[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: creation science
> There has been a movement over the last few years called "Intelligent
> Design." They seem to be trying to point to evidence for a creator,
> nothing more. They want to start at the basics "Does the creation point
> to the involvement of an intelligent creator." Folks like Michael Behe
> (author of "Darwin's Black Box"), Phillip Johnson, and William Dembski
> fall into this camp.
That's not science, though. In fact, they deliberately *avoid* science,
by which I mean they avoid proposing specific scientific theories and
testing them, because they want to build a broad, political coalition
opposed to "naturalism". It's philosophy masquerading as science.
There are evolutionists like Denis Lamoureux who believe that the world
gives off evidence of an intelligent designer -- but because Lamoureux
accepts Darwinian principles of natural selection, he is not a member of
the ID camp, and is, in fact, a critic of that movement.
> I would agree with Kelvin that Phillip Johnson is a thoughtful writer
> and speaker. I saw him speak earlier this year and left with a deep
> respect.
Me, I was disturbed by the way Johnson accused Christian evolutionists of
using "Clintonian rhetoric" to justify the idea that it was possible to be
both Christian and evolutionist. Johnson was engaging in a bit of
rhetoric-over-rational-thought there himself, when you consider that he
was speaking at Cornerstone (the basically conservative music festival
where I saw Over the Rhine play last summer -- whew! on-topic reference!
:)), and references to Clinton were not likely to be warm and fuzzy.
--- Peter T. Chattaway --------------------------- peter at chattaway_com ---
"I detected one misprint, but to torture you I will not tell you where."
Winston Churchill to T.E. Lawrence, re Seven Pillars of Wisdom
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/MediaNation/OtR/
References: