evolutionists (Tes)
and theistic EVOLUTIONISTS (tEs). The Tes are those who seem to be
theists first and evolutionists second, while the tEs are those who seem to
be evolutionists first and theists second.

A rule of thumb test that I will use to tell Te/Ecs from tE/Ecs is whether
their theistic `blood' is stronger than their evolutionist `water'. IOW if they
attack their Christian brothers who are creationists/IDers, and rarely, if
ever, attack the atheist/agnostic evolutionists, then in my book they are tEs.
But OTOH if they are supportive of their Christian brothers who are
creationists/IDers, even if they may not agree with them fully, and spend
their energies putting forward their positive TE view and/or criticising the
atheist/agnostic evolutionists, then in my book they are Tes/eCs.

All my references to, and criticisms of, TE/ECs, should always in the past,
and from now on, be understood as criticisms of tE/Ecs, not of Te/eCs
(unless otherwise stated).

On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 16:39:42 +0000, wrote:


>SJ>So there's no need to weep for those poor evolutionists, who have to scrape
>>by with billions of dollars taken forcibly from your pockets, while
>>intelligent design advocates supported entirely by voluntary donations take
>>unfair advantage of them in the marketplace of ideas!

GM>This is the whine of a person who won't go about the business of actually
>presenting ideas that match the data. It is the whine of a person
>defending a group of people that won't even tell you what happened in the
>past or give a scenario from their point of view.

How does Glenn know about this "person"? Is Glenn here the `mind-
reader' that he is always accusing me of being?

This "person" is actually a PhD in a biological science at a reputable
university who is doing a lot more "hard work of explaining the data" than
*Glenn* or any other tE/Ec I have heard of. This "person" gave me
permission to post his email and does not mind me using his name, but I
won't reveal it because: a) he is very busy and I don't want him to be
bothered; and b) it doesn't matter who said it-any US citizen could find
out the same facts if they wanted to.

GM>It is the whine of a
>person who doesn't want to do the hard work of explaining the data but
>wants money anyway.

See above. And what "data" exactly does Glenn or his tE/Ec colleagues

GM>All the ID group does is say that it can't be evolution.

First, Glenn would have to define what he means by "evolution". If
evolution is just "change over time" or "change in the gene frequencies in a
population" then *Henry Morris* believes in "evolution".

Second, while individual IDs have varying views on "evolution" (for
example Mike Behe and me believe in some form of common ancestry), it
is not an official ID position that there "can't be evolution". At least one
member of the ID movement is a card-carrying Deistic Evolutionist. The
lack of tE/Ecs in the ID movement is due to tE/Ecs antipathy to ID and
Creationism, rather than any official position of the ID movement against

GM>They don't ever come out and say what it was, how it was and
>when it was.

Now that is a strange statement coming from a tE/Ec! I have not noticed
that tE/Ecs coming out and saying "what it was, how it was and when it

Maybe Glenn can remedy this situation and tell us all: "what it was, how it
was and when it was"?

GM>If they were really want funding then their first step to
>getting it must be some serious thinking and coming up with an idea that
>matches the evidence rather than simply stating what can't be.

The boot's on the other foot here. The ID movement is saying it *can* be
an Intelligent Designer and the materialist-naturalists (including the theistic
hybrid variety) are saying it "can't be"!

GM>All it takes
>to convince people in the marketplace of ideas is to have a view that
>actually explains the data.

Agreed. That's why *evolution* is losing support, and ID is gaining
support, "in the marketplace of ideas"! The materialist-naturalistic
"evolution" paradigm has hit a wall that only a more inclusive scientific
paradigm like ID can surmount.

GM>While I share with the ID camp the belief the God did create the universe
>and life, there is a big difference between them an me.

The "big difference" appears to be one of *attitude*. Glenn, like other
tE/Ecs, feels he has to go around denigrating his fellow Christians who are
creationists and IDers in order to make his case, rather than just make his

IDers OTOH are happy to work with *anyone* (Christians or non-
Christians, creationists or evolutionists), who is prepared to consider the
possibility that: 1) an Intelligent Designer conceptualised and actualised the
universe and life; and 2. the Designer's `fingerprints' have been `left at the
scene' and can be reliably detected.

GM>I present a view of what happened.

What exactly *is* Glenn's "view of what happened"? I have been debating
Glenn for 4 years on this Reflector, and apart from some idiosyncratic
views of Bible-science like Adam being an Australopithecine and Noah's
Flood being 5.5 million years ago, and some vague analogies to Sierpinski's
gasket and a wave-making machine, I don't recall ever seeing Glen "present
a view of what happened".

And why doesn't Glenn just present his "view of what happened" without
going out of his way (like he is in this post) to denigrate those of his
Christian brothers who are creationists and IDers who might disagree with
him on his "view of what happened"?

GM>Where is their view?

The modern ID movement has been going about *15 years* (ie. since 1985
when Denton published "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", and Johnson,
inspired by it published "Darwin on Trial" 6 years later). It is "supported
entirely by voluntary donations". The anti-ID movement (ie. Darwinism),
has been going *140* years with "billions of dollars taken forcibly from"
taxpayers "pockets" annually, and yet Glenn expects the ID movement to
have a fully developed "view" right now!

The ID movement is steadily *developing* its "view" and has already
received national (USA) if not *worldwide* prominence. All the major
branches of Christianity (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox), as well as Jewish
and Islamic theists have shown interest in it. The ID movement includes at
least one Jewish person and at least one agnostic. YECs are, on the whole,
enthusiastic about ID and the ICR/AIG sells ID theorists' books (even
though Johnson is an old-Earther and Behe believes in common descent).
The latest YEC book "In Six Days" reads more like an ID book than a
book about Genesis 1.

One ID theorist's book, Behe's "Darwin's Black Box", has been published
by a secular publisher (Free Press) and is in secular bookstores worldwide
on the same shelf as Dawkins and Gould. Another ID theorists' book, Phil
Johnson's "Darwin on Trial" was also published by a secular publisher
(Regnery Gateway) who on-sold it to a Christian publisher (Intervarsity
Press). Johnson's books alone have sold a quarter of a million copies, and
DoT has been translated into several languages. Now, whenever there is a
Creation/Evolution controversy the secular media contact ID theorists for
comment on behalf of the Creation side.

Moreover, evolutionist apologists have turned their guns away from the
ICR and onto the ID movement. ID has been attacked in scientific journals
by the leaders in materialist science (eg. Gould, Ruse, Hull, and Eugenie
Scott of the NCSE). There is even at least one anti-ID book now out
(Pennock), and many more in the pipeline. This is all *welcomed* by the
ID leadership because it establishes ID as cultural authorities. It is also tacit
recognition that ID does have a "view" and that it is perceived as a threat.

The latest ID book in the pipeline is Bill Dembski's "Intelligent Design",
due out this November:

Intelligent Design : The Bridge Between Science and Theology
by William A. Dembski, Michael J. Behe


List Price: $19.99
Our Price: $13.99
You Save: $6.00 (30%)

Hardcover - 302 pages (November 1999)
Intervarsity Pr; ISBN: 0830815813
This item will be published in November 1999. You may order it
now and we will
ship it to you when it arrives. Sales Rank: 6,515

I have seen an advance pre-publication copy and IMHO it will be a
*blockbuster*. Note its "sales rank" - it is already 6,515, and its not even
out yet! Compare that with Dawkin's "Unweaving the Rainbow" which is
9,971 (lower is better), and it has been out since December 1998!

If Glenn really wants to know what ID's "view" is, all he has to do is read
what IDers write in their many books and journals. My web page alone has
AFAIK every online article by Johnson.

But Glenn, and other tE/Ecs have shown in the past that they really *don't*
want to know what ID's "view" is. For example, Glenn trawls through
"Darwin on Trial" and the only thing he apparently notices is a minor
inexactitude by Johnson in referring to the putative ancestral mammal as a
"rodent" instead of "a small rodent-like mammal".

It seems these days that the sort of tE/Ec that Glenn represents is just a
negative movement with no coherent positive "view" of their own. The
only thing that tE/Ecs seem to agree on is their antipathy towards
creationists and IDers!

That's OK, because tE/Ecs like Glenn are unwittingly *helping* ID by: 1)
not proposing an alternative positive view of their own; 2) strengthening
ID by picking on its errors so these can be self-corrected; 3) publicising ID
and 4) recruiting for ID those on this Reflector who are disgusted with
tE/Ecs wholly negative attitude.


Stephen E. (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ Email:
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Web:
Warwick 6024 -> *_,--\_/ Phone: +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, Western Australia v "Test everything." (1 Thess. 5:21)