I have heard this argument a million times since I got into the
creation/evolution arena. The 'Oh if only the bad Feds would fund us we
could solve our problems' wail. What they need is good thinking, not funding.
>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.
I have known lots of Ph. Ds who whine. I have had several work for me and
they are not immune to it.
>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
>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
Then you haven't read much. Lets see, evolution does day that mammals fish
became amphibians along about the latter part of the Devonian period, that
birds arose about 150 myr ago and they did it via mutation and natural
Now, I haven't heard an ID tell me how the birds came to be. Did God create
them miraculously? Did they evolve? Some IDs are card-carrying YECs so
they don't even believe that birds are 150 myr old. What is the earth
history of the ID movement? I nave never heard it.
>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
>hybrid variety) are saying it "can't be"!
You mis understand. ID folk only say 'it can't be evolution.' THey don't
say what it was--miraculous creation, YEC style creation, or what.
>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.
This is funny. Anti-evolutionists since the 50s have been saying that
evolution is losing support. I don't see evidence of that. The same people
saying that usually say that life has gone to hell because evolution is
changing the hearts of people away from god.
>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
>universe and life; and 2. the Designer's `fingerprints' have been `left at
>scene' and can be reliably detected.
Not really. I believe in a Designer and I believe that his fingerprints
can be detected, and yet they generally don't want to deal much with me. I
think the same thing applies to Howard.
>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".
You really don't understand what you read do you?
>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!
Another excuse for their failure to provide an explanation of earth
history. Stephen, doesn't it get old offering excuses? Where is the Beef?
>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".
I also didn't see an explanation of what actually happened offered by
Johnson. point out the pages he offers a scenario of earth history.
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Lots of information on creation/evolution